This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Today, March 25, 2019, Windsor City Council will decide whether to pass the bylaw to reintroduce artificial water fluoridation. Fluoride Free Windsor has put out the following:
- A News Release, (see below)
- Refutation of the Windsor Essex County Health Unit Report of 2018, signed by 35 professionals including dentists, doctors and scientists that warn against using the WECHU report to justify Artificial Water Fluoridation
- Summary of the Refutation of the Windsor Essex County Health Unit Oral Health Report of 2018 (see below)
- Rebuttal to Dr. Ahmed on Bashash et al: Important Failings in Dr. Ahmed’s Presentation and Response to Windsor City Councillors on December 17, 2018
Refutation Summary, WECHU Oral Health Report, 2018 (see full Refutation Report linked above)
On March 14, 2019 a new study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The authors of Aluminium and fluoride in drinking water in relation to later dementia risk concluded that aluminium and fluoride is “related to dementia risk in a population of men and women who consumed relatively low drinking-water levels of both.”
This new information crystallizes a legitimate concern held by many area residents – that artificial water fluoridation may have unintended and irreversible health consequences.
Windsor City Councillors voted to resume artificial water fluoridation without the benefit of this disturbing news of March 14.
This information was sent on March 18th to the council members of Windsor, Tecumseh and LaSalle and it is now incumbent on them to contemplate the potential health risks to which area residents may be exposed.
In light of this new development, which mirrors several others, council members should consider:
Should we resume artificial water fluoridation when such startling information has not been fully explored, AND alternate means of promoting good oral health are known, proven and available?
Posted in Uncategorized on February 20, 2019
The father of actor Chris Evans, who plays Captain America, is a dentist and is opposed to water fluoridation. His son suffers dental fluorosis and has expensive veneers to hide the damage. See his letter below to read about his experience with the trade organization he was affiliated with, the ADA, and how he made the change to the esteemed science/evidence based organization the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology.
Dental fluorosis is increasing in Canadian kids, especially in fluoridating communities. The local dental health report claims no dental fluorosis found, without admitting that they’re screening children too young to show the signs; kids in jk and gr 2 don’t have all their permanent teeth yet – dental fluorosis shows on permanent teeth.
Dental fluorosis is the visible sign of fluoride over dose. We can see the harm to teeth but not visible is the harm caused to bones, brains and other internal tissues. The cost to repair damage caused by dental fluorosis is high and not covered by dental benefits or provincially funded programs. Topical fluoride treatments and cavity repair are covered by dental benefits and provincially funded programs. The dental industry considers this harm caused by swallowing fluoride as ‘cosmetic’.
In the Canadian court case of Millership v Kamloops , the judge stated
“it is clear that the consumption of fluoridated water would contribute to the occurrence of dental fluorosis. I am satisfied that Mr. Millership has established causation on the balance of probabilities.”
Mr. Millership did not win this case; he dropped action against Kamloops because they had stopped fluoridating and he pursued action against the province and the federal government to which the judge found “neither the province nor the federal government fluoridated any water Millership consumed, so they were not liable.” It is municipalities that decide to fluoridate or not. It is municipalities that are responsible for providing clean safe water. It is municipalities that are liable for the harm contaminants they allow in the water may cause….such as dental fluorosis.
How long before Ontarian/Windsor parents seek remedy for the costs of dental fluorosis repair? We’ve already heard from several parents that have paid out thousands of dollars.
Captain America’s Dad…
Posted in Uncategorized on February 1, 2019
The Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act states nothing is permitted into drinking water that is in contravention of a prescribed standard. Safe water advocates, and anyone that takes an in-depth look, knows that fluoridation chemicals are in contravention of a prescribed standard. Standard NSF60 requires toxicology studies and those studies have never been done. This is confirmed by Health Canada, former WUC CAO John Stuart, and by the presentation made by former Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Heimann.
Public Works employees continue to advise councils that the chemicals used in fluoridation do meet the standard, without providing any evidence that they do.
