Letter to the editor
Purely from a consumer's standpoint, artificial water fluoridation's flaws become very quickly apparent. Essentially, people are being administered a medication in a one-size-fits-all prescription, regardless of health history, that has no end date, without oversight from a doctor. Artificial water fluoridation is akin to paying for a medical service that was never solicited nor approved for safe consumption. This is certainly a misguided program.
Two very important points to consider are these.
1. Less than 1% of the fluoride added to our water supply gets to the teeth. The rest, 99%, goes down the drains in our bathtubs, dishwashers, sinks, toilets, car washes, grass, gardens, etc… into the environment where it was originally banned from being dumped. At a cost of over $400,000 per year (confirmed estimated figures) minimum, this is a monumental amount of wasted tax dollars for a very low effectiveness for any cash strapped city of our size.
2. The cost of fluoridation is not justifiable when good oral care is the real solution to reducing tooth decay and those $400,000 could be used more effectively in targeting those with the greatest need. Maybe that money could go to repairing the teeth of children afflicted by dental fluorosis because of fluoridation? Or maybe Councillors would like to pay for those repairs out of their pockets?
However, tooth decay is not an especially serious health problem that justifies such a large outlay of scarce tax dollars but dental fluorosis is!
Does anybody know what type of fluoride substance is used for artificial water fluoridation? It's a waste product from the fertilizer industry called hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6). I know, I checked with the City of Ottawa web site and the water works department. My suspicion was confirmed. This acid is not a pure acid, and is extremely toxic. It also contains other toxic substances such as arsenic, lead, mercury and others because of the nature of its source.
Did you know that arsenic, fluoride and lead are almost equally toxic, yet fluoride ia allowed as a contaminant in parts per million and the others in parts per billion! Does that make any sense?
The fluoride acid may seem to be in a very small concentration, but it is nonetheless there. A large quantity of this acid and these substances is like standing beside a truckload of dynamite about to explode, but a small quantity is like standing beside one stick of dynamite about to explode. Would you stand beside either one of these?
Supporters of artificial water fluoridation will argue that the cost per person is minimal, approximately $0.56 per person per year. However, does anybody want to be poisoned even for pennies a year?
The equipment purchase, and subsequent replacement, is not cheap. Since the fluoride substance has corrosive properties, it has to be transported with applicable hazardous materials containment and pipes must be continually monitored for leaks - not to mention the safety of employees handling the chemical.
I can appreciate fluoridation's original intention: it was meant as a low-cost health initiative to end tooth decay with widespread distribution. The problem lies with fluoride's track record in achieving this goal. Does artificial water fluoridation work as advertised? The data suggests no clear relationship between artificial fluoride levels and an improved tooth decay rate.
Areas not served by artificial water fluoridation enjoy similar, and in some cases better, cavity rates than areas without. Statistics Canada recently published a cavity rate comparison chart that shows no difference in cavity rates for all age groups between the very low fluoridated province of Quebec and highly fluoridated Ontario . The biggest contributor of dental health was and always will be access to professional dental care, not artificial water fluoridation. The European experience with artificial water fluoridation shows that their cavity rates have declined dramatically over the last few decades and they have extremely low fluoridation levels, whether artificial or natural. Dental cavity rates have been declining world wide in industrialized countries, whether there is artificial water fluoridation or is not.
The distribution of the fluoride substance at 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million is widespread in North America. This concentration means that when you drink an 8 ounce glass of water, you are ingesting ¼ milligram of this toxic waste substance and its other toxins with every glass of water you drink. The substance is delivered to each customer regardless of consent. In homes with newborn babies, artificially fluoridated tap water will likely be used to mix infant formula, juices and any reconstituted baby foods, despite repeated recommendations by the American Dental Association and the American Pediatric Association against doing so. It will also serve homes of people living with thyroid, diabetes, arthritis and kidney complications where fluoride poses a serious health threat to these individuals.
The City of Waterloo has ended Artificial Drinking Water Fluoridation (ADWF) as of Monday, November 30, 2010 in spite of insurmountable odds against its termination. The City of Calgary followed on February 8, 2011, the day after Verchères, and now many othert cities are following their direction across the land. Québec City ended its ADWF in 2008 and the City of Gatineau refused to allow the practice also against the recommendations of laughably ineffective opposition.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, Associate Professor of Dentistry and Head of the Preventative Dentistry Program at the University of Toronto, has said the following about ADWF: “In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation.”
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist with the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston in a video interview in 2010 categorically affirms that “Fluoride is a neurotoxin” and she has done the documented scientific research that proves it. In the same video interview she also clearly states: “If I was an arthritic care individual, I would be eliminating every possible source of fluoride exposure that I could think of.” The interview can be seen here:
Dr. Mark Diesendorf, PhD, Director, Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd, Australia , has often stated that there is “evidence that fluoridation is harmful to human health and that its benefits have been exaggerated.”
There are thousands of imminent professionals who have now spoken against the harm that comes from the ingestion of fluoride substances. For a sample of their statements, see http://ffo-olf.org/signerQuotes.html and the names of over 3,900 professionals who have signed a statement against ADWF at http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals.statement.html
There is a tremendous amount of clear evidence that mitigates against ADWF, but that evidence is so voluminous that it would take more than a few 1,000 page books to give it all, whereas the evidence supporting it is at best weak and very scant, contrary to the claims of fluoridation promoters. Just ask them for their evidence and watch what happens. Promoters of ADWF warn of dire consequences for tooth decay resulting from termination of ADWF that are unfounded and have yet to materialize, while parroting the tired old canard that it is “safe and effective” to practice ADWF. The very contrary is self evident when all the currently known facts and evidence on the matter are weighed in.
One should resist the urge to bend to so-called authorities who while accusing their opponents of ignorance of the facts and the science themselves know very little about these same facts and science. One should ask them for valid, objective evidence of their claims.
The clearest evidence for the cessation of fluoridation can be seen from the following recent revelations:
There now are also numerous web sites that show the fallacies of artificial water fluoridation. Three of these are http://ffo-olf.org/ (Fluoridation-Free Ottawa), http://www.fluoridealert.org/ (Fluoride Action Network), and the Second Look web site: http://slweb.org/.
1. the 100% fluoridated State of Kentucky has one of the highest rates of tooth decay in the U.S.,
2. the fluoridated Newburgh City of the 1945 two city fluoride trials has significantly more tooth decay than its Kingston, non-fluoridated control City,
3. there are practically no diefferences between the cavity rates of the more than 98% non fluoridated Europe and fluoridated countries, (http://ffo-olf.org/usefulCharts.html
3. the City of Kamloops, BC, which stopped fluoridation on October 13, 2001, was warned that tooth decay rates would rise once fluoridation stopped, yet this has not materialize: in fact, tooth decay rates have continued to plummet,
4. most cities across North America that have been fluoridated for more than 20 years show a marked lesser decline in tooth decay rates than in cities whare there has never been any fluoridation, and,
5. most cities across North America that have ended fluoridation have had significantly more decline in tooth decay rates over the past 10 years than fluoridated cities, provided that proper nutrition has been maintained.
It is clear to me that Ottawa is better served without the use of community fluoridation.
(put in your own name and address)
I wish to express my gratitude to Clare Gallant for the original draft of a fluoridation article which has inspired this letter to the editor updated to 2012.02.05.
1385 Matheson Rd
K1J 8B5 - 613-747-7157
From: London Community News.com
Thursday, July, 28, 2011 - 9:09:01 AM
Remove flouride from city's drinking water (Letter)
I want to share my beliefs on the truth about fluoride. Fluoridation began as a fraud by big corporations, bad scientists and powerful politicians. Watch the 28-minute video by Christopher Bryson, an investigative reporter who took 10 years to research and write the book, The Fluoride Deception, which is available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl99zO2Zw4k
Does Health Canada care about the health of Canadians? Listen to Dr. Gilles Parent, ND and Dr. Paul Connett, Ph.D, discuss the recent Health Canada report on fluoride in drinking water on the University of Western Ontario radio program, Body, Mind and Spirit, available at http://tinyurl.com/3ks765k
People do not realize that a toxic waste product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is put into our drinking water. No toxicology studies have been done on this product to show its safety for human consumption. This is an industrial grade product coming from the scrubber stacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry, which is no longer allowed to go into the air or into Tampa Bay due to its environmental toxicity.
HFSA can't be legally released in the air or water yet it is put in our drinking water! This chemical is not natural like the calcium fluoride found naturally in some water sources.
Fluoridation needs to end as some studies have shown it causes cancer, hypothyroidism, arthritis and brittle bones and lowers IQ in children to name just some of what science has found and Health Canada pays no attention to.
The precautionary principle must apply here: if in doubt, get it out. I understand our mayor is very interested in the precautionary principle. Maybe he will be our hero and in caring for his constituents, work to give citizens of London a choice regarding fluoride while also reducing taxes as well.
Fluoride for the “believers in fluoridation” is available in pharmaceutical grade in toothpaste and mouthwash. At present we are being mass medicated with no control over dosage or side effects. No physician can do what the City of London is doing to us. We are told not to swallow a pea-sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste yet that same amount of fluoride is in one glass of London's drinking water.
Why is Quebec 97 per cent fluoride free and BC is even less? Why does British Columbia have a lower rate of decay than Toronto, which fluoridates?
I am a retired registered nurse committed to having the fluoride tap turned off in London so my children and grandchildren can have a choice in the medications they take, which is their constitutional right. It is so easy to turn off that tap.
I have been harmed by fluoridation and no longer drink or recommend London's tap water. I also tell every new mother I see not to make up her baby's formula with fluoridated water, as recommended by the American Dental Association.
For more information, visit ww.fluoridealert.org. Who knowingly wants to decrease the IQ of our children?
From: Jerry Flynn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Letter to the Editor
To: "Ryland Coyne" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Marla Shook" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Friday, July 29, 2011, 8:26 AM
To The Editor
I want to applaud Jeff Maguire for his well written article on Fluoride in last week's edition and the EMC for placing it on their front page. To say this is a contoversial issue is an understatement, but the fact is, North America is far behind the rest of the world in the move to ban Fluoride from our drinking water.
This battle has been raging for years without attracting a whole lot of press. It's time to get it into the mainstream and learn the facts. By Googling the Fluoride Action Network you can be brought up to speed very quickly, as two of the first articles you'll see are "10 Facts about Fluoride" and "Fifty Reasons To Oppose Fluoridation".
As the article said last week, I am convinced that Fluoride is not necessary, has never been necessary, and is a hazard to our health. Please check it out and get educated on the Fluoride issue, and then make the decision whether or not it's time to join the many cities and towns in Canada and the U.S. as well as most of the rest of the world that have banned Fluoride from their drinking water.
613 257 4748
The ethics of fluoridation
Posted Sep 8, 2011, Almonte/Carleton Place and Smiths Falls
The canons of medical ethics require that a drug or procedure, before administration, must have been approved by an appropriate body (usually, in North America, by Health Canada or the Federal Drug Administration in the USA) for its specific use and must be administered under supervision of a qualified professional (physician or dentist in this context). The recipient must have been informed of the reason for the drug or procedure, the expected benefits and possible side effects and risks. The recipient must have been informed by a qualified professional and must have been able to question said professional and must have given consent for taking the drug or procedure. The recipient must have the choice of stopping the administration at will. A qualified professional must monitor the effects of the drug or procedure on the individual and such information must be available to the recipient. The administration must be controlled with respect to dose or intensity and safety.
Clearly the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies does not meet any of these requirements.
When challenged under its own ethics code to produce peer reviewed scientific evidence that water fluoridation has improved public health as claimed, the CDC admitted in writing to the Lillie Center of Georgia, U.S., that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim.
Medical ethics forbid forced medication. Any practicing medical professional found to force a competent patient to take medication without informed consent would lose his licence to practice medicine. Yet these crazed medical bureaucrats can get away with forcing whole populations to take medication most of them neither need nor from which they get any benefit.
The scientific/legal determination of safety (of an ingested product) is based on two types of research:
- Animal studies (Toxicology Studies).
The actual fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation (silicofluorides) have neither the required animal studies (toxicology studies) nor the required human studies (clinical trials) to determine safety. There are no clinical trials (randomized, controlled trials) using fluorosilicates.
- Human studies (Clinical Trials).
It is common knowledge that these products are used as a medication for dental caries, therefore: Fluoride is unregulated, unapproved and illegal.
The Supreme Court of Canada (Metropolitan Toronto v. Forest Hill (Village), (1957) S.C.R. 569) ruled that fluoridation is "compulsory preventive medication" used for a "special health purpose." That decision has never been overturned or contested.
Richard Hudon, for
Fluoridation Free Ottawa
The Mississauga News, The Brampton Guardian, sent Jan 15, 2012
Just how much water/fluoride chemical is swallowed - for publication
Dear Mr Stewart;/Dear Mr Vernon
Do you know that less than 1% of the water from water treatment plants is actually used for drinking? Just ask any competent, honest and knowledgeable water engineer.
How can that be? What happens to the rest of it? Please read on see for yourself.
Just think about all of the uses we make of our drinking water. Examples of what actually just goes:
Down the drain at home:
Down storm drains:
- Washing our clothes, water down the drain;
- Dishwasher or dishes washed in a sink, water down the drain;
- Bath and shower, water down the drain;
- Hand, face and other body part washing, water down the drain;
- Every toilet flush, at least a dozen times a day, water down the drain;
- Washing walls, floors, doors, windows inside and out, water down the drain;
Straight into the environment:
- Washing your car sends water down the city's storm drains;
- Some people thoughtlessly wash their driveways using tap water, sending it down the storm drain;
- Some are lucky enough to have pools, which uses millions of liters of water every year and when that water is drained for whatever reasons, that water ends up down the drain;
- Firemen use millions of liters of water to put out fires of all types and all of that water ends up in the city's storm drains;
- Most car washes use thousands of liters every week and that water ends up down the city's storm drains;
- Street sweeping machines use thousands of liters of water during their daily runs down city streets: that water ends up down the city's storm drains;
What about commercial and industrial uses:
- Watering the lawn with tap water puts it directly into the ground;
- Watering gardens puts it directly into the ground.
Now that you have this picture of municipal water usage, can you appreciate what a great waste there can be of this most precious purified water? This is not meant to disparage any of the uses listed above, but to simply point out that when you add a drug to the water supply, over 99% of it will be wasted in non drug uses. So, it is far from being the most economical and efficient way of deliberately distributing a fluoride drug substance, to ostensibly prevent tooth decay for those who supposedly need it.
- Commercial building cleaners of all types, from interior and exterior windows, to floors, walls and building contents, water down the drain;
- Commercial and industrial applications that use city water in their processes and in their buildings;
a) think of all of the toilets, urinals and sinks in hotels, motels, office buildings, etc;
b) in places like grocery stores that also use water to clean the fruits and vegetables, shelving, work surfaces in addition to sanitary uses, plus;
c) metal processing and other manufacturers that use water for their cooling and processing of all kinds in addition to sanitary uses;
d) and the list goes on and on.
But that is not the end of it. It is now well documented that fluoridation chemicals are not useful to the teeth by swallowing but that even the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have admitted in 1999, and again in 2010, that the benefits of fluoride substance use is by topical application, " Its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children " that is, by putting it on the teeth and not systemically, that is, not by being swallowed. But did they get the word out? No. I wonder why?
Many studies appear to support the topical assertion. To add fuel to this fire, there are now some reports, research and studies that indicate that even the topical paradigm of tooth decay prevention by topical application are questionable. I found that most of the research reports are very cautious not to completely destroy the systemic (by swallowing) approach, however they indicate clearly to intelligent people that they are onto something but wish to mollify any opposition to their findings. So then, that means that ALL , or 100% , of the tax dollars spent on fluoridation are totally wasted.
Can you now see that 100% of tax dollars are being totally wasted by putting this wonderful! hydrofluorosilicic acid in the City's water supply? Can you not see the folly of putting any medication in the water supply in an attempt to prevent cavities when it doesn't work?
So, what are we waiting for to end this dangerous, foolish and wasteful practice like others have recently done:
Slave Lake, Alberta, Sep. 6, 2011,
Churchill, Manitoba, Oct 18 2011,
Lakeshore, Ontario, Oct 29, 2011,
Lake Cowichan British Columbia, Nov. 11, 2011,
Williams Lake, British Columbia, Nov. 11, 2011,
Moncton (NB - includes Riverview and Dieppe), Dec 19, 2011?
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, K1J 8B5
613-747-7157 - text: 613-852-8692
The Windsor Star, Monday, March 19, 2012
Re:Fluoride debate - To The Editor
Advice for city council
The Windsor Star March 19, 2012
Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/health/Fluoride+debate/6322756/story.html#ixzz1paD44kZH
IN THIS PARAGRAPH, you say:
We would argue that while council may, indeed, make a decision, it is not in a position to make an educated one. Not if it chooses to discount the legions of research by people trained in the field. Not if it allows itself to be swayed by those opposed to fluoridation, especially if they cannot provide an extensive and comparable body of work in defence of their opposition.
Here's how I would have written it:
We would argue that council is responsible, indeed, to make a decision, it is also in a position to make an educated one.
If it chooses to discount the legions of research by people who have done the search for the right information in the field, advocates for cessation dedicated to the well being of their fellowman, it shall surely make the right decision.
If it allows itself to be swayed by misinformed medical bureaucrats that are ill disposed to change and opposed to cessation of fluoridation, especially if they cannot provide an extensive and comparable body of work in defence of their opposition, they shall then make the wrong decision to continue contaminating the water supply with a toxic waste product falsely used as tooth medicine.
You obviously and unquestioningly believe what you are being told by those who have no knowledge of the science but claim to have it and claim to have the high road. They do not. Every time they are challenged to provide their science, they present empty, unsubstantiated endorsements, incorrect information, and subterfuge. They have even lied outright about facts. We now have proof from the various presentations and questioning at various community meetings held where they were caught in the act. You really need to follow the debate more closely and see for yourself where the truth lies. Please take three minutes to listen to this video to see for yourself: Medical Officer of Health Admits Absence of Fluoridation Safety Studies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiCcOL3f1Mo.
Your advice is indubitably bad advice, based on disinformation and ill founded authority.
By the way, have you read "The Case Against Fluoride" by three PhD's, Dr.s Connett (US), Beck (Cdn) and Micklem (UK). It provides the kind of education that's needed before writing as you have.
If there is any ounce of decency left in you, you will print this letter
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, K1J 8B5
613-747-7157 - text only: 613-852-8692
paper sent to, sent date