Friday, August 12, 2011

Councillor Katherine Hobbs
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Hobbs,

With all due respect, I trust you, your family and your staff at City Hall are all in good health.

I am writing to you today to inform you that I am totally and outrageously opposed to the City of Ottawa using hydrofluorosilicic acid for the fluoridation of my drinking water on the pretext than it prevents tooth decay. Out of respect for the environment, I refuse to buy any bottled water, especially that this water is not regulated by any health authority, for what that would be worth.

As a government employee at Tunney's Pasture, I am forced to drink this contaminant with my tap water every time I forget to bring in my water bottle from home. You see I live outside of the Ottawa area where my filtered well water is purer than spring water and is uncontaminated by any toxins and impurities.

Every time I drink some of Ottawa's water, I become ill. The chlorine may be to blame as well, but I can assure you that it's the fluoride product called hydrofluorosilicic acid that is the most offending part of the toxic products put into Ottawa's water supply. Every time that I go to a town or city that does not have this contaminant in it, I do not get sick even though such water is chlorinated.

I have access to plenty of documentation that supports my claim that this acid is the most unhealthy kind of medication that could ever be administered to any patient. I do not believe that any doctor in her right mind would prescribe such medication if she was knowledgeable about its makeup and possible side effects. Do you know of any doctor who would say to you that you could take as much medication as you want for the rest of your life without follow up or not knowing the effects of chronic ingestion? Stop and think for just a moment and you will see that's exactly what putting this product in water for preventing tooth decay does.

I strongly object to the City of Ottawa contaminating my drinking water at work with this toxic waste product and wish to be protected from the deleterious health effects of swallowing this acid along with all of the other contaminants that are present in it. They may be in small amounts, but the fluorine, arsenic, mercury, lead and other elemental substances present therein used for medicating me against tooth decay is an infringement of my rights to refuse medication that is not necessary in my case. I wonder how many other people are in the same situation as I am?

You should be aware that all products used to medicate people require both mandatory human studies (clinical trials) and animal studies (toxicology studies) before being used as a drug, especially as used in our water supply. I have it on good authority from Health Canada that there are neither of these. So why are we still putting this toxic stew in Ottawa's water?

I challenge you to obtain primary research on the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid that proves that it prevents, or even reduces tooth decay and that it has no adverse health effects on those drinking water with this contaminant in it. I'm not talking about statements, pronouncements or endorsements from health officials or health studies and references that have nothing to do with the use of this specific acid, but real, hard evidence of its benefits to teeth and health.

I am looking for a personal response to my email indicating that you rescind any support you may have had for this horrible excuse for a health initiative.

I would consider it very disingenuous on your part to reply to me with the standard statement either from the Medical Officer of Health or the Dental Officer of Health. I am well acquainted with both and am appalled at the rubbish presented in those statements.

I would also be thoroughly offended if you were to send me that claptrap document full of useless references that are used by the Medical Officer of Health to attempt to justify this failed practice. So, guard yourself accordingly.

Awaiting your personal and honest response, I remain,

Respectfully yours

Good morning Councillor Hobbs,

I trust you are in good health.

I see that you seem to have ignored my last email letter to you, which adds to my frustration an dismay at the poor state of Ottawa's drinking water.

I can understand that you want to trust the City of Ottawa's Public Health Office on matters of health, however, as I understand it, the subject of water fluoridation is much more than a health matter.

However there are certain other considerations concerning this subject that need to be seriously looked at.

1. Ineffectiveness (no valid, independent, unbiased scientific research supports fluoridation using H₂SiF₆),

2. Adverse Health effects (safety - the list is huge - studies and citations),

3. Environmental impact (studies and citations),

4. Ethics (medical and pharmacological),

5. Financial Burden (taxes, repair of fluorosis and health care costs),

6. Legal (chemical used is not regulated for use as medicine for tooth decay).

There are three inherent flaws with water fluoridation:

1. First of all, it doesn't do it's intended function. It was designated as tooth decay prevention, to benefit the teeth.Science has shown over past decades that it does nothing beneficial for the teeth. In fact, it does a lot of deleterious things down the road like mottling of the teeth, as well as other skeletal changes. So it's not doing what it was supposed to do.
2. Number two, it's NOT fluoride. We talk about fluoride like it's just this general term. In (Ottawa), it's hydrofluorosilicic acid. It's a waste product from the fertilizer industry. The EPA (or Health Canada) does not allow it to be dumped in landfills, into the air, into rivers and lakes or the ocean, but somehow we can put it into our water supply. So it's not fluoride.
3. And the last thing is, there's no dosage control. A little infant who is fed formula, the majority of their diet is water, and usually it's tap water, it's not spring water that has no fluoride in it. So, a small baby will drink more water for his or her weight than you will for your weight. It's the only drug that's administered without a prescription.

Please find out for me if there is any valid research anywhere that shows that the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid
1. is safe to use as a fluoridation chemical, and,
2. that this same acid is really effective at ending or reducing tooth decay.

Thank you for the consideration you will give to getting these 2 answers for me.

Respecfully

Dear Councillor Hubley,

Congratulations on your recent election as City of Ottawa Councillor for Kanata South.

As a resident of Kanata South, I would like to register my vote strongly against fluoridation of City of Ottawa water supplies.  City residents who live in the rural areas with wells are not forced to consume added fluoride like those of us in the city.

I strongly urge you, as my councillor, to call for a vote to request at city council that the practice of fluoridation be stopped, permanently.  The cities of Calgary today and Waterloo recently have both voted down fluoridation of city water (see links below for more info)

BACKGROUND
Over the past decade, I have had dental fluoride treatments which made me ill for weeks at a time, until my new dentist informed me I was having reactions to fluoride.  Needless to say, since that time I now avoid fluoride from all sources.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2011/02/08/calgary-fluoride-city-water-supply-removal.html

The City of Waterloo has also recently voted fluoride out of the city water supply, by a referendum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etuQ1kEhDRo

This article discusses the hazards of fluoride in drinking water supply and is backed up by a study.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/01/paul-connett-interview.aspx

Calgary removing fluoride from water supply

Last Updated: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 | 4:27 PM MT
CBC News

City council's decision to remove fluoride from Calgary's water supply follows years of debate on the controversial subject. (CBC)

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

Two members of council, Mayor Naheed Nenshi and Ald. Brian Pincott, were out of town during Tuesday's vote.

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.

The issue has proved a lightning rod for Calgarians, and past plebiscites have revealed public opinion is nearly even split on the matter.

In 1989, 53 per cent of Calgarians voted in favour of adding fluoride. Two years later, it was added.

Savings will go to dental health

After a well-attended, all-day public meeting late last month, the removal of the chemical was recommended to council by a city committee.

On Tuesday, council also supported using some of the savings of removing fluoride to examine ways of improving dental health for children living in poverty.

'It's not our responsibility.' — Ald. Druh Farrell

Proponents of fluoride say it prevents tooth decay, especially in vulnerable groups such as the poor, children and the elderly. Opponents question the safety of fluoride in drinking water and suggest it should be up to individuals to decide whether to expose themselves to the additive.

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.

"It's not our responsibility, but what we've said is because we had this responsibility and because children in poverty are used as a reason to support fluoride, then let's really help those children," she said.

City faced pricey plant upgrades

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

The timeline for the removal of fluoride remains unclear, as the city must apply to Alberta Environment to amend its water licence.

The city should also see cost savings in the move — the cost of adding fluoride to Calgary's water is about $750,000 per year.

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Tim Tierney <Tim@TimTierney.ca>; Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 10:58:25 PM
Subject: Dental Fluorosis & Tooth Decay

Dental Fluorosis & Tooth Decay

Councillor Tim Tierney

Hi Tim,

I thought you might be interested in this information.

HEALTH EFFECTS: Dental Fluorosis & Elevated Fluoride Exposure as a Cause of Tooth Decay

Summation - Dental Fluorosis as a Cause of Tooth Decay:

For years, dental authorities in the U.S. claimed that teeth with fluorosis - no matter how severe - were more resistant to decay. The orthodoxy has been that "although unsightly, these teeth rarely have any dental caries."

This claim, however, can no longer be supported by the scientific literature - as evident by the recent findings listed below generated by multiple research teams in multiple countries. Based on the recent research, it is clear that as the severity of dental fluorosis increases so too does the decay rate. According to a recent report from the National Research Council , (U.S.) the risk for tooth decay increases in cases of severe fluorosis .

The fact that dental fluorosis can increase decay rates is not surprising when considering the unquestionably detrimental impacts that advanced forms of fluorosis can have on tooth qualtiy (increased porosity of enamel, pitting, chipping, and fracturing).

Do these teeth look stronger and more resistant to decay?
"Moderate" Fluorosis Photo by Hardy Limeback, DDS	Severe Fluorosis Photo by Hardy Limeback, DDS

"Independent of the fluoride concentration in drinking water, caries prevalence increased consistently with increasing severity of dental fluorosis in the second molars, first molars, premolars and canines."
SOURCE: Wondwossen F, et al. (2004). The relationship between dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with moderate- and high-fluoride drinking water in Ethiopia. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 32: 337-44.

"With more severe forms of fluorosis, caries risk increases because of pitting and loss of the outer enamel."
SOURCE: Levy SM. (2003). An update on fluorides and fluorosis. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 69: 286-91.

A published report from a journal called: Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine, vol. 13  no. 2  pp. 155-170, published in March 2002, said the following:
"Knowledge about the ages at which fluoride most affects the unerupted and erupted enamel is of extreme importance for the minimization of risks for the development of fluorosis and the promotion of more judicious use of fluoride in caries prevention (Banting, 1999)."
"... permanent anterior (front) teeth ... are at greatest risk for fluorosis during a two-year period extending through the second and third years of post-natal life."
"... dental fluorosis is sensitive to even small changes in fluoride exposure from drinking water, and this sensitivity is greater at 1 to 3 years of age than at 4 or 5 years."

(Note: The "..." used above replace the technical terminology used that are extraneous to the subject.)

Doesn't this make you want to do something to stop water fluoridation?

The important thing is to NOT stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. – Albert Einstein

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Councillor Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Cc: Dr. Isra Levy <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>; Aaron Burry <Aaron.Burry@ottawa.ca>; Vera Etches <Vera.Etches@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Thu, February 17, 2011 12:37:40 AM
Subject: What you don't know may be harming you and your children.

Councillor Tim Tierney
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Hello Councillor Tierney ,

Here's more information for you about my favorite subject. Please do not ignore this. It will not go away and it may very well haunt you for the rest of your life. You need to trust me on this. It's an easy escape to label me as just another crackpot, but the evidence against fluoridation has become far too overwhelming to ignore.

My grandson, Shaun, is one of those whose health has been greatly affected by "fluoride poisoning" because of long term (chronic) ingestion of fluoride from all sources since conception. Ottawa started fluoridating on Monday, November 15, 1965. Shaun was born in Ottawa, on November 24, 1997 so he has been drinking fluoridated water most of his life and consuming food and beverages that invariably contain fluoride substances.

Most fruit juice and soft drinks are made up using water that has been fluoridated, as do the vast majority of processed foods because fluoridated water is used in the processing of these foods. Infant formula and reconstituted and processed baby foods use fluoridated water. Cooking foods with fluoridated water has been shown to concentrate the fluoride in the foods being cooked with fluoridated water. I'm sure you get the picture.

Shaun just happens to be one of those numerous individuals whose resistance to the damaging effects of chronic ingestion of this chemical element is more than his body can take. The result is a plethora of illnesses that are jeopardizing his education. He gets so sick that he can't attend most (like over 90%) of his classes.

I'm helping him by doing some home schooling with material from the school whenever he is well enough to learn something, but it's very difficult to see him suffer as he does.

Please take some time and look at least at some of the subjects below and start thinking for yourself on this most important issue. The more you know about it, the better you'll be able to understand why fluoridation is such a bad idea. Start to do something to at least protect yourself and your family from its eventual deleterious effects that will come some day after the chronic exposure that is occurring right under your nose.

So now I have a question for you. Will you present a motion to City Council to fully review the fluoridation of Ottawa's tap water, yes or no?

Let me help you obtain the information you need to fully understand the harm of fluoridation. There are numerous professional people who can support your doing such a thing. There is more than sufficient information now available to support such an initiative on your part.

There is scant evidence in support of fluoridation, in spite of Ottawa's MOH or DOH declarations to the contrary. They has been trained to respond with a standard statement that is not worth the words written in that statement. Are they lying? Not really. They do not know any different and have a mindset in favor of fluoridation because of prior training received and the obvious possibility of job loss for "bucking the system." You won't loose your job for presenting such a motion, especially if you are well prepared for it. You may very well gain a greater respect from your peers for doing so.

By the way, do you know that the City of Waterloo stopped fluoridating on, Monday, November 30, 2010. And Calgary will be doing the same thing after voting it out this last Monday, February 7, 2011, as did the City of Verchères in Québec on the same day. The same is starting to happen in the U.S. The trend is being set. It's time for you to do your part for the health and well being of this City's residents. And please, save our City's tax dollars by not asking for a plebiscite.

The public should never be asked to vote on adding a drug to tap water. It's unethical and against our charter rights to be forced to be drugged without our consent and it's an absurd medical intervention beyond the pale of reason. Neither the public is a doctor nor City Council. Neither one can prescribe a drug to anyone. Only a duly qualified medical practitioner can do that. Have you ever heard of a doctor say that you could take as much of a drug as you want for the rest of your life. That's exactly what adding fluoride to tap water does.

Ottawa Public Health relies upon no substantiating claim that fluoridation is safe for all and effective in reducing dental decay without side effects. There is no evidence that the Public Health Department has collected any data, performed any scientific studies, and neither has monitored the safety nor effectiveness of this program, or its effect on heavy metals in tap water and waste effluent, despite allocating millions of tax dollars to fluoridation infrastructure, chemicals, and various overhead costs for fluoridating the water since November 1965.

Evidence from the provinces of BC and Québec, where fluoridation is minimal, shows clearly that cavity rates are no worse in those provinces than in Ontario and Alberta where a large majority of the population has been fluoridated for decades. Cessation of fluoridation has not produced any increase in cavity rates anywhere as claimed by some pro-fluoridation dentists and other fluoridation promoters. The vast majority of European countries do not fluoridate and their cavity rates are comparable to those in Canada, the U.S. and other anglophone fluoridating countries.

One final point. Adding chlorine to tap water treats the water. Adding any fluoride substance to tap water treats people. It's not there to make the water more drinkable, but to ostensibly treat tooth decay. But less than 1% of that fluoride substance gets to the teeth and doesn't do squat for them while everyone is getting dosed with it, not just the kids that are presumed to need it. Now that's an injustice of the highest order in light of now verifiable facts and scientific research that show that ingested fluoride substances are harmful to us all, some more, some less, but more so to those who are already ill. There is ample proof of that available below for you to review at your leisure.

Please do not be so disingenuous as to email me a prepared statement from the MOH or the DOH or anyone else of their peers.

I am simply looking for an honest response to a simple question. Will you please present a motion to City Council to fully review the fluoridation of Ottawa's tap water, yes or no ?

