City of Ottawa Medical Office of Health - Fluoridation Review References, Updated Links, April 7, 2011

Fluoridation Review References

Isn't tap water great? Yes, but many of us can NOT drink it.

Water is for everyone, fluoridation toxins are not

Fluoridation-Free Ottawa - Ottawa Libre de Fluoration

to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa

Fluoridation Review References - Updated Links April 7, 2011
Public Health Best Practice - Fluoridation, City of Ottawa Reference List, April 2011 - numbered for reviewing.
1. Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality - summary table, Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment. December 2010.

[FFO-OLF note:
This document neither mandates nor describes the method of fluoridation. It makes no recommendations supported by neither valid nor verifiable science whatsoever. Furthermore, it does not address any adverse health effects of water fluoridation using the specific substance called hydrofluorosilicic acid actually used for water fluoridation across the country.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give the Government of Canada the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011. The emphasis on eliminating tooth decay has now shifted to the reduction of tooth decay, since it has become obvious that water fluoridation has been unable to deliver on the initial promise.
This is not a meta-analysis, which would have looked at the details of each of the reports and reported on the contents of each in detail, preceded by an objective, executive summary or abstract, as opposed to just saying what the proponents of fluoridation think that the top level Government bureaucrats of the day want to hear.

Necessary expertise for proper risk assessment is lacking

False assumptions used in risk assessment

Basic scientific procedures are not followed

Lack of objectivity is demonstrated

a. Double standards
b. Petition Responses incorrect
c. Misrepresentation of National Research Council 2006 Review
d. Health Canada Misrepresents W.H.O.
e. Misrepresentation of dose vs concentration
Omissions
published research by Health Canada panel members,

of Material Fact,

available published research,

research data offered for consideration by Canadian and international experts.

Health Canada has chosen a panel which does not have the necessary expertise to evaluate the efficacy and safety of artificial water fluoridation. Four (4) dentists were chosen to evaluate the health effects of ingesting an unregulated drug which is clearly beyond their expertise and in violation of the CDA code of ethics. The remaining two panel members have no published papers on fluoride, demonstrating a lack of expertise in this field of research. How was the "expert" panel chosen? By what criteria? (Answers to these questions are not revealed.)
Health Canada has permitted the use of information that is false, misleading or deceptive by the inclusion or omission of any informationin this latest review document. If the Ministry of Health chooses to allow this false and misleading information to exist and persist, it could be viewed as a deliberate effort on the part of Health Canada to misinform the taxpayers of Canada.
Carole Clinch, BA, BPHE, Research Coordinator, People for Safe Drinking Water.
For the complete critique and analysis of that review, see the following two links:
Response to the Health Canada 2009 Review
Omissions in the Health Canada 2009 Review
The Health Canada [review] claims that there is no “credible evidence from the fluoride present in the water with fluoridation or naturally occurring fluoride, at concentrations equal to the recommended level and up to the MAC”, demonstrating health harm, is scientifically incorrect.

The US National Research Council Review of 2006,

the Canadian NRC 1977 Environmental Fluoride Review,

The Quebec Ministry of the Environment 1979 Review,

Daemker and Dey 1989, and

the Camargo 2003 Review

all outline environmental and human health concerns with artificial water fluoridation.

However in the guidelines,
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth using hydroflorosilicic acid for water fluoridation.
The review unabashedly and repeatedly uses the euphemistic phrase that "the weight of evidence does not support a link between ..." and whatever adverse health effect is selected to be construed to be inconsequential. This type of statement easily misleads an ill informed reader that there are no possible adverse health effects from the ingestion of hydrofluorosilicic acid. That there are no possible adverse health effects from such ingestion is patently untrue as has been demonstrably shown by all of the submissions to the group of six that have been refused for inclusion in the review and by other valid, documented research over the past 30 years as will be shown in a forthcoming statement from prominent members of our National Network of Organizations.]
2. Technical Support Document for Ontario Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines, Ministry of the Environment, Government of Ontario, revised June 2006. http://www.ontario.ca/drinkingwater/stel01_046947.pdf (last accessed on March 15, 2011).
[FFO-OLF note:
This document neither mandates nor describes the method of fluoridation. It makes no recommendations supported by neither valid nor verifiable science whatsoever. Furthermore, it does not address any health effects of water fluoridation using hydrofluorosilicic acid.
TABLE 2. CHEMICAL STANDARDS, page 14, specifies the MAC (Maximum Acceptable Concentration) for the addition of a fluoride substance without specificity as to its composition.
In a footnote (b) to the table, it qualifies that concentration thus: "Where fluoride is added to drinking water, it is recommended that the concentration be adjusted to 0.5 -0.8 mg/L, the optimum level for control of tooth decay. Where supplies contain naturally occurring fluoride at levels higher than 1.5 mg/L but less than 2.4 mg/L the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care recommends an approach through local boards of health to raise public and professional awareness to control excessive exposure to fluoride from other sources."
The above admonition is repeated as a full paragraph on page 22, under the heading:
"Fluoride (inorganic)". There it is then as plain as anyone can see that:
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.]
3. Proposal to reaffirm the Ontario Drinking Water Objective for Fluoride and to reduce the concentration of fluoride in drinking water where fluoridation is practiced. Ministry of the Environment. Toronto : Government of Ontario, Ministry of the Environment. EBR Registry PA9E0007, September 20, 2000. http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTIwMjM=&statusId=MTIwMjM=&language=en (accessed on March 14, 2011).
[FFO-OLF note:
This is the Policy Proposal Notice.The actual proposal is here: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTIwMjM=&statusId=NDIwMjM=
This document neither mandates nor describes the method of fluoridation. It makes no recommendations supported by neither valid nor verifiable science whatsoever. Furthermore, it does not address any health effects of water fluoridation using hydrofluorosilicic acid.
This Ontario Government web site says:
Other Information:
Copies of the supporting documentation for the Canadian Drinking Water Guideline for fluoride can be accessed through the Health Canada web site at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca./waterquality <== This link is broken. It should be: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/2010-sum_guide-res_recom/index-eng.php.
Obviously:
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.]
4. Fluoridation Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter F.22, Consolidation Period: From December 15, 2009 to the e-Laws currency date. Last amendment: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 18, s. 9. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f22_e.htm (last accessed on March 15, 2011).

[FFO-OLF note:
This document neither mandates nor describes the method of fluoridation. It makes no recommendations supported by neither valid nor verifiable science whatsoever. Furthermore, it does not address any health effects of water fluoridation using hydrofluorosilicic acid.
This is the Ontario Fluoridation Act, originally established in 1990 and revised numerous times since then.
The Act neither mandates nor describes the method of fluoridation. It merely describes by what means an Ontario municipal government may implement or discontinue fluoridation of drinking water supply.
Here are the three most pertinent sections:
Fluoridation systems
2.1 (1) The council of a regional municipality may by by-law establish, maintain and operate or discontinue fluoridation systems. 2001, c. 25, s. 476 (3).

Continuation
2.1 (2) Although a by-law has not been passed under subsection (1), the council of a regional municipality may continue to fluoridate the water supply of those areas in the area of jurisdiction of the regional municipality to which it was supplying fluoridated water immediately before June 29, 1987. 2001, c. 25, s. 476 (3).

Discontinuance of system
3. (1) Where a local municipality or a local board thereof has a fluoridation system in connection with its waterworks system, the council of the municipality may by by-law discontinue, or require the local board to discontinue, the fluoridation system. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.22, s. 3 (1).
This has then nothing to do with:
Neither the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects in its use. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.]

5. Ontario Public Health Standards, Protocol for the Monitoring of Community Water Fluoride Levels, 2008, http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/pubhealth/oph_standards/ophs/progstds/protocols/water_fluoride_levels.pdf (last accessed on March 15, 2011).
[FFO-OLF note:
This document neither mandates nor describes the method of fluoridation. It makes no recommendations supported by neither valid nor verifiable science whatsoever. Furthermore, it does not address any health effects of water fluoridation using hydrofluorosilicic acid.
The stated PURPOSE of the document is as follows:
This protocol applies to boards of health whose jurisdiction includes community water systems to which fluoride is added. It has been developed to provide direction to boards of health in monitoring community water fluoride levels and taking specific action in accordance with the level of fluoride in the water. It outlines the action(s) required when fluoride levels are below the therapeutic range (TR) of 0.5 to 0.8 ppm or above the Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) of 1.5 ppm (mg/L).
It is then obvious as anyone with eyes can see that:
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.]

6. An Act to Provide For Certain Water Systems To Maintain A Level Of Fluoride To Prevent Tooth Decay. Act Number 197, http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=SB359. (accessed on March 14, 2011)
[FFO-OLF note:
This is a law passed for the state of Arkansas and is merely an amendment to an existing law. It has of course no legal status for implementation of any fluoridation policy or measure for the Province of Ontario or the City of Ottawa. Furthermore, it does not address any health effects of water fluoridation using hydrofluorosilicic acid.
It goes without saying, of course, that:
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.]
7. Environmental Health Criteria 227. Fluorides. International Program on Chemical Safety. World Health Organization, Geneva 2002, Available at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc227.htm (accessed on March 16, 2011)
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
8. Canadian Environmental Protection Act Priority Substances List Assessment Report Inorganic Fluorides, Environment Canada, Health Canada, 1993.
[FFO-OLF note:
This document is an Unedited Version.It neither mandates nor describes the method of fluoridation, and it sheds no light on either the possible health benefits or the health hazards of ingestion of fluoride substances.
It does not address any adverse health effects of water fluoridation using the specific substance called hydrofluorosilicic acid actually used for water fluoridation.

Although no link information was provided for this document, we were able to locate it here: Canadian Environmental Protection Act Priority Substances List Assessment Report Inorganic Fluorides as a document.
On page vi of the synopsis, the following odd statement is presented:
... it has been concluded that inorganic fluorides are entering the environment in quantities or under conditions that may be harmful to the environment. ... It has been concluded that inorganic fluorides (i.e., the fluoride ion derived from such inorganic substances) are not entering the environment in quantities or under conditions that may constitute a danger to human life or health.
Is this statement not both ambivalent and illogical? If the environment is harmed by a substance, how can it not harm human life or health, since these are dependent on the environment?
On page 2 of this report, it is clearly stated that:
Unless otherwise specified, in the health-related sections, inorganic fluoriderefers to the fluoride ion derived from inorganic compounds.
With respect to the effects of fluoride on human health, neither dental fluorosis nor the beneficial effects of fluoride in the prevention of dental caries have been assessed in this report.
The whole report concerns the environmental impact of specific fluoride substances released into the environment, namely, hydrogen fluoride (HF), calcium fluoride (CaF2), sodium fluoride (NaF), and sulphur
hexafluoride (SF6), none of which are the same as the one used by the City of Ottawa in fluorinating the water supply, namely, hydrofluorosilicic acid, as reported on the City's own web site at http://ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/water_wells/quality/facts/fluoride/#P32_3079, Fluoride and Your Drinking Water, fifth subtitle, How is fluoride added to the drinking water? that unequivocally states: The City of Ottawa uses Hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS) to fluoridate drinking water.In addition to the misrepresentation that,
There is no mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.]

9. A Systematic Review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation, Part A: review methodology and results. National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian Government: 2007.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ten great public health achievements. United States, 1990-1999. MMWR 1999;48(12):241-3.
There is no scientific value in any statement such as this self congratulatory horn blowing. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects.
11. Effects of water fluoride exposure at crown completion and maturation on caries of permanent first molars. Singh KA , Spencer AJ , Brennan DS . Australian.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
12. Research Centre for Population Oral Health, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia Caries Res 2007; 41:34-42.
This report is written by pro-fluoridationsist dental specialists, therefore completely lacking any credibility and objectivity.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
13. Truman, B., I, Gooch, B. F., Sulemana, I., Gift, H. C., Horowitz, A. M., Evans, C. A., Griffin, S. O., & Carande, K., V 2002, Reviews of evidence on interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries (Structured abstract), American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 23, pp. 21-54.
This report is written by pro-fluoridationsist dental specialists, therefore completely lacking any credibility and objectivity.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
14. Fluoridation of Drinking Water: a Systematic Review of its Efficacy and Safety. Centre for Reviews and Disseminations. University of York . York, United Kingdom, 2000.
The Chair of this review has repeatedly said in many public statements that their review was neither supportive nor in opposition to fluoridation, but a presentation of the facts as they found them.
Furthermore, there is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis. It is nonetheless somewhat critical of the policy and practice of fluoridation.
15. Jones, G., Riley, M., Couper, D., & Dwyer, T. 1999, Water fluoridation, bone mass and fracture: A quantitative overview of the literature, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 34-40.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
16. Water fluoridation: An Analysis of the Health Benefits and Risks. Michel Levy, Institut National de Santé Publique Du Québec, 2007.
Though they write about fluoridation, there is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth. It is written by pro-fluoridation dental specilaists only, thereby completely lacking in objectivity and credibility.
17. Fluoride In Drinking Water: A Scientific Review Of EPA's Standards Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council Of The National Academies, The National Academies Press Washington, D.C.2006 www.nap.edu (accessed March 15, 2011).
We have some questions for you regarding this review:
a. have you actually read page 52-53 about the part that expresses concerns raised by the Committee studying the use of silicofluorides in drinking water