Windsor Utilities Commission report, June 25, 2012 section 3. Toxicology
Why we have Standard 60 as a safety protocol:
Further, the WUC report claims that 1) Health Canada has the required tox studies (but they do not as linked to above) and 2) that we don’t need them anyway because of hydrolyzing and dissociation.
Admittance that fluoridation chemicals do not meet Standard 60:
Interestingly, the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act says nothing can be added to the water that hasn’t met a prescribed standard, it doesn’t exempt things from being added because under some conditions that thing dissociates and it even goes so far as to state that dilution of the thing is no defence to adding the thing to the public’s drinking water.
Dissociation and Hydrolyzing Makes Contaminants Disappear!
WUC Report from June 2012, 3. Toxicology, con’t:
Or does it…
How does the water provider ensure dissociation remains under conditions outside the water plant? The pH, temperature and fluoride concentration can change from what is measured at the water plant to what is found at the tap, in infant formula, in the human stomach. But that’s not all…
Debunking the claim that no safety tox studies are required because of dissociation:
Click to see the full presentation on Debunking Dissociation. We’ve pulled out a few images to highlight how important it is that we have safety tox studies done.
Finney is the study referenced in the WUC report above that claims we don’t need safety studies because of dissociation. Why didn’t they consider the Westendorf study? Why are they relying on studies that use purified versions of fluoride and water that isn’t the same chemistry as municipal tap water?
Fate Of Fluorosilicate Drinking Water Additives, Urbansky, 2002, indicates that re-association may occur. And in, A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals, Mullenix points to further concerns about the toxicity of post dissociated compounds.
So we need SAFETY STUDIES after all…
The regulatory standard requires safety tox studies and dissociation is not a good enough reason to bypass this Safe Drinking Water Act requirement.
The Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act exists to protect all of Ontario’s municipal water drinkers from contaminants. Putting an untested, unregulated contaminant, silicofluorides, with trace co-contaminants of arsenic, lead and mercury, into the drinking water supply is not permitted, nor should it be.
It’s not just fluoride in fluorosilicates:
- Health Canada’s guideline for arsenic, classified as a human carcinogen (maximum acceptable concentration, MAC, 0.01 mg/L ALARA as low as reasonably achievable), also states “MAC based on treatment achievability [not safety] ; … levels should be kept as low as reasonably achievable”. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/water-quality/guidelines-canadian-drinking-water-quality-summary-table.html
- The EPA’s Public Health Goal / Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for arsenic is zero. “Definitions: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)—The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.” https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants#one
- Health Canada’s guideline for lead (MAC 0.01 mg/L) has not been re-assessed since 1992, and it states “Exposure to lead should nevertheless be kept to a minimum.”
- The World Health Organization states that “Lead is a cumulative toxicant that affects multiple body systems and is particularly harmful to young children. Lead in the body is distributed to the brain, liver, kidney and bones. It is stored in the teeth and bones, where it accumulates over time. .. Lead in bone is released into blood during pregnancy and becomes a source of exposure to the developing fetus. There is no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs379/en/
- The EPA’s Public Health Goal / Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for lead is zero. “Definitions: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)—The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.” https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants#one
- “The (10 parts per billion threshold) is obsolete,” says Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a health sciences professor who specializes in lead exposure in children at Simon Fraser University. “We’ve got science that is conclusive, definitive and evaluated by independent advisory boards but policy hasn’t kept up with that.” … Kathleen Cooper, senior researcher and lead expert with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, says there is “incredibly solid evidence to say there is no safe level (of lead).” http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/05/20/water_quality_tests_data_shows_elevated_lead_levels_in_toronto_homes.html
Posted in Uncategorized on January 20, 2019
With Windsor’s new council voting to reinstate fluoridation chemicals into the water supply we’ve received inquiries from other Essex County water drinkers.
“They’re not going to put that stuff in our water are they?”
“Is there a chance that my water could be fluoridated?”
“Please tell me Windsor’s decision is a joke, what does that mean for the rest of us?”
