In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water². Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations since 1989³. Click here to view the original document.

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth⁴. Other tissues may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, in 2011, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems⁵.,

As of October 2019, there are 5 studies, 2-Bashahsm et al, 1-Yu et al, 2-Till et al, with 1 more in preparation that show that the brains of babies are adversely affected by low levels of fluoride in the water, showing reduced IQs.

There are now more than 60 studies world wide that show that there are serious mental health consequences to chronic (long term) and acute (short term) exposure to fluoride: see the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) for more information.

Top Fluoride Expert Apologizes For Pushing Poison http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride-expert.htm

Prominent researcher apologizes for pushing fluoride
by Barry Forbes, The Tribune, Mesa, AZ
Sunday, December 5, 1999, Reproduced With Permission.

In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April (1998), Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change of heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste," he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never."

"The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida, smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry."

"Tragically," he continued, "that means we're not just dumping toxic fluoride into our drinking water. We're also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are catastrophic."

A recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback's worst fears. "Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones."

---

    In 1973, British Columbia was considering mandatory fluoridation. They gave the job of researching and reporting the topic to Dr. Richard Foulkes, MD. Foulkes then wrote a 1900 page report and he recommended that legislation be passed to make fluoride mandatory in Canada. Based on that work, Canada began to fluoridate.

    Then something happened. Little by little, Foulkes found out that the statistics that his researchers had based their findings on were largely falsified. It took Foulkes several years to uncover the truth - in 1992, he shocked the country by backing down from his original recommendation:

•     “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.”

    He has written to the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons saying:

•     “The issue now is approaching the point in the U.S., where it all started, of being exposed as a fraud. I feel that the professional organization should withdraw their support of the fluoridation of water supplies and do it quickly before they join others in history who refused to see and change.”

    Dr. Foulkes also wrote an article for Alive Magazine that was published in January 1998. In it he says:

•     “Fluoridation provides a way in which industry, especially phosphate fertilizer manufacturers, can take a waste product (hydrofluosilicic acid) from the smoke stack scrubbers and dump it directly into community reservoirs, thereby circumventing the expensive process of hazardous waste disposal.”

    Foulkes is not some tree-hugger from Santa Cruz. He is one of Canada's top scientific researchers. Many cities in Canada listened and stopped fluoridating. Want to read a first-hand story about lies and greed and disregard for human health and crooked deals between government and industry? Read Dr. Foulkes statement.

    Major industrial uses of hydrogen fluoride include the synthesis of fluorocarbons (e.g., Freon and Teflon) and the production of aluminium fluoride and synthetic cryolite for use in aluminium and steel refining. It is also employed in refining uranium for use as a nuclear fuel, in manufacturing various organic chemicals, and in producing stainless steel. Hydrofluoric acid is used extensively in various forms of glass and ceramic etching, and in the manufacture of light bulbs. (Fluorides - UK Government Agency)

    Hydrofluoric acid is a water solution of hydrogen fluoride which is prepared by heating calcium fluoride in sulphuric acid, and is extremely corrosive. Hydrofluoric acid attacks glass and dissolves most minerals. Another compound is hydrofluosilicic acid which can combine with sodium and potassium to form salts called fluosilicates or silicofluorides. (Fluorides - UK Government Agency)

Ottawa RIVERKEEPER
This organization has taken a position against fluoridation because of the realisation that most of the fluoride injected in Ottawa's drinking water ends up in the river where it is doing irreparable damage to the river's ecosystem. See their web site at Ottawa RIVERKEEPER and search for fluoridation or fluoride. You will find a number of articles reported on the subject.

They understand the toxicity issue of the fluorine ion released into the Ottawa River after it has gone through the distribution system and that for every 40 ton truck load of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid delivered for artifiial water fluoridation, over 39 tons of it ends up in the River where it would normally have been banned in the first place had it been dumped directly into it as the toxic waste substance that it really is. An incomprehensible dichotomy!

It is now well recognized that ingestion of any form of fluride under any pretense is ineffective and is provably unsafe not only for the teeth but also for the health of all those who ingest it. Although this fact is secondary to Ottawa RIVERKEEPER, it can not escape their attention, since it is well known to them thatit is damaging our River's flora and fauna. If it's doing this to our River, it has to be doing it to us as well.

Morin, Graham and Parent Expose Fluorine Toxicity - A Canadian perspective.
In their book, Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error, Dr. Pierre-Jean Morin, PhD, John Remington Graham, LLB and Gilles Parent, n.d., expose the toxicity of fluorine compounds. Aline Côté. ed., Éditions Berger, 2010.

Page 69. "... when foods are cooked in water containing 1 ppm (part per million) of fluoride, their fluoride content is increased three to five times. This demonstrates the multiplier effect of water fluoridation." (D.J. Martin, 1951, "Fluoride content of vegetables cooked in fluoride containing waters," Journal of Dental Research, 30, page 676.)

"... fluoride content is increased when fluoridated water is used in the industrial or domestic preparation of foods." (Dyson Rose and John R. Marier, Environmental Fluoride Associate Committee on Scientific Criteria for Envionmentall Quality, National Research Council, Canada, 1977"

These results "complement the work of Hodge and Smith on fluoride intakes from food and water. Their work enables one to predict that an adult exposed to water containing 1 ppm of fluoride will consume on the average between 2 and 5 mg of fluoride from food only" (H.C. Hodge and F.A. Smith, 1965, "Biological effects of inorganic fluorides," Fluorine Chemistry, J.H. Simmons ed., Vol 4, N.Y., Academic Press.)

Page 76. "Although fluorides are widely distributed in nature either as a constituent of rocks and soil or present in plant and animal tissue, they are not ions essential to normal plant growth." (W.H. Macintyre et al., "Fluoride content of plants fertilized with phosphates and slags carrying fluorides." Ind. Eng. Chem., 34: 1469-1479, 1942)

Pages 90-91. "… excess of (ingested) fluorides causes dental fluorosis, bone fluorosis, and a series of other deleterious effects. All cells, tissues, and organs of the body eventually contain varying amounts of fluorides and can be affected by this substance. (George L. Waldbott, Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma, Coronado, 1978, page 131.)