causing an increase in lead uptake in children?

that no studies have been made to compare the differences in toxicity between silicofluorides and sodium fluoride, the latter but never the former used in tests to determine the impact of fluoride substances on health?

b. have you looked at TABLE 39: - Availability of Fluorine in Various Forms and the attendant comments?
c. have you actually read the part about the impact of fluoride substances on Acetylcholinesterase (AChE)?
d. have you actually read the part about the impact of fluoride substances on salmon stocks, especially Chinook and Coho?
e. have you actually read the part about the concerns raised over the reduction of IQ in children exposed to fluoride substances?
f. have you actually read the part about the epidemic increase in dental fluorosis in areas where fluoridation is used but nearly absent where it is not implemented?
g. have you actually read the part about the increase in cases of osteosarcoma and other cancers reported in fluoridated areas
h. have you actually read the part about the increase in cases of hip fractures in fluoridated areas
i. have you actually read the part about the increase in arthritic pain recorded in fluoridated areas
j. have you actually read the part about the increase in cases of hypothyroidism recorded in fluoridated areas
k. have you actually read any part about this Committee's recommendations to pursue research in areas of concern about possible adverse health effects of water fluoridation?
Is this thorough review by a large panel of experts less qualified than the Canadian review panel in reaching the above conclusions? This review does not make the mistake of fawning over the claimed but non existent benefits of the use of fluoridation as a panacea for dental caries (tooth decay).
18. Quantifying the diffused benefit from water fluoridation in the United States; Griffin SO, Gooch BF, Lockwood SA, Tomar SL. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:120 129.
This quantification has been found wanting of balanced data. Data contrary to the desired outcome has been shown to be deleted from the final results and only favorable data presented. This is scientific fraud. So, there are no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
Unfortunately, there is also neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects.
19. MMWR report, Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States , 17 August, 2001 , vol.50. http://www.cdc.gov/mm/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm (accessed on March 16, 2011)
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
20. World Water Day 2001, Oral Health, World Health Organization, Geneva , 2001, Available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/oralhealth/en/index2.html (accessed on March 16, 2011 ).
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
21. Griffin , SO., Regnier, E., Griffin , PM., Huntley, V. Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. J Dent Res 2007; 86(5): 410-415.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
22. Jones, CM., Taylor, GO., Whittle, JG., Evans, D., Trotter, DP. Water fluoridation, tooth decay in 5 year olds, and social deprivation measured by the Jarman score: analysis of data from British dental surveys. BMJ 1997; 315: 514-7.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
23. Slade, GD., Spencer, AJ., Davies, MJ., Stewart, JF. Influence of exposure to fluoridated water on socioeconomic inequalities in children's caries experience. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996; 24: 89-100.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
24. Provart, SJ., Carmichael, CL. The relationship between caries, fluoridation, and material deprivation in five-year-old children in County Durham. Community Dent Health 1995; 12: 200-3.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
25. Kumar, JV., Swango, PA., Lininger, LL., Leske, GS., Green, EL., Haley, VB. Changes in dental fluorosis and dental caries in Newburgh and Kingston , New York . Am J Public Health 1998; 88: 1866-70.
See notes 3 and 4 at the end of this document, and,
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
26. Saskatchewan Dental Health Screening Program 2008-2009 Report, Vinay Pilly, Dec 2010. http://www.pnrha.ca/bins/doc.asp?rdc_id=4811 (accessed on March 14, 2011).
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
27. Dick Ito, A cross-sectional study to compare caries and fluorosis in 7-year-old school children from a fluoridated area with those in a neighbouring non-fluoridated area in Ontario, University of Toronto 2007.
The fluoride isn't the trick. It is supervised brushing after meals. This tends to go along with good parenting and stable lifestyle that is likely to include fresh fruits and vegetables, regular family meals, and a daily multivitamin - which statistically have a greater benefit on cavity prevention and good dental development according to Dick Ito's published study. What jumps out at you in this document, if you are paying attention, is that children who took a daily multivitamin had the best dental health regardless of all other factors including dental visits and fluoride toothpaste or fluoridated water.
The conclusion admitted that benefit from fluoridation was not evident; but somehow the study managed to say that without fluoridation immigrant children with darker skin were more vulnerable to cavities, YET NO MENTION OF VITAMIN D's TREMENDOUS IMPORTANCE IN DENTAL HEALTH!!! - or the fact that these immigrants were settling in the fluoridated cities of Brampton and Mississauga not the non fluoridated areas of Caledon.
However, here too, there is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects and the conclusions are inconsistent with the data provided.
28. Direct Communication from Dawn Sauve, March 9, 2011 . Office and Dental Health Manager, Northwestern Health Unit, Dryden 75D Van Horne Avenue P8N 2B2.
There is no way of knowing what this conversation is about unless it is revealed to us in a formal manner and one can reasonably assume that there was neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects.
29. Direct communication with the Chief Dental Officer of Canada, Health Canada, February 21, 2011.
There is no way of knowing what this privileged conversation is about unless it is revealed to us in a formal manner and one can reasonably assume that there was neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects.
Dr. Peter Cooney's antics on fluoridation are well known to us. When a person in his position says that since there are no persons growing horns in a particular city, there is no reason to believe that fluoridation has any negative impact on health, it leaves one to wonder about his erudition. When he shifts the story from dental health and states that fluoridation benefits the health of even the elderly, he is stepping outside the bounds of the reasonable. It is now well known from epidemiological studies that fluoridation has been the cause of increased hip fractures in the elderly. A point one may want to consider is that people who have lost all of their teeth can not get any benefit to teeth they no longer have! There is also the obvious fact that newborn babies who do not yet have any teeth can not derive any benefit from water fluoridation. So, why should THEY be ingesting this noxious medicine with their tap water?
30. Fluoride in drinking water: water sanitation and Health, WHO, 2006 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water /en/index.html (accessed on March 14, 2011).
[FFO-OLF note:
The link did not allow me to access the document because it is incorrectly formatted, however, it is available for direct download here: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water/en/
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.]