Historically: Leamington, Kingsville and Essex have never been fluoridated. Amherstburg ended fluoridation before Windsor did. Lakeshore had only one of its water plants fluoridated and ended that nearly a decade ago. LaSalle and Tecumseh are currently customers of Windsor’s water supplier, Windsor Utilities Commission.
It isn’t clear what the Health Unit’s fluoridation promoting plans are and if they’ll target other municipalities within the region next (though they are going to Tecumseh on January 29th, write them at firstname.lastname@example.org to ask them to keep fluoride out!).
We can share the Union Water Supply System’s present position on fluoridation. This water system supplies Leamington, Kingsville, Essex and part of Lakeshore. It is the system that mayor Dilkens has recently commented about connecting to as a back up source. Union Water Supply System is opposed to fluoridation. Originally in part because Heinz didn’t want fluoridated water in their baby food. Today the water supplier states concerns about adding a chemical that doesn’t result in a net improvement to the quality of drinking water. Click the link for their full position and other reasons of concern…
Posted in Uncategorized on January 17, 2019
The following letter (along with contact information that has been removed here) was submitted to the councils of Tecumseh and LaSalle by Canada’s leading authority on fluoride. Five years ago, Dr. Hardy Limeback provided expert advice to the former City of Windsor Council (that voted to end fluoridation). Windsor’s current council did not seek any input from fluoride experts.
Tecumseh and LaSalle Councils still have to make a decision. And it isn’t too late for Windsor Council to reverse their decision and take precaution.
I am concerned you might make the same mistake that the Windsor council did and approve the addition of fluoride into your drinking water.
In my opinion, the new Windsor council made a huge mistake and I will try to explain why.
My background as a fluoride expert: I have a PhD in Biochemistry (1979) and a dental degree (1983) from University of Toronto. As a professor-dental scientist, I received many national grants to do laboratory and clinical research, mostly on the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones. At the same time, I maintained my own part-time dental office. It was in both my dental practice and supervising the thousands of patients in the Faculty of Dentistry clinics in my program that I noticed that almost every second child had some form of dental fluorosis (see below).
I was one of 12 scientists in North America chosen to serve on the U.S. National Academy of Science’s committee that produced the 2006 report Fluoride in Drinking Water. Taking three years to complete, we reviewed over 1,000 studies. That report is still considered the most authoritative, comprehensive work ever done on the toxicity of fluoride.
I was trained in traditional dentistry, and for many years accepted the prevailing opinion of the establishment in Canada and the U.S. that water fluoridation is “safe and effective.”
I was mistaken.
As I intensively studied the literature and performed my own research, the evidence clearly demonstrated that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial. In 1999, I publicly changed my position. In doing so, I joined the vast majority of nations, cities and medical organizations throughout the world that do not endorse fluoridation. Indeed, 95% of the world’s population drinks unfluoridated water.
Our NAS committee concluded unanimously that fluoride could harm the functions of several human organs in addition to developing teeth. These include the brain, the skeletal system (from which our immunity is derived), the thyroid and the kidney. We also determined that much more research needed to be done, especially regarding fluoride’s effects on the brain, kidney disease, diabetes, hypothyroidism and cancer.
Nearly 13 years later, much research has been done, including major neurotoxicity studies led by Canadian and American scientists. A 2017 petition to the U.S. EPA to end fluoridation documented that fluoride caused brain and/or central nervous system damage (mainly lowered IQ in children) in 57 out of 61 human studies, several at levels in fluoridated water, and 112 out of 115 animal studies. Moreover, our NAS review concluded unequivocally that fluoride lowers thyroid function. Hypothyroidism (low thyroid levels) in pregnant women is known to be linked to lower IQ’s in their children.