Dental fluorosis is the result of a complex series of reactions which are not fully documented to this day. The currently available knowledge on this subject has been well summarized in the report by the committee on fluoride in drinking water of the American National Research Council of the National Academies in 2006. We have chosen to cite their work textually (Committee On Fluoride In Drinking Water … National Research Council … Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standard, 2006, pp 86-87.) – Click HERE for the full text.

Page 129. "In 1999, the Ontario government and the Federal government of Canada jointly financed a study of the situation concerning dental decay and dental fluorosis. (D Locker, Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An update of the 1996 Federal-Provicial sub-committee report. Prepared under contract for: Public Health Branch, Ontario Minister of Health, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Cfanada, 1999.)

As to tooth decay, their conclusions state in part that:

• " Canadian studies do not provide systematic evidence that [artificial water] fluoridation is effective in reducing decay in contemporary child populations. The few studies of communities where [artificial water] fluoridation has been withdrawn do not suggest significant increases in dental caries as a result. "

And as to dental fluorosis (mottled teeth), their conclusions state in part that:

• " Current studies support the view that dental fluorosis has increased in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. North Anerican studies suggest rates of 20 to 75% in the former and [only] 12 to 45% in the latter. "

Page 130. In this report, the author mentions that [artificial] water fluoridation does not decrease dental decay and that when [artificial] water fluoridation is interrupted there is no noticeable change in dental decay. He also mentions that dental fluorosishas reached unacceptable levels in both [artificially] fluoridated cities and non-fuoridated ones.
End of citations from the book.

Conclusion
Fluorosis of ones teeth is a clear indication of fluoride poisoning and thus of systemic damage to other parts of the human anatomy. Even when claimed that the fluorosis is minimal, the plain fact remains that there is fluorosis. It behooves us to cease this barbaric and unjustifiable practice of medicating everyone with a fluoride substance that is known to be an industrial toxic waste containing other harmful substances on the pretense of protecting a tiny fraction of us from doubtful and unproven results of some possible tooth decay: a tiny minority of the population.

Wanting and wishing that artificial water fluoridation would solve our tooth decay problems can not make it happen. Proper, consistent and healthy oral hygiene and nutrition are the only solution to alleviating tooth decay.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
In November 2008, they announced their opposition to artificial water fluoridation in the following statement:
“It seems clear that

• a) fluoridation is unlikely to be the cause of the decline in caries in Europe and North America
  b) the potential for adverse effects is real, and
  c) current evidence points in the direction of caution.

Over the last decade, recommendations with respect to acceptable fluoride exposure have steadily declined, and cautions have increased. Any dental benefit that may accrue from fluoride exposure is fully achieved by controlled topical application of fluoride compounds by trained dental professionals, not by fluoride ingestion.”

The analysis of Dr. Hardy Limeback, (click here),
Head, Preventive Dentistry,
University of Toronto,
      further clarifies the above points of the Physicians for the Environment.
Full statement available for download at Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
He states in an e-mail to Maclean's, reported in the Canadian Encyclopedia at the bottom of paragraph 3: “On the risk side, so many people will end up with ruined teeth, fragile bones, acute sensitivities, thyroid problems and an increased risk for cancer, all in the name of preventive dentistry,” He further states, “I am ashamed for my profession and can no longer take part in the charade.”
In that November 25, 2002 article in MacLean's Magazine, Dr Limeback has pointed out that: ... studies in British Columbia and elsewhere “do not show a significant increase in dental decay among children” in non-fluoridated communities. Yet, he says, there is an “entrenched resistance” by health professionals and municipalities to re-examining the issue. Limeback says he's paid a price since voicing concerns on fluoridation about three years ago (1999). “I have been insulted, attacked verbally, accused of lying to the public and my credibility as a scientist has been brought into question.” (Note: These are standard, practiced tactics by the pro-fluoridation advocates.)
He furtther warns that the cost of ignoring the debate, however, may carry a higher cost - in litigation. “If we discover that 50 years of fluoridation has actually harmed the population, the legal implications are enormous.”

From Health Canada
Major sources of exposure to fluoride are water, food and beverages, and dental products. Dental products contain high levels of fluoride and can represent a very important source of exposure (between 1,500 ppm to 5,000 ppm), particularly in young children who are more likely to swallow toothpaste. Drinking water can be a significant source of exposure to fluoride; in 2005, community fluoridated drinking water was provided to about 43% of Canadians. To a lesser extent, fluorides are also found in Canadian soils and the atmosphere.¹⁵

2001 Statement by Dr Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD
        I am a (Canadian) pharmacologist and my interest in the fluoridation issue goes back to the sixties, seventies, and eighties when the addition of fluoride to the public water supplies was discussed in Sweden. During that period I studied the scientific literature and the arguments for and against water fluoridation thoroughly. My conclusion was clear: Fluoride is a pharmacologically very active compound with an action on a variety of enzymes and tissues in the body already in low concentrations. In concentrations not far above those recommended it has overt toxic actions.
        Fluoride ... can prevent caries to some extent ... efficiently when applied locally. Moreover, local treatment, preferentially via toothpaste, is more rational, because the caries-preventive action is exerted directly on the erupted teeth. The previous belief that its action is limited to an early period before the eruption of the teeth, is not correct. The systemic action of fluoride via the blood before tooth eruption can lead to damage of the enamel, and mottled teeth. This side effect, as well as other toxic actions of fluoride, is very much reduced when fluoride is applied via toothpaste.
        The addition of fluoride to water supplies violates modern pharmacological principles. Recent research has revealed a sometimes enormous individual variation in the response to drugs. If a pharmacologically active agent is supplied via the drinking water, the individual variation in response, which is considerable even when the dosage is fixed, will be markedly increased by the individual variation in water consumption. In addition, this measure is ethically questionable and unnecessarily expensive. When the fluoridation issue was debated in Sweden several decades ago I took part in the public debate, and we managed to convince the Swedish Parliament that the addition of fluoride to the water supplies should be rendered illegal. Similar decisions have been taken in most European countries. See what they have to say about their reasons for rejecting fluoridation here. There is to my knowledge no evidence to suggest that dental health in Europe is worse than in the United States.
        It is my sincere hope that Christopher Bryson’s thorough and comprehensive perusal of scientific literature on the biological actions of fluoride and the ensuing debates through the years will receive the attention it deserves and that its implications will be seriously considered.

David R. Hill, P.Eng., Calgary Statement
Promoters of water [artificial] fluoridation offer the lure of strong, healthy teeth and reduced dental bills as inducements for communities to fluoridate their water. Fluoride is also promoted for other tooth-related uses. However, even the promoters have scaled down the benefits claimed for water fluoridation and admitted the danger of fluorosis from toothpaste. For every study by promoters over recent years repeating old messages that claim undisputed water fluoridation benefits - particularly reduction of cavities, there are equally reputable studies showing little or no effect on cavity rates. Studies in mainstream peer-reviewed medical journals and government reports now document the fact that serious harms are associated with exposure to small amounts of fluoride - including hip fracture, cancer, and intellectual impairment. There is evidence that both individual and institutional fluoride promoters have stacked the deck, manipulated experimental results, suppressed evidence that spoke against their view, and victimised or smeared those who spoke out against them.

When old ways and knowledge are increasingly found to be based on false premises, incompetence, bias and worse, it is important to re-examine the old claims, and to take account of the growing body of research that show they are at best equivocal and at worst completely opposite to the truth, and based on vested interest.9

Trained as a chemist, specializing in environmental chemistry, Dr. Paul Connett is known all over the world as a leader in the movement against artificial water fluoridation for his knowledge, expertise and convincing logic.

On October 4, 2010, Dr. Connett states that the NRC(US) 2006 report, in a comprehensive study of the artificial water fluoridation literature. He directly quotes the report that says:

"In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone" (NRC [US], 2006, page 266).

Furthermore, in an article reproduced on Food & Health on the Chelsea Green website, posted on Tuesday, October 12th, 2010, Dr Mercola states the following:

As you may know, the theory behind the introduction of fluoride in your water supply initially seems beneficial: to reduce the incidence of dental caries in children. However, the health dangers of fluoride are so numerous that they far outweigh any potential benefit to your teeth.

Here, Dr, Connett inserts this additional, pertinent comment:
“First of all, water fluoridation is very bad medicine,” Dr. Connett says, “because once you put it in the water, you can’t control the dose. You can’t control who gets it. There is no oversight. You’re allowing a community to do to everyone what a doctor can do to no one, i.e., force a patient to take a particular medication.”

Opponents of artificial fluoridation of drinking water are often derided as crackpots, crazies, know-nothings, and other ungainly epithets, among those authorities that favor the practice, yet, very few supporters of artificial water fluoridation have ever bothered to seriously question it, let alone really and objectively study the hard evidence from newer and older scientific reasearch disproving their position. Truth be known, they do not wish to change their mindset. Having invested enormous personal commitment into their position and having established and consolidated that erroneous position, they do not want to loose face and will hold on to their error in a narcissistic and fanatic manner couched in niceties, innuendos and resorting to side issues (known as bait and switch in technical jargon) unrelated to the arguments against stopping this dangerous practice.

Full Video of THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION by Christopher Bryson

In this video, Christopher Bryson, an award-winning journalist and former producer at the BBC, discusses the findings of his new book The Fluoride Deception. One Reviewer of The Fluoride Deception said: "Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride's harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people. The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke renewed scientific scrutiny and public debate."

See also Fluoride Deception Part 2, Part 3. - YouTube Video

Is artificial water fluoridation policy dangerous?
It depends who you ask.
See this article in The Austin Chronicle (Texas) - November 27, 2009. Read it all to be better informed.
Excerpt from that article
Neil Carman, clean air program director of the local Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and a fluoride opponent says that “Most hydrofluorosilicic [a.k.a. hexafluosilicic] acid, … is created as a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production.” … “There's heavy metals, there's lead, cadmium. It's a smorgasbord of a toxic soup that's in this stuff that they're buying.” … “You don't have hydrofluorosilicic acid [in nature],” he says. “You have things like calcium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, potassium fluoride. ... But they're not adding those naturally occurring mineral fluorides. What they're adding is industrial toxic waste.”

Statement Of Dr. J. William Hirzy - National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280

• It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:
  1. excessive and un-controlled fluoride exposures;
  2. altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
  3. the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
  4. the "protected pollutant" status of fluoride within EPA;
  5. the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon Generals Panel on fluoride;
  6. the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
  7. the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
  8. the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and
  9. changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation.
  
  Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled
  According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of Americas children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E, Eklund, S.A. and Burt, B.A. J. Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 [1997]). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.
  
  Cancer Bioassay Findings
  In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 [1991]), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity.

  Comment: Please note that in the above, they are talking about sodium fluoride, and not the highly toxic industrial waste of the fertilizer industry called Hexafluorosilicic Acid (or whatever other name may be used for it) used in our drinking water. How much more damaging this acid can be has not been researched for fear of the devastating results that may be discovered, but any intelligent person can see for themselves that the components of that acid, as described above, can not be conducive to your good health.

  Brain Effects Research
  Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (Effect of high fluoride water supply on childrens intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 [1996], Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 [1995]). Another paper (Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 [1995]) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the "optimal" dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 [1998]). And another (Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 [1998]) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 [1994]) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brains pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 [1956]).

First, a question. Is artificial fluoridation of Ottawa's water safe and effective as claimed by health authorities?
The response has to be an unconditional and fully qualified "NO" to both the claimed safety and the effectiveness.
However, on what basis is this response state?
The answer is both qualitative and quantitative.

Simply read the material in this web site and the websites of other organizations of other promoters for the prevention of artificial fluoridation of drinking water. For instance Waterloo Watch, and the most complete of these websites that is now recognized world wide, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website.

However, let me briefly explain that with the current scientific evidence shown herein, added to older and ignored scientific evidence prior to the 1950's (AMA, September 18, 1943) that points to the deleterious effects of ingestion of fluorine compounds (fluorides) by all mamals, and that of course includes us, that the Precautionary Principle is not being applied in the case of the possibilty of harm inherent in the ingestion of this industrial toxic waste.

To be sure, elemental fluorine, part of the halogen family of elements, is by far the most chemically reactive element on earth and is without a doubt very noxious to human life, and even more so when combined with various other elements and compounds. Current scientific data backs up this assertion without any doubt whatever!

