February 6, 2011

Mayor Jim Watson
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1

Dear Mayor Watson,

I am deeply concerned about the fluoridation of our water supply in Ottawa . 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 intended targets. The rest goes down the drains in our bathtubs, dishwashers, sinks, toilets, car washes, grass, gardens, etc… At a cost of over $400,000 per year, a monumental amount of tax dollars is wasted for a very low effectiveness rate.

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.

Tooth decay is not an especially serious health problem that justifies such a large outlay of scarce tax dollars. Providing fluoridation to assist a small minority of persons purported to derive a benefit is questionable especially when the current science recognizes that fluoride's possible effects are only topical. It is well recognized in the scientific literature that fluoride substances in drinking water cause irreversible dental fluorosis and bone fluorosis; aggravates numerous degenerative diseases; and, the fluoride substance used to fluoridate Ottawa's drinking water, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is not food grade, not dental grade and not pharmaceutical grade.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid is not the naturally occurring calcium fluoride. Hydrofluorosilicic acid has never been tested for human consumption, human health, human safety, or even for its effectiveness in fighting dental caries (cavities). It is an unapproved and untested toxic waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry and the industry producing this industrial toxic waste is permitted to largely police itself as it asserts that hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe and suitable to add to municipal drinking water. It is significant to note that it is illegal to dump hydrofluorosilicic acid anywhere in our environment. Why contaminate high quality drinking water with hydrofluorosilicic acid and its known co-contaminants when other abundant, higher grade sources of fluoride remain available through toothpaste, mouthwash, and dental-fluoride treatments, all of which we do not swallow?

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as "persistent," "bio-accumulative" and "toxic." Environment Canada classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as a "hazardous substance." Transport Canada classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as a "dangerous good." US Environmental Protection Agency classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as “class one hazardous waste”.

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 worldwide in industrialized countries, whether there is artificial water fluoridation or is not.

More and more cities are making the wise choice of terminating this doubtful practice of Artificial Drinking Water Fluoridation (ADWF): most recently - Waterloo, ON, Calgary, AB, Québec City, and a growing number of U.S. cities. It behooves you to help bring our City in line with the current evidence on ADWF.

When suggesting 0.7 ppm (mg/L) fluoride in drinking water is safe (Health Canada's recent 2007-08 Panel Review) but 4 ppm (mg/L) is unsafe, doesn't that mean there is only a safety margin of 5.71 times (4 ÷ 0.7)? 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. Does this margin of safety apply to the naturally occurring calcium fluoride we were told of and sold on, or the inorganic silicofluoride in hydrofluorosilicic acid that we ended up with, already known to be 20 – 25 times more toxic than calcium fluoride? What happens when someone on fluoridated water is also given fluoride supplements, not realizing their water is fluoridated?

The unilateral fluoridation of our water supplies infringes on everyone's constitutional right to informed consent. Are we honestly interested in the health and well-being of our children when we take the cheapest industrial man-made toxic waste fluoride we can find, and dump it into our children's drinking water? Doesn't responsibility for what the municipality ultimately choose to put into the drinking water rest squarely with the municipality?

Where are the municipal cost calculations to support the claim that in addition to the health benefits, fluoridation of municipal water reduces costs for existing dental programs run by the municipality, and reduces costs to the health care system? What up-to-date research is there which provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of municipal water fluoridation? Is there scientific, statistically significant, variable controlled causal benefit of fluoridation found in these studies? How did these studies do a better job of controlling confounding variables such as age, socioeconomic status, race, culture, education, diet, nutrition, access to dental treatment, and alternative sources of fluoride – so as to ascribe principle benefit to water fluoridation alone and not other known variables?

We are unavoidably ingesting more fluoride today than ever before, from multiple sources like food, drink, mouthwash, toothpaste, dental products and environmental pollution – why do we still need to ‘top-up' with fluoridated water? Does the municipality remove known hydrofluorosilicic acid contaminants from its sewage effluent or bio-solids? When it is illegal to dump hydrofluorosilicic acid directly into the environment, how does a municipality justify dumping it into the environment via the drinking water system, where only 1% to 2% of this ‘fluoridated' water is being consumed by people, and 98% of the hydrofluorosilicic acid ends up directly in the environment anyway? What gives any municipality the moral, ethical or legal right to inflict admitted mild to moderate dental fluorosis on any person, due to its water fluoridation practice at the ‘optimal' level?

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

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: "Watson, Jim (Mayor)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
Cc: Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>; Dr. Isra Levy <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 12:37:57 PM
Subject: Re: Fluoridation - Responding to your request for "feedback on this particular topic."

February 14, 2011

Mayor Jim Watson
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1

Dear Mr. Mayor

I have taken a long time to prepare a thoughtful and respectful response to your invitation. I hope that you will take the time to read it all and evaluate my response in the same manner that I have written it.

I am responding to your invitation for "feedback in this particular topic." It is not our wish to "pick a fight" with you, the MOH, the DOH or anyone else in this matter. With the advent of new data and knowledge about fluoridation and fluoride substances in general, I believe strongly that the time has come to step back and reevaluate the decision taken in 1965 to fluoridate Ottawa 's tap water. The information available at that time seemed to favor the practice. However, we also wonder at how level headed people ever allowed themselves to be convinced on scant evidence and strong arm tactics used by the media, certain ruthless authorities and unscrupulous individuals.

I and the growing group of us who have done much research on the subject of artificial drinking water fluoridation are very much aware of the standard reply to the fluoridation question offered up by the MOH. However,  that does not in any way alleviate any of the concerns of the members of our group nor of the large number of individuals in our City who have opted to resort to other sources for their drinking water needs, not counting the inefficient use people make of bottled water.

Numerous residents of Ottawa suffer from environmental and chemical sensitivities or illnesses that do not allow them to use tap water for drinking purposes because of the chemicals and especially the fluoride in that water. People like us have had to resort to either drinking distilled water or to install special filtration systems that remove at great expense all chemicals and contaminants remaining in tap water.

We have found out that the statement that there are several hundred recent publications is a misleading phrase at best, and that there has been no intense research on fluoride or water fluoridation. In fact, the paucity of research in this matter is quite alarming.

We have proof irrefutable that government reviews in fluoridating countries have generally been stacked with those who favor fluoridation and have served to "rubber stamp" statements by industry, government and professional organizations. I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy here, just a concerted effort to preserve the status quo by those advocating or promoting fluoridation. So, reviewing these studies does nothing to advance knowledge in the matter.

The continuous parroting of the "safe and effective" phrase does not make it a reality. How can the use of a toxic waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry, not a pharmaceutical fluoride grade, but hydrofluorosilic i c acid (not hydrofluorosilic acid, (HFS) http://www.greenbinottawa.ca/residents/water/wq/facts/fluoride_en.html), be safe to drink? It is now confirmed scientifically that fluoridation substances may be effective only when applied to the surface of the teeth, not by swallowing them. Thus, swallowing them is akin to swallowing sun tan lotion to try to prevent sun burns. Why say that it works? Even the Crest brand of toothpaste in the U.S. says "If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact the Poison Control Center ." Does that sound like fluoride use is safe to you?

Unfortunately, reputable health organizations are just endorsing one another's positions in the debate. None of them have done any actual primary research or studied the literature themselves, and that includes the OMA. Actual Court cases concerning fluoridation have now proven this a number of times in sworn testimony. So why does the MOH's statement say so? Job protection? Protection of the status quo? Ask the MOH for actual research materials, for actual journal reprints, even in the dozens, not the hundreds claimed. You won't get any, because they do not exist! We know.

The President of the OMA, Dr. MacLeod, in his statement claiming overwhelming evidence to the safety of fluoridation may be unaware that such overwhelming evidence does not exist. That a great deal of anecdotal information exists concerning fluoridation is indeed true, and akin to circumstantial evidence in a court of law. There is so much of it now that it is suffocating the side of the debate that favors fluoridation.

The claim of those opposition characterized as follows: "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" is unfortunately misleading and close to defamatory of scientists and activists who have worked diligently and thoroughly to debunk the unfortunate practice of fluoridation. The truth of the matter is that those making the claim are the ones obfuscating the debate by making an accusation that applies to themselves.

In its position paper on drinking water fluoridation, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, say: “Animal studies have shown a wide range of adverse effects associated with fluoride. It has been shown to be a potential immunotoxin, embryotoxin, neurotoxin and harmful to bony tissues, including both dental and ordinary bone. In addition, it can damage (inhibit) thyroid function in several species, including humans. Its effect on ecosystem balance has been little researched, but is unlikely to be positive.”

Dr Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, Toxicologist and Pharmacologist, has said in a recorded interview: "Fluoride is a neurotoxin" and she has done the documented scientific research that proves it. Within days of learning that her research was accepted for publication Dr. Mullenix was fired by her employer, the Forsyth Dental Center. She has also stated: "If I was an arthritic care individual, I would be eliminating every possible source of fluoride exposure that I could think of."

In fact, 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 fluoride intake that Health Canada recommends as fine for all infants (whose formula is likely mixed with fluoridated tap water) is 12 times higher! Health Canada offers no credible scientific evidence to support this recommendation.

Mr. Mayor, does this not give you pause to bring it out of the dark ages from where it was so cleverly hatched upon an unsuspecting public over 60 years ago? Be assured that we will not relent in our pursuit to end fluoridation in Ottawa. Should not real, new data on the problem be clearly and rationally looked at before it becomes an election issue?

Avoidance of fluorinated substances, including tap water, is almost impossible unless one takes extreme measures to do so because fluoride substances are now ubiquitous in foods, beverages, but specifically because it's in the water we drink and with which we prepare our foods. The acquisition of reverse osmosis filtration systems or other means of removing fluoride substances from one's diet are prohibitively expensive for most people, especially the underprivileged.

Is the City prepared to cover such costs? What about those such as myself who are afflicted with environmental and chemical sensitivities exacerbated by fluoride substances? Can you ignore us all and tell us to use expensive means to protect ourselves from the impact of fluoride substances on our health and well being? Couldn't that be considered a lack of leadership on your part?