31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Review of fluoride benefits and risks report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1991.
This report is well known to us and is now outdated. It contains inaccuracies and omissions that invalidate its conclusions. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
Furthermore, there is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
32. National Research Council. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press. Washington D.C.1993.

[FFO-OLF note:
This is an outdated reported superseded by the U.S. NRC, National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water (2006), number 17, above. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standardsmaking it a questionable entry in this series of references. Nonetheless, even at that time, 1993, this committee raised some red flags regarding the distinct possibility of serious adverse health effects worthy of further investigations as follows on the pages noted in parentheses:

Dental Fluorosis (19-50)

Fluoride Exposure And Risk Of Bone Fracture (51-72)

Reproductive Effects Of Fluoride (73-84)

Effects Of Ingested Fluoride On Renal, Gastrointestinal, And Immune Systems (85-90)

Genotoxicity Of Fluoride (91-108)

Carcinogenicity Of Fluoride (109-124)]

33. Health Canada, Fluoride in Drinking water, Document for public comment, prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, 2009.
[FFO-OLF note:
Are you aware that all six members of this Committee were hand picked for their bias in favor of fluoridation, and that two of the members of that committee's own reports that were unfavorable to the expected outcome of the review were omitted from the list of the documents included in the review?

Did you know that submissions from such luminaries as:
IICPH's Anna Tilman, Co-Chair, Toxics Caucus, Canadian Environmental Network;
Dr. Paul Connett, PhD, Chemistry;
Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, Center for Risk Analysis, NRC (U.S.) Panel Member;
Carole Clinch, B.A., B.P.H.E.,
and, that Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D., Biochemistry, a renowned D.D.S., head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research, and a well respected fluoride researcher, was not even invited to participate on this panel?
Are you aware of the qualifications of the individuals selected to do the review of the literature on the subject of artificial tap water fluoridation? They are:

Steven M. Levy, Iowa College of Dentistry - known to be very pro-fluoridation,

Jayanth Kumar, New York State Department of Health - known to be very pro-fluoridation,

Christopher Clark, University of British Columbia - known to be very pro-fluoridation,

Dr. Robert Tardif, Universitde Montreal, Ph.D. and pharmacist (toxicologist), no fluoridation toxicology expertise, known fluoridation supporter,

Michael Levy, Institut National de SantPublique du Québec, known fluoridation supporter,

Albert Nantel, Institut National de SantPublique du Québec, MD, toxicologist, no fluoridation toxicology expertise, known fluoridation supporter.