Furthermore, the actual product used to artificially fluoridate our municipal drinking water is not a pharmaceutical grade of fluoride, but one called hydrofluorosilicic acid, in the industry a.k.a. hexafluorosilicic acid, HFS, hydrosilicofluoric acid, hexafluosilicic acid, hydrogen fluorosilicate, hydrogen hexafluorosilicate, hydrosilicofluoric acid, silicofluoric acid, silicofluoride, silicon hexafluoride dihydride, fluorosilicic acid, FSA, fluosilicic acid, dihydrogen hexafluorosilicate, sand acid. One has to wonder why there are so many names for the same product? Confusion of readers and researchers? Whatever the case may be, it is a toxic compound, a waste product obtained from the wet scrubbing of the chimney stacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Its molecular formula is H₂SiF₆. Aqueous solutions of H₂SiF₆ contain the hexafluorosilicate anion, SiF₆^2- and protonated water (ref. Wikipedia). Up to 8 lbs of LEAD and 2 lbs of ARSENIC are in every 40 ton truck load that comes into a city's water treatment plant, in addition to cadmium, selenium, radiocative uranium238, mercury, chromium and phosphorus(11). Is that safe? Consider the cumulative effects of even a tiny fraction of all those toxins.

As to effectiveness, did you know that less than 1% of the fluoride compound (hexafluorosilic acid) used to artificially fluoridate Ottawa's drinking water ends up back into the environment where it was already banned by the EPA and other US Government bodies? How is that possible? Most of our city water ends up flushed down toilets, sink drains, dish and clothes washer output, bathtub drains, washing of house walls, cars and driveways, watering of lawns and gardens, street cleaning, puting out fires, not to mention all of the industrial and commercial uses it is put to. Is it not a waste of our precious tax dollars to artificially fluoridate our water? Think about it!

It is definitely recognized that fluorine compounds of whatever variety (i.e. hexafluorosilicic acid) at levels above 1 ppm (1 milligram per litre) are harmful to health. By its very nature, fluorine is a scavenging element, a predator. It is chemically one of the most reactive chemical elements of all of the chemical elements known to man. It is also more toxic than lead and arsenic which are banned substances throughout the world. The question any sensible, logical person must ask themselves is this: If a lot of fluorine is very harmful to health, would not a little bit be harmful to health as well, but only to a lesser degree? That is like comparing the damage done by a large amount of explosive versus a small amount of explosive. Both are dangerous. The danger is also one of degree. But, would you stand next to either explosion? Now then, apply that logic to artificial water fluoridation.

Furthermore, who are we to artificially fluoridate our water and thus medicate our neighbours downstream, without their knowledge or consent, with all of that fluoride getting into the Ottawa River? Could this become a serious legal entanglement for our City in the future?

What of the environmental damage being done to the fauna and flora of the Ottawa River with over 99% of our fluoride dumped into it? It is an undisputable fact that no amount of sewage processing can remove the fluoride from our waste water!

What a bad joke this finally is!!! It's an environmental disaster distributed all over those living downstream from Ottawa using your tax dollars. People living in the east part of Gatineau, who stopped artificial water fluoridation from being imposed on them, and in towns and cities downstream from Ottawa should be particularly concerned that all our fluoride is going into their drinking water supply after going through ours!

• TYPE OF FLUORIDE USED IN ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION

  The type of fluoride used to fluoridate our water supply is called hydrofluorosilicic acid (a.k.a. hydrofluosilicic acid, fluorosilicic acid, and others) and comes from the toxic waste product scrubbed from the smoke stacks of fertilizer plants (Scrubbing away the problem. The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental Overview) and (What's in the Water?). This acid also contains other contaminants such as lead, aluminum, cadmium and arsenic (Unstable Element, Neil Carman, Sierra Club statement in the The Austin Chronicle (Texas) - November 27, 2009). See also Carol Clinch: "For the phosphate industry, a solution containing 23% hydrofluorosilicic acid is extracted. However, this solution is often contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, chromium, cadmium, hydrogen fluoride and barium *(see attached Certificate of Analysis)." Petition to the Auditor General of Canada. See also Vote OUT Fluoride for a similar list of pollutants discovered in this acid, though they are not stated in the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) - not a requirement of an MSDS statement. However, you can see the whole analysis of the contents of this raw, unprocessed acid here

  LATEST NEW W.H.O. ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION STUDY and OTHERS

  The latest new study by the WHO (United Nations World Health Organization) in 2005 finds practically no difference in the cavity rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. See the charts figures 1a, 1b, and 2.
  
  In 1987, a Canadian study reports: "Survey results in British Columbia with only 11 percent of the population using fluoridated water, show lower average DMFT rates than provinces with 40-70 percent of the population using fluoridated water... In fact, school districts recently reporting the highest caries-free rates in the province, were totally unfluoridated" -- Gray, A.S. (1987). Fluoridation: Time for a New Base Line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association (CDA). 10: 763-765.
  So, why do the CDA, CMA and Canadian politicians still insist on imposing fluoridation on you and me?

  NEW SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION

  There is new scientific evidence(6) and Fluoride Health Effects Database, which gives credence to much older scientific studies(7), of the increase of incidence of diseases and illnesses concurrent with water fluoridation: it is showing cumulative and harmful effects of long term and short term effects (Dartmouth News) that confirms the same older scientific evidence.

  Depending on the level of exposure, a number of adverse health effects may be linked to fluoride ingestion even a very low levels. Some of the dramatic increases in illness may be linked to: hypothyroidism, cataracts, arthritis, fibromyalgia, liver damage(8), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), to name a few. Fluoride consumption may even be a factor in obesity because of its known damage to enzymes.(20)

  MJ Coplan and RD Masters, April 2001, state that "The biological consequences of ingesting such a species (fluoride compound) are probably not innocuous, with enzyme inhibition being only one of several possibilities." in their Foreword intended to place the Westendorf research in current context indicating why it is relevant to a wide range of contemporary health and behavioral problems. Westendorf research - Influence of Fluoride and Fluoride Complexes on human biology. Translated from the German research paper.

  Consider what Dr. Phylis Mullenix, PhD, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist, Forsyth Research Institute, Boston, MA, has to say with respect to arthritis: “If I was an arthritic care individual, I would be eliminating every possible source of fluoride exposure that I could think of.”

  The newest scientific data/studies/research has totally debunked the assumptions of 6 decades ago?
  Sources:
  "Fluoride is most effective when used topically, after the teeth have erupted.". Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.)
  "it is now accepted that systemic fluoride plays a limited role in caries prevention." Pizzo G, Piscopo MR, Pizzo I, Giuliana G. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.
  "Since the current scientific thought is that the cariostatic activity of fluoride is mainly due to its topical effects, the need to provide systemic fluoride supplementation for caries prevention is questionable." European Commission. (2005). The Safety of Fluorine Compounds in Oral Hygiene Products for Children Under the Age of 6 Years. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, September 20.
  The 'caries resistance' concept was shown to be erroneous 25 years ago, but the new paradigm is not yet fully adopted in public health dentistry, so we still await real breakthroughs in more effective use of fluorides for caries prevention." Fejerskov O. (2004). Changing paradigms in concepts on dental caries: consequences for oral health care. Caries Research 38: 182-91.
  There are over 20 more such citations available on this FAN web site page.

  DOSE, DOSAGE and CONCENTRATION

  One size or one dose does not fit all, people are getting fluoride from many different sources and people drink very different amounts of water (see the well reasoned Czech Republic Statement on fluoridation, part 5, below). It's also in some processed foods, restaurant meals, etc (Pesticide Data Program - 2003) and the Fluoride and Fluorinated Pesticides page. It's really a question that a given fixed concentration does not give the same dose to everyone since no one drinks the same amount of water, or eats the same amount or type of food, and, fluoride containing pesticides are on the surface or even get inside many fruits and vegetables (Fluoride: The Hidden Poison in the National Organic Standards, by Ellen and Paul Connett. Pesticides and You, Vol. 21, No. 1; published by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides. 2001). See also Fluorine Pesticides for a complete list.
  
  However, dosage is an entirely different consideration. No pharmacist or doctor in their right mind would consider giving the same dose of a medication to a 160 pound adult as to a 16 pound infant. Consider that an infant can easily drink 2 liters of infant formula made up of fluoridated water in any given day and that an adult can easily drink the same 2 liters of water in the same day. Both are therefore getting 1.4 mg of a fluoride substance put into the water at a concentration of 0.7 mg in Ottawa's water. However, the child is getting 10 times the dosage for her body weight, 1.4/16 mg/kg than the adult, 1.4/160 mg/kg. That is a terrible pharmacological impropriety of the highest order. It is totally unethical and dangerous to the child's health.

  Dr. Phylis Mullenix, PhD, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist, Forsyth Research Institute, Boston, MA, states the following about the dose problem: “There is absolutely no drug on the market that's given in a one dose fits all situation. The name of the game in pharmacology, is to deliver the right dose, to the right person, at the right time, an that's not what fluoridation does. It can't do it.”

  Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, chimes in with this assertion: “You can have an athlete, a laborer, who are drinking many, many times the amount of water [than you and me]. You can have someone who's a diabetic, drinking a ton of water, compared to the average.”

  Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Risk Assessment Scientist says: “We don't put other things in the water to keep everybody's blood pressure down, or everybody's stroke risk down, and there's no reason we should be trying the one size fits all approach for this either.”

  OVER 3,000 PROFESSIONALS OPPOSED TO ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION

  Over 3,000 professionals have signed a statement to ban fluoride in drinking water: see Signers to Professionals' Statement at Professional Statement Signatories. If you are a professional, please add your name to this Professional Statement at Sign the Statement.

  STATEMENTS BY COUNTRIES OPPOSED TO ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION
  
  Quotes from some countries that do not fluoridate or have discontinued artificial water fluoridation
  1) Germany: "... fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).German Statement
  2) France: "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000).French Statement
  3) Belgium: "This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).Belgium Statement
  4) Luxembourg: "Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000).Luxembourg Statement
  5) Czech Republic: "Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:
  • uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
  • unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
  • unethical ("forced medication")
  • toxicologically and physiologically debatable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999).Czech Republic Statement
  6) See also Swedish statement, Danish statement and their reasons for banning fluoridation, Norwegian statement, Netherlands Statement, Finnish statement, Northern Ireland statement, Austrian statement, available on the Fluoride Action Network web site.

  FLUORIDATION IN CANADA Click that link for a list of communities that have ended fluoridation, followed by a list of those that are still battling to get it out.

  THE CONTAMINANTS MANY OF OUR CANADIAN CITIES PUT INTO OUR TAP WATER

  The hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆ - HFSA, or HFS) solution most used for artificial "drinking water" (tap water) fluoridation most often contains, but is not limited to, the following inorganic contaminants:

  Fluorine (F),
  Hydrogen fluoride (HF),
  Lead (Pb),
  Arsenic (As),
  Mercury (Hg),
  Cadmium (Cd),
  Chromium (Cr),
  Phosphorus (P),
  Iron (Fe),
  Iodine (I),
  Silver (Ag), plus,
  Uranium238 (U238),
  Barium (Ba),
  Radon (Rn),
  Cobalt (Co),
  Radium (Ra),
  Polonium (Po)
  and possibly other elements that are not bio-available for healthy consumption. Why? Because they are extracted from the mining and processing of Phosphate for the super-phosphate fertilizer and Uranium for the nuclear industries.

  List: Fluorine, Hydrogen fluoride, Lead, Arsenic, Mercury, Cadmium, Chromium, Phosphorus, Iron, Iodine, Silver, plus Uranium238, Barium, Radon, Cobalt, Radium, Polonium and possibly others because it is derived from the mining processes used to extract the phosphate used in the super phosphate fertilizer industry mostly in Florida. This list is those that we know of because some hard working fluoridation cessation advocates have had the liquid tested using their own limited financial resources.

  For a brief description of how this HFSA is collected, click here.

  Declan Waugh, an environmental science researcher in Ireland, has put it quite clearly: “fluoridation is one of the worst criminal, scientific fraud, and the worst about it is that it is promoted by the public health agencies that are supposed to protect the health of the population.”

  THE ECONOMICS OF ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION

  The cost: less than 1% of the fluoride dumped into the drinking water is actually consumed by people, the rest is flushed down toilets, bath tubs, sinks, shower drains, clothes and dishwasher washer drains, for watering lawns, washing cars, driveways, putting out fires, and other such uses and for all kinds of commercial and industrial uses. It's a monumental waste not at all cost effective. The other 99% is then allowed to enter into our waterways where the fluoride was previously banned from going because of its toxicity.