Some final points.
1. Any substance used to help reduce tooth decay is classified as a drug by Health Canada regulations. However, hydrofluorosilicic acid is neither a regulated nor a controlled drug. So, why are we using it in our water?
2. Can the people as a group be considered as qualified medical practitioners? Are they qualified to decide that a drug is good for everybody, even for themselves, without consulting with a medical practitioner?
3. Holding a plebiscite or referendum on this is both uneconomical and unreasonable. I would love for this City to go that route, because fluoridation would lose as it has in most cases where it's been done because most people today are adamant about authorities dictating to them what is good or not for them, not to mention the knowledge they would gain about the lack of innocuousness of hydrofluorosilicic acid. But, more important than this, adding fluoride to tap water automatically defines it as medication because it is proposed as a treatment for a human condition, not to treat the water to make it more drinkable. However, neither the public as a group nor Council can lay claim to being licenced medical practitioners. It is beyond their purview. As it is therefore medical malpractice for non medical persons to prescribe medication, especially using a substance that is neither controlled nor approved by Health Canada as a drug, fluoridation should be immediately stopped until such approval and control are in place and sufficient medical personnel are assigned to provide full oversight for side effects and proper medical follow-up.
4. The claim is that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay. Yet, it is a fact that less than 1% of the presumed beneficial substance actually gets to the emerging teeth in children. Nearly half a million dollars is spent purchasing, handling and otherwise maintaining the equipment and safety of employees handling the substance. And, if the claims of effectiveness of effect are true, the data used clearly shows that only six tenths of a tooth surface of a possible 128 tooth surfaces is saved by the effects of fluoride ingestion. Wouldn't you agree that this a monumental waste of scarce tax dollars for such a minuscule benefit?
5. Since less than 1% of the fluoride substance goes to the teeth, where does the other 99% go? Back to the environment where it was originally banned in the first place. The phosphate fertilizer industry can not dump their waste product into the air, or its converted version, hydrofluorosilicic acid, into any waterways, into the ground or the ocean, because it's an environmental pollutant banned by the EPA. Yet, magically, once it is sold as a product for fluoridation, it seems to be perfectly safe for us to drink.
6. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is known to contain arsenic and lead in significantly toxic quantities. Fluoride is also almost equally toxic: a little less than arsenic, a little more than lead. Yet arsenic and lead are only allowed to be present in tap water in parts per billion, whereas fluoride is allowed in parts per million. Where's the logic in that?
7. Dental Fluorosis. This unfortunate development over the past 30 years is now endemic in all fluoridating countries, but almost non-existent in non-fluoridating countries. 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 indicated to us 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? What about you, Mr. Mayor, and Councillor Tierney, can you afford to pay the thousands of dollars in repair work for the thousands of children suffering this impairment? You and all Councillors of this beautiful City are now the ones responsible to the electorate should you allow this situation to continue.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more, but I think you get the picture. Fluoridation is a bad idea whose demise is now a reasonable outcome. Armed with the currently available information and the support of numerous professionals, you could march into this debate with the certainty that people would follow your lead in clearing up this miasmic situation.

We have some very good laws in our country, but they are not being applied. Our municipal Councillors have the authority to stop fluoridation at any time by majority vote. The Ontario Fluoridation Act says so. A simple phone call to the water department is all that's needed to tell them to shut down fluoridation simply because of the associated increase in arsenic and leached lead in our tap water. Section 20 of the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act gives us that right. In addition, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in place to protect us from being deceived by a health authority into swallowing a toxic substance that can have adverse health effects.

All Ontario legislation is mandated to “serve and protect the public interest.” This province has the primary responsibility to protect the integrity of half of the Great Lakes, plus the Ottawa Valley and James Bay watersheds. It is in clear violation of the public interest to conduct a risk assessment of fluoridation on the environment and human health by choosing to rely on obsolete dental dogma and the pronouncements of a federal panel that did not include a single expert on fluoride toxicity or environmental biology.

We can bring you indisputable proof of every statement made herein. Just ask the promoters and supporters of fluoridation to do the same. They may claim that they can, but they can not, because they do not have any such proof. Ask them to supply their proof and watch them weasel out of it. If they have any, you can rest assured it is so flimsy that it's not worth the paper it's written on.

If you would be so naïve as to inform them that those opposing fluoridation are prepared to supply all the proof needed to support their claims, watch them go into damage control, demeaning us, belittling us and try to attack the credibility of those coming forward with the information and attempting to denounce the veracity of that information. It's a known tactic that often intimidates individuals of lesser quality than you.

I ask you therefore, with the information provided above, are you prepared to meet with a few of us to see the evidence for yourself, yes …. or no …., and, having seen satisfactory evidence for the termination of fluoridation, would you be in favor of ending fluoridation in Ottawa, yes …. or no …. We can help you and our City Council through this process.

Awaiting your response to the above two questions, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dear Mr. Hudon,

Thank you for your email regarding your comments and concerns on Fluoride in the city water.

Fluoride and the possible effects of adjusting its level in drinking water is one of the most intensely research 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 is 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. 

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the Medical Officer of health, Dr. Isra Levy at 613-580-6744 ext. 23681 or email Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca

Thank you again for taking the time to write.  I appreciate and welcome your feedback on this particular topic.

Sincerely,

From: Richard Hudon [mailto:rich.hudon@rogers.com]
Sent: January 25, 2011 12:30 PM
"To: Mayor Jim Watson <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Stephen Blais <Stephen.Blais@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Rainer Bloess <Rainer.Bloess@ottawa.ca>; Councillor David Chernushenko <David.Chernushenko@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Rick Chiarelli <Rick.Chiarelli@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Peter Clark <Peter.Clark@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Diane Deans <Diane.Deans@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Steve Desroches <Steve.Desroches@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Keith Egli <Keith.Egli@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Eli El-Chantiry <Eli.El-Chantiry@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Mathieu Fleury <Mathieu.Fleury@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Jan Harder <Jan.Harder@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Katherine Hobbs <Katherine.Hobbs@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Diane Holmes <Diane.Holmes@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Allan Hubley <Allan.Hubley@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Peter Hume <Peter.Hume@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Maria McRae <Maria.Mcrae@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Scott Moffatt <Scott.Moffatt@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Bob Monette <Bob.Monette@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Shad Qadri <Shad.Qadri@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Mark Taylor <Mark.Taylor@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Doug Thompson <Doug.Thompson@ottawa.ca>; Councillor Marianne Wilkinson <Marianne.Wilkinson@ottawa.ca>" Cc: Diane Sprules; Paul Connett
Subject: Fw: NY City Politicians Want Fluoride Out of the Water

Heroic New York City Legislator Introduces Bill to Stop Fluoridation

NEW YORK, Jan. 24, 2011  --  On January 18, 2011, NYC Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. introduced legislation (Int 0463-2011) “prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply.” Today five additional NYC Council Members co-sponsored the bill (Council Members Cabrera, Crowley, Foster, Williams and Halloran.

Fluoride chemicals are added to NYC's water in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay.

Vallone writes on his website, “There is a growing body of evidence that fluoride does more harm than good.”

Recently, two federal government agencies admitted that US children are fluoride-overdosed and it's ruining their teeth and may be damaging their bones.(1) The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that over 41% of adolescents suffer with dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth - 4% of it severe. (2) Both the CDC and the American Dental Association advise that infant formula NOT be mixed with fluoridated water, but do little to educate the public about this dire warning.

More than 3,450 professionals (including 299 dentists) urge that fluoridation be stopped citing scientific evidence that fluoridation is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html

Eleven US EPA unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals are calling for a moratorium on fluoridation.

Attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, “It's a rare legislator who's willing to speak the truth about such a controversial issue, not for his own benefit but for the good of his constituents. Most government officials cling to outdated endorsements, baseless government pronouncements and fear of organized dentistry's power and money. Vallone and the Council Members who support his bill are New York treasures.”

Vallone writes, “It's time for an intelligent discussion to be had on this controversial practice. I believe after that occurs, most people will support NYC using the ‘Precautionary Principle,' which says, if in doubt, leave it out.”

New Yorkers can be their own heroes and improve their own health by contacting their Council Member and Health Committee members to support Vallone's legislation on your own or here:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5468

Non-residents can voice their concern here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5469

NYS Department of Health statistics show NO benefit from fluoridated water.  See:  http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/chart.htm

Studies show high tooth decay rates in NYC populations studied, despite decades of fluoridation. See: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/fluoridationfailsnewyork.htm

Fluoridation cost NYC approximately $25 million in 2008.  See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18235930/NYC-Fluoridation-Costs-2008-Feb-2-2009-Letter-Page-1 and
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18235931/NYC-2008-Fluoridation-Costs-Page-2-Feb-2009-Letter

A July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association research paper reveals similar tooth decay rates regardless of water fluoride content. However, fluoride-damaged teeth (dental fluorosis) rates increased along with water fluoride levels, according to analysis by Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. - “Fluoridation No Benefit; Definite Harm” here:

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Clinch_2009_No_Benefit_Definite_Harm.pdf

The Case Against Fluoride, a research-driven new book indicts fluoridated water as unsafe to drink, wreaking havoc on the human body – harming the brain, endocrine system, bones, teeth and kidneys. http://fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride.refs.html

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

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

Let's get fluoride out of our drinking water.

From the desk of

Tel 613-829-6518

E-mail: ejmoore1@rogers.com

February 12, 2011

Mayor Jim Watson.
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1.

For a long time forms of fluoride have been added to the City's drinking water with the mistaken idea that it would reduce tooth decay among children. It has now been shown in a number of studies that this is not the case. Tooth decay is not due to lack of fluoride in the diet. Rather it is due to acids on the mouth produced as a result of bacteria acting on sugars ingested in the diet.