As I mentioned, I have been alarmed at the skyrocketing rates of dental fluorosis, an irreversible disease caused by an excess of fluoride ingestion in small children. It causes a staining of the teeth with white splotches at mild levels and structural damage with yellow and brown stains at the moderate and severe levels. In the U.S., which fluoridates far more than Canada, the latest study (Neurath, Limeback et al, JDR Clin Trans Res, 2019 in press) found it has reached epidemic proportions – it now afflicts 72% of all 12-15-year-olds, with 27.9% moderate and 2.8% severe. All sources of ingested fluoride contribute to this toxic load, but water is by far the largest contributor. Higher fluorosis levels in children have also been linked to lower IQ’s.
In this ongoing debate, this is what is perhaps the most disturbing to me: both before and after our 2006 report, fluoridation advocates have declared, with certainty, that fluoridation is safe for everyone. This assertion was, and is, contradicted by the science and is totally unjustified.
Why do so many dentists and others in Canada and the U.S. support this practice? Most people follow the pronouncements of authority figures like Health Canada, the U.S. CDC and dental associations.
I can’t speak for any individual, but I believe most people, inside and outside the government, haven’t reviewed the literature, especially on health risks. If they had, I think most would change their minds.
There’s another factor, especially for professionals, which should be noted. If you speak out against fluoridation, you risk being criticized by these authorities and shunned by your peers. I know many dentists and physicians who oppose it but fear taking a public stance based upon these legitimate concerns.
Please consider leaded gas, leaded paint, asbestos, DDT, DES, tobacco and many other substances. They were all accepted as safe by the medical establishment until the research on their harm became so compelling that authorities had no choice but to ban or restrict their use. It often took 50 years or more for government action to catch up to the scientific warnings. Fluoridation is following exactly the same path.
The evidence opposing this practice is already extensive. It was clear to me in 1999 that scientists had already compiled enough data to call for its cessation. In the two decades since, hundreds of studies have further validated my earlier conclusions.
For the health and safety of your residents, I strongly urge you to oppose fluoridation.
Thank you for your consideration, and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD (Biochem) DDS
Tecumseh Town Council will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6 p.m. to hear from the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit in relation to their “Oral Health Report 2018”. There will be no vote at this meeting with respect to fluoridation in the water. A vote by Council will be held at a later date once full details from the City of Windsor and Windsor Utilities Commission regarding this matter are available.
The Town has received a number of comments regarding fluoride in the water and these have all been shared with Council. Due to the volume of comments already received, we recommend that anyone wishing to share their views on this matter do so via a letter to Council that can be delivered to Town Hall or emailed to email@example.com This will ensure that all opinions on the matter are shared with Council in absence of being approved as a delegation or if you are unable to attend.
Tecumseh needs to know safe water advocates are not the minority.
PLEASE delegate and if you can’t please submit an email/letter. Keep your letter short and include your name and address. Even a simple “I am not fluoride deficient and you do not have my consent” can be effective.
Posted in Uncategorized on December 9, 2018
When the water provider (Windsor Utilities Commission) for Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle, recommended that the City of Windsor cease water fluoridation, the council of the day voted a 5 year moratorium on adding hydrofluorosilicic acid into the drinking water supply. That five years has come and gone.
Health Unit Can’t See Beyond the Oral Cavity;
Ignores Science and Negative Health Effects
The Health Unit is again lobbying for water fluoridation but their report fails policy makers in several ways:
– It doesn’t provide data by municipality; Lakeshore voted unanimously to stop adding fluoridation chemicals to their Stoney Point water treatment plant in November 2011, their other water treatment plant, in Belle River, never had it added. Amherstburg voted unanimously to end fluoridation in February 2012, but hadn’t fluoridated since the April prior due to equipment failure. Kingsville, Leamington and Essex never fluoridated their water supply. Windsor, Lasalle and Tecumseh ended fluoridation in early 2013. A previous oral health report from 2016 did provide data by municipality and reported that Tecumseh and Lasalle had the fewest cavities, Leamington and Windsor had the most, the remaining communities were fairly equal and the difference from the lowest to highest cavity rates was less than half a cavity. That’s right! LESS THAN HALF A CAVITY.