  Then there is the astronomical cost of repairing dental fluorosis, broken teeth, and the increasing burden of health care cost costs caused by adverse health effects generated directly and indirectly by exposure to fluorides.

  The amount of fluoride available for artificially fluoridating our drinking water is decreasing and its cost has been increasing over time. See Fluoridation Chemical Shortages and Rising Costs for details on these data.

  The cost of repairing dental fluorosis caused by the many sources:

  1. water borne Fluoride,
  2. Fluoride contamination of all processed foods and beverages,
  3. the use of fluoridated tap water used in preparing foods and beverages in the home,
  4. in the use of potentiating fluoride compounds

  1. a) in pharmaceuticals,
     b) health products,
     c) fluoride supplementation by drops and
     d) fluoride supplementation by tablets,

  can range from an estimated $20,000, in the short term, (Canada) to about £35,000 (U.K.) for a lifetime.

  
  TOPICAL VERSUS SYSTEMIC USE OF FLUORIDE
  • Fluoridation began in the 1940's with the mistaken belief that
    1. 1) fluoride was a nutrient
    1. 2) fluoride was essential for healthy teeth, and,
    1. 3) only fluoride ingestion during tooth formation could prevent tooth decay and just in children up to 9 years old.

  Modern science has disproved each one of them. In fact, each of those assertions were sold to the health profesionals of the day by by fluoridation promoters with a vested interest in getting rid of a waste disposal problem while creating a profit for them.

  Consuming a fluoride-free diet does not cause tooth decay. The CDC says fluoride hardens the outer enamel by topical means alone and that swallowing fluoride leads to adverse health effects. The EPA says too much fluoride damages teeth and bones which is why the U.S. EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.

  Fluoride has been relegated to best practice use topical, if at all, and not systemic, that is, it is supposed to be most effective when applied to the surface of the teeth and not effective at all when swallowed, "[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children" (CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940). A good comparison to adding fluoride to drinking water to prevent possible tooth decay is like adding sun screen to drinking water to prevent possible sunburn. Both are total nonsense and toxic to the human anatomy and most mammals.

  Fluoridation was initially invented for two major reasons hidden behind national security and prevention of tooth decay:

  1. to hide the fact that workers in industries being poisoned and dying from exposure to this industrial toxic waste, thereby lowering the likelihood of lawsuits that were chipping away at corporate profits;

  2. to turn the expensive waste disposal cost of this industrial toxic waste into a profit.

  GENETIC MUTATION POTENTIAL OF ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION

  A number of publications have shown that fluoride-induced chromosomal changes can be visualized microscopically, either in plant cells or in mammalian cells. Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error, Dr. Pierre-Jean Morin, PhD, John Remington Graham, LLB and Gilles Parent, n.d.

  One of the first and few government publications which reported the possibility that fluorides may induce cancer in animals is that of Taylor in 1952. - A. Taylor, Statement before a House Select Committe to investigate the use of chemicals in foods and cosmetics, U.S. House of Representatives, 82nd Congress, 1952, p. 1529.

  At least two later studies (after 1991) carried out in human populations found that the incidence of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) is greater than normal in cities where the water is fluoridated.(21)(22) (Fluoridation, Morin, Graham, Parent, n.d., page 146.

  Many researchers reported in the Morin, Graham & Parent book have conclusively demonstrated that such changes damaging to plant and human cells do effectively take place.

  A.H. Mohammed, H.G. Applegate, J.D. Smith, "Cytologic reactions induced by sodium fluoride in Allium Cepa root-tip chromosomes," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1966, vol. 8, p. 241.
  A.H. Mohammed, J.D. Smith, H.G. Applegate, "Cytologic reactions induced by sodium fluoride on tomato chromosomes," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1966, vol. 8, p. 575.
  A.H. Mohammed, "Cytogenic reactions induced by sodium fluoride treatment in tomato plants," J. Air Poll. Control Ass., 1968, vol. 18, p. 395.
  A.H. Mohammed, "Chromosomal changes in maize induced by sodium hydrogen gas," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1970, vol. 12, p. 164.
  S.S. Bale, G.E. Hart, "Cytogenic and genetic effects of fluoride on barley, I. Comparative study of the effects of sodium fluoride and hydrofluoric acid on seedling root tips," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1973, vol. 15, p. 595.
  S.S. Bale, G.E. Hart, "Cytogenic and genetic effects of fluoride on barley, II. Effect of treatment of seedling coleoptiles with sodium fluoride," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1973, vol. 15, p. 703.
  R.N. Mukherjee, F.H. Sobels, "The effects of sodium fluoride and iodoacetamide on mutation induction by X-irradiation in mature spermatozoa of Drosophila", Mutation Res., 1968, vol. 6, p.217.
  S.I. Voroshilin, E.G. Plotka, E.Z. Gatiyatullina, E.A. Gileva, "Cytogenic effect of inorganic fluorine compounds on human and animal cells in vivo and in vitro", Genetiko, 1973, Vol. 9, p. 115.
  D. Jachimczak, B. Skotarczak, "The effect of fluorine and lead ions on the chromosomes of human leucocytes in vitro", GeneticaPolonico, 1978, vol. 19:3, p. 353.

  These are just a sample of the extensive 107 citations found in the references to Chapter 6 on the mutagenic effects of artificial water fluoridation in the Morin, Graham & Parent book

• Recent Victories and Stories

  Friday, March 16, 2012

  I have kept a close look at the fluoridation rates in Canada since 2008. The present numbers are, Canada 34%, Province of Ontario 66% all lower from the official data last reported in 2005. Most important is that much of the fluoridation in Canada centres 50km around Toronto. If we exclude the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) population, then Canada is only 17% fluoridated.

  Peter Van Caulart,
  VP, COF-COF.ca Amherstburg Ends Fluoridation (ON), Feb 6, 2012

  December 19, 2011

  Moncton, Riverview, Dieppe (NB)
  In a concerted effort spearheaded by Olivier Weil and Francois Collins, two residents of the Moncton area, with the help of over 100 other residents, the Cities of Dieppe and Riverview reversed their decision to support fluoridation after reviewing the available scientific evidence for themselves. The City of Moncton, having been also informed by the same reasoned approach, decided to release the population from the forced medication by ending fluoridation without the wasteful expense of a referendum or plebiscite, which they deemed would have yielded the same results.

  November 21, 2011

  Lake Cowichan (BC)
  This is the last community on Vancouver Island to have maintained fluoridation until their referendum attached to the municipal elections clearly indicated that a significant portion of residents did not wish to continue being force medicated with a fluoride chemical.
  
  Williams Lake (BC)
  This is another case of a referendum held concurrently with a municipal election yielding a decision for health freedom in Canada. Canadians are becoming more and more disaffected with dictatorial health bureaucrats deciding to mass medicate for a unprovable outcome using unregulated and untested chemicals.

  October 29, 2011

  Lakeshore (ON)

  October 18 2011

  Churchill (MB)

  Voted out on Tuesday September 6, 2011; ended October 1, 2011,

  Slave Lake (AB)

  July 20, 2011

  Taber (AB)

  Voted out July 4, 2011; ended July 27, 2011

  Meadow Lake (SK)

  June 2011

  Flin Flon (MB)

  June 10, 2011

  Fairbanks, Alaska
  Health-conscious individuals from Fairbanks, Ak., recently achieved a huge health freedom victory when their city council voted almost unanimously to end water fluoridation. The decision followed concerted public outcry and presentation of the facts surrounding the health damage caused by consuming fluoride.

  February 10, 2011

  London Ontario
  A group of activists are now also moving and shaking the establishment in London, Ontario and are making big waves to shut down fluoridation there. If you hear any newsworthy reports of their efforts do not hesitate to contact me to get this information posted here.

  Read the story and comment to your hearts content at LFPRESS.

  February 9, 2011

  Verchères, Québec
  The City Council of Verchères, Québec, unanimously decided to discontinue fluoridation on February 7, 2011. This is a geat victory for Gilles Parent and all those who worked on this campaign. Congratulations to them for obtaining this result and to Verchères City Council for doing the right thing.

  February 8, 2011

  Calgary, Alberta
  City Council Votes to End Fluoridation in Calgary's Water

  Calgary city council has voted 10-3 in favour of removing fluoride from the city's drinking water.

  Earlier in the day, city council considered and rejected by a vote of 8-5 putting the fluoride issue to a plebiscite during the 2013 municipal election. Council also rejected the idea of referring the matter to an expert panel.

  Ald. Jim Stevenson said there's insufficient medical proof that keeping it in the water has any benefit.

  Ald. Druh Farrell, who led the anti-fluoride charge, said helping families who can't afford fluoridated toothpaste is a better idea that medicating the entire population

  "We as a council have to show some leadership here. We have no right to force this right on all Calgarians. I would really question our right to put it in, but … I don't question at all our right to remove it," he said.

  Click here Calgary Herald for the story.

  January 27, 2011

  City of Calgary, AB.
  Council Committee Votes to End Use of Fluoride in Calgary's Water

  A Calgary Council Committee voted Wednesday night (January 26, 2011) to end Calgary’s use of fluoride and paved the way for a final decision next month.
  10 Aldermen (a majority) have already declared their intention against fluoride. It appears that fluoridation will fall on February 7 when the full council meets, unless Mayor Naheed Nenshi and some colleagues can successfully push for further study of the issue. Calgary Herald Fluoridation News Story

  December 4, 2010

  Town of Lake Cowichan, BC (Vancouver Island)

  During his introduction, cCouncillor Tim McGonigle gave the public a presentation on his latest project; eliminating the injection of fluoride into the Town of Lake Cowichan’s drinking water. Having researched fluoridation extensively in advance of a recent interview he had on CBC Radio, and for the public meeting, McGonigle came well informed about the subject, and enthusiastic to share his findings with the public.

  “I think, like other WWII institutions, fluoridation has run its course, like leaded gasoline,” McGonigle said, adding that Lake Cowichan is the only community on Vancouver Island that continues to inject fluoride into its drinking water. With adverse medical side-effects and little benefit to ingesting fluoride, McGonigle said that the best option would be to discontinue the town’s fluoridation project.

  “The savings would be $10,000... It can go a long way to doing other projects,” he said. Although fluoride is a natural chemical, occurring in just about everything (1.5 mg of fluoride is in a Mc Donald’s Restaurant Big Mac), the fluoride the Town of Lake Cowichan is injecting into the drinking water is a chemical waste as a result of fertilizer production.

  “Toothpaste labels encouraged users to spit fluoridated toothpaste out after brushing one’s teeth,” McGongile said, so why are we swallowing drinking water with fluoride in it? At the end of his presentation, McGongile encouraged the public to research fluoridation themselves, and to form an opinion.

  McGongile said that the item could very well come to a referendum vote during the next election, as the “medication of the public” shouldn’t be a council decision, he said.

  So far, the public seems to support the anti-fluoride sentiment, with five people versus one voting against fluoride on a piece of paper put up on the wall of Centennial Hall during the meeting.

  (Monday, November 22, 2010, as reported in the Lake Cowichan Gazette - Monday November 29, 2010)

  November 30, 2010

  Region of Waterloo ends fluoridation

  Region of Waterloo officials turned off the fluoride Monday and started the process of decommissioning the equipment that has been used to fluoridate the city’s water for more than 40 years. The final fluoride tap — located on William Street across from Willis Way — was turned off, according to Nancy Kodousek, director of water services for the region.

  “All the systems are now off,” Kodousek said. See the Waterloo Chronicle column report here.

  November 15, 2010

  Town of Lake Cowichan: artificial water fluoridation on Town Council's agenda

  The town Council of this Victoria Island, BC, Canada, will be reviewing the artificial water fluoridation issue on at their November 22 meeting. The Local news paper editor has come out strongly opposed to the measure and numerous organizations have chimed in to support the paper's position. Meanwhile, groups across North America are contacting the Mayor and his Councillors to support termination of this incredible boondoggle.

  However, we should expect the highly misinformed and misrepresenting alphabet professinal organizations in Canada to pull out all the stops to prevent the termnination of artificial water fluoridation in Lake Cowichan. They are really smarting from the major victory obtained in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada where all of their resources could not beat the truth. Lake Cowichan is the last bastion of this ill advised practice on the Island.

  October 25, 2010

  Waterloo rejects artificial water fluoridation
  Residents have voted narrowly to remove fluoride from tap water in Waterloo, St. Jacobs and Elmira.

  Monday’s fluoride referendum was decided by the tightest margin. The anti-fluoride side won with 50.3 per cent, beating the pro-fluoride side by fewer than 200 votes out of more than 30,000 cast.

  The vote against fluoride was tighter than Robert Fleming expected. He helped lead the charge to remove a substance that has been added to Waterloo tap water since 1967, as a public health measure to prevent tooth decay.

  “I’m glad that Waterloo will enjoy non-fluoridated water,” he said. “Even though it (the vote) was tight, it’s rewarding.”

  Fluoridation promoters continue to falsely argue that the weight of credible science strongly shows that adding fluoride strengthens tooth enamel and limits cavities, with no known risks at recommended levels. They continue to bury their heads in the sands of claims contrary to recent evidence that teeth are weakened by fluorosis and that there is a large subset of people who suffer serious consequences as a result of the ingestion of fluoride substances from artificially fluoridated water and numerous other sources.

  Dr. John Yamouyiannis, PhD, Biochemist, had effectively refuted all claims of no risks at recommended levels as far back as 1983 in his book "Fluoride, The Aging Factor" first edition. He confirmed and augmented his findings in two later editions, in 1986 and 1992.

  October 15, 2010

  The book is now in print.
  “The Case Against Fluoride” by Dr. Paul Connett, co-authored with James Beck & Spedding Micklem, is now available on the Chelsea Green Publishing website. Its official publication date was in November, and a special offer had then been available only to FAN members – (get 25% off) by using the discount TCAF at checkout! Purchase a copy and forward an email to all your friends to help get the word out about this book!

  Amazon.com purchased a whole boat load of this book and stiill had it on sale between $14.86 and $17.67 each here depending on the supplier as of September 7, 2011. In Canada, the same book is also available from Amazon.ca at between $16.29 and $24.16 each, plus $6.49 CDN shipping here depending on the supplier as of September 7, 2011. If you order 2 books at $18.15 from the Amazon.ca stock, you can have them shipped for free.

  Starred Review In Booklist!
  We're pleased to announce that The Case Against Fluoride received a starred review in Booklist in early October. Here's an excerpt: "Fluoridation advocates who have previously branded detractors as conspiracy theorists and shills for junk science will be hard-pressed to debunk the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning presented here" Read the entire review

  October 7, 2010

  Sept 17 public hearing on the preliminary report by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER, 2010), continued.

  SCHER certainly puts most of our concerns on the table when they state at the outset of their preliminary report:
  • "A body of scientific literature seems to suggest that fluoride intake may be associated with a number of adverse health effects. Dental fluorosis and effects on bones (increased fragility and skeletal fluorosis) are two well documented adverse effects of fluoride intake. Systemic effects following prolonged and high exposure to fluoride have also been reported and more recently effects on the thyroid, developing brain and other tissues, and an association with certain types of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) have been reported." (page 7)

  September 24, 2010

  EU Commission Hearing Exposes Fatal Flaws in Water Fluoridation

  At the hearing all committee members agreed with Prof Vyvyan Howard, a leading international researcher in molecular bioscience based in the University of Ulster, that if regulatory approval for fluoridation chemicals was being sought today based on the data presented to the hearing by SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks), the chances of obtaining it were extremely remote.

  A key concern ... at the hearing was overexposure to fluoride. In Ireland there is an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children, as confirmed by the North South Survey of Children’s Oral Health in Ireland 2002, two of whose authors were present at the hearing. This survey revealed a seven-fold increase in dental fluorosis in Irish 15-year-olds from 1984 to 2002. Dental fluorosis, which manifests as mottling or pitting of tooth enamel, is a sign of bodily overload of fluoride.

  The committee was also alerted to the fundamental contradictions between the advice from another EU scientific committee, monitoring the safety of cosmetics including toothpaste, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). While fluoride toothpastes must carry labels warning children under six-years not to swallow it as it contains sodium monofluorophosphate, EFSA recently approved the same substance as a permitted food additive under the food supplements directive. This was cited as indicative of the serious flaws in most of the advice on fluorides provided to the committee by EFSA.

  Two pertinent background statements made by the Commission's committee: "Fluoride is not considered to be essential for human growth and development" and "There is no obvious advantage in favour of water fluoridation compared to topical application which is the most effective method for prevention of tooth decay."

  Public Consultation - Review Of Human Exposure To Fluoride And The Fluoridating Agents Of Drinking Water, European Union (EU) Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), September 24, 2010.

  September 3, 2010

  Fluoride Avoidance Reduced Anemia in Pregnant Women

  “Anemic pregnant women living in India, whose urine contained 1 mg/L fluoride or more, were separated into two groups. The experimental group avoided fluoride in water, food and other sources ...

  Fluoride avoidance reduced anemia in pregnant women, decreased pre-term births and enhanced babies' birth-weight, concludes leading fluoride expert, AK Susheela and colleagues, in a study published in Current Science (May 2010).

  Results reveal that anemia was reduced and pre-term and low-birth-weight babies were considerably fewer in the fluoride-avoidance group.” Medical News Today September 3, 2010, Current Science May 25, 2010, Vol. 98, No. 10, "Study Links Fluoride to Preterm Births and anemia in Pregnancy"

  Anemia is a serious complication during pregnancy that can lead to both maternal and infant death, and it appears that fluoride may play a direct role in causing this dangerous condition.

  Specifically, fluoride may damage the gastrointestinal mucosa, leading to impaired nutrient absorption and related illnesses like anemia. It has also been linked to:
  • • Decreased red blood cells
    • Reduced blood folic acid activity
    • Inhibitions in vitamin B12 production
    • Non-absorption of nutrients for hemoglobin synthesis

  When the pregnant women avoided fluoride, however, their intestinal lining regenerated, leading to enhanced nutrient absorption and reduced anemia, along with a decreased risk of pre-term birth and improved birth weights for their babies.

  Medical News Today, September 3, 2010, Current Science May 25, 2010, Vol. 98, No. 10.

  August 25, 2010

  Green Party Aims to End Fluoridation Country Wide

  The Green party of Canada has resolved to end fluoridation across Canada! It is official party platform. The party plans to introduce and support legislation that will outlaw fluoridation in Canada at the federal level, effectively overriding any and all local mandates that say otherwise.

LINKS
Canadian