It is time to stop this both useless and dangerous practice as well as save the City a little money in the process. I urge you to read the attached document and initiate action accordingly.

Sincerely,

Attach: Mercola document

Copy: Rick Chiarelli

Dear Mayor Watson,

I am deeply concerned about the fluoridation of our water supply in Ottawa.

I know that fluoride is a toxic additive found in toothpaste and in our water supply; fluoride does not prevents cavities, and it does not maintain healthy teeth.It is banned in at least 13 countries, and can cause birth defects, cancer, osteoporosis and multiple other health problems.

The fluoride which is being added to the water supply and toothpaste is not calcium fluoride - which is found naturally in plants and water..Fluoride added to the public water is actually fluorosilicic acid, which is a neurotoxic industrial waste.

Environment Canada classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as a "hazardous substance". If it is illegal to take this fluorosilicic acid and bury it in the ground or dump it in rivers or streams in Canada, why it is legal to sell it to our municipality, which drips it into the public water supply

We are being over-exposed to fluoride, and we are unavoidably ingesting more of it today from different sources such as: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, environmental pollution, tea,soft drinks, etc.  As a result, many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects.

The cities of Calgary 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 which is more toxic than lead, and which damages the immune, digestive and respiratory system as well the kidneys, liver, brain, and thyroid?  Why does the municipality purchase this product, spending a lot of our money (I am a taxpayer) and then dripping it into the water supply?  This money could be spent for education, nutrition and in this way people could be healthier, and OHIP would spend less money for medicare, dealing with the effects of fluoride intoxication of our population.  Low income families cannot afford to buy expensive water filters or unfluoridated bottled water, and they are exposed at higher risk to fluoride toxicity, especially infants.

Because of fluoride, I have several health issues: autoimmune 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.

From: "Watson, Jim (Mayor)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
Subject: RE: Please stop the fluoridation of our water supply in Ottawa
To: "LT" email address
Cc: "Levy, Isra" <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>
Received: Thursday, March 10, 2011, 4:23 PM

Dear LT:

Thank you for your email dated March 9, 2011 regarding your questions on fluoridation of city water.

Please note your email has been forwarded on to the Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Levy for his department to respond to you directly.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Dear Mayor Watson,

Further to my previous correspondence on water fluoridation, please review the following letter.

Your dependence upon policy and procedures by professional bodies that shoulder no legal or moral responsibility does not equal expert advice. It directly injures your city's inhabitants.

If you would like to meet or speak to me or a real non-partial expert, I could facilitate the same. Minimally, carefully review www.fluoridealert.org and www.russellblaylockmd.com for your own health and well being, and ours.

Waterloo, noted to school some of the best academics, our mirror Quebec city-Gatineau, and Calgary - probably the richest Canadian city, have taken steps to stop hurting the public with water fluoridation.

Once in the water, then it accumulates in the bones, glands and brain; it is very difficult to get rid of.

#### Street name
Ottawa, Ontario.
K4B ...

CHEO
Mr. Michel Bilodeau,
President and CEO
401 Smyth Road,
Ottawa, Ontario.
K1H 8L1

Dear Mr. Bilodeau,

In response to a news release yesterday, R/T the 65% increase in psychiatric admissions, over the last two years, I am providing feedback in terms of research data.

Retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, has compiled a series of serious aspects of currently accepted public health policy that directly contradicts WHIMIS, (Chemical procedures and handling), environmental standards for hazardous waste protocol, and he concludes, are adversely effecting our population.ffSpecifically he notes the greater than twenty-fold (of 5 mcg/Kg) exposure to aluminum (alum) in childhood vaccines. Adjuvants such as mercury (thimerosol), MSG, formaldehyde and even squalene, have all been shown to adversely effect development, reproductive capabilities, IQ, rickets and cancer.

This is compounded by the the contaminants, some of which can cross the placenta to cause harm, as in the Salk Polio vaccine-cancer causing viruses SV-2, -20 and -40, given between 1956-63 to 100 million in the U.S. alone.

In the case of the flu/H1N1 vaccine protocols, childhood dosage of mercury is double the previously discontinued use as of 1999. And it synergistically causes greater harm in the presence of aluminum.

According to researcher Thomas Jefferson, the flu vaccine is of little or no benefit.

According to the vitamin D council, the addition of 2000 I.U. of Vitamin D3 drops the incidence of Flu/Tb by 90%, cancer by 1/3 and makes teeth and bones strong. He points to several articles in well respected journals that clearly indicate the above.

See, www.russellblaylockmd.com.

Furthermore the use of fluoride in drinking water, pesticides, and medications is also of obvious contradiction to WHIMIS. About 45% of Canada and 85% of Ontario have been allowing the addition of fluoride to their drinking water.

This is also consumed in pop, beer, reconstituted juices and food (many are produced in fluoridated cities of Ottawa, Toronto and London). There is minimal available data in WHIMIS on hydroflurosalicic acid. It doubles lead content of water and is illegal to dump in rivers or the ocean.

Fruit flavoured Gatorade, Fresca and the most popular soft drink in schools - Mountain Dew also contain Bromide. This is in medical dictionaries as causative in obesity, seizures, paranoia, and,"bromo-mania.' See, www.fluoridealert.org.

To compound the issue of childhood obesity, aspartame and MSG have quadrupled in their presence; while hypertension, diabetes and elevated cholesterol have also risen 600% over approximately the last 15 years. Non vaccinated populations have near zero incidence of juvenile diabetes, allergies and autism.

I realize that traditionally hospitals have followed CDC and WHO policies and procedures, and that to diversify from them is professionally difficult. But one has to do the best for their patients, in light of mankind's collective knowledge and wisdom. Or, one faces the eternal judgment of our creator, dementia and many sleepless nights, beforehand.

Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters.

Dear Mr. Watson et al.:

Since the European Court has recognized that fluoridated water is a "therapeutic product" and therefore it must be regulated as a drug, it is time for Canadians to re-examine the practice of adding fluoride salts to our drinking water. Please see: http://www.ukcaf.org/european_court_ruling_spells_an_end_to_fluoridatio.html. Further analysis of this court decision elucidates its exact wording: http://www.ukcaf.org/files/ecj_ruling_on_functional_foods.pdf

Since shortly after this practice began in Ottawa, medical doctors realized that both long-term and acute exposure to ingested fluoride would result in bone deformities and fragility. This came to light because of fluoridated water being used in kidney dialysis machines, which speeded up the process of exposure due to the principle of osmotic pressure. Doctors treating these patients were forced to add special filters to remove the fluoride in order not to cause severe injury to their kidney patients.

Please thoughtfully read the entire article "New Facts on Fluoridation", by John Lear, science editor of the Saturday Review: EXCERPT: "In opening his remarks to the Royal Canadian College of Physicians and Surgeons, Posen mentioned sixteen cases in which artificial kidneys were used at Ottawa General Hospital since 1966. Later, in a long-distance telephone conversation with SR 's science editor, he discussed fourteen of these patients who had "minimal or no detectable bone disease" at the time of treatment with artificial kidneys began. Four of the fourteen died before Posen could learn very much about them. The concentrations of fluoride in the blood of all of the remaining ten patients rose to levels comparable to the levels that cause fluoride-induced bone disease in experimental animals. Alkaline phosphatase, an enzyme that circulates in the blood in amounts proportional to the dissolution of bone in the body, also rose steadily in volume in all ten patients. By the end of a year of dialysis with fluoridated water, the ten patients had all developed bone disease. Nine of the ten complained of pain in their bones. Six were attacked by arthralgias -- arthritic-like pains in the joints. Three developed calcific bursitis, a condition in which mineral crystals imbed in the shoulder muscles and saw at them from within. Muscles of five of ten patients became weakened, and in three patients symptoms of irritation of the surface of nerves appeared.

"X-rays meanwhile showed knobbly growths on some bones, oversize crystals of mineral inside other bones, and disappearance of minerals from areas beneath the surfaces of still other bones. Progressive X-ray pictures revealed that as the period of dialysis with fluoridated water lengthened, dissolution of bone in all ten patients accelerated.In nine of the ten, the mineral substance of some bones became so depleted that the bones broke spontaneously. For example, ribs cracked under the pressure of breathing."

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/bone/fluorosis/sr-1969.html N.B.: the original publication date is March 1, 1969!

We should be asking ourselves how many of Ottawa's frail elderly with osteoporosis who have suffered fractures are actually affected by fluoride overload.

Ottawa's older long-time residents have willy-nilly continued to drink this fluoridated water. Based on the biological science explained in the dialysis article, after decades of exposure it would not be surprising to see bone brittleness and fractures among our seniors, and also among younger people who have similarly ingested it for three or four decades. Those most affected may also have been exposed to fluorine in various drugs, such as the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac).

Because there is really no control over the levels of exposure that also come from industrial sources such as coal-fired electricity plants that are still operating, public policy should be to remove fluoride where we do have control over it. Shouldn't we be taking more care to prevent these bone injuries by removing this known cause, so that more people can remain independent and not clog already over-booked nursing homes?

Further, many older people have already endured removal of all their teeth, so the argument of receiving protection from cavities does not even apply to them. Instead, they continue to be subjected, often unknowingly, to drugged water, unless they can afford the special filters that remove it. A Britta bottle in the fridge simply doesn't do it.

This issue of forced drugging runs counter to the right of informed consent, which entails the right of informed refusal. No public authorities have yet admitted publicly that fluoridation causes the bone damage described in that 1969 article about the medical findings and the solution: remove fluoride from the water. We all have a right to know that.

Such an admission is long overdue, and it's long past time to remove the fluoride salts from our drinking water.

I have been drinking Ottawa water over several decades. Also, in the past, a dentist had painted my teeth with fluoride. Yet several molars cracked and had to be crowned. This happened though I always brushed religiously after eating. I have no molars left that are not crowned or completely rebuilt with composite resin.

My own experience thus makes me a sceptic regarding the claim that fluoride protects teeth. And it makes me want fluoride removed from the water because I have no natural teeth left, and because I want to avoid osteoporosis.

The claim of fluoride protecting teeth is beginning to break down.  From Mosby's dental dictionary, accessed via Answers.com, comes the following informative fluorosis definition: "Enamel hypoplasia caused by the ingestion of water containing excess fluoride during the time of enamel formation. General term for chronic fluoride poisoning."

Note that to understand this statement fully you need to know the definition of hypoplasia: "hypoplasia is the defect of the teeth in which the tooth enamel is hard but thin and deficient in amount."

The inescapable conclusion is that fluoride makes the enamel thinner if ingested during the formative period, and thus it's at greater risk of cracking.  The increasing evidence of harm and lack of provable benefit has led authorities in the US to state that fluoridated water should not be used to mix baby formula, although little action has been taken to make it possible for new mothers even to hear about this. in fact, the mother's body will filter it out, so that even if she has high levels, the nursing infant is protected. Thus Nature shows us its wisdom by reducing the risk of harm even if fluoride is present in ground water. http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm

EXCERPT from article by Dr. Paul Connett, PhD:

"Underlining the concerns in paragraph 20, is the fact that fluoride levels in mothers' milk is naturally very low, averaging approximately 0.01 ppm (22, p 301), which is one hundred times lower than fluoridated tap water. Even when the mother herself is drinking fluoridated water, very little of it gets passed on in her breast milk. One has to wonder then, if fluoride is necessary for healthy tooth development, how it was that God (or evolutionary forces) "failed" in this important development by limiting the supply of fluoride to the newly born baby. Why is it that human milk provides the baby with such low levels of fluoride if much higher levels are deemed necessary for healthy teeth? Who is correct: "God" or the US Public Health Service?"

Wikipedia is the only major single-stop online reference whose fluorosis definition separates discussion of teeth from the rest of the body. Other sources correctly include them together. A veterinary dictionary accessed by Answers.com does not separate dental from skeletal fluorosis. The definition is very instructive: "A condition due to ingestion of excessive amounts of fluorine or its compounds. Fluorine poisoning usually takes a chronic form in animals which are exposed to small amounts in their drinking water or food over long periods. Clinical signs include excessive wear and mottling of developing teeth, lameness due to osteoporosis and unthriftiness. Acute fluorosis caused by factory effluent is characterized by gastroenteritis, tetany and death. http://www.answers.com/topic/fluorosis#ixzz1SSuugvTw" (my emphasis added)

I note that dental fluorosis is often discussed in a dismissive way as if it were (a) proven to occur, and (b) a completely separate issue from skeletal fluorosis. Yet the teeth are part of the body and what affects them affects the entire system. Not just bones are at risk, but also fluorine preferentially replaces iodine, thus leading to thyroid problems in people who are being overexposed from all sources.

People who believe the claims that fluoride protects dental enamel can still exercise that choice. They can still go to dentists have it painted on their teeth. Most European nations have banned fluoridation, yet their rates of cavities are comparable to those in fluoridated cities in North America. There really is no public-health advantage from fluoridation, and over the long term there is a serious public-health cost due to increasing bone degradation leading to more fractures and the cost of care for those patients.

Let's have clean water in Ottawa that does not cause bone degradation over time.

Since it costs a lot of money to have that known poison added to the water, the city will save money by ceasing to do it. That will help keep the budget within the constraints imposed by the commitment to minimize tax increases.

Thank you for your attention, and for your action in helping to end fluoridation in Ottawa.

MSH
Nepean, Ontario
K2G ...
Name and address details withheld by request

Jim Watson
Mayor
City of Ottawa

AGAIN, I REJECT THE IMPOSITION OF SECRECY ON AN EMAIL EXCHANGE CONCERNING A PUBLIC-POLICY DEBATE THAT AFFECTS OUR LONG-TERM HEALTH:

Greetings sir.

I am writing you to ask that you take a minute to consider discontinuing water fluoridation here in Ottawa.  As you many know, fluoride is a toxic chemical which has been used in rat poison that we are buying only to introduce it into our public drinking water supplies.  Just the thought of dumping poison into the water we drink flys in the face of reason and common sense.

There is an ever growing body of data that suggests harmful effects of fluoride exposure including the lowering of IQ and harmful thyroid consequences among other concerns like fluorosis (white marks on teeth due to fluoride exposure).  I do not want fluoride added to my drinking water.  At present, there is no way for me to opt out of this forced medication and I am forced to be exposed to this toxic chemical against my wishes all for the stated purpose of somehow limiting the number of cavities people get which, to my knowledge, is hardly a pressing health concern.

Additionally, if adding fluoride to the drinking water stopped dental cavities then why do we still have dental cavities?  When will this expensive endeavour pay off with the eradication of cavities?  Could we not think of something more pressing to do with the monies spent to buy and dump poison into our drinking water?  I, for one, am quite certain we can.

Thank you for your time.

Dear Mr. DL

Thank you for taking the time and sending me your concerns regarding the fluoridation of municipal drinking water.

Please note that I have forwarded your comments to Dr. Isra Levy, Medical Officer of Health for his information and consideration as well.  I do appreciate receiving your feedback as it allows us to continue improving municipal service for all residents.

Once again, I thank you for making the effort to contact me on this issue.

Regards

Jim Watson
Mayor
City of Ottawa

Mayor Jim Watson
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Dear Mayor Watson,

It has been proven in epidemiological studies and through bone ash examinations that there is a greater prevalence of osteosarcoma (adolescent bone cancer) in fluoridated communities than in non-fluoridated communities.
Definition: Osteosarcoma is a cancerous (malignant) bone tumor that usually develops during the period of rapid growth that occurs in adolescence, as a teenager matures into an adult.  http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001650.htm.

Numerous studies show that fluoride can cause osteosarcoma. In 1997, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis testified before Congress that half a million people alive today could expect to die from a fluoride-related cancer unless the fluoridation of water is stopped.  http://www.fluoride-osteosarcoma-law.com/fluoride_osteosarcoma.html

In 2001, the PhD dissertation produced by Elise Bassin of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine shows a strong link between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Her work indicates a statistically strong link between exposure to fluoride between the ages of six and eight (during which the ‘mid-childhood growth spurt' takes place) and the development of osteosarcoma in young boys. A commentary about her findings by Dr. Paul Connett is available here:  http://ffo-olf.org/files/osteosarcomaBassinThesisConnett.pdf and Dr. Barry Groves, PhD also comments here:  http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/bassin-study.html.

How many children languishing at CHEO are currently victims of osteosarcoma, whether generated or aggravated by the ingested toxic fluoride product used in water fluoridation.

What are you prepared to do to stop this senseless suffering? Are you in favor of cessation of drugging the residents of Ottawa by artificial water fluoridation or are you undecided or opposed to such cessation?

A personal response is respectfully requested, not the standard text from the Medical Officer of Health.
Kind regards, MB, SAG
K1M #A#, K2J #A#,
Phone #
http://www.fluoridealert.org
Name and address details withheld by request

Mr. B,

On behalf of the Medical Officer of Health, I would like to thank you for your comments on the fluoridation of community drinking water. 

Sincerely, 

Jane Dare
Ottawa Public Health

Mayor Jim Watson,

Back in the day when fluoride was added to the public drinking water ……more Doctors smoked CAMELS than any other cigarette.

Health Canada knows, or should know, that the actual fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation (silicofluorides Na2SiF6, H2SiF6) have been used for over 60 years with neither the required animal studies (toxicology studies) nor the required human studies (randomized controlled clinical trials or RCTs) to determine safety in order to protect consumer safety and satisfy the legal requirements in Canada.

While Health Canada and the Ontario Medical Officer of Health can advise this council it is your decision and that of the citizens that you represent.

Dear

Thank you for taking the time and sending me your concerns regarding fluoride in our municipal drinking water.

Please note that I have forwarded your comments to Dr. Isra Levy,  Medical Officer of Health for his information and consideration as well.  I do appreciate receiving your feedback as it allows us to continue improving municipal service for all residents.

Once again, I thank you for making the effort to contact me on this issue.

Regards

Jim Watson
Mayor
City of Ottawa

Mayor Jim Watson Councillor Bob Monette
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Dear Mayor Watson and Councillor Monette,

I hope that his email letter finds you, those who work with you and all those you hold dear in continued good health.

This year so far has seen the following 6 Canadian Communities abandon the practice of fluoridation: Verchères (QC), Feb 7, 2011; Calgary (AB), Feb 8, 2011; Flin Flon (MB), Jun 2011; Meadow Lake (SK), Jun 27, 2011; Taber (AB) Jul 20, 2011; Slave Lake (AB) Oct 1, 2011 (just voted it out Tue., Sep 6, 2011).

Twelve (12) European Countries and China have disavowed any use of fluoridation as stated in letters to us as can be seen on this web page: http://ffo-olf.org/europeanSta tements.html

As of October 1, 2011, 40 Canadian communities will have abandoned fluoridation. They are listed here: http://ffo-olf.org/ffo-olf.html#end . They have all recognized some important aspect of the subject that resonates with them to justify cessation of fluoridation. Take your pick:

1. Ineffectiveness,
2. Adverse health effects,
3. Environmental impact,
4. Ethics,
5. Financial burden,
6. Looming legal battles.

Health Canada, The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, and our own Medical Office of Health have absolutely no data on the effectiveness of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid in tooth decay prevention and absolutely no data on the safety of this acid with respect to possible harm to health of those drinking our water with this acid in it. Endorsements and heavily biased reviews favoring fluoride, but not the specific acid used in fluoridation, are not proof of the safety and effectiveness of this acid used for water fluoridation.

Please review what the above countries and Canadian communities have decided to do with regard to fluoridation and attempt to reconcile their decisions with the current policy to maintain the senseless practice of fluoridation of the City of Ottawa's water supply using hydrofluorosilicic acid.

Please seriously consider requiring that Ottawa City Council impose a moratorium on artificial drinking water fluoridation until valid, objective and unbiased data have been obtained that proves that the use of this acid is safe for the health of all Ottawa residents and effective in reducing dental caries.

Please contact Richard Hudon at 613-747-7157 or text: 613-852-8692 or at rich.hudon@rogers.com to discuss the subject or to see an objective, realistic 10 minute presentation that will at least show a side of this subject that you can not get from our Ottawa Medical Officer of Health.

Respectfully yours,

Good morning Mr. H & Ms. CH,

Dr. Levy asked me to respond to you on his behalf.

I would like to thank you for your comments on the fluoridation of community drinking water.

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 studies have examined the potential for adverse health effects related to fluoride. Ottawa Public Health has reviewed these major studies. All concluded that water fluoridation is a safe and effective method of reducing dental 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 addition, Health Canada's Chief Dental Officer, Dr. Peter Cooney has credited the practice as an equitable approach to dental health by stating, "The big advantage of water fluoridation is that it benefits all residents in a community, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, education, or employment." In 2010, Health Canada completed an extensive review of the health risks associated with fluoride in drinking water. The results of this review are summarized in Health Canada's Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document which is accessible at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/water-eau/2011-fluoride-fluorure/2011-fluoride-fluorure-eng.pdf .

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. 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. In addition, the Medical Officer of Health follows the Protocol for the Monitoring of Community Water Fluoride Levels under the Ontario Public Health Standards by reviewing reports on Ottawa's drinking water supply. 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.  Sincerely, Jane Dare Ottawa Public Health

This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.
Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

---

LETTER # 12

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
Sent: October 28, 2011 5:19 PM
To: "Watson, Jim (Mayor)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
Subject: Water quality

Friday, October 28, 2011

Mayor Jim Watson
Ottawa City Hall
110 Laurier Avenue W
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1

Dear Mayor Watson

Once again I wish you and those you hold dear are all in good health.

Ottawa's water treatment is well known to be one of the best in the world, giving drinking water of the very highest quality. However, that is before deliberately adding a highly corrosive, highly toxic hydrofluorosilicic acid (chemical formula H 2 SiF 6 ) to it on the pretext that it is a tooth decay preventive measure. This acid is a contaminant banned by the U.S. EPA as a pollutant. It is said by the suppliers to be a pure form of the acid. That claim is highly questionable since it is known that the solution provided to our water treatment plant contains these other elemental contaminants in the final solution: fluorine (F), hydrogen fluoride (HF), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), phosphorus (P), iron (Fe), iodine (I), silver (Ag), plus uranium 238 (U238), barium (Ba), radon (Rn), cobalt (Co), radium (Ra), polonium (Po) and possibly others. Its only claim to purity is based on the fact that it is unaltered from the reclaiming process that produces it. However, isn't it strange that something labeled as pure can contain so many contaminants?

Why are all those contaminants in there? Because it is the result of the solution obtained from the wet scrubbing of the smoke stacks of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry after mining for phosphate, mainly in Florida. In the words of U.S. EPA scientist Dr. J. William Hirzy before the Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water, United States Senate, June 29, 2000: "If this stuff gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it's a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing...", but, it's more than amazing!

Somehow this contaminant is magically transformed into a health product by being sold and shipped to us in very special tanker trucks for use as an drug additive into our water supply that is supposed to prevent or reduce tooth decay. There is now mounting evidence after over 65 years of use that it does not work as claimed by its promoters and that we have been fraudulently convinced of those claims for the benefit of the bottom line of rich industrialists. However, there is more to this last statement than can be covered in this email letter at this time. There are also ethical, medical, pharmacological, financial and practical issues regarding the addition of any drug to the water supply, but here again, there is more to this than can be covered in this email letter at this time.

You be the judge. Do you still want to drink Ottawa tap water now, especially since it is known that fluorine, mercury, arsenic, lead and  uranium 238 , radium and polonium are cancer causing agents that are part of the final solution? Even in the claimed highly diluted state, these elemental substances can still wreak havoc in your body if you are the unlucky one who gets to swallow a glassful with some of them in it, or if you are unusually sensitive to these chemical elements. I mean, why take that chance now that you know? How much harm have these done to you already without your knowing, since they work in a very slow and insidious manner in small quantities? What about the rest of Ottawa's citizens? Do you care?

On the strength of this information alone, isn't it wise to ask for a moratorium on adding this wonderful, magical acid to our water supply until such time as there is proof that adding this specific acid to our water is indeed safe and effective in treating tooth decay as claimed by medical bureaucrats? To my knowledge, those two claims have yet to be supported with valid, objective and unbiased primary scientific research on the use of that specific acid for water fluoridation. Requests for such research have yet to be produced by the whole medical bureaucracy. Now that's amazing.

So I very calmly, reasonably and respectfully ask the following for the good of all Ottawa residents, for you, your family and for myself and my family, please make a request for actual documentation of primary research from our Ottawa Medical Officer of Health on:

1. the safety of using hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation product in our municipal tap water
2. the effectiveness of using hydrofluorosilicic acid in reducing tooth decay
3. the adverse health effects of using hydrofluorosilicic acid on parts of our anatomy other than teeth,
not summaries, studies, reviews, or list thereof, and that you inform me of the response.

Please ask the following question of the Medical Officer of Health in the exact manner detailed below:

Please supply me with actual documentation of valid, objective and unbiased primary research, not summaries, studies, reviews, or lists, on:

1. the safety of using hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation product in our municipal tap water,
2. the effectiveness of using hydrofluorosilicic acid in reducing tooth decay,

Please respond directly to the questions; if there is no primary research available as requested, please respond by stating so to each question.

Thank you.

You have a right and a duty of care to do this type of due diligence as a Mayor of our fine City.

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; one must take it because it is right.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

Thank you for the attention you will give to this important subject.

Respectfully yours,

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

---

Someone in the Mayor's office responds

From: "Watson, Jim (Mayor)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
To: rich.hudon@rogers.com
Cc: "Levy, Isra" <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 2:39:05 PM
Subject: FW: Water quality

Dear Mr. Hudon,

Thank you for your input. I appreciate receiving your feedback and suggestions and have taken this opportunity to share these with our Medical Office of Health, Dr. Isra Levy.

Sincerely,

Jim Watson
Mayor
City of Ottawa

/cg

This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.
Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

---

LETTER # 13

From: Richard Hudon [mailto:rich.hudon@rogers.com]
Sent: November 04, 2011 12:53 AM
To: Watson, Jim (Mayor)
Subject: Formal Request For Important Information

Friday, November 4, 2011

Mayor Jim Watson
Ottawa City Hall
110 Laurier Avenue W
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1

Good morning Mayor Watson

May you and those you hold dear continue in good health.

In my email letter of last week, after a suitable and reasonable preamble, I asked that you request certain information of our Medical Officer of Health. Maybe I was not plain and simple enough, so I will attempt to be plain and simple now.

Be mindful that I did so because I have asked for such information numerous times from the Medical Officer of Health and it is still not forthcoming, so, I will make it plain and simple.

Please ask the following question of the Medical Officer of Health in the exact manner detailed below:

Please supply me with actual documentation of valid, objective and unbiased primary research, not summaries, studies, reviews, or lists, on:

1. the safety of using hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation product in our municipal tap water,
2. the effectiveness of using hydrofluorosilicic acid in reducing tooth decay,
3. evidence of adverse health effects of using hydrofluorosilicic acid on parts of our body other than teeth,
Please respond directly to the questions; do not reply with the standard statement.
Thank you.

Please then seriously attempt to obtain such information and forward to me all responses to your efforts from the Medical Officer of Health.

I have asked my own Councillor, Tim Tierney, to request this same information and he remains silent on the matter, so I have decided to seek assistance from you in obtaining that information.

Thank you in advance for the time and consideration you will give this request. A personal response is respectfully requested.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Hudon
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, K1J 8B5
613-747-7157, text: 613-852-8692

---

Someone in the Mayor's office responds

From: "Watson, Jim (Mayor)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
To: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
Cc: "Levy, Isra" <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:22:12 PM
Subject: RE: Formal Request For Important Inform

Dear Mr. Hudon,

With respect to your email regarding water fluoridation, please note that your inquiry has been forwarded to our Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Isra Levy, for his information and consideration.

Regards,

Jim Watson
Mayor
City of Ottawa

/cg

---

Reply to the above response

From

Dear Mr. Mayor,

I trust that you are in continued good health.

I wish to express my disappointment and dismay in this response in the strongest terms possible without using inflammatory language. I firmly believe that this forwarding of my email will surely prove ineffective in obtaining a proper and complete response to my request for answers to my questions.

The action you have taken is not in keeping with the request. I asked for you to very specifically ask the questions below (highlighted in red), assuming that it was obvious that you would do so in a separate email written by you or a qualified person from your office. I apologize in advance for the lack of clarity in this regard. I can only assume that your personnel is so extremely busy that they failed to notice this nuance. The text in red, and only the text in red contains the exact request, with an addition. Would you be so kind as to please act accordingly.
Please ask the following question of the Medical Officer of Health in the exact manner detailed below:

Please supply me with actual documentation of valid, objective and unbiased primary research, not summaries, studies, reviews, or lists, on:

1. the safety of using hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation product in our municipal tap water,
2. the effectiveness of using hydrofluorosilicic acid in reducing tooth decay,

Please respond directly to the questions; do not reply with the standard statement.

This gives me the opportunity, therefore, to add this sentence to the request:
Should no such data be available, please respond that this is so for each question.

Thank you.

Please be kind enough to follow up on this request so as to clearly obtain the desired information for me. Thank you.

As already said, and this bears repeating, I assumed you would interpret this as writing your own email with the questions in the email and not a forwarded email.

I believe that I already know what answer we will get from a forwarded email.

I am fairly certain that you will receive a copy of their answer and will see that their answer is unsatisfactory, unless you follow up with some clear, qualifying request to answer the questions as enunciated.

Thank you in advance for the consideration you will give this follow-up request.

Respectfully,

Richard Hudon

---

LETTER # 14

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Mayor Jim Watson <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
Cc: "Dr. Levy, Isra" <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:45:07 AM
Subject: Justice for the Weak, the Vulnerable

Monday, November 21, 2011

Councillor Timothy Tierney
Ward 11, Beacon Hill-Cyrville
c/o City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1


Good morning Councillor Tierney,

I once more sincerely hope that you and those you hold dear continue in good health.

Forget about the fact that money may be literally going down the drain. What I am merely seeking is justice for the weak, the vulnerable and those suffering from chemical sensitivities by eliminating a practice that is primarily harmful to them but also to the whole population that is unaware that their lives are being unknowingly, slowly, adversely affected by adding a known contaminant to an otherwise drinkable water supply.

Today, I challenge you to look into your mind and into your heart for the truth, and to seek out the evidence for yourself after reading the following:

1. is having even a tiny bit of lead, arsenic or mercury in the water acceptable, much less deliberately adding them in with a known banned EPA contaminant?
2. we first purify the water for drinking then contaminate it with hydrofluorosilicic acid and its contaminants: is this a reasonable thing to do?
3. think of babies, patients on dialysis, cancer patients, diabetics, the elderly, drinking what should be contaminant free water.

See the tiny sample of data below my signature block among hundreds available on adverse health effects of ingestion of fluoride substances.

This letter continues my quest for a reasonable and correct response for specific information on the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid for artificial water fluoridation.

Please supply me with actual documentation of valid, objective and unbiased primary research, not summaries, studies, reviews, or lists, on:

1. the safety of using hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation product in our municipal tap water,
2. the effectiveness of using hydrofluorosilicic acid in reducing tooth decay,
3. evidence of adverse health effects of using hydrofluorosilicic acid on parts of our body other than teeth,
Please respond directly to the questions; do not reply with any standard statement.

If no documentation is available as requested, please respond by simply stating that fact for each question.

Thank you.

Please insure that if you ask a subordinate to respond that they only respond to the question. It's time for a clear and correct answer in keeping with the simplicity of the request.

Should you wish to personally meet with me to present the requested response, whether you have such information or that none is available as specifically itemized, simply contact me using the information from my signature block below.

I trust you will treat this request with the utmost consideration it deserves.

Respectfully yours,

Richard Hudon
1385 Matheson Rd Ottawa, K1J 8B5
613-747-715 - text: 613-852-8692
P.S. Dr. Levy and all of his assistants have already received an exact duplicate of this same letter.

On Fluoride & Neurotoxins:
1. Mullenix PJ, et al, Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats, Neurotoxicology Teratology, 1995 March,17(2):169-177.
2. Jaqueline Calderon, et al, Influence of Fluoride Exposure on Reaction Time and Visuospatial Organization in Children, Epidemiology July 2000, Volume 11, Number 4 Supplement S153.
3. Li XS, et al, Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence in Children, Fluoride, 1995 Nov, 28:4, pp 189-192
On Fluoride & Bone Cancer:
1. Bassin EB. (2001). Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Ostosarcoma for Children and Adolescents. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine. 2. Bassin EB, et al, (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma ( United States ). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8. 3. McGuire S.M., et al, (1995). Fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma. [Abstract] Journal of Dental Research 74:98.
4. Takahashi K., Akiniwa K., Narita K. (2001). Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACR/IARC (WHO) data (1978-1992). International Agency for Research on Cancer. Journal of Epidemiology 11(4):170-9.
5. "I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year. " Dr. Dean Burk Ph.D. (34 years at the National Cancer Institute).  Judicial hearing, January 14, 1982.
6. Yiamouyiannis, J, Ph.D. Fluoride: The Aging Factor, 1986, pages 27,54,59-62,63-72,81,119-127,131-134,136,139,143-145
On Fluoride & DNA Damage:
1. Yiamouyiannis, J, Ph.D. Fluoride: The Aging Factor, 1986, pages 53-59,61,81,128-130,135-136,144.
2. Shashi, A., In Vivo Studies Concerning Toxic Effects Of Sodium Fluoride On Hepatic Function, Patiala, India, Fluoride Vol. 36 No. 1 30-37 2003 Research Report
3. A. M. Khalil, A. A. Da'dara, The Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Activities of Inorganic Fluoride in Cultured Rat Bone Marrow Cells, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26, 60-63 (1994) Fluoridation Shown to be a Health Hazard Judge Ronald A. Nieman, "Opinion," Illinois Pure Water Committee vs Director of Public Health, State of Illinois, No. 68-E-128, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, 1982.

---

LETTER # 15

From: Angel Little angel_little101@yahoo.ca
Sent: December 09, 2011 1:38 AM
To: All Councillors Individually AllCouncillorsIndividually@ottawa.ca
Subject: How Much of Tap Water do we Drink

Dear Mr Mayor Watson,

I hope you are well.

Do you know that less than 1% of the water from our water treatment plants is actually used by us for drinking. Just ask the engineers of Ottawa's water department.

How can that be? What happens to the rest of it? Please read the following and 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:

1. Washing our clothes, water down the drain.
2. Dishwasher or dishes washed in a sink, water down the drain
3. Bath and shower, water down the drain.
4. Hand, face and other body part washing, water down the drain.
5. Every toilet flush, at least a dozen times a day, water down the drain.
6. Washing walls, floors, doors, windows inside and out, water down the drain.

Down storm drains:

1. Washing your car sends water down the city's storm drains;
2. Some people thoughtlessly wash their driveways using tap water, sending it down the storm drain;
3. 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;
4. 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.
5. Most car washes use thousands of liters every week and that water ends up down the city's storm drains.
6. 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.

Straight into the environment:

1. Watering the lawn with tap water puts it directly into the ground.
2. Watering gardens puts it directly into the ground.

Commercial and industrial uses

1. Commercial building cleaners of all types, from interior and exterior windows, to floors, walls and building contents, water down the drain.
2. 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, and
   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.

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 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.

In fact, it is also unethical to do so, since those who do not need it per the promoters' claims are also receiving that drug and the right to consent to refuse to be drugged is categorically and irresponsibly being denied for all residents, not just that tiny number that may allegedly need it. However, that's another issue among many others regarding the use of the water supply as a drug delivery system.

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 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 note that most of the research I found 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.

So, what are we waiting for in Ottawa 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 and Williams Lake, British Columbia, Nov. 11, 2011?
I found out that it costs around half a million dollars ($500,000) in total to put this stuff in the water.

Can you see that 100% of your tax dollars and mine are being totally wasted by putting this wonderful! hydrofluorosilicic acid in the City of Ottawa water supply? Can you not see the folly of putting medication in the water supply in an attempt to prevent cavities when it doesn't work?

Don't you think it's time we stop this foolish practice of putting a fluoride chemical in Ottawa's tap water when it doesn't work?

Please be kind enough to respond personally to this last question and not send me that awful statement from the Public Health Office about fluoridation.

Respectfully

Angel Little
Ottawa
P.S. Don't bother answering if you're going to send me a copy of that stupid statement from the health office, or get them to respond. I can do without answers from lap dogs.

---

JW/gy response from the mayor's office

From: "Watson, Jim (Mayor)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
To: Angel Little <angel_little101@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 6:56:39 AM
Subject: RE: How Much of Tap Water do we Drink

Dear Angel,
Thank you for your email.
I appreciate receiving your opinion, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions.
I have complete confidence in our Medical Officer of Health and all of the other professionals who provide our City advice on health matters. It is clear from your note that you have apparently already received answers from Public Health. Therefore, there is nothing further for me to add.
Sincerely,
Jim Watson

Mayor
City of Ottawa

JW/gy
This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.
Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

---

LETTER # 16

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Mayor Jim Watson <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
Cc: "Dr. Levy, Isra" <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 12:31:46 AM
Subject: Public misinformed about water quality

Thursday, January 5, 2012.

Mayor Jim Watson
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Good morning Mr. Mayor Watson.

I trust that you and your beloved continue to be in good health.

Dr. Francis Weil of Moncton, NB, states that the public is misinformed about fluoridation.

"It is sad to see how the public is being misinformed about the science of fluoride by public health associations. Much like they did with tobacco research for close to 50 years, these agencies continue to ignore peer-reviewed research that shows how water fluoridation does next to nothing to reduce tooth decay and indeed presents health risks.

Even the National Research Council's Review (NRC-2006a, Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water, co-author Dr. Kathleen Thiessen) indicates how low levels of fluoride can disrupt fetal brain development, thyroid gland function, bone and skeletal joint health with the elderly and more.

Public health agencies have also misrepresented studies such as the famous York Water Fluoridation Review. Dr. Trevor Sheldon, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of York (England), who chaired the York Review, has publicly reprimanded public health and dental associations for misrepresenting the study. Dr. Sheldon explains that contrary to what public health associations claim, the York review did not find water fluoridation to be safe, nor help the poor. It found that the evidence that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay is low, not "massive" as claimed by the public agencies."

Dr. Francis Weil, Former Dean, Science and Engineering, UdeM, Moncton, NB, Wednesday, January 4th, 2012, Moncton Times & Transcript (http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/1468512).

This email letter is for your information.

Sincerely,
Richard Hudon
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, K1J 8B5
613-747-7157 — text: 613-852-8692

Fluoridation cessation is necessary for better health.
http://ffo-olf.org/ — ffo-olf@rogers.com
We have the science, they only have endorsements.
1. Abdo FK, Khalifa ME, Zidan RA, Abdel Aal SM. 2011. Effect of sodium fluoride-induced toxicity on the renal cortex of lactating mice and their offspring: a light and electron microscopic study. Egypt J Hist 34(3):554-65.
2. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosaroma (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17(4):421-8.
3. Berg J, Gerweck C, Hujoel PP, King R, Krol DM, Kumar J, Levy S, Pollick H, Whitford GM, Strock S, Aravamudhan K, Frantsve-Hawley J, Meyer DM. 2011. Evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding fluoride intake from reconstituted infant formula and enamel fluorosis. JADA 142(1):79-87.
4. Ding Y, Sun YGH, Han H, et al. 2011. The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children's intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. J Haz Mat 186(2-3):1942-6.
5. Duan X, Mao Y, Wen X, Yang T, Xue Y. 2011. Excess fluoride interferes with chloride-channel-dependent endocytosis in ameloblasts. J Dent Res 90(2):175-80.
6. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 820-R-10-015.
7. Eswar P, Nagesh L, Devaraj CG. 2011. Intelligence quotients of 12-14 year old school children in a high and a low fluoride village in India. Fluoride 44(3):168-72.
8. Ge Y, Niu R, Zhang J, Wang J. 2011. Proteomic analysis of brain proteins of rats exposed to high fluoride and low iodine. Arch Toxicol 85:27-33.
9. Hong L, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Broffitt B. 2011. Amoxicillin use during early childhood and fluorosis of later developing tooth zones. J Publ Health Dent 71(3):229-35.
10. Kim FM, Hayes C, Williams PL, Whitford GM, Joshipura KJ, Hoover RN, Douglass CW. 2011. An assessment of bone fluoride and osteosarcoma. J Dent Res 90(10):1171-6.
11. Leite GAS, Sawan RMM, Teofilo JM, Porto IM, Sousa FB, Gerlach RF. 2011. Exposure to lead exacerbates dental fluorosis. Arch Oral Biol 56(7):695-702.
12. Lupo M, Afonso M, Buzalaf R, Rigalli A. 2011. Effect of fluoridated water on plasma insulin levels and glucose homeostasis in rats with renal deficiency. Biol Trace Elem Res 140:198-207.
12. Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. 2000. Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology 21(6):1091-100.
13. NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Fluoride in drinking water: a scientific review of EPA's standards. National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 507 pp. Raises serious concerns about the use of fluoride chemicals in water fluoridation in numerous areas of health and recommends unbiased, objective research be pursued to alleviate these concerns. To date, not such research has even been entertained.
14. Poureslami HR, Khazaeli P. Fluoride intake and urinary excretion in preschool children residing in Koohbanan, Iran, a city with high fluoride water and food. Fluoride 43(1):67-70.
15. Poureslami HR, Horri A, Garrusi B. 2011. A comparative study of the IQ of children age 7-9 in a high and a low fluoride water city in Iran. Fluoride 44(3):163-7.
16. Reddy PY, Reddy KP, Kumar KP. 2011. Neurodegenerative changes in different regions of brain, spinal cord and sciatic nerve of rats treated with sodium fluoride. J Med Allied Sci 1(1):30-5.
17. Shivaprakash PK. 2011. Relation between dental fluorosis and intelligence quotient in school children of Bagalkot district. J Ind Soc Pedod Prevent Dent 29(2):117-20.
18. Spittle B. 2011. Neurotoxic effects of fluoride. Fluoride 44(3):117-124.
19. Valdez-Jiménez L, Soria Fregozo C, Miranda Beltrán ML, et al. 2011. Effects of the fluoride on the central nervous system. Neurología 26(5):297-300.
20. Willems HME, van den Heuvel EGHM, Castelein S, et al. 2011. Fluoride inhibits the response of bone cells to mechanical loading. Odontology 99:112-118.
21. Yang S, Wang Z, Farquharson C, Alkasir R, Zahra M, Ren G, Han B. 2011. Sodium fluoride induces apoptosis and alters bcl-2 family protein expression in MC3T3-E1 osteoblastic cells. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 410(4):910-5.
22. Zhu W, Zhang J, Zhang Z. 2011. Effects of fluoride on synaptic membrane fluidity and PSD-95 expression level in rat hippocampus. Biol Trace Elem Res 139:197-203.
A copy of this email letter was delivered by hand, duely addressed, to the Mayor's office on Januray 17, 2012, having had my email letters bounced a number of times from his email address and other Councillors's email addresses. Having received the MOH marketing message found here: http://ffo-olf.org/takeAction.html#o2. My reply can be read in letter # 18 below, which was not bounced due to my using a different email address to send it to him.

---

The Mayor office repsonds in writing

Office of the Mayor City of Ottawa 110 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario, KJP 1J1 Tel.: (613) 580-2496 Fax: (613) 580-2509 E-mail: Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca

Bureau du maire Ville d'Ottawa 110, avenue Laurier Ouest Ottawa (Ontario) KJP 1J1 Courriel : Tel.: (613) 580-2496 Téléc. : (613) 580-2509 Courriel : Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca

January 25, 2012
File: S00-00 HEA

Mr. Richard Hudon
1385 Matheson Road
Ottawa, ON
KlJ 8B5

Dear Mr. Hudon,

Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning water fluoridation.

The City of Ottawa follows Health Canada recommendations and has established a level of 0.7 mg/L as the optimal target concentration for fluoride in our drinking water. I am informed by our Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Isra Levy, that this standard prevents excessive intake of fluoride, which has been the focus of criticism over the years.

Adding fluoride to drinking water provides society and individuals a number of benefits. It has been proven to lower tooth decay in people of all ages. By preventing tooth decay fluoridation saves families, and government money on dental treatment and it saves business the lost time of employees seeking dental treatment. The reduction in dental treatment also provides a generally better quality of life, as people go through fewer period of pain caused by tooth decay.

Fluoridation of drinking water has been one of the most intensely researched areas of public health over the years. 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). Our Medical Officer of Health has informed me that the Ottawa Public Health Department has reviewed many of 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 many 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-eaul/2008-fluoride-fluorurel/index-eng.php.

Further, specifically related to Ontario, the Ontario Medical Association COMA) has 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.

All of this evidence leads me to conclude that fluoridation of the City of Ottawa water supply, as practised today, is of health benefit to our residents.

Sincerely

signed

Jim Watson
Mayor
City of Ottawa

JW/lm
c.c. Dr. Isra Levy, Medical Officer of Health

---

LETTER # 17

From: LF <email@domain.name>
To: Mayor Jim Watson <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 3:18:45 PM
Subject: Health and Wellness Expo 2012

Dear Mayor Watson:

I just noticed that you supported the Health and Wellness Expo last year and in fact declared that Jan2011 was Health and Wellness Month. I saw this on the Simply Raw newsletter. But Ottawa still knowingly medicates all those in Ottawa who drink municipal water. Our water department goes to great length to clean up the Ottawa River water that we drink...then they add the toxin fluoride. My councillor tells me that I have a choice, I can drink bottled water (which isn't very green and it is expensive) or I can install a reverse osmosis water treatment system that costs upwards of $1000(also expensive). I previously submitted to you a proposal to stop fluoridation as part of the City Budget discussions but I guess it wasn't worth it.
http://www.orleanswellnessexpo.com/

It would be interesting to survey city hall and staff, especially the Public Health, to see how many actually drink city water. Dr Levy and his group continue to tell us that fluoride is good for us and none of our elected officials dares to take him to task to prove that the claimed therapeutic benefits are actually true. In fact he has put out a six point letter/guideline that everyone gets from their councillor if they bring up the subject of fluoridation. I believe that Councillor Holmes is head of a standing committee that should be providing oversight to the Public Health but she has never deemed me/fluoridation worthy of a response over the past year, probably at least one message to her monthly. Councillor Taylor also has a say in Public Health (according to the Ottawa site) but nothing has been seen from that Committee either. Every tube of toothpaste, for example, has a warning on it about fluoride but Dr.Levy continues to say that it is safe and effective. My councillor would rather joust at seasonal 2nd hand smoke at our parks/beaches rather than deal with something that we all drink every day.

I believe that we should have a right to not be forcibly medicated by the City especially when there is any hint that fluoride is detrimental to our health and the health of our children. Again, we can control our intake of fluoride due to some sources i.e. toothpaste but not that in the municipal water (except at a great cost).

I know that you are aware of the dangers of fluoridation since you have received letters from individuals and the Fluoride-Free Ottawa organization over the past year, and that you're aware that many Canadian municipalities have rejected fluoridation over the past couple of years, for example Calgary (Championed by a concerned Councillor) and Waterloo (municipal election referendum).
http://ffo-olf.org/

Thank you for your consideration.

LF
613 ### ####
PS. I have also sent a copy to Councillors Holmes and Taylor.

Name and address details withheld by request

---

LETTER # 18

From: Richard Hudon mycontact@rogers.com
To: Mayor Jim Watson Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca
Cc: Tierney, Tim Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:22:51 PM
Subject: Frustration with answers

Monday, January 30, 2012

Mayor Jim Watson
c/o City Hall
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Dear Mr. Mayor.

There are not adequate words available in the English language sufficiently expressive to convey my dismay and outrage at the response I received to my hand delivered letter of January 17, 2012 regarding the fluoridation of the city of Ottawa's water supply.

To offer up what is patently a marketing message composed on behalf of the Ottawa Public Health office is not only disingenuous and disconcerting but also highly disrespectful of the efforts which I expended to explain clearly and precisely the immense problems created by this misguided and misrepresented health measure.

As much as I want to believe that the Medical Officer of Health and his staff have the best health interests of Ottawa residents at heart, it is a sad realization that they have little if any knowledge of the impact that fluoridation using a hydrofluorosilicic acid solution containing harmful contaminants has on public health and well being.

I have repeatedly asked that they obtain for me primary research on the safety, effectiveness and benefits of using this acid for tooth decay prevention. To this date, such an answer has not been forthcoming. The same disingenuous message you supplied me and other non answers have been repeatedly given to me without any concern for the content of my request.

I therefore ask of your office to please write an email or letter to obtain for me answers to the following two questions with the given caveats.

Please do not simply forward this letter to them, as this will simply frustrate obtaining the requested reply and create unnecessary difficulties for all concerned.

Please supply me with actual documentation of valid, objective and unbiased primary research, not summaries, studies, reviews, or lists, on:

1. the safety of using hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation product in our municipal tap water,

2. the effectiveness of using hydrofluorosilicic acid in reducing tooth decay,

Please respond directly to the questions: please do not reply with any unrelated data or marketing information about Ottawa's policy on fluoridation.

If no documentation is available as requested, please respond by simply stating that fact for each question.

Thank you.

I patiently await a speedy reply to this letter and an equally speedy response from the Ottawa Public Health office.

A copy of this email letter has been sent to my Councillor, Tim Tierny, for his information and follow up.

Respectfully,

Richard Hudon
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, K1J 8B5.
CC: Councillor Tim Tierney

---

LETTER # 19

Written letter in further response to his of January 25, 2012

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Mr. Mayor Jim Watson
Office of the Mayor
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, KJP 1J1

Your Honor:

I trust that you and all of those you hold dear are in good health.

This written response to yours of January 25, 2012, File: S00-00 HEA, is merely to bring to your attention a small misconception with which you conclude that most brilliant piece of marketing that was written for you to respond to those who question or object to being mass medicated, or for whatever other reason, using the water supply in this “marvelous” program of Artificial Water Fluoridation.

You conclude your letter by saying that “All of this evidence leads me to conclude that fluoridation of the City of Ottawa water supply, as practised today, is of health benefit to our residents.”

Do you not realize that all of the statements made in what precedes yours is not “evidence” but mere statements of endorsements and support by those who promote and agree with a conclusion that has yet to be proven by science and research.

Do you realize that every statement in that write-up is a fraudulent misrepresentation of information calculated to intentionally and dissonantly misinform the uninitiated to well crafted and highly inaccurate marketing messages.

Real evidence makes a valid, objective statement, then backs it up by evidentiary content. There is none of that in what you have been given to respond to me and to those like me who have looked at real evidence and found that all of the claims of the proponents of fluoridation are severely wanting in real, objective and valid evidence.

Did you know that there is clear epidemiological evidence dating back prior to 1995 that fluoridation contributes significantly to cancer. Dr. Dean Burke, PhD, Biochemistry, and Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, PhD, Biochemistry, much maligned for their support of cessation of this dangerous practice, did a study in a huge undertaking in the U.S. that found a link between fluoridation and cancer.

In 1937, Dr. Dean Burke became a co-founder of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), and headed its Cytochemistry department for over three decades.

Dr. Burke made the following startling remarks in a recorded interview following the above mentioned study: “I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year.” Dr. Dean Burke Ph.D. (34 years at the National Cancer Institute). Judicial hearing, January 14, 1982.

SOURCES:
The Fluoride Deception, Christopher Bryson. Seven Stories Press, 2006, pp. 348-349, ref. 25 & 27.
1. Yiamouyiannis, J. PhD, Biochemistry, Burke, D. PhD, Biochemistry, reported cancer in fluoridated communities in the United States. "Fluoridation and Cancer: Age-Dependence of Cancer Mortality Related to Artificial Fluoridation," Fluoride, vol. 10 (1977), pp. 102-123.
2. Yiamouyiannis, J. PhD, Biochemistry, "Fluoridation and Cancer: The Biology and Epidemiology of Bone and Oral Cancer Related to Fluoridation," Fluoride, vol. 26 (1993), pp. 83-96.
3. Takahashi, A.; Akiniwa, K.; & Narita, K.: "Regression Analysis of Cancer Incidence Rates and Water Fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACRIIARC (WHO) data (1978-1992)," J.Epidemiol., vol. 11, no. 4 (July 2001), pp. 170-179
3. In 1991 the National Cancer Institute found that the occurrence of osteosarcoma in young males was, in fact, significantly higher in fluoridated versus un fluoridated communities. similar increases in bone cancer in young men were also found in New Jersey in a 1992 study. In that report, between the years 1970 and 1989 the rate of osteosarcoma (among ten- to nineteen-year-old males) was found to be 3.5 to 6.3 times greater in the fluoridated areas versus the unfluoridated ones. P. D. Cohn, An Epidemiologic Report on Drinking Water and Fluoridation (Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Health, 1992). Note: Some re4searchers attempted to discredit these findings for political reasons.
4. Cohn, P. D.; An Epidemiologic Report on Drinking Water and Fluoridation (Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Health, 1992). Between the years 1970 and 1989 the rate of osteosarcoma (among ten- to nineteen-year-old males) was found to be 3.5 to 6.3 times greater in the fluoridated areas versus the unfluoridated ones.

And from other sources:
1. Bassin EB, et al, (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8.
2. Bassin EB. (2001). Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Ostosarcoma for Children and Adolescents. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine.
3. Takahashi K., Akiniwa K., Narita K. (2001). Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACR/IARC (WHO) data (1978-1992). International Agency for Research on Cancer. Journal of Epidemiology 11(4):170-9.
4. Takahashi K., Akiniwa K., Narita K. (2001). Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACR/IARC (WHO) data (1978-1992). International Agency for Research on Cancer. Journal of Epidemiology 11(4):170-9.
5. McGuire S.M., et al, (1995). Fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma. [Abstract] Journal of Dental Research 74:98.

Now that’s evidence!

Can the MOH match all of the statements in your message with that type of solid, valid and objective evidence?

Can the promoters of artificial water fluoridation provide this type of solid, valid and objective evidence?

Would you be kind enough to write to the Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Isra Levy, and please ask him to provide primary research as follows:

Please provide me with any primary research that shows:

1. the safety of using hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation product in our municipal tap water for ending or reducing tooth decay,

2. the effectiveness of using this hydrofluorosilicic acid in ending or reducing tooth decay,

Please respond directly to the questions; do not reply with any standard statement.

If no documentation is available as requested, please respond by simply stating that fact for each question.

Thank you.

Please then provide me with his response to those two questions.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Hudon
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, Ontario, K1J 8B5
613-747-7157 – text only: 613-852-8692

---

LETTER # 20

From: LQ <email@domain.name>
Sent: February 01, 2012 10:57 PM
To: Watson, Jim (Mayor)
Subject: Water bill to skyrocket

Now that the water bill is about to skyrocket I am just wondering if it wouldn’t be prudent to find savings.

Perhaps we can take the controversial fluoride out of the city water. As you know many, many cities in Canada, the US and around the world have done it. I think we should err on the side of safety.

LQ

---

JW/gy response from the mayor's office

From: "Watson, Jim (Mayor)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 3:35 PM
To: L <email@domain.name>
Subject: RE: Water bill to skyrocket

Hello L,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your input, though I must respectfully suggest that our Council is working hard to address some of the concerns that you raise.

Our City has one of the best water supplies in the world. We want to keep it that way and that is the thrust of the plan that has been presented. We have been totally open in saying that we will need more money to properly maintain the aging water and sewer infrastructure in our City. We have to avoid problems like the recent broken water main on Elgin Street and last summer’s Woodroffe water main break by acting now to protect our water supply for the future. Last year, the water rate increased by 3.9% and this year we are asking for a 6% ($38 per household per year) increase. This 5% average over our first two years compares to 9.0% increases in each of the three previous years.

The current Council has also limited tax increases to 2.45% in our first budget and 2.39% in Budget 2012, as we promised. The same 2.5% limit was also applied to OC Transpo fare increases, which had risen 7.5% in each of the three previous years. Transit route changes were made to make the entire system more affordable for the long term and those changes enabled us, in the latest budget, to inject $5.5 million in new funding to offset the huge 6% increase in ridership and crowding on some of those new routes. We have also frozen parks and recreation fees for two years, which is a benefit to all residents, and we have frozen Council salaries and office budgets (I reduced my own office budget by $80,000). We are constantly looking for efficiencies in the City operations and in the 2012 budget there is an actual reduction of staffing levels at the City for the first time in many years as a result of the Service Ottawa initiative. At the same time, we have this year put in place a plan, Ottawa on the Move, that will begin to repair our aging roads sidewalks, sewers and water mains.

We are working to control costs and the expenditure of tax revenue each and every day and all the while providing the services that each and every taxpayer and family needs – police, fire, paramedics, transit, public health, garbage pickup and recycling, snow clearing and removal, parks and recreation, and a reliable, safe system that delivers water to all homes and businesses – to name a few. The effort to control costs will not stop, nor will it ever be finished. There are always “best practises” to be found elsewhere and improvements that come from within.

I hope that you are able to see the benefits of our great city as you look to the future. Comparisons to other places are not always “apples-to-apples”, as I am sure you know. For instance, people often do not recognise that Ottawa is the biggest geographic city in North America, if not the world – Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver will all fit within our borders with room to spare. This sheer size presents challenges of its own, along with great opportunity. We have wonderful educational facilities, an ever-diversifying economy, it is easy to move about, we have great museums and arts festivals, our dining scene is comparable to any other major centre, we are close to great recreation areas and we are the National Capital. But, most of all, we have wonderful people and neighbourhoods.

As for your concerns regarding the use of fluoride, I’d like to note that 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 studies have examined the potential for adverse health effects related to fluoride. Ottawa Public Health has reviewed these major studies. All concluded that water fluoridation is a safe and effective method of reducing dental 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 addition, Health Canada's Chief Dental Officer, Dr. Peter Cooney has credited the practice as an equitable approach to dental health by stating, "The big advantage of water fluoridation is that it benefits all residents in a community, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, education, or employment."

In 2010, Health Canada completed an extensive review of the health risks associated with fluoride in drinking water. The results of this review are summarized in Health Canada’s Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document which is accessible at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/water-eau/2011-fluoride-fluorure/2011-fluoride-fluorure-eng.pdf. 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. 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. In addition, the Medical Officer of Health follows the Protocol for the Monitoring of Community Water Fluoride Levels under the Ontario Public Health Standards by reviewing reports on Ottawa’s drinking water supply. 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.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns and taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Jim Watson
Mayor
City of Ottawa

JW/os
This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.
Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

---

LETTER # 21