– The report doesn’t control for confounding factors, data wasn’t collected scientifically, isn’t peer-reviewed or published; the Health Unit would like policy makers to believe that their data proves the effectiveness of fluoridation, but they haven’t even considered such factors as: access to fluoride from other sources, income, diet, dental visits, oral health practices, how much tap water (with or without fluoride) is being consumed, and other factors.
– Water fluoridation does nothing to remove barriers to access to dental health care by a professional.
– No one is monitoring total fluoride exposure from all sources. Fluoride is in toothpaste, other dental products, and in some food and beverages. The science is clear that too much fluoride is harmful, especially for the most vulnerable – infants, those with compromised immune systems, pregnant women, those with thyroid and kidney conditions.
– The report claims there is no dental fluorosis in the teeth of children screened, but children screened have none or very few permanent teeth. Permanent teeth would show the signs of over exposure to fluoride. The Canadian Health Measures Survey showed that 40% of adolescent aged children have some form of dental fluorosis.
– Screening is done by dental hygienists (who are not allowed to diagnose caries/cavities) under really bad lighting conditions in schools.
MEANWHILE IN SCIENCE
Science is mounting for the negative health effects of ingesting fluoride. Here are four recent ones:
1. A Canadian study, published in October 2018, found that adults who are iodine deficient and have higher levels of fluoride in their system have a greater risk of an underactive thyroid.
“I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure,” Ashley Malin, lead author of the Canada thyroid study and a researcher at the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told EHN. “And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years.”
Malin said 18 percent of the nearly 7 million people they studied were iodine deficient. “We’re talking about potentially [more than] a million people at risk of an underactive thyroid due to fluoride exposure.”
2. A second Canadian study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, found that among 1,566 pregnant women, fluoride levels in urine were almost two times higher for women who live where fluoridation chemicals are added to their drinking water compared to pregnant women living in non-fluoridated communities. “The studies call into question the practice of purposely adding fluoride to water…”
Christine Till, an associate professor and researcher at York University, told EHN one of her main concerns is that pregnant women are susceptible to iodine deficiency, which, according to the study from Canada, could leave the mothers-to-be with thyroid problems.
3. Another study published the same day “looked at 213 Mexican mother-children pairs and examined mothers’ urine fluoride levels during pregnancy and assessed children for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms at ages 6 to 12.”
Dr. Howard Hu, co-author of the Mexico study and an epidemiological researcher at the University of Washington, told EHN the research from Canada on fluoride levels in pregnant women “makes the results of this study from Mexico even more applicable to what might be going on in North America.”
Also, fluoride easily crosses the placenta from mother to her unborn. The study is not the first to find a fluoride-behavioral link: A previous study linked the element to ADHD in U.S. children.
4. A year earlier, in September 2017, a published study looked at the association of prenatal exposure to fluoride and the offspring’s neuro-cognitive development
“In this study, higher prenatal fluoride exposure, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 y.”
Fluoride as a neuro-toxin has been studied before with respect to fluoride exposure in children outside the womb. Fluoride proponents disregarded these earlier studies claiming they aren’t relevant because they weren’t conducted with fluoride exposure at levels seen in North America.
Will they continue to ignore the mounting evidence and these newly published North American studies?
Water Fluoridation is a Water Quality/Safety Issue
Remember, water fluoridation schemes began before fluoridated toothpaste was readily available. Today, we can buy toothpaste with fluoride cheaply in nearly every store.
Public Health needs to stop relying on the outdated and false claims about the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation and start dealing with the lack of access to dental health care for a growing number of Canadians.
Drinking water should be safe for everyone, including pregnant women and their unborn children, the iodine deficient, those with kidney and thyroid conditions, and our most vulnerable.
Windsor Council made a progressive and protective decision, five years ago, when they decided to end water fluoridation.
Council will vote on this issue again and they need to hear from you before December 14, 2018. Please send a brief message letting them know you want your water free of fluoridation chemicals. Council contact emails can be found here.
Follow us on Facebook.