All are specialists in their particular fields, however, hardly a stellar group of individuals from whom to obtain unbiased and objective information showing the safety and effectiveness of using hydrofluorosilicic acid to prevent tooth decay by water fluoridation without causing adverse health effects. In addition, they are ultimately even less qualified to select and present data that would show whether or not adverse health effects are possible from the use of this acid for water fluoridation. This is evidenced in the dismissive manner in which the topic of adverse health effects is treated.
The dismissive nature of their conclusions is completely at odds with the conclusions reached by a far superior group of individuals selected in the U.S. NRC, National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water (2006), number 17, above. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards
It is our groups assessment that a more thorough selection of individuals in numerous fields of science, medicine and academia would have been more appropriate in obtaining a better evaluation of the true nature of the possible adverse health effects of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent in water fluoridation.
In our estimation, such a panel would have been better served by a selection of specialists including a multidisciplinary selection such as dentists, physicians, toxicologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, neuro-toxicologists, embryo-toxicologists, cyto-toxicologists, biochemists, pharmacists, environmentalists, statisticians, risk evaluators, constitutional lawyers, neurochemists, neurologists, neo-natologists, hematologists, and others, with some knowledge and recognized competency in fluoride substances and their toxicity. However, since this was not done, the selection brings the seriousness of the intent of the Committee's results into question. Yet there is more.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects and there are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth, as previously noted.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.]

34. Demos, L. L., Kazda, H., Cicuttini, F. M., Sinclair, M. I., & Fairley, C. K. 2001, Water fluoridation, osteoporosis, fractures--recent developments, Australian Dental Journal, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 80-87.
There is considerable doubt that a Journal on dental matters would report bone problems caused by fluoridation in an unbiased and impartial manner. That is exactly why there is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
35. Hoover, RN., Devesa, KP., Cantor, JH., et al. Fluoridation of drinking water and subsequent cancer incidence and mortality. Appendix E U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Review of fluoride benefits and risks report of the Ad Hoc subcommittee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Washington : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1991.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
36. Volume 27, Some Aromatic Amines, Anthraquinones and Nitroso Compounds, and Inorganic Fluorides Used in Drinking-water and Dental Preparations, Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, 1998.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
37. Osuji, O., Leake, J. L., Chipman, M. L. et al. 1988, Risk factors for dental fluorosis in a fluoridated community, Journal of Dental Research , vol. 67, pp 1488-1492.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
38. Evans, W. R., & Stamm, J.W. 1991, An epidemiological estimate of the critical period during which human maxillary central incisors are most susceptible to fluorosis, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, vol. 51, pp. 251-259.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
39. Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water, Directorate-General for Health and Consumers, European Commission, European Union. 2010.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
40. Nutrients in Drinking Water. Water Sanitation and Health Protection and the Human Environment. World Health Organization. Geneva , 2005. Available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientsindw/en/index.html (accessed on March 16, 2011).
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
41. Linus Pauling Institute, Micronutrient Research for Optimum Health, Oregon State University , 2001. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/fluoride/ (accessed on March 16, 2011).
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
42. Cerklewski, FL. Fluoride--essential or just beneficial. Nutrition 1998; 14(5): 475-476.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
43. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Fluoride. Dietary Reference Intakes: Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington D.C. : National Academy Press; 288-313, 1997.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
44. US Department of Health and Human Services. Bone health and osteoporosis: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville , MD : US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General 2004: Chapter 7, Table 7-5: 166.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
45. Assessment of Fluoridation of Water and Other Methods of Delivering Fluoride - BOH 08024 (a) City of Hamilton , Public Health Services, Nov 17, 2008. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
46. CRHA, Calgary Regional Health Authority Expert Panel for Water Fluoridation Review. (1998). "Report of the Expert Panel for Water Fluoridation Review, Calgary Regional Health Authority http://www.calgaryhealthregion.ca/programs/dental/pdf/expert_panel_report_sa.pdf Retrieved March 16, 2006.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
47. Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton E, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking- waterhttp://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf World Health Organization, Retrieved November 10, 2006.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
48. FCFTSG, Fort Collins Fluoride Technical Study Group. (2003). "Report of the Fort Collins Fluoride Technical Study Group, Fort Collins, Colorado, http://www.healthdistrict.org/fluoridereport/FTSG.htm Retrieved March 16, 2006.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
49. Health Canada : Findings and Recommendations of the Fluoride Expert Panel (January 2007) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/water-eau/2008-fluoride-fluorure/2008-fluoride-fluorure-eng.pdf.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
50. Health Canada: Joint Government of Canada Response to Environmental Petition No. 221 filed under Section 22 of the Auditor General Act Received November 19, 2007 http://www.fptdwg.ca/assets/PDF/0804-JointGovernmentofCanadaresponse.pdf
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
51. Irish Ministry for Health and Children, Irish Ministry for Health and Children (2002). Forum on Fluoridation. www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/background/fluoridation_forum.pdf.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
52. INSPQ, Institut National de Sante Publique Du Quebec (2007), Water Fluoridation: An Analysis of the Heath Benefits and Risks http://www.inspq.qc.ca/pdf/publications/705-WaterFluoration.pdf.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
53. Lepo, J., Snyder RA. (2000). "Impact of fluoridation of municipal drinking water supply: review of literaturewww.uwf.edu/rsnyder/reports/fluoride.pdf Retrieved March 19, 2006.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
54. Locker, D. (1999). "Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation: An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_ report s/ fluoridation /fluor.pdf Retrieved March 19, 2006.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
55. McDonagh, M., Whiting P, Bradley M, Cooper J, Sutton A, Chestnutt I, Misso K, Wilson P, Treasure E, Kleijnen J. (2000). "A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd//fluores.htm NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York Retrieved March 16, 2006.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
56. NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia (1999). Review of Water Fluoridation and Fluoride Intake from Discretionary Fluoride Supplements, National Health & Medical Research Council, Australia, www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/0703/m50958_v1_nhmrc%20fluoride.pdf.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
57. NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council (2007), A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
58. NRC, National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water (2006). Fluoride in the Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (Pre-publication)http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html#toc. Retrieved May 20, 2006.
This would be the precursor document (Pre-publication) to number 17. above and is an unnecessary and puzzling inclusion, however, the specific link given here is that of the final 2006 version.
59. SPDPNA, Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies. (2005). "Opinion of the scientific panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake level of Fluoride (Request No EFSA-Q-2003-018) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620766918.htm Retrieved March 16, 2006.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
60. TFCPS, Task Force on Community Preventive Services, (2002b). "Reviews of Evidence on Interventions to Prevent Dental Caries, Oral and Pharyngeal Cancers, and Sports-Related Craniofacial Injuries http://www.thecommunityguide.org/oral/oral-ajpm-ev-rev.pdf " American Journal of Preventive Medicine v. 23 no. 18: 21 -54, 2002.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
61. TFCPS, U.S. Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2002). Interventions to Prevent Dental Caries, Oral and Pharyngeal Cancers, and Sports-Related Craniofacial Injuries. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, U.S. Task Force on Community Preventive Services http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5021a1.htm.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
62. TFCPS, U.S. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2002a). "Recommendations on Selected Interventions to Prevent Dental Caries, Oral and Pharyngeal Cancers, and Sports-Related Craniofacial American Journal of Preventive Medicine v. 23 no. 18: 16-20 Injuries can be found on this web siteA Comparison of Selected Evidence Reviews and Recommendations on Interventions A .pdf downloable file.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
63. TLMTF, The Lord Mayor's Taskforce on Fluoridation,. (1997). "The Report of the Lord Mayor's Taskforce on Fluoridation Brisbane, Australia http://www.nofluoride.com/Brisbane_Task_Force.html. Retrieved March 16, 2006.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
64. UKMRC, United Kingdom Medical Research Council (2002). Water Fluoridation and Health, United Kingdom Medical Research Council, http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002482.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
This is a review of literature selected by pro-fluoridation professionals who have been selected to give their Government the illusion that fluoridation is a safe, healthy, inexpensive and effective way of eradicating tooth decay, as mentioned in the first paragraph of our email letter to you of June 6, 2011, and is not a meta-analysis.
65. USCDC, United States Centres for Disease Control. (2001). "Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm Retrieved March 16, 2006.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
66. WHO, World Health Organization. (1994). "Fluorides and Oral Health http://www.who.int/oral_health/action/risks/en/index1.html" Retrieved March 16, 2006.
This extremely brief document does not endorse water fluoridation, although cursorily mentioning that it is used, it concludes with the following recommendation:
One of WHO's policies is to support the widespread use of affordable fluoridated toothpaste in developing countries. This is particularly important in light of the changing diet and nutrition status in these countries. Recent local studies have shown that affordable fluoridated toothpaste is effective in caries prevention and should be made available for use by health authorities in developing countries. The WHO Global Oral Health Programme is currently undertaking further demonstration projects in Africa, Asia and Europe in order to assess the relevance of affordable fluoridated toothpaste, milk fluoridation and salt fluoridation. In addition to the above,
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.
There is a fluoridation conference paper presented shortly after this was written that speaks of a complete paradigm shift away from benefits by ingestion and from topical application. This shows up in Changing Paradigms in Concepts on Dental Caries: Consequences for Oral Health Carein Caries Research, 2004;38:182 191, the author clearly states: The caries resistanceconcept was shown to be erroneous 25 years ago, but the new paradigm is not yet fully adopted in public health dentistry.
Isn't that amazing!
67. World Health Organization (2006) Fluoride in Drinking Water http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf.
There is neither mention of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent nor is there mention of the possibility of any adverse health effects. There are also no valid scientific data presented in this document that support any claim of benefit to teeth.

Note 1:
It is very easy to selectively choose affluent communities where water is fluoridated and where children observe dental hygiene and have access to frequent dental check-ups. Then randomly pick children from mainly low-income and welfare families from a multitude of non-fluoridating communities and check their teeth for cavities. . . . it is very easy to manipulate the statistics to suggest that children living in water fluoridating communities have fewer cavities than children who live in non-fluoridating communities.
Note 2:
Previous exposure as to how government bureaucrats purposely slant statistical studies to make government policy look good (e.g.: measuring the "rate of inflation" in the economy . . . by excluding results from several other sectors of the economy from the study) . . . . so it is in my view with the statistics that show the benefits of fluoridation. Real, valid and unmolested studies, research, articles and reference materials are not available in all of the documents presented in the above list of references.
Note 3:
Pro-fluoridationist promoters see nothing wrong with selectively manipulating data to prove their case. However, they have been found out and exposed time and again in perpetrating this type of fraud: in the Canadian Brantford Study, and in the U.S. studies (the Kingston/Newburgh trials and the Grand Rapids/Muskegon, Michigan experiment) while the science was dubious, the confidence of the US Public Health Service (PHS), and that of Health Canada, was enormous.
Note 4:
In April 1951, before any single fluoridation trial had been completed, the US Surgeon General, Leonard Scheele, was telling a Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, "During the past year our studies progressed to the point where we could announce an unqualified endorsement of the fluoridation of the public water supplies as a mass procedure for reducing tooth decay by two thirds." (Scheele, L.A., cited by F.J. McClure (1970). Water Fluoridation. The Search and the Victory. National Institute of Dental Research, Bethesda, Maryland, page 249.)
These studies and trials used sodium fluoride as the test substance, not the exotically more noxious hydrofluorosilicic acid.

In conclusion, none of the above documents, reviews, studies and references address even the possibility of any deleterious health effects from the actual fluoridation substance used in the City of Ottawa's artificial tap water fluoridation, to wit, Hydrofluorosilicic acid - H₂SiF₆, not used in its pure form but a banned EPA environmental contaminant containing many co-contaminants, not the least are: Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Uranium, Polonium...
These two single facts alone render meaningless the whole discussion of water fluoridation based on the whole plethora of documents and references supplied.

We have of course copiously, deliberately and properly noted the above conclusion in all places where applicable.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input to the documentation provided.

Richard Hudon
for Fluoridation-Free Ottawa
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, Ontario
K1J 8B5 613-747-7157

to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa

Go to Welcome page | Letters to Councillors | TAKE ACTION page | Main information page