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Councillor Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Cc: Stephen Blais <Stephen.Blais@ottawa.ca>; Rainer Bloess <Rainer.Bloess@ottawa.ca>; David Chernushenko <David.Chernushenko@ottawa.ca>; Rick Chiarelli <Rick.Chiarelli@ottawa.ca>; Peter Clark <Peter.Clark@ottawa.ca>; Diane Deans <Diane.Deans@ottawa.ca>; Steve Desroches <Steve.Desroches@ottawa.ca>; Keith Egli <Keith.Egli@ottawa.ca>; Eli El-Chantiry <Eli.El-Chantiry@ottawa.ca>; Mathieu Fleury <Mathieu.Fleury@ottawa.ca>; Jan Harder <Jan.Harder@ottawa.ca>; Katherine Hobbs <Katherine.Hobbs@ottawa.ca>; Diane Holmes <Diane.Holmes@ottawa.ca>; Allan Hubley <Allan.Hubley@ottawa.ca>; Peter Hume <Peter.Hume@ottawa.ca>; Maria McRae <Maria.Mcrae@ottawa.ca>; Scott Moffatt <Scott.Moffatt@ottawa.ca>; Bob Monette <Bob.Monette@ottawa.ca>; Shad Qadri <Shad.Qadri@ottawa.ca>; Mark Taylor <Mark.Taylor@ottawa.ca>; Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>; Doug Thompson <Doug.Thompson@ottawa.ca>; Marianne Wilkinson <Marianne.Wilkinson@ottawa.ca>; Mark MacKenzie <mark@markmackenzie.ca>; Linda Querel <l_querel@hotmail.com>
Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 5:31:36 PM
Subject: Time to reconsider - Seriously

February 21, 2011

Councillor Tim Tierney
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Tierney,

The fluoride used in fluoridation is an uncontrolled, unregulated substance, not a nutrient, not used to treat water but presumed to prevent cavities.  Adding it to water claiming it will reduce tooth decay defines it as a drug. It's unapproved, unregulated mass medication without supervision or oversight by a qualified medical practitioner for side effects and long term harm. Guess what? That's illegal in Canada.

To medicate everyone (for a disproved outcome of benefit to a tiny minority) is not only unlawful, is pharmacologically and medically unethical. It is also an uncontrolled medical experiment. That's against the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation on people.

Buoyed by the victory in Calgary, Edmontonians and residents of Red Dear are getting set to tackle fluoridation in their cities.

Toronto, Sarnia, Peel, Halton, Hamilton, London, Muskoka and Peterborough are mobilizing to bring an end to fluoridation. Those are the ones that we know about!

Why don't we lead by example. We are the Nation's Capital. We need to get rid of this irrational practice of fluoridation.

You're in charge now.

It's your decision to stop this insanity that should never have been voted by the City's Council and implemented on Monday, November 15, 1965 (Ottawa Gets Fluoridation).

The overwhelming evidence provided below is surely more than enough to get you moving on this issue.

Will you please present a motion for reconsideration of fluoridation?

Please let me know when you intend to present this motion so I can be present when you do.

Richard Hudon for
Fluoridation-Free Ottawa – Ottawa Libre de Fluoration,
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, Ontario
K1J 8B5 — 613-747-7157
http://ffo-olf.org/ — ffo-olf@rogers.com
P.S. All 52 individuals currently on our email list will received a copy of this email.
To all persons on this email list, if you no longer wish to be included in any future emails from our group, please email Linda, CC Mark and myself. Your name will be promptly removed from our email list.

Commentary by Dr. James James Beck, 02/21/2011

Fluoride removal will NOT hurt the poor. The comments from “experts” bemoaning the coming disastrous increase in tooth decay among children of low-income families following the cessation of fluoridation are wrong.

Fluoride is not an “enamel-building mineral”. Fluoride partially substitutes for a part of the apatite, the hard substance of the enamel, to a depth of about a nanometer (one billionth of a meter), about the thickness of tooth enamel that is worn off in a day.

Stopping fluoridation is not followed by an increase in the incidence of cavities. I have at my side about forty citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles published in reputable journals that give the evidence for that statement. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

James S. Beck, M.D., PhD.
(Commentary to Calgary Herald article of 11 Feb 2011, sent to Letter's Editor)

Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, Associate Professor of Dentistry and Head of the Preventative Dentistry Program at the University of Toronto, would concur with Dr. Beck's statement.

(The document that was embeded in the email is the following: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fan-comments.html with minor modifications.)

The Time Has Come to End Fluoridation Completely

Fluoride Action Network

February 4, 2011

In January 2011, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended reducing the levels of fluoride added to drinking water based on national survey data showing that 41% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis (a visible sign of fluoride toxicity). The HHS has proposed reducing the level of fluoride added to water from 1.2 parts per million (ppm) to 0.7 ppm, and has been soliciting public comment.

While HHS's decision is a baby step in the right direction, it is NOT good enough. Even at the new recommended level, millions of infants will continue to be regularly over-exposed to fluoride, millions of American children will continue to develop dental fluorosis, and millions of Americans -- children and adults alike -- will remain at risk to the health effects caused by fluoride.

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is calling on HHS to follow the path of western Europe and end water fluoridation completely. Of particular concern is a growing body of research indicating fluoride's ability to damage the developing brain, including 24 studies associating fluoride exposure with reduced IQ in children, 6 studies linking fluoride to other neurotoxic effects in children, and over 100 animal studies reporting that fluoride directly damages the brain.

FAN's comments are reproduced in full below.

To HHS and Honorable Secretary Sebelius,

• Fluoride is not a nutrient, nor is it essential for healthy teeth. No study has ever revealed a diseased state resulting from lack of fluoride, including dental caries. (1,2) No American is, or ever was, “fluoride deficient.”

• Using the water supply to mass medicate the population is unethical. The public water supply should not be used as a drug-delivery system without regard for an individual's age, weight, health status, or knowledge of how fluoride will interact with other drugs they are taking. No informed consent is requested or given, and no medical follow-up is offered.

• Any benefits of fluoride are primarily topical, not systemic . The CDC has acknowledged this for over a decade (7). The Iowa Fluoride Study, funded by HHS, has reported little, if any, relationship between individual fluoride intake and caries experience. According to the study (the largest of its kind): “achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake , while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake." (8)

• Americans will still be over-exposed to fluoride at 0.7 ppm. According to EPA's recent documents “it is likely that most children, even those that live in fluoridated communities, can be over-exposed to fluoride at least occasionally. (9) At present, nearly 41% of American adolescents aged 12-15 have some form of dental fluorosis (10), an outwardly visible sign of fluoride toxicity. Reducing the fluoride levels to 0.7 ppm will not remedy this problem as national statistics clearly show that dental fluorosis remains significantly elevated at 0.7 ppm. (11) Drinking water is just one source of ingested fluoride; others include foods, beverages, dental products and supplements, pesticides and phar maceuticals. For communities that practice artificial water fluoridation, this is the easiest source of fluoride to remove.

• Infants will not be protected . Infants fed formula made with fluoridated tap water—at the reduced level of 0.7 ppm—will still receive up to 175 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant. In their supporting documents, EPA has not calculated the risks to the bottle-fed infant. In fact, infants from birth to six months of age were completely excluded from any consideration by EPA, despite HHS's own admission that “The period of possible risk for fluorosis in the permanent teeth…extends from about birth through 8 years of age." (12) As the most susceptible subpopulation, the potential for long-term, irreparable damage to developing infants must be seriously considered, and should extend beyond just their teeth.

• African-American children and low-income children will not be protected. HHS's reference (p. 2386) to the study by Sohn et a l. (13) failed to mention that African-American and low-income children were found to consume significantly more total fluids and plain water, and thus receive more fluoride from drinking water, than white or higher-income children. African-Americans have been shown to have an increased risk of developing dental fluorosis, and are at higher risk for suffering from the more severe forms of this condition. (14) Despite receiving high intakes of fluoride, low-income and minority children living in fluoridated communities continue to suffer from rampant and severe dental decay (15-18)—undermining the common premise that fluoridation will prevent these problems. Additionally, low-income children have a greater risk for suffering from all forms of fluoride toxicity, as poor diet exacerbates the detrimental effects of fluoride. This is clearly, therefore, an environmental justice issue.

• HHS has failed to consider fluoride's impact on the brain. Over 100 animal studies have observed fluoride-induced brain damag e (19), 24 human studies have reported lowered IQ in children exposed to various levels of fluoride (20), and at least 6 other studies have found non-IQ neurological effects such as impaired visuo-spatial organization. (21-26) One study of 500 children in China observed reduced IQ at a water fluoride level of 1.9 ppm (27, 28) and another reported a reduction in IQ at even lower (mean=1.3 ppm) water fluoride levels. (29) HHS's new recommendation of 0.7 ppm offers no adequate margin of safety to protect all of our children, including those with iodine deficiencies (30-32), from experiencing similar neurological damage.

• HHS has failed to consider fluoride as an endocrine disruptor. The 2006 NRC report (33) state s that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, and even at low levels can be detrimental to the thyroid gland. Pre- and post-natal babies, people with kidney disease, and above-average water drinkers (including diabetics and lactating women) are especially susceptible to the endocrine disrupting effects of fluoride in drinking water.

• HHS has failed to consider or investigate current rates of skeletal fluorosis in the U.S. According to EPA's supporting documen t (34), there is a general lack of information on the prevalence of stage II skeletal fluorosis in the U.S. Yet, many of the symptoms of stage II skeletal fluorosis (e.g. sporadic pain, stiffness of the joints) are identical to arthritis (35-40), which affects at least 46 million Americans. People with renal insufficiency are known to be at an elevated risk for developing skeletal fluorosis (33), as crippling stage III skeletal fluorosis with renal deficiency has been documented in the U.S. at water fluoride levels as low as 1.7 ppm. (41) Since skeletal fluorosis in kidney patients has been detected in small case studies, it is likely that systematic studies would detect skeletal fluorosis at even lower fluoride levels.

• HHS has failed to consider fluoride as a potential carcinogen . Bassin et al. (42) reported a significantly elevated risk of osteosarcoma in boys living in fluoridated communities, and thus fluoride may be a carcinogen. Chester Douglass, who has serious conflicts-of-interest concerning fluoride research, has stated that a subsequent study will refute these findings (43), bu t no publication has appeared in the five years since he made this claim. As EPA has still not completed carcinogenicity testing for fluoride, HHS should not support the addition of a potential carcinogen to our drinking water.

• HHS has failed to confirm the safety of silicofluorides . Despite being used in more than 90% of artificial water fluoridation schemes, no chronic toxicity testing of silicofluorides has ever been completed: “No short-term or subchronic exposure, chronic exposure, cytotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, teratology, carcinogenicity, or initiation/promotion s tudies were available” for the toxicological summary for silicofluorides, as prepared for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (44) However, recent epidemiological research has found an association between the use of silicofluoride-treated community water and increased blood lead concentrations in children (45) – a link that is consistent with recent laboratory findings. (46) HHS has failed to inform the American public that the fluoridating agent used in drinking water is a hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry, and can be laced with arsenic and radionuclides, (47, 48) which are known carcinogens. HHS should not support the addition of a non-tested substance to our drinking water.

Most of the arguments listed above are covered in far more detail in the recently published book "The Case Against Fluoride" by Connett, Beck and Micklem (Chelsea Green, 2010). We urge director Sebelius to appoint a group of experts from HHS, who have not been involved in promoting fluoridation, to provide a fully documented scientific response to the arguments and evidence presented in this book. Were director Sebelius to do this we strongly believe that neither she nor these experts will want to see the practice of water fluoridation continue. The practice is unnecessary, unethical and hitherto the benefits have been wildly exaggerated and the risks minimized. A scientific response to this book from a HHS team would allow the public to judge the cases both for and against fluoridation on their scientific and ethical merits.

References:

Fluoridation-Free Ottawa - Ottawa Libre de Fluoration

From: LT <email@domain.name>
To: Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca
Cc: Diane.Deans@ottawa.ca; Steve.Desroches@ottawa.ca
Sent:Mon, February 21, 2011 9:15:15 PM
Subject: Please stop the fluoridation of the water supply in Ottawa Mon,

21st of February, 2011

Dear Councillor Tierney,

As a resident of Gloucester,  I would like to register my vote strongly against fluoridation of City of Ottawa water supplies. Fluoride does not stop tooth decay at all, but actually causes teeth to rot and crimble and it is banned in at least 13 countries.

I strongly urge you, as my City Councillor, to call for a vote to request at city council that the practice of fluoridation be stopped, permanently.  The cities of Calgary today and Waterloo-ON recently have both voted down fluoridation of city water. Why is it not possible in Ottawa ?

Why do we need to ingest a neurotoxic industrial waste that causes birth defects, cancer, and osteoporosis? It is more toxic than lead, and it damages the immune, digestive, and respiratory systems, as well as the kidneys, liver, thyroid and brain.Why does the municipality purchase this product, spend a lot of our money (I am a tax payer) and then drip it into the water supply?

Because of fluoride, I have a lot of health issues: autoimune thyroid, digestive and bone problems.

Please help and support us to suspend the mandatory fluoridation of drinking water in Ottawa .

I am looking forward to your personal response to the points raised in this letter.

I would like to stress that a standard reply, quoting various official statements, will not be satisfactory.

Many thanks in advance,

Best regards,

Councillor Tim Tierney
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Tierney,

The fluoride used in our water supply does not belong there.

We are told it is there to prevent cavities, which makes it medication that is being placed in our water, uncontrolled and unregulated. Some people can afford to avoid it by buying bottled water or a Reverse Osmosis system, but the rest of the population of our country has no choice, making it mandatory medication. This is unsafe, unethical, and unacceptable.

Anyone who feels that fluoride is helpful as a protection against cavities gets it from their toothpaste. It is only useful *topically*, it has never been proven to be at all useful when taken internally.

I do not want my family, my CHILDREN, to be unwitting, unwilling guinea pigs in this experiment. More and more Canadians are speaking up on this issue, more and more of our cities are rethinking this outdated idea after looking over the information that is coming out, information that was unavailable when the practice was first implemented.

It is time for Ottawa to join the discussion that is raging around the world.

Will you please present a motion for reconsideration of fluoridation?

Sincerely,

SH
Ottawa
Name and address details withheld by request

From: TL <email@domain.name>
To: "Tierney, Tim" <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Cc: "Deans, Diane" <Diane.Deans@ottawa.ca>; "Desroches, Steve" <Steve.Desroches@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 10:59:32 PM
Subject: Please stop the water fluoridation process in Ottawa

Tues, 22nd of February, 2011

Dear Councillor Tierney,

As a resident of Gloucester, I would like to register my vote strongly against fluoridation of the City of Ottawa water supplies.

For over 50 years, it has been known for a fact that the chemical element fluorine is very toxic. Various chemical compounds of fluorine, called "fluorides" for simplicity's sake, are known to be powerful neurological toxins, and have the ability to accumulate in the brain, bones, kidneys and other internal organs of the human body.

I know that fluoride is a corrosive poison that causes serious health problems, and there is no solid scientific evidence that fluoride is a beneficial additive to our public potable water.

As a matter of fact, many countries throughout Europe have stopped adding fluoride to their public water systems, or have NEVER done it at all. It is worth noting that here, in Canada, there is a growing movement against fluoridation of the public water supplies, with successful campaigns in Calgary, Waterloo and Quebec City.

The fluoride which is added to the potable water in North America is a substance called "hydrofluorosilicic acid", and - believe it or not - it is a highly toxic chemical waste, produced by chemical companies during the process of manufacturing fertilizer. Even more, that chemical waste product is contaminated with various other toxic heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, mercury. It is incomprehensible, that such a toxic waste, which is not permitted to be released in the air or in the water, can be added to the public water supply? Such an incredible twist of reasoning is hard to explain and to rationalize.

Actually, the merits of any kind of fluoride as a "teeth protector" against cavities are debatable and questionable under rigorous scientific scrutiny; according to certain medical studies, fluoride additives can cause dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, and even cancer (such as osteosarcoma in young boys).

Since the unfluoridated provinces of British Columbia and Québec have a nearly equal rate of cavities, when compared to the most fluoridated provinces of Ontario and Alberta, and considering that more and more cities are making the wise choice of terminating this doubtful practice (most recently - Waterloo - ON, Calgary - AB, Québec City - QC, and a growing number of U.S. cities), it behooves you to help bring our City in line with the current evidence on water fluoridation.

It is worth mentioning that the City of Montreal has never used fluoridation of its water supply.

Please help us to stop water fluoridation program in Ottawa.

Fundamentally, it is an issue of choice - why am I being forced to consume fluoridated water, against my will and against my beliefs ? After all, as a taxpayer, I should have a say in how the public monies are being spent. Why should I spend extra dollars purchasing various kinds of water filtration systems, in order to avoid ingesting a powerful toxin that has questionable benefits to my health?

I look forward to your response to the points raised in this letter. Please note that a standard quote from various official statements, which are mostly favourable to water fluoridation, will not be considered satisfactory.

Many thanks in advance,

Best regards,

T L
Gloucester, ON K1J 8K4
Name and address details withheld by request

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Councillor Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Cc: Stephen Blais <Stephen.Blais@ottawa.ca>; Rainer Bloess <Rainer.Bloess@ottawa.ca>; David Chernushenko <David.Chernushenko@ottawa.ca>; Rick Chiarelli <Rick.Chiarelli@ottawa.ca>; Peter Clark <Peter.Clark@ottawa.ca>; Diane Deans <Diane.Deans@ottawa.ca>; Steve Desroches <Steve.Desroches@ottawa.ca>; Keith Egli <Keith.Egli@ottawa.ca>; Eli El-Chantiry <Eli.El-Chantiry@ottawa.ca>; Mathieu Fleury <Mathieu.Fleury@ottawa.ca>; Jan Harder <Jan.Harder@ottawa.ca>; Katherine Hobbs <Katherine.Hobbs@ottawa.ca>; Diane Holmes <Diane.Holmes@ottawa.ca>; Allan Hubley <Allan.Hubley@ottawa.ca>; Peter Hume <Peter.Hume@ottawa.ca>; Maria McRae <Maria.Mcrae@ottawa.ca>; Scott Moffatt <Scott.Moffatt@ottawa.ca>; Bob Monette <Bob.Monette@ottawa.ca>; Shad Qadri <Shad.Qadri@ottawa.ca>; Mark Taylor <Mark.Taylor@ottawa.ca>; Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>; Doug Thompson <Doug.Thompson@ottawa.ca>; Marianne Wilkinson <Marianne.Wilkinson@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Thu, February 24, 2011 6:33:26 PM
Subject: Do you know about the Nuremberg Code on Human Medical Experimentation?

Councillor Tim Tierney
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Tierney

Ottawa needs to eliminate hydrofuorosilicic acid (used in water fluoridation) from our tap water. Why? It's a toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry banned by the EPA. So why are we drinking it?

There is absolutely no credible evidence that fluoridation reduces cavities, so why are we swallowing water with this substance in it?

Claims of hundreds of reports in support of benefits from water fluoridation are unfounded and misleading no matter by whom they are spoken or written. If you were to ask for the documentation proving their claims, it would never come because it does not exist.

Reviews claiming no adverse effects from fluoridation were done only by those supporting this practice and are therefore biased. If you don't look for adverse effects you won't find them.

Adding this acid to the water to reduce cavities defines it as a drug (medication). Yet, the acid is an uncontrolled, unregulated substance and therefore not legal to use as such in Canada . It also means that it qualifies as human medical experimentation. That's against the Nuremberg Code on human medical experimentation.

Its use is an infringement of individual rights to informed consent to a drug for which the side effects are unknown. It's against medical ethics and pharmacological practice to mass medicate people unless there is an imminent epidemic.

You can drink as much water as you want. Many people, such as athletes, laborers, some diabetics, and many others will drink 4 to 5 times the daily recommended amount of water and will thus consume far in excess of the maximum recommended level of the fluoride substance every day. Have you ever heard or known of a doctor tell a patient that he could take as much of a drug as he wanted for the rest of his life? Here's the clincher. It doesn't even work as purported. In fact, current scientific research proves that it actually does the opposite. Dentists in Toronto as in most of the U.S. have a booming business repairing dental fluorosis.

And finally, fluoridation is a major contributor to dental fluorosis, which has now been reported to be over 40% among children in the U.S . Dental fluorosis, even in its mildest form, is an indication of systemic poisoning by fluoride substances.

Will you please present a motion to Council for reconsideration of fluoridation? Your silence has been deafening so far. Please let me know when you intend to present such a motion so I can cheer for you when you do.

From: A.D. <email@domain.name>
To: "Clark, Peter" <PeterD.Clark@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Thu, February 24, 2011 2:27:13 PM
Subject: A matter of deep concern

Dear Councillor Clark,

I am writing to you as a member of your constituency and an outraged citizen about the fluoridation of the City of Ottawa 's water supply. My name is A.D., I am a science graduate in biochemistry from the University of Ottawa, and a member of the Canadian Forces. With regard to the fluoridation of Ottawa's water supply there are several serious concerns, four of which I will address here.

1. There is a mountain of rapidly growing scientific evidence demonstrating that fluoride consumption even in small concentrations can be seriously harmful. Specifically fluoridation of water results in a higher risk of osteo-sarcoma (bone cancer) in boys, lowered IQ in children, skeletal fluorosis and thyroid problems, among other things. There is a growing body of thousands of medical and dental professionals around the world opposing it.


2. Fluoridation of water supplies is a completely medically unethical practice that amounts to forced medication. There is no economically feasible way for an individual citizen to remove it from the water, and sensitive portions of the population are left exposed. Even the slightest indication of harmful side affects from water fluoridation on any segment of the population makes the practice unethical. Almost all European countries do not fluoridate their water for this reason alone.


3. Dose versus concentration. As there is no way to regulate or know how much water each person consumes, therefore there is no way to regulate the amount of fluoride consumed by each person. An athlete or person who consumes more water than average is being exposed to much higher doses of fluoride and as such is at greater risk.


4. The benefits of fluoride derive from topical application. That is the improvements to tooth enamel are gained by applying fluoride directly to the teeth and not ingesting it into the body; hence there is no logic to having it in drinking water. If the City of Ottawa is concerned with the oral health of the citizens of Ottawa , let it subsidize toothpaste rather than spend more than 300 000 dollars a year that it costs to dump poisonous fluoride into Ottawa's drinking water. Swallowing fluoride to prevent tooth decay is tantamount to swallowing sunscreen to prevent sun burn.

It's my hope that this information draws into question the safety, legitimacy and ethics of fluoridating Ottawa's water, any of which in itself is sufficient reason to stop the practice.

I thank you for your attention to this matter, and trust that you will further examine the dangers and details of water fluoridation and take action. Providing me a formulated response citing the recommendations of Health Canada or the Canadian Dental Association would be most disingenuous. History provides no shortage of examples of where misinformed medical professionals have endorsed harmful activities. We need not look further than the now famous ‘'More doctors smoke Camels'' ad campaign for Camel tobacco company in the 1950's.

There is a growing international concern regarding this issue, and cities around the world and in Canada such as Kingston, Waterloo, and Gatineau have voted to have fluoride removed from their water supply. It is my belief that this matter is serious enough to become an election issue in the near future. As I continue my work in this area and to spread the message at all levels, I assure you this issue will only grow in importance.

I urge you to please take action on behalf of your constituents and the people of Ottawa to have this practiced stopped.

Thank you kindly,

A.D.
Ottawa, ON
K1K #A#
Name and address details withheld by request

For more information, you may refer below to just a few of the many, thoroughly researched publications available regarding this matter:

Also, please visit:

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: "Tierney, Tim" <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Mon, February 28, 2011 1:12:37 PM
Subject: A dental problem that needs a solution

February 28, 2011

Councillor Tim Tierney
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Tierney

Dental Fluorosis is becoming a growing concern all over this City.

This unfortunate development over the past 30 years is now endemic in all fluoridating cities, but almost non-existent in non-fluoridating cities.

Pitted, cracked, spotted and stained teeth, formerly called "mottled teeth" have been proven beyond any doubt to be caused by fluoride substances ubiquitously present.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS , PhD, Associate Professor of Dentistry and Head of the Preventative Dentistry Program at the University of Toronto, has calculated that costs of repairing fluorosis of teeth can range as high as $20,000 per person depending on the severity of the condition.

Is the City of Ottawa prepared to pay the cost for having contributed to this massive teeth problem by fluoridating its water?

Think about it. Now that you are the representative of your community at City Hall, you have a duty to protect those who are impacted by the City's decisions, whether or not you are the one who made or were part of the decision making process in the past.

If you do nothing to alleviate the problem, and it is a problem, you are liable for the problem.

When the lawsuits for dental fluorosis caused by fluoridation come to life, and believe me, at least one is sure to be set in motion, you will be financially liable because insurance companies are distancing themselves from paying for damages caused by drinking water fluoridation.

Isn't it time that you distance yourself from such a lawsuit by declaring yourself against water fluoridation? At the very least, you could present a motion for a moratorium on water fluoridation until verifiable, valid data are obtained and examined as to the possibility of harm from drinking water fluoridation.

You can not continue to blindly accept the blandishments of purported authorities on the subject of water fluoridation. It has been proven time and again that they know next to nothing about the health issues surrounding water fluoridation. They rely on statements and endorsements that have no substance and very little veracity.

Should you not apply your business sense to this easy decision? Seek legal advice on the wording if you must, but please get the documentation. We have plenty of that available to you if you wish to avail yourself of it. I am quite certain that I can obtain all the relevant documentation and other data to support each claim in your motion.

Sample motion:

Whereas the city of Ottawa's drinking water supply is fluoridated,
Whereas water fluoridation has been irrefutably shown to directly and indirectly contribute to dental fluorosis,
Whereas the substance used for drinking water fluoridation is, by definition, effectively a drug that is unapproved, uncontrolled and untested,

Canada Food and Drug Act, Section 1(1)

Whereas as a representative of my constituents, I have a responsibility for the well being of those constituents, and
Whereas water fluoridation has now been conclusively shown to cause, or contribute to, a number of possible illnesses in numerous individuals, especially to those with chemical sensitivities,

I move that the City of Ottawa declare and execute a moratorium on the purported health measure known as water fluoridation until indisputable evidence is obtained that there is no possibility of harm to the City's residents from this measure.

I am not sure of the protocol for presenting a motion to Council. You may have to give notice of motion before actually presenting it. But before you do so, I'm sure you realize that you need a seconder for any motion. Do not hesitate to personally approach others on Council to get on side and at the very least, put the motion to Council as soon as possible. Of course, a bit of personal lobbying among other Councillors would be advisable beforehand to drum up as much support as possible for the motion.

The least that presenting such or a similar motion will do for you is that it will release you from the possibility of future legal and financial entanglements.

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 2:32:01 PM
Subject: Important Ethical Considerations

Councillor Tim Tierney
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1


Dear Councillor Tierney

Important ethical considerations:

1. A group of citizens (voters or Council) are not a qualified medical practitioner, and may not act as one, because they do not have a licence to practice medicine and thus can not prescribe any drug or medicine to anyone, especially a whole population,

2. A group of citizens should not be able to do what a qualified medical practitioners can not do, that is, force medicate a patient, not to mention a whole population

3. No qualified medical practitioners can ever prescribe a drug or medicine to anyone or a whole population instructing them that they can not take such as much as they want for the rest of their life, yet ADWF does just that

4. It is against all pharmacological practice to prescribe a drug or medicine to anyone much less a whole population without controlling the dosage. A child should never be given the same amount of a drug or medicine as an adult. Neither should people who are ill. The fixed concentration argument hides the fact that one can easily overdose depending on ingestion: children in sports events, athletes, labourers, lactating mothers, some diabetics, military personnel in the field, patients on dialysis, police, firefighters and others can easily consume more than 6 liters per day of water. At a concentration of 0.7 ppm (parts per million, that's 4.2 mg, an overdose! Babies can overdose on much less because of their size.

5. By definition, whenever a substance is added to water to heal or affect an illness or disease, it is a drug or medicine. Fluoride is claimed to reduce cavities. On both these counts, it is therefore a drug or medicine, contrary to what some authorities have asserted. It is therefore unlawful to add it to drinking water because it is untested, uncontrolled, unregulated under the Canada Food and Drug Act...

6. No drug or medicine is ever dispensed without proper supervision and follow-up for side effects, short term or long term. Why is hydrofluorosilicic acid an exception?

7. People who are predisposed to reactions to a drug or medicine should not be swallowing this dangerous drug. Most don't know it may be affecting their health by aggravating their illness.

8. Some authorities claim it is a nutrient. That notion is not only outdated, but, by definition, a false claim. A nutrient is any substance when not present in the body, will produce an illness or diseased condition. Absence of fluoride has never been shown to cause illness by its absence in the body. To the contrary, it has been clearly shown to cause dental fluorosis, which is a compelling indication of fluoride overdose.

Are these not a concern to you? When will you do something to counteract these concerns?

We are ready to assist you with all fact finding to support any action you are considering to bring an end to Artificial Drinking Water Fluoridation using this unregulated, untested, uncontrolled and unpurified toxic waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. See the list of toxins included with this acid on this copy of the specifications for the acid here: http://ffo-olf.org/hydrofluorosilicicAcidSpecifications.html.

The important thing is to NOT stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing . – Albert Einstein

Thank you for everything you are doing or will be doing to end this dangerous and foolish practice.

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Cc: Stephen Blais <Stephen.Blais@ottawa.ca>; Rainer Bloess <Rainer.Bloess@ottawa.ca>; David Chernushenko <David.Chernushenko@ottawa.ca>; Rick Chiarelli <Rick.Chiarelli@ottawa.ca>; Peter Clark <Peter.Clark@ottawa.ca>; Diane Deans <Diane.Deans@ottawa.ca>; Steve Desroches <Steve.Desroches@ottawa.ca>; Keith Egli <Keith.Egli@ottawa.ca>; Eli El-Chantiry <Eli.El-Chantiry@ottawa.ca>; Mathieu Fleury <Mathieu.Fleury@ottawa.ca>; Jan Harder <Jan.Harder@ottawa.ca>; Katherine Hobbs <Katherine.Hobbs@ottawa.ca>; Diane Holmes <Diane.Holmes@ottawa.ca>; Allan Hubley <Allan.Hubley@ottawa.ca>; Peter Hume <Peter.Hume@ottawa.ca>; Maria McRae <Maria.Mcrae@ottawa.ca>; Scott Moffatt <Scott.Moffatt@ottawa.ca>; Bob Monette <Bob.Monette@ottawa.ca>; Shad Qadri <Shad.Qadri@ottawa.ca>; Mark Taylor <Mark.Taylor@ottawa.ca>; Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>; Doug Thompson <Doug.Thompson@ottawa.ca>; Marianne Wilkinson <Marianne.Wilkinson@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 12:49:21 PM
Subject: A small group of people can change the world

10 March, 2011

Councillor Tim Tierney
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Tierney

Proclamations, pronouncements, statements, declarations and endorsements in support of Artificial Drinking Water Fluoridation are not science. That's what's used to sell fluoridation along with faulty and fraudulent data from over 60 years ago. These are given by individuals in charge of government or prestigious organizations with very little or no knowledge of the science behind the effects on the human anatomy of substances that contain elemental fluorine in them.

The evidence of harm is immense, as attested to by the 2006 National Research Council (U.S.) report. This report identifies fluoride as an “endocrine disruptor”, and its overdose effects on teeth are described as “adverse.” The conclusion is that current limits in drinking water don't protect health.

Harm to the thyroid and a baby's brain begins at the intake level of 0.01 mg/kg/day with associated iodine deficiency. Yet the safe fluoride intake that Health Canada recommends as fine for all infants (whose formula is likely mixed with fluoridated tap water) is much higher by at least a factor 10 times higher!

Health Canada offers no credible scientific evidence to support their recommendation.

The evidence of benefit is non-existent. Do your own research and you'll discover the real truth about the lies and deceit that went into selling fluoridation to North America.

Do you know what is used as a fluoridating agent and where it comes from. You'll be as surprised as I was and will probably change your mind about the fraudulent claim that it works as intended.

Contrary to what has been proclaimed in the U.S., fluoridation is the absolute top worst public-health achievement of the 20th century. There, I've said it. Why, Because of all of the risks that people are exposed to by uncontrolled ingestion of fluoride substances from multiple sources other than of just water because so-called fluoridated water is used in almost everything we eat and drink.

It's time for a change. It's time to refute the fraudulent claim that it helps reduce tooth decay, never mind eliminate it. Have you checked your children's teeth recently? Have you seen the tell tale white or brown spots of dental fluorosis? Don't let your dentist tell you it's a harmless cosmetic effect. It's not. It's a sign of fluoride poisoning. The more spots and the more the discoloration, the worse the poisoning. These are not scare tactics. This is reality.

What about other health effects?

Please be part of this change. This City's residents urgently need your intervention in this very sad state of affairs.

Thank you for everything you are doing or will be doing to end this dangerous and foolish practice.

Let's get fluoride out of our drinking water.

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>•
To: "Councillor Tierney, Tim" <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 2:25:36 PM
Subject: A problem of credibility

March 14, 2011

Councillor Tim Tierney
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Tierney

There is no credible evidence that swallowing hydrofuorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation reduces cavities that justifies adding it to drinking water.

1. "Fluoride is most effective when used topically, after the teeth have erupted."
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.

2. “the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic.” 
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press.

These are just 2 of 25 excerpts from the Scientific Literature available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html.

So, to swallow any fluoride substances to reduce cavities is like swallowing sun tan lotion to reduce sunburn.

Why then are we still swallowing water with this acid in it?

Are you preparing to present a motion to Council to obtain a moratorium on water fluoridation using this acid?

By the way, the misspelled name of the acid on the City's web site page has finally been corrected (Ottawa's fluoridation propaganda page). The effects of fluoride on reducing cavities has been determined to be topical since the year 2000, that is, it has to be applied to the surface of the teeth, not swallowed to be effective.

Thank you for everything you are doing or will be doing to end this dangerous and foolish practice.

Let's get fluoride out of our drinking water.

Dear Councillor Hubley,

What you have sent me below, appears to be an excerpt of the City of Ottawa, Dental Officer of Health's canned response to fluoridation, which I have already received and which appears not to be Councillor Hubley's own words.

Does the City of Ottawa Dental Officer of Health usually speak and also vote for Mr. Hubley on council?

I would please like to hear Councillor Hubley's position on fluoridation in his own words, i.e, is he for fluoridation, or against it?

As the councillor who was elected to  represent my area at city hall on civic policy issues, I expect an answer to that question.

I reiterate my original question in my first email, will Councillor Hubley please respond to me on whether he will request a City of Ottawa Council vote to stop fluoridation, or not, Yes, or No?

EXCERPT OF EMAIL SENT TO DENTAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, FEB 4, 2011

I would like to bring to your attention the following YouTube video on the effects of fluoride on infants, who apparently should have no dosage at all of fluoride, according to the experts giving the presentation.  This means, according to the presentation attached, that a parent making baby formula for their infant is overdosing their infant by using city water in the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.  This meeting took place  at Los Angeles City Council, I believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l84eU7oQatIm

This presentation makes the point that parents of infants should be warned by the city government to not use fluoridated water in infant formula, since the dosage by weight for an infant would exceed the zero dose recommended of fluoride for an infant.

My question is, does the city warn parents and prospective parents against the use of city water in formulas?  If not would the city not be liable for any ill effects?  The US federal government also just recommended a drop in the level of fluoride for children.

If zero fluoride is appropriate for infants then for the city to do its due dilligence, I believe such a warning would appear to be in order.

H. McBride

END OF EXCERPT

What is the City of Ottawa doing to verify the above information on zero dose of fluoride for infants and carry out this fluoride warning procedure to parents of infants, if indeed this information is correct?

I and others are vigorously working to make this a council / election / referendum issue, so we want to know if Councillor Hubley and other city councillors support fluoridation or not, so we in Kanata and others in the wider City of Ottawa, can vote appropriately, or select / elect (a) candidate(s) who support(s) ending the practice of fluoridation in city water supplies.

Remember, two cities in Canada, Calgary and Waterloo have just recently voted to stop fluoridation.

In response to the canned answer below, why should I as a taxpayer have to fund, with my taxes, the deliberate addition of a toxic chemical which makes me ill, to my water supply, then also have to remove it by buying filtration systems at my own expense.  Doesn't that sound like an absurd situation to any logical person?

On 9-Feb-11, at 9:12 AM, Hubley, Allan wrote:

Thank you for your inquiry and request for information on the City's awareness of, and position on, research conducted about water fluoridation.

Fluoride and the possible effects of adjusting its level in drinking water is one of the most intensely researched areas of public health with several hundred recent publications. A number of recent, major reviews have been commissioned by governments around the world to examine the potential for adverse health effects related to fluoride (Australia, United Kingdom, United States, and Canada). As part of our ongoing review, the Ottawa Public Health Department has reviewed these major studies. All concluded that water fluoridation is a safe and effective method of reducing decay at all stages of life.

Despite claims to the contrary, they all confirmed that there is no credible scientific evidence to suggest adverse health effects related to water fluoridation. Water fluoridation is endorsed by all reputable health organizations including the World Health Organization and Canada's national agency, Health Canada. In 2007, Health Canada released the Findings and Recommendations of the Fluoride Expert Panel, which are accessible at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/2008-fluoride-fluorure/index-eng.php . Further, specifically related to Ontario, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) approved a policy that supports the addition of fluoride to drinking water following extensive research on the issue. “Ontario's doctors want their patients to know that the process of adding fluoride to our drinking water in Ontario has been and is safe” said Dr. MacLeod, President of the OMA. In spite of the overwhelming evidence, a great deal of anecdotal information continues to circulate. Detailed review of this information has shown that it is not based on scientific or thorough research and only selectively or partially examines the issue.

The City of Ottawa follows the Health Canada recommendations to establish a level of 0.7 mg/L as the optimal target concentration for fluoride in drinking water, which would prevent excessive intake of fluoride through multiple sources of exposure. Many natural water sources in the Ottawa area and some bottled waters, contain higher levels of fluoride than Ottawa's drinking water. Fluoride exposure from drinking water generally represents 50% or less of the total daily exposure. Individuals who wish to limit their exposure to fluoride have opportunities to do so. In addition to avoiding tea that is high in natural fluoride, reverse osmosis filtration systems that further remove minerals, etc. from drinking water are readily available in the market place.

Best regards,

March 21, 2011

Councillor Tim Tierney
City Hall
110 Laurier Avenue W
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Tierney,

Fluorine is an elemental substance known to be a deadly poison. It is the most chemically reactive naturally occurring element on earth. Combined with any other substance, the new substance is called a fluoride, and when diluted in water, it's deadly to organic life and is a pollutant.

The fluoride used in fluoridation in our City is an uncontrolled, unregulated substance, not a nutrient, not used to treat water but presumed to treat our teeth to prevent cavities. That makes it a drug and it's illegal to be used as such in Canada. And SURPRISE! It doesn't work! But it's mass medication, against pharmacological and medical ethics. It's a waste of money. Less than 1% ends up in in the teeth of children, the intended target, and in your bones . The rest ends up in the environment where it has been banned as a pollutant by the EPA.

Fluoride removal will NOT hurt the poor. The comments from “experts” bemoaning the coming disastrous increase in tooth decay among children of low-income families following the cessation of fluoridation are wrong.

Fluoride is not an “enamel-building mineral.” Fluoride partially substitutes for a part of the apatite, the hard substance of the enamel, to a depth of about a nanometer (one billionth of a meter), about the thickness of tooth enamel that is worn off in a day.

Stopping fluoridation is not followed by an increase in the incidence of cavities. I have at my side about forty citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles published in reputable journals that give the evidence for that statement. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

Will you please commit yourself to bringing an end to injection of hydrofluorosilicic acid used for the fluoridation of our municipal water supply, by putting forward a motion for either a moratorium on this wasteful and unlawful practice until hard, verifiable and valid data are available about its benefits, or voting it out of existence because such valid data is non-existent?

Councillor Marianne Wilkinson
City Hall
110 Laurier Avenue W
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1J1

I would like to draw your attention to the controversial practice of fluoridating our municipal water.

Since the implementation of fluoridation in Ottawa in November 1965, a growing body of scientific literature is now able to show that fluoridation causes untold human suffering and disease including dental fluorosis, brain damage, increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, arthritic like conditions, osteosarcoma, etc.

If you are new to this debate on fluoride, you might find some of the information shocking.

The fluoride injected into the public water supplies in Canada, as well as in the U.S. is not any pharmaceutical or medical grade of fluoride at all. It is hydrofluorosilicic acid and very different from sodium fluoride that is added to dental products. Sodium fluoride has been shown to work against dental decay through direct application. But fluoride in any form, whether sodium fluoride or hydrofluorosilicic acid, is completely ineffective when ingested, it does not reach the teeth in any significant amount where it is supposed to protect against decay.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid which is used to fluoridate the municipal water supplies is an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, USA) regulated toxic waste product which upon consumption only leaves toxic biological effects.

Fluoridation of drinking water is a forced medication, an unethical practice to which people all over the North American continent are waking up. The whole Province of British Columbia is nearly fluoridation free. Calgary has at the beginning of this year voted against fluoridation with many other municipalities to follow. Montreal has never started this practice and as data show, dental decay is not more prevalent than among fluoridated communities.

On behalf of many concerned citizens, I am asking you to open the debate on this issue. Would you please bring an end to injection of hydrofluorosilicic acid into our water supply?

Yours sincerely,

K.K.
Ottawa, ON, K2K
Name and address details withheld by request
P.S. Please be advised that a large number of persons will be viewing the content of our correspondence.

Every statement made in this letter can be corroborated by currently available data from scientific research or from other reliable sources.

Dear Councillor Rick Chiarelli

I was disappointed to learn that you would be too busy to see me on the subject of fluoridation. It was not made clear to me whether this was forever or only for the immediate period. I would still like to meet with you on this subject sometime in the not too distant future.

As an alternative, I am sending you some information on the subject that I would have provided to you in person – had I the opportunity.

What you may not be aware of is that a group has been formed in Ottawa (“Fluoridation-Free Ottawa”) and is starting to grow. Our intention is obvious. Stop fluoridation in Ottawa. We are in it for the long haul, not just for us, but for all Ottawa residents, especially the children.

It is my hope that you would be willing to join us. You could bring the same energy to this “fight” that you brought to the funding fight while at St Pius. (As it happens, I am familiar with that as both my daughters attended Pius in that same period).

The decision required is a political decision and not a plebiscite. That is made somewhat clear from the two letters that I have attached. The council needs to arrive freely at a decision after having considered the basics of the situation. It is incumbent on us to provide as much of that information as we can. I believe that this should not take too long as I am firmly convinced that the current facts are quite clear.

For your interest, I have included two letters, written by two people involved in the successful cessation of fluoridation in Calgary, which just occurred. These letters were written to support the efforts of others in their own fight against fluoridation – Dr Robert Dickson to the council of Lethbridge, and Jon Lord to the council of Red Deer. The latter letter points out why he believes that the use of “expert panel reviews” is not a good idea.

I would like to meet you sometime to discuss this important topic. I would be glad to hear from you to set up an appointment, as councilor and constituent.

Thank you

Dear Councillor Rick Chiarelli

I had previously sent you an Email on the subject of fluoridation (26 March).  Since I have received neither a reply nor an acknowledgement of receipt, I must assume that you did not actually receive it. I am therefore sending it (see below) again, along with the original attachments.  I urge you to review the attachments as they are an explicit part of the presentation.

I am still interested in meeting with you to exchange views on fluoridation, and would like to set a date for such a meeting.  Would you please let me know when we could meet.

Should I not hear from you in a reasonable time, I will be glad to present a copy of this material to your constituency office, by hand.

March 28, 2011

Councillor Mathieu Fleury
City Hall
110 Laurier Ave. W.
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Fleury,

I do not normally get involved in politics, but I make an exception in the case of water fluoridation as I feel it is my moral and civic duty to inform you, the mayor and other Councillors as well as the public about the inherent dangers of fluoridation based on my preliminary research. Did you know that hydrofluorosilicic acid is the chemical used by Ottawa to fluoridate our drinking water. Did you know that this chemical is a highly hazardous, toxic waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry and may also contain additional noxious substances such as heavy metals (lead, arsenic, etc). At the very least, we should be using a pharmaceutical grade chemical in our water supply if we are to ingest it internally.

The practice of water fluoridation to prevent cavities, especially in children, appears to be extremely ineffective and probably outright dangerous according to more recent scientific studies. Even the American Dental Association (ADA) advises that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water. It is now known that the benefits of fluoride appear to be topical rather than systemic. In other words, direct contact with a fluoride agent, such as fluoridated toothpaste, is necessary. Previously it was thought that the fluoride benefit was due to internal uptake of the fluoride ion. If one still truly believes that fluoride can prevent cavities, it is better to go to a dentist where the concentration and purity of the fluoride agent, such as sodium fluoride, are known.

Many individuals are extremely sensitive to fluoride, especially in the form hydrofluorosilicic acid in drinking water. It has been demonstrated to lower IQ in children, to reduce men's fertility, to cause arthritic pain, to reduce thyroid function, etc.. It has also been shown to lead to dental fluorosis in up to 40% of young people aged 12 to 15 years old.

People, like myself, are starting to become more aware of the dangers of water fluoridation; there are many good books and web sites including our own, http://www.ffo-olf.org/ffo-olf.html to educate oneself. It was unfortunate that neither you, the mayor, nor any other Councillors attended this very informative meeting held on January 27 with Gilles Parent, co-author of 'Fluoridation Autopsy Of A Scientific Error' and Dr. Paul Connett, author of 'The Case Against Fluoride'.

Many communities across North America are taking steps to eliminate fluoridation from their water--Waterloo, ON has already done this. Calgary, AB and Moncton, NB are going through the process to get rid of fluoridation. Isn't it time for Ottawa to join the 21st century by eliminating this out-dated process of water fluoridation? I urge you to do your own research for the sake of the health for the people of Ottawa.

Every statement made in this letter can be corroborated by currently available data from scientific research or from other reliable sources.

Please do not forward a response with the standard statement from either the Dental or the Medical Officer of Health in response to this letter. I am all too familiar with these statements that are full of misrepresentations of facts and misleading, unproven statements, not the least of which is the false claim that the WHO endorses water fluoridation.

Will you please commit to bringing an end to injection of hydrofluorosilicic acid used for the fluoridation of our municipal water supply, by putting forward a motion for either a moratorium on this wasteful and unlawful practice until hard, verifiable and valid data are available about its benefits, or voting it out of existence because such valid data is non-existent?

Sincerely,

T.S.
Ottawa, ON K1N
Name and address details withheld by request
P.S. Be advised that a large number of persons will be viewing the content of my letter and will be waiting to see if and how you respond to its content and the request for action.

to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa