Drop of Water Onto Surface of Water
Prove Fluoridation Safe - Open Letter to Council & all OPH staff
Isn't tap water great? Yes, but many of us can NOT drink it.
Water is for everyone, fluoridation toxins are not
 


Open Letter to Councillors, the Mayor, the Medical Officer of Health & all Staff, City of Ottawa

Monday, January 23, 2012.

To each Councillor and the Mayor
c/o the City of Ottawa
Ottawa City Hall
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor and Mr. Mayor Watson.

I wish to address a practice that, in my informed opinion, was erroneously implemented in 1965 in our City with insufficient information and from pressures from improperly informed authorities of the day. I hope my approach is not discourteous, does not unduly offend and that you may find it worthy of attention. Please bear with me, or at least humour me, by reading it through to its conclusion.

The issue I am currently concerned about affects our environment. Land, water and air pretty much define and insure who we are as a species. We could not survive without them!

When was the last time you stopped to think about the one thing you can’t live without? I don’t mean the Internet, sex or TV – I’m talking about water. Without clean drinking water, life could not go on. This is why it’s so important that we know what is in our water. For over forty-five years, our City and governments nationwide have been adding a controversial substance called “fluoride” to municipal water supplies. Do you have any idea what kind of “fluoride” we are using? Is it as innocuous as claimed when it is meant to be used as it is?

Many citizens are upset that they were never told by their water utility, health care provider, patient advocacy organization, trade groups, or government entities that fluoridation was performed ontheir water supply and about there is possible and real, provable and undeniable harm from ingested fluorides for a large number of them.

Is it not bad ideological thinking and a dangerous practice for our society to add anything else to our water supply for any reason other than to make it and keep it drinkable, as pure and safe as reasonably possible? I am speaking about the practice of water fluoridation in our community, more precisely the chemical compound added to it that is incorrectly and publicly mentioned and referenced as “fluoride” for the purpose of reducing dental cavities.

However, is that really why we were made to add it to our water supply in the first place? The main benefits of Fluoride is presumed and proclaimed to be for the strengthening of teeth and are currently believed to be topical, that is, to be applied to the surface of the teeth, but not ingested, and only for children starting at a specific age and ending at a specific age. Yet everyone drinking our tap water is forced to swallow this tooth medicine! Yet even topical applications are currently being brought into question by some reliable researchers in dentistry, medicine and in numerous fields of science, but mainly in biochemistry.

Are you aware that there is also a major problem with the actual “fluoride” chemical used. It is not a natural chemical as inferred. And it is surely not one that is good for us to add to our water supply. It is a chemical called hydrofluorosilicic acid. The name has been on our city's web site here: http://ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/water_wells/quality/facts/fluoride/#P32_3079 for the longest time, under the sub-title How is Fluoride added to the drinking water? having attempted to explain away any doubt about its use with much fanfare and marketing language.

There may be a place for minerals or safe compounds, based specifically on individual needs and using a monitored, required dose, in our homes or in the dentist's or doctor's office. However, we should not make the entire inhabitants of our municipality the test subjects of this practice, barring any emergency, city wide need for such an attack on civil liberties.

I personally and firmly hold that it is unethical, immoral and unlawful. A close and careful examination of the ramifications of adding any drug for medicinal mass medication to the municipal water supply will bear this out. There can be no valid reason for doing so, even for a proven, tested benefit, much less then for an unproven, an unapproved, and an untested benefit such as tooth decay prevention.

I contend that we have gone down this path in error. Stop for a moment to think about this. What else might we add next into our water: the mineral lithium for bipolar disorder? or an antidepressant drug to try to minimize or prevent depression and suicides in children? or a cholesterol lowering drug? or one to lower the incidence of ADD or ADHD among children? They all sound like reasonable ideas on the surface of it all. But are they really? Adding this or any Fluoride substance into our water supply is just as bad an idea.

Another major difficulty with this particular practice is that the chemical used is not an approved, tested and regulated substance by any health authority in Canada, the U.S. or anywhere else in the world, yet it is vigorously promoted by Canadian health bureaucrats at all levels of government as a magical cure (a panacea) for tooth decay.

To be approved for medicinal use in treating tooth decay by incorporating any chemical in the water supply, that chemical would have to have undergone two stages of testing to satisfy the scientific and legal determination of safety. The scientific/legal determination of safety for ingesting medicinal chemicals is based on 2 types of research:
1. Animal studies (toxicology studies), and,
2. Human studies (clinical trials).
The actual Fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation (silicofluorides H2SiF6 and Na2SiF6) have been used for over 40 years with neither the required animal studies (toxicology studies) nor the required human studies (randomized controlled clinical trials) to determine safety in order to protect consumer safety and satisfy the legal requirements in Canada.

Since neither of the two products used in Canada qualify under the above requirements for water additives and are therefore not lawful for use in water fluoridation. Why is this? What is the real purpose of adding this acid to our water?

A common and naive response to such an assertion is that if there was any harm to health by water fluoridation, we would have seen some by now. That does appear to be a reasonable assertion to the objection. However, is this claim substantiated by any research to prove it? Unfortunately, there is none whatsoever. In fact, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, the real life experience of people, that demonstrates that the opposite is true. Countless individuals suffering from such ailments as Alzheimer's to Fibromyalgia, to diabetes, to rheumatoid conditions of all types have stopped exposing themselves to fluoridated water, beverages and foods and have phenomenal recoveries. As the author of this letter, I am a living witness to this near miraculous type of recovery.

Another response to objections to fluoridation is that the quantity ingested is so small that it can not possibly have any harmful effects on our health. If that is true:
  • Why do a large number of children develop dental fluorosis? If you don't know what that is, ask me. Don't ask the MOH: he believes that it is merely a cosmetic effect. But how can that be? Think about this for a few seconds: the Fluoride has had to go through your whole digestive and circulatory systems to get there!
  • How can it be effective in tooth decay prevention if so small a quantity is claimed to be ingested without harmful health effects?
  • Do you not know that it accumulates in your bones over time and that it destroys its structure and strength?
  • As mentioned before, Fluoride is the negative ion of the Fluorine element. Do you not know that it's the most reactive element on earth and that it will react with every other element on earth?

Although fluoridation is touted as safe, can you not see from the above that it does not even satisfy safety requirements? It is now very apparent that it is associated with numerous side effects whose possibility is not even intimated, mentioned or acknowledged by any health authorities anywhere that fluoridation is implemented. Numerous attempts to bring health concerns related to fluoridation to their attention have been repeatedly treated trivially, ignored and those favouring cessation continue to be intimidated into silence.

As an example of the noxious capability of Fluoride chemical uses, Fluoride compounds, which are composed of the element Fluorine, such as in Sodium Fluoride are part of an insecticide that has been used in the past as the single most effective ant poison and as a rat and other rodent killer. The element Fluorine, as the most extreme reactive element on earth, can greatly increase the uptake of lead, aluminum and many other toxic metals in your body. It is also used in many pharmaceutical drugs as a bio-activator or potentiator, that is, to make them more powerful.

We have been led to believe that water fluoridation is one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century, but I dare to differ. I passionately believe that this statement is in serious error. From my understanding, born of research and wisdom, I categorically and boldly assert the opposite conclusion that it is one of the greatest health disasters of the 20th century, surreptitiously harming us in hidden ways that we have just started to understand over the past thirty five years. In fact, the achievement statement was only used once in an internal memo at the CDC, but has nonetheless been parroted by AWF promoters as if it were some form of holy writ. It no longer appears in their internal memos! Why not? With all of the real research now in hand, isn't it time to seriously revisit fluoridation?

Furthermore, those most targeted for its presumed benefits are also the ones most unfortunately the first ones to be harmed by this untested mass drugging using our water supply.

Two questions have been repeatedly asked of you, Mr. Councillor, and of every City of Ottawa Councillor, of you Mr. Mayor Jim Watson, and you, Dr. Isra Levy, Medical Officer of Health for the City of Ottawa Public Health office, but to no avail. I have proof irrefutable of this outrageous refusal to respond to these two simple questions.
These two questions are:
Please provide me with either primary research on:

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,
or,
if no documentation is available as requested in 1. and 2. above, please respond by simply stating that fact for each question.

Please respond directly to the questions; please do not reply with any other supplementary information.
Thank you.

What is wrong with this picture? Why continued ineffectual responses?

The problematic relationship between Fluoride concentration in drinking water and “Fluoride dose,” due to varying amounts of water consumed by individuals and from other sources of ingested and absorbed Fluoride, severely complicates attempts to determine both health risks and benefits associated with any specific Fluoride concentration in drinking water, currently set at 0.7 ppm in Ottawa (January 2012). Concentration is expressed commonly in parts per million, or, ppm. In particular, commonly available foods and beverages contain from high (greater than 2 ppm) to negligible levels of Fluoride, and fluoridated toothpaste is variably used and often swallowed, while containing over 1,000 ppm. Adding to this disastrous picture is the complication of mouth washes and rinses with varying and undeclared amounts of Fluoride. Impartial researchers assert that these factors grossly complicate interpretation of Fluoride use in drinking water studies and may explain why the few studies conducted have come to a variety of conclusions that, in many cases, are quite different and contrary to one another.

Promoters and proponents have in the past protested that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in children, that it is reduced by an order ranging from 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, depending on who was speaking, however, they have now begun to sing the same tune as opposition has grown across the land. They have even changed their tune to adding that it gives lifelong health benefits, however, such is totally unattributable to Fluoride. In fact, the opposite is being proven time and again as time progresses, but they refuse to even consider the evidence, obstinate in their erroneous belief that fluoridation is a panacea for tooth decay whereas proper nutrition is the real answer. Ignoring even the possibility of any harmful effects to your health is an ongoing practice at our Ottawa Public Health office.

A long time ago, on Monday, November 15, 1965, Ottawa implemented the practice of adding a “fluoride” chemical to its drinking water, presuming that it would most benefit those suffering from tooth decay, based on incomplete data made available at that time by individuals with that incomplete information. It is time to revisit this practice. Current data on that practice dictate that a proper analysis and thorough study be done, and done by an independent panel of specialists in various fields of medicine, toxicology, terratology, neo-natology, neurology, pharmacology, ethics, law and philosophy. Anything less would be to limit the scope to more of the same as what has been done in the past, that is, looking only at it's possible and expected benefit to teeth. One such extensive and surprisingly thorough study was completed by one City, Fairbanks, Alaska in 2011. A true copy of this report called “Report of the Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force” April 25, 2011, is available on the internet for all to read here: http://ffo-olf.org/files/FairbanksFinalReport.pdf.

To think or believe that any food or chemical that we put in our mouth only affects our teeth and not the rest of our anatomy is paramount to thinking or believing that a scorpion's sting will only affect the place of its sting. Knowing the foregoing, I challenge anyone to counter this statement in a reasoned and unimpassioned manner. Therein lies the crux of the argument for cessation of fluoridation in any municipality. The kind of narrow thinking of fluoridation promoters is illogical, reckless, irresponsible and deficient.

Much has changed and much has become known since that fateful implementation of the fluoridation of Ottawa's water supply in November 1965. I firmly believe that it is time for this City's policy on water fluoridation to be completely vetted and reviewed as detailed above. I therefore strongly recommend that the City of Ottawa undertake to investigate the subject of water fluoridation by impartial, objective and learned third parties who have no vested interest in either maintaining or opposing the status quo of artificial drinking water fluoridation, followed by a thoroughly publicized, full public input process into the practice of artificial drinking water fluoridation as currently practiced by the City of Ottawa. However, a cheaper alternative exists. Publicize the Fairbanks Report and publicize the presentation to Moncton Councillors that led to their well reasoned decision.

Please see my response to the current standard reply the OPH office to those who object to fluoridation or advocate for its cessation: http://ffo-olf.org/aResponse.html, especially the opening paragraph in the preamble. Please bear in mind that the only ones who really benefit from water fluoridation are the corporations who are by this means able to dispose of their industrial toxic waste at a profit instead of having to process it at great cost for safe disposal.

As the Mayor or a Councillor of the City of Ottawa, you have been by now provided with sufficient evidence to judge for yourself that the practice of water fluoridation is unwarranted, wasteful, irresponsible and verifiably harmful to at least a subset of the residents of Ottawa. This in itself should move each of you, our municipal representatives, to act for the protection of those individuals who reside in all wards of our city. This has yet to done in spite of a multitude of email letters written to you. My emails have now been blocked from being received by most Councillors as if they are spam. Why? Is the truth I am sending so difficult to take? Is the truth so hard to believe that they must resort to such uncanny tactics? Am I just seen as a troublesome individual who needs to be shut out? This does not augur well for the City of Ottawa's public representatives or for those they pretend to represent.

I believe that the City of Ottawa should properly discharge its duty of care and due diligence in this matter, in light of modern research findings in this area of public health and come to a fully informed and enlightened decision. Our municipal politicians could then vote in good conscience to discontinue this practice while ignoring undue pressures from vested interests. In taking their responsibility in hand, our Councillors could hold their heads high in the knowledge that they have acted in the best interest of all of the residents of our City's residents and save the City's beleaguered taxpayers the expense of an expensive and senseless investigation, plebiscite or referendum.

Many Councillors have responded that they are not medical practitioners, dentists or scientists and that they choose to defer to the medical officers of health in the matter of water fluoridation because it concerns health. However, when a simple citizen such as myself and many others with no medical or scientific training can make sense of this particular medical practice, it becomes evident that you do not even want to consider the subject for whatever reason. This is dereliction of duty. This is escapism from reality.

Fluoridation has no benefits for people, animals or plants, just profits for corporations needing to dispose of their industrial toxic waste by fraudulent misrepresentations and disinformation.

There is no bodily function that requires fluoride unless you consider tooth fluorosis, bone fluorosis, Alzheimer's, hypothyroidism, aging and causing or aggravating all manner of diseases as bodily functions.

As a person adversely affected by fluoridation who has dutifully advocated for cessation of fluoridation, I expect that you, as one of this City's Councillors or administrators will prevail to ignore the marketing efforts and pressures for maintaining the status quo of misguided health bureaucrats and decide to ban this amazingly defective practice.

Respectfully submitted,


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

to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa