Archive for category In the News

An Inconvenient Tooth

Newly released documentary featuring

several Canadian safe water advocates!

Topics covered include: the product, hydrofluorosilicic acid; the ethics of using a population to experiment on with untested chemicals; the suppression of science; and the politics surrounding the practice of artificially fluoridating the drinking water supply.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Health Canada’s Credibility at Risk

It takes only three teaspoons of 0.7 mg/l fluoridated tap water to meet the bureaucracies’ falsely labelled “Adequate Intake” of fluoride of 0.01 mg per day. Their equally falsely labelled “Adequate Intake” number used to be higher, I think it was 0.25 mg/day – but the NRC report coming after Dr. Hardy Limeback’s research, the admission from the Institute of Medicine that fluoride is NOT a nutrient and the CDC announcing that fluoride’s action is topical not systemic, had forced it way down.

The official WHO member resolution on infant feeding does not mention fluoridated water or fluoride supplements at all. It says infants should be breastfed as long as both mother and infant like, and weaning foods introduced by nine months of age should be fresh and nutrient-rich (does not say “fluoride-rich”). Despite Health Canada’s claim that it complies with WHO/UNICEF directives in recommending fluoridation, there is no evidence that these agencies formally recommend increased fluoride intake at all for infants.

Regarding pharmaceutical fluoride drops and pills: Health Canada now states that infants should not be supplemented. The Canadian Dental Association now says infants should not be supplemented. The Canadian Paediatric Society now says infants should not be supplemented. Their current recommendations are reversals of their previous positions of ordering fluoride be given to breastfed babies in escalating amounts from birth onward.

Obviously, their fraudulent “Adequate Intake” (AI) of 0.01 mg/day is sufficient. But sufficient for what? Teeth and bones? Then why fluoridate water if mother’s milk and ambient background levels in most tap water already provide this AI for teeth and bones?

Health Canada says fluoridated water is safe for making infant formula and does not overdose them. Really? Fluoride dose from water 100x higher than their sham AI is not overdose? Odd how they recommend as safe for infants an intake of supplementary, non-nutrient fluoride that is 100x higher than any AI for any essential nutrient, or even for water itself, and goes against their own recommendation that infants should not be supplemented with any fluoride at all.

Health Canada says everyone can drink fluoridated water and there is no credible evidence of any health effect at 0.7 mg/L. Well, that’s only true if babies are limited to three teaspoons of water a day. Health Canada’s appalling lack of basic arithmetic skills highlights the fact that: “According to Health Canada’s own recommendations, babies exceed the AI when they get more than a tablespoon of fluoridated tap water a day.”

Therefore this agency should not be relied upon by our municipal councils for credible advice on water fluoridation providing a safe intake for formula fed infants.

New Hampshire Passes First State-Wide Fluoride Warning Law

“If a public water supply is fluoridated, the following notice shall be posted in the water system’s consumer confidence report: ‘Your public water supply is fluoridated. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis. Consult your child’s health care provider for more information.'”

Dental fluorosis is the visible sign of fluoride poisoning.  “Like bones, a child’s teeth are alive and growing.  Fluorosis is the result of fluoride rearranging the crystalline structure of a tooth’s enamel as it is still growing. It is evidence of fluoride’s potency and ability to cause physiologic changes within the body, and raises concerns about similar damage that may be occurring in the bones.” Environmental Working Group March 2006

City council is charged with the responsibility of ensuring our drinking water is safe for EVERYONE!  Will they vote to cease artificial water fluoridation to protect our formula fed infants?

, ,

Leave a comment

Windsor Utilities Commission Votes for SAFE Water

Before we get to the outcome of the recent Windsor Utilities Commission meeting let’s take a look at the local media coverage. Fluoride Free Windsor and local Safe Water Advocates want to thank our media sources for doing such an amazing job of helping Windsor/Essex residents become informed about the facts of artificial water fluoridation!

February 29, 2012  Utilities Commission Recommends City Stop Fluoridating Water

February 27, 2012 ‘More Doctors Smoke Camels’

February 18, 2012 Researchers Explore Fluoride Debate

February 18, 2012 Fluoride Still Stirring Debate

February 10, 2012 Heather Gingerich on Ending Fluoridation of Drinking Water

February 7, 2012 Town Council Passes Moratorium on Water Fluoridation

December 2, 2011 City Urged to Consider Fluoride Ban

November 2, 2011 Group Wants Fluoride Removed


Windsor Utilities Commission Special Fluoridation Meeting February 29, 2012

Fluoride Free Windsor, Council of Canadians, Canadian Medical Geology Association, a Registered Nurse and several local residents presented to the Windsor Utilities Commission (WUC) board members at a special fluoridation meeting held on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 to make the case for SAFE WATER.

The outcome of the meeting was a motion made by Councillor Dilkens and seconded by Councillor Marra to recommend that the City of Windsor cease fluoridation. All members of the commission, except for Councillor Sleiman, voted in favour of the motion. We wish to extend a huge thanks to Mr. Dilkens and Mr. Marra, as well as the commissioners, for voting in favour of SAFE WATER. For more videos of delegates’ presentations visit the Fluoride Free Windsor YouTube channel.

Windsor Utilities Commission has a mandate to supply SAFE WATER

A little background on this water supplier – they have state of the art technology using both ozonation and infra-red to clean the water (not chlorine!) and remove any pathogens – this is good because we get our drinking water from the Detroit River which, as most of you reading this will know, isn’t so clean!  Unfortunately, after WUC does such a fantastic job of cleaning the water they add an agent that is classified as hazardous wastehydrofluorosilicic acid – straight from the smoke stacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry, untreated, tanked and shipped to our municipality under the guise of ‘tooth medicine’.  See here confirmation from WUC’s Chief Operating Officer, John Stuart, that the water fluoridation product is a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry:

WUC Fluoridation Reports

A May 23, 2006 WUC fluoridation report for City of Windsor Council states “It should be noted that The Windsor Utilities Commission reduced the level of fluoride from 1.2 mg/l to 0.65 mg/l several years ago.” which begs the question: Does that mean that for several decades WUC customers got twice the concentration of fluoride that they tell us is safe today? Will we be told in the future that the ‘safe’ limit is lower still, as fluoride lobbyists find it more and more difficult to disregard  the mounting evidence that fluoride accumulates in our bodies and in our environment, causing harm?

In the WUC Fluoridation report dated February 17, 2012 (completed for the purposes of this special fluoridation meeting) it states:

“It is of interest that on January 7, 2011 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended dropping the fluoride concentration from their current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per litre to 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per litre. This updated recommendation was based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects.

UNWANTED HEALTH EFFECTS? But our Medical Officer of Health and local dentists keep saying there are NO unwanted health effects.  The WUC report quotes the Health Canada (2007) review that indicates “fluoride in drinking water is unlikely to cause adverse health effects…” and “fluoride in drinking water is unlikely to be the cause of moderate dental fluorosis…” (does that mean it is likely to be the cause of mild dental fluorosis?) As parents trying our best to protect our children from unnecessary chemicals, should we be reassured with Health Canada’s ‘unlikely to cause harm’ fluoridation endorsement? Can they back up this endorsement with safety studies?

Fluoride lobbyists admit that fluoride is harmful and can only claim it is ‘safe and effective’ at optimal levels.  The problem is, that ‘optimal level’ has continued to be decreased ever since the water fluoridation experiments began.  Why is that?  For one thing, the science doesn’t support the ‘safe and effective’ propaganda.  And so as decades pass and we’re in our third generation, of test subjects ingesting fluoride, we see more and more signs of fluoride toxicity – and so instead of our health authorities being PROTECTIVE and taking PRECAUTION we see them being reactive to mounting evidence of harm and lowering the fluoride limit in our drinking water time and again all while desperately defending this policy in an attempt to retain credibility. It seems that the opposite is happening. By defending worn-out policy, health and dental authorities are losing credibility when they do not take a precautionary stance that is protective of all.

Residents should be allowed to monitor their own fluoride intake while depending on the tap water for bathing, cooking and drinking.  Public health is NOT monitoring our fluoride intake from all exposures nor have our communities been assessed to determine what our fluoride intake is from all available sources. Some people are sensitive to fluoride, some people need to avoid it because they suffer from a suppressed thyroid or because they have a compromised immune system. Current water fluoridation concentrations are not protective of formula fed infants or aquatic species and claims of safety at any level is questionable, as we’ll soon see.

What does the Precautionary Principle say?

The principle requires that we consider the possible benefits, the possible harms and whether there are feasible alternatives for producing the benefit. For fluoride, the benefit is slight if any and does not pertain to a threat to public health. Possible harm is great and almost certain for some harm like dental fluorosis and thyroid suppression. There are harmless and accessible alternatives for attaining the desired benefit. And so, fluoride does not pass the test of the precautionary principle.

Anyone who believes that ingesting fluoride is contributing to their dental health can simply ingest more of the readily available foods that contain fluoride while leaving our municipal drinking water free of it so that it is as safe as possible. See here the USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods. There is no shortage of access to fluoride but avoiding it is near impossible when it is in our tap water. For those interested in SAFE methods of preventing dental caries see these Alternatives to Fluoride.

How SAFE is hydrofluorosilicic acid? What measures exist to ensure it is SAFE for us to ingest every day of our lives?

The Safe Drinking Water Act (2002) is clear that water systems must meet licensing requirements; the license (Schedule B, Section 14.0) requires that chemicals used meet the Standard NSF60. This standard provides criteria to conduct a toxicological risk assessment. This criteria was confirmed by WUC Chief Operating Officer, John Stuart, in the report dated February 17, 2012 submitted to commissioners for the purposes of the fluoridation meeting.

“Standard 60 was developed to establish minimum requirements for the control of potential human health effects from products added directly to water during its treatment, storage and distribution. The standard requires a full information disclosure of each chemical ingredient in a product. It also requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminants in the product…A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse health effects.”

The legislation is in place for safety criteria. So why are there no safety studies?

See here video coverage for the WUC meeting where administration admits no toxicological safety studies have been completed (in the 60 years of forcing this hazardous waste on us!). The video demonstrates how health authorities know full well that these safety studies do not exist and yet continue to promote the policy as ‘safe and effective’.

There is no scientific consensus that ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe. There are no safety studies to prove it is safe. More and more municipalities are becoming aware of this glaring oversight and are ending the fluoridation experiment.  Let your Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle councillors know that you want them to follow the Windsor Utilities Commission’s recommendation to cease artificial water fluoridation to make our municipal drinking water supply as SAFE as possible. And allow us to enjoy Fluoride Free Water like the rest of Essex County, most of Canada and most of the World.

Windsor Utilities Commission is the ONLY water supplier in Windsor/Essex County that artificially fluoridates its drinking water supply.

, , , , ,

1 Comment

The test of the morality for a society, is what it does for its children

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Why not a Fluoride Free Essex County?

On January 9, 2012 – Dr. Heimann of the Public Health Unit and Dr. Frank of the Essex County Dental Society (neither of which are fluoridation experts) presented their case as to why Amherstburg should continue fluoridation. Actually, Dr. Heimann’s presentation stated that he wanted Amherstburg to reinstate fluoridation since they’d stopped in April 2011, but Mayor Hurst was quick to cut off Dr. Heimann and claimed that Amherstburg has never stopped fluoridating.  Hmm, is that true?  Have there been no disruptions in the fluoride feed in Amherstburg’s municipal water supply?  It seems the Town of Amherstburg is currently faced with the decision to spend lots of money upgrading their artificial water fluoridation equipment or end the practice of medicating their drinking water with hydrofluorosilicic acid.

Fluoride Free Windsor has been approached by concerned citizens of Amherstburg asking us for help in educating council members of the risks of this gone-too-long experiment.  We’ve sent them some information and the list of Fluoride Experts willing to help educate council members and aide them in making an informed decision.  It remains to be seen what Amherstburg Council will decide.

This article was published by CBC News following the Amherstburg Council Meeting:

Amherstburg urged to keep fluoride

Posted: Jan 11, 2012 8:00 AM ET

Fluoride Free Windsor wants the city to stop adding the chemical to its water. (CBC News)

The area’s medical officer of health is urging Amherstburg council to keep fluoride in the town’s drinking water.

Doctor Allen Heimann said fluoride is not harmful, as some people claim, and it’s the most economical way to keep teeth healthy.

“When fluoride is removed from the drinking water you get an increase of dental decay and dental carries,” Heimann said. “So, what we’re trying to do is look at an equitable public health intervention.”

Amherstburg is now the latest local community to embark on a fluoride debate.

Last fall, Lakeshore stopped adding fluoride at its Stoney Point treatment plant.

That town council unanimously decided to stop adding it.

In Windsor, a group called Fluoride Free Windsor boasts 200 members and wants it removed from the city’s water.

The Windsor Utilities Commission is studying the issue.

However, Windsor is contractually obligated to add fluoride until 2014. That licence is up for renewal in 2014. Only then could fluoride be removed by vote of council.

Respectful retraction requested

CBC reporters were sent a Retraction Request[i]  with respect to this statement:  “When fluoride is removed from the drinking water you get an increase of dental decay and dental carries,” Heimann said.

In November 2011, CBC reporter, Pat Jeflyn reported on the issue of water fluoridation in Windsor and when Dr. Frank made false claims that dental caries double in communities when fluoridation is ended Jeflyn wrote: However, research done for the ministry of health at the university of Toronto in 1999 concluded: “the few studies of communities where fluoridation has been withdrawn do not suggest significant increases in dental caries.” There have been many communities that have ended fluoridation since 1999 and many more studies conducted, too. So, it is unclear why CBC let this false statement slide in the above article about Amherstburg – hopefully they’ll print the retraction we requested.

Question from the audience

One Amherstburg council member asked the presenters about Dental Fluorosis in the community.  Dr. Frank answered that there wasn’t much dental fluorosis in the community and that it was only a cosmetic effect, hardly detectable.  When we contacted the Essex County Dental Society a few months ago and asked if they had statistics of dental fluorosis rates for this area and if they had comparisons of the dental fluorosis rates of the non-fluoridated communities (Kingsville, Leamington, Essex, Ruthven, Wheatley, Harrow, Lakeshore) with the communities that are fluoridated (Windsor, Tecumseh, Lasalle and Amherstburg), they said they had no such statistics – so, we’re not sure where Dr. Frank is getting his information that he can tell Amherstburg council that there isn’t much dental fluorosis in our area.  Perhaps it is the method by which dental fluorosis is diagnosed, or not diagnosed, that gives Dr. Frank the confidence to say dental fluorosis isn’t a concern?: Dean’s Dental Fluorosis Classification System” calls for dentists to ignore the worst-affected tooth and base the diagnosis on the second-worst-fluoride-stained tooth. So if the teeth are unevenly or irregularly affected, the most visibly stained tooth is ignored, for purposes of classifying the condition – resulting in a downplaying of the disfigurement caused by fluoridated water and other ingested fluorides.

What is dental fluorosis anyway?

According to the Canadian Dental Association, dental fluorosis occurs as “the result of a child getting too much fluoride.”  Ingesting too much fluoride can cause white opaque spots, brown stains, mottled and fracture prone enamel.  Yes, you read that correctly – the fluoride you’re told is for preventing cavities can damage your children’s teeth.  According to the US Centre for Disease Control “the severity of the condition depends on the dose (how much), duration (how long), and timing (when consumed) of fluoride intake.”

Is dental fluorosis only a cosmetic concern, as dental health authorities’ claim?

Fluoride and fluoridation experts say the teeth are a window to the bones and that dental fluorosis is the visible sign that the child is toxic with fluoride. Consider these quotes about dental fluorosis:

“it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion.”
SOURCE: Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto. (2000). Why I am now Officially Opposed to Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water.

“Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child’s body can damage the tooth-forming cells, then other harm also is likely.”
SOURCE: Colquhoun J. (1997). Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41:29-44.

“Like bones, a child’s teeth are alive and growing. Flourosis is the result of fluoride rearranging the crystalline structure of a tooth’s enamel as it is still growing. It is evidence of fluoride’s potency and ability to cause physiologic changes within the body, and raises concerns about similar damage that may be occurring in the bones.”
SOURCE: Environmental Working Group, “National Academy Calls for Lowering Fluoride Limits in Tap Water”, March 22, 2006.

“A linear correlation between the Dean index of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures was observed among both children and adults.”
SOURCE: Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. (2001). Well Water Fluoride, Dental fluorosis, Bone Fractures in the Guadiana Valley of Mexico. Fluoride 34(2): 139-149.

Is dental fluorosis caused by children swallowing fluoridated toothpaste?

Artificial water fluoridation proponents can’t seem to face the paradox that we’re told NOT to swallow (pharmaceutical grade) fluoridated toothpaste but DO swallow (industrial by-product/waste) fluoridated water.  And when this ingested fluoride causes problems they claim it is because we’re swallowing the fluoride they tell us not to and not because we’re swallowing the fluoride they do tell us to – anyone else see a logical problem with this argument?

While you try to wrap your brain around that enigma, consider this:

According to the US Centers for Disease Control, “Water and processed beverages (e.g., soft drinks and fruit juices) can provide approximately 75% of a person’s fluoride intake” US Centers for Disease Control – Dental Fluorosis

And according to the 2006 US National Research Council Review on Fluoride in Drinking Water: “The major dietary source of fluoride for most people in the United States is fluoridated municipal (community) drinking water, including water consumed directly, food and beverages prepared at home or in restaurants from municipal drinking water, and commercial beverages and processed foods originating from fluoridated municipalities.” NRC 2006 p. 24

Dental fluorosis rates continue to increase since the fluoridation experiment began. According to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care 1999 Report , incidence of dental fluorosis is nearly twice as prevalent in communities with fluoridated water, compared to communities that do not fluoridate their water.

Dental and Health Authority claims aside – logic tells us, dental fluorosis is caused by the fluoride you’re ingesting – wherever that fluoride may come from.

The science and statistics are convincing, fluoride can do a lot of harm and when fluoridation is ended both dental caries rates and dental fluorosis rates decline.  In case you’re not convinced check out these research studies done in British Columbia, published in a Danish Journal called Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (Why a Danish journal when these are Canadian studies?):   In Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation, researchers compared prevalence and incidence of dental caries between fluoridation-ended and still-fluoridated communities in British  Columbia, Canada. The prevalence of dental caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the still-fluoridated community. Five years later in the same Danish journal these same researchers published Changes in dental fluorosis following the cessation of water fluoridation about the prevalence of dental fluorosis after water fluoridation ended.  When fluoride was removed from the water supply the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis decreased significantly.

One can ponder what would have happened to Canada’s artificial water fluoridation practice if these two studies had been published together in Canada for Canadian policy makers to review.

Despite this research, that Canadian dental authorities are aware of, we’re still told that we should drink the fluoride in water but spit-out the fluoride in toothpaste and the focus on fluoridated toothpaste is ever highlighted to help us forget this paradoxical advice:

According to the Canadian Dental Association, Use of Fluorides in Caries Prevention: children under 3 need to be assessed for risk of dental caries by a professional and if they are at risk “the child’s teeth should be brushed by an adult using a minimal amount (a portion the size of a grain of rice) of fluoridated toothpaste. Use of fluoridated toothpaste in a small amount has been determined to achieve a balance between the benefits of fluoride and the risk of developing fluorosis.  If the child is not considered to be at risk, the teeth should be brushed by an adult using a toothbrush moistened only with water.

Fluoridated Toothpaste Portion Rice Sized vs Pea Sized

How many parents know about the CDA recommendation to use ONLY water or a grain of rice sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste?  When was the last time you saw an advertisement for toothpaste with only a grain of rice sized amount on the brush?

Tying it all together and keeping it local

This brings us back to the CBC News article above.  It is ironic that CBC used the picture of this particular child drinking water.  You see, this little darling has the signs of dental fluorosis.  She was exclusively breast-fed, got little if any processed drinks, eats mostly organic food, has never used fluoridated toothpaste or fluoride supplements – but drank lots and lots of municipally fluoridated water, more than anyone else in her family. Her parents believed that the tap water was safe and that water was better for her to drink than anything else.

When her parents started noticing spots on her teeth they took her to the dentist, she was only 2. The dentist told them to rub fluoride on her teeth, they were not told anything about dental fluorosis or that their child had been over-exposed to fluoride. Doing their own research they discovered that the spots on her teeth looked exactly like what was called dental fluorosis. This dentist attempted to blame the mother for the pitted teeth because she nursed her daughter at night – nature’s perfect food for infants doesn’t ruin their teeth, shame on this dentist for telling her that!

While this family would qualify for the Children In Need of Treatment program for fluoride treatments and for filling of cavities, the program does not cover the costs of repairing dental fluorosis.  The cost to repair dental fluorosis damage is much higher than the cost of fixing the half a cavity the ingested fluoride is supposedly meant to prevent. Consider how many ‘cosmetic dentistry’ practices we see these days. The family had to pay $700 to have their child’s baby teeth cosmetically fixed (they were worried about psychological effects of their child having brown marks on her teeth) and they won’t know what damage the fluoride toxicity will do to her adult teeth until they come in. Sadly, it does seem as though her dental fluorosis is an indication of her bone health.  When she was only three and a half she fell a short distance off a couch onto carpet and fractured her arm. Her parents have invested in an expensive water filter system for drinking and cooking water, but as you can see if you read the mother’s account[ii]they’re still concerned about the fluoride she’s exposed to through skin absorption in the bath and through food and beverages when they are not at home.

Public health authorities like to say that drugging the water supply is an ‘equitable’ method for delivering fluoride. But it is low and middle income families that can’t afford avoidance measures and the huge costs of the repairs that aren’t covered by government programs or health benefits, because they’ve been deemed cosmetic.

Too much fluoride is dangerous!  Do you know how much your children are getting?

One thing everyone agrees on is that too much fluoride is dangerous – which is why proponents of artificial water fluoridation always add the tag line ‘at optimal levels’ when making the claims that ingesting fluoride is ‘safe and effective’.  We are told it is safe to drink fluoridated water every day for our entire lives, even though no one is considering the dose we’re ingesting and even though no one has determined our total fluoride exposure (forget about there being no toxicological data or clinical trials on the safety of ingesting hfsa!). You’ll recall that we asked a dentist how we would determine if our children are getting too much fluoride – must we wait until our children have dental fluorosis (that is if we are able to see it), the sign that they’re toxic with fluoride – isn’t that too late?

We are responsible for monitoring our own fluoride exposure and our children’s fluoride exposure – and if you determine you’re getting too much, good luck avoiding it if you live in a community that has decided to drug the water supply with hydrofluorosilicic acid.

We think we live in a moral society, so can’t we do better than this to protect our children?

In this article we haven’t even touched on the risks of fluoride for infants; the babies exposed to hydrofluorosilicic acid and the co-contaminants of lead, arsenic, mercury and radionuclides – infants that don’t even have teeth yet! Nor have we discussed the risks to seniors as the fluoride builds up in their bones and leads to increased risk of hip fractures, not to mention that many seniors don’t have teeth anymore, either!  And we haven’t explored how public health authorities justify endorsing the practice of swallowing an unregulated industrial waste product; those are topics for later articles, so stay tuned…or of course, you could always – and we suggest you do – research on your own and discover the truth about the dangers and risks of ingesting fluoride.


[i] This is what we sent to council members and CBC to justify our request for a retraction with respect to Dr. Heimann’s comment, “When fluoride is removed from the drinking water you get an increase of dental decay and dental carries,”:

This statement made by Dr. Heimann as quoted in the CBC article is false, see evidence below:

The scientific method has a few basic requirements: that raw survey data be statistically analysed to control for the many variables which influence cavity rates and that examiner bias be controlled, among other things. Any data collection which does not follow these simple rules cannot be called science. Dr. Heimann omitted to inform CBC that a large volume of peer-reviewed, published research demonstrates that when you discontinue artificial water fluoridation, cavity rates do not change, or continue to decline.

A recent Canadian study done by the dental officer of health for Toronto, (Azarpazhooh A, Stewart H. 2006) co-authored a meta-analysis of the research which compared communities still using artificial water fluoridation with communities which had stopped artificial water fluoridation (12 papers met the inclusion criteria). North American communities that discontinued fluoridation did not experience an increase in the incidence of dental caries. The communities which stopped artificial water fluoridation experienced a reduction in the incidence of dental caries in both absolute terms and relative to communities that continued to fluoridate their drinking water.

Another Canadian research paper (Clark et al 2006) concluded that “Following fluoridation cessation of the public water supply, the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis decreased significantly.”

Another Canadian study by Maupome et al. 2001 reported: “The prevalence of caries (assessed in 5,927 children, grades 2, 3, 8, 9) decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community.”


Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

  1. Burt BA, et al. 2000. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9.
  2. Clark DC, Shulman JD, Maupome G, Levy SM. 2006 Changes in Dental Fluorosis Following Cessation of Water Fluoridation. Community of Dental and Oral Epidemiology Jun;34(3):197-204.
  3. Kalsbeek H, Kwant GW, Groeneveld A, Dirks OB, van Eck AA, Theuns HM.1993 Caries experience of 15-year-old children in The Netherlands after discontinuation of water fluoridation. Caries Res. 27(3):201-5.
  4. Kobayashi S, Kawasaki K, Takagi O, Nakamura M, Fujii N, Shinzato M, Maki Y, Takaesu Y. 1992 Caries experience in subjects18–22 years of age after 13 years’discontinued water fluoridation in Okinawa. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 20(2):81-83.
  5. Künzel W, Fisher T 2000 Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Res 34:20–25.
  6. Kunzel W, et al. 2000. Decline in caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28(5): 382-389.
  7. Lekesova I, Rokytova K, Salandova M, Mrklas L 1996 Zastaveni fluoridace pitne vody v Praze. Progresdent 6:15-17.
  8. Maupome G, et al. 2001. Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29(1): 37-47.
  9. Seppa L, et al. 2000 Caries trends 1992-98 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoride. Caries Research 34(6): 462-8.

Recent Reviews of Cessation Studies

  1. Natick Fluoridation Committee. 1997 The Natick Report: An Analysis of Water Fluoridation. Sept 27.
  2. Ziegelbecker R. Natural Water Fluoridation: Multifactorial Influences on Dental Caries in the 21 Cities Study. Abstracts. International Society for Fluoride Research, XVIIth Conference, Hotel Thermal, BUDAPEST, Hungary, June 22 – 25, 1989
  3. Ziegelbecker R. Fluoridation in Europe (Letter to the Editor) FLUORIDE1 August 1998;31(3):171-174.
  4. Pizzo G, Piscopo M, Pizzo I, Giulliana G. 2007 Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical and Oral Investigations Sep;11(3):189-193.
  5. Azarpazhooh A, Stewart H. 2006 Oral Health Consequences of the Cessation of Water Fluoridation in Toronto.

1 Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research.

[ii] Mother’s account of discovering her daughter has dental fluorosis:

She was born in the fall of 2006.  She was breast fed on demand.  Around age 2, we noticed some white spots and opaque areas on her front teeth. She didn’t really drink milk or juice or consume sugar, but she did drink a lot of tap water. She soon developed pitting/mottling with yellowish brown marks on her four, front teeth. We took her to the dentist who then referred us to a pediatric dental specialist. She was 2 and a half.  We were told that nursing a baby to sleep could cause this. I know that breast milk is the ideal food for an infant and does not promotes tooth decay. They “fixed” her teeth by filling in the fissures with a white material.  It cost $700.  It was scary for us to sedate our child at such a young age. They also recommended that we rub fluoridated toothpaste on her teeth every day. Something told us to not follow this advice.

After that, I came across some pictures on the internet that looked exactly like her teeth! The condition is called dental fluorosis. Excessive ingestion of fluoride during the early childhood years may damage the tooth-forming cells leading to a defect in the enamel. It is the first visible sign that a child has been overexposed to fluoride. I wish I had taken a photograph of her teeth before they were cosmetically treated.  I felt so bad for my innocent, little child, knowing that her small body was probably saturated with fluoride and the effects were showing up in her teeth. As noted by Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, “it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion.”

A year later, when she was 3 and a half, she fell off the sofa and fractured her arm.  This was strange since she landed on soft carpet and the couch wasn’t even that high. She had to wear a partial cast with a sling. I now understand that this was also related to the toxic effects of hydrofluorosiolicic acid. That’s when we learned about how fluoride effects the bones and how excessive exposure to fluoride causes an arthrtiic bone disease called Skeletal Fluorosis.  “Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child’s body can damage the tooth-forming cells, then other harm also is likely.” – Colquhoun J. (1997). Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41:29-44.

When she was 4, we got a reverse osmosis water filtration system installed in our kitchen.  I also learned that that the fluoride gets concentrated when water is boiled. Now we drink and cook with water that is free of hydrofluorosilicic acid.  But she still bathes in municipal tap water. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is readily absorbed into the body from showering or bathing. In fact, these chemicals are actually more dangerous when absorbed through the skin, because they enter the bloodstream more easily, bypassing the gut where they would bind with minerals from food, thus diminishing their harmful effects.  We feel trapped because there’s no way for us to get away from it.

She is now 5 years old.  Her teeth are discoloured and we’re just waiting for them to fall out. We’re hoping that her adult teeth won’t be affected so she won’t have to live with the visual impact of the discoloration induced by fluorosis which can cause significant embarrassment and stress to the child, resulting in adverse effects on self-esteem and emotional health. But I have read that the damage that dental fluorosis causes to the internal matrix of the teeth is permanent. There is no way to reverse this damage  There are only ways to hide the damage, to treat the surface of the teeth to hide the discoloration.

I am saddened and angry that we are being medicated without our consent, with no dose control with an unregulated, toxic substance. All we want is safe water, is that too much to ask?

,

Leave a comment

UPDATE: Medical Officer of Health’s Comments are FALSE and MISLEADING

On our last blog post of November 19th we shared what our local Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Heimann, said on the AM800 CKLW Lynn Martin program as to the product hydrofluorosilicic acid.  Dr. Heimann admitted that the product was not regulated by Health Canada.  He went on to say:

The products which are used in Ontario are regulated under the Fluoridation Act of 1990 and the Safe Water Drinking Act.”

But is this true?  This is the leading authority advising our Windsor Council and Windsor Utilities Commission regarding artificial water fluoridation. Should Council and WUC rely solely on the Public Health Unit when making decisions to medicate the water supply of all citizens? Is Dr. Heimann’s endorsement of artificial water fluoridation based on science or opinion?  Our water began being medicated at the request of  the Health Unit alone – without consultation or consent of the citizens of Windsor.

We heard Dr. Heimann claim that fluoride was naturally occurring but the product used in artificial water fluoridation, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is man-made industrial waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry – definitely not the naturally occurring calcium fluoride.

Can we trust the opinion and endorsements coming from Dr. Heimann and the Health Unit?

Carole Clinch, founder and research coordinator of People For Safe Drinking Water  filed a formal complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding False and Misleading Statements made by Dr. Heimann on the AM800 Lynn Martin program regarding artificial water fluoridation.

Clinch states in her formal complaint with respect to Dr. Heimann’s comments on AM800 CKLW Lynn Martin show on Nov 2, 2011, when asked “The products that are used have been regulated and approved by Health Canada?”:

Dr. Heimann’s statement

Health Canada doesn’t specifically have a regulatory requirement for this particular product. The products which are used in Ontario are regulated under the Fluoridation Act of 1990 and the Safe Water Drinking Act.”

Dr. Heimann knows, or should know, that Health Canada is required to regulate and approve all products used for medical treatment, which use health claims, under the Food and Drugs Act and its associated regulations.

Dr. Heimann knows, or should know, that the products used for artificial water fluoridation are not specifically regulated under either the Fluoridation Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act.

 A quick look at the Fluoridation Act  will demonstrate that there is absolutely no reference made to the actual products used in artificial water fluoridation (Hexafluorosilic acid or Sodium silicofluoride). The only reference to fluoride products is “fluoride ions”.

 An examination of the Safe Drinking Water Act (please consult a lawyer and confirm for yourself) will demonstrate that the actual products trucked to your drinking water facility are not regulated by the Ontario government under this legislation.

 The following are statements from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment which clarify the situation: “MOE has no jurisdiction over the manufacture or sale of drinking water treatment chemicals.” Source: June 11, 2007 email correspondence written by Mirek Tybinkowski, M.Eng., P.Eng, Water & Wastewater Specialist, Safe Drinking Water Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

 “The MOE’s only authority lies in ensuring (in the approval and inspection processes) that fluoridation equipment is appropriately installed, operated and monitored.” Source: Feb 18, 2009 email correspondence written by Mirek Tybinkowski, M.Eng., P.Eng, Water & Wastewater Specialist, Safe Drinking Water Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Dr. Heimann’s Statement

Artificial water fluoridation is “safe and effective”

 The scientific/legal determination of safety is based on 2 types of research: 1. Animal studies (toxicology studies)  2. Human studies (randomized, controlled clinical trials are the gold standard)

The actual fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation (silicofluorides Na2SiF6, H2SiF6) have neither the required animal studies nor the required human studies to demonstrate safety. Until 2010 there were NO TOXICOLOGY STUDIES available which examined the long-term use of these products. There are now available two (2) recently published toxicological studies 1,2 demonstrating health harm from the long-term use of these products.

The actual fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation (silicofluorides Na2SiF6, H2SiF6) is used as a “medical treatment to prevent disease” according to Health Canada, for a “special health purpose,” according to the Supreme Court of Canada, yet it has never been regulated or approved by Health Canada. All other fluoride products used for dental care are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act. (see above for citations)

In the absence of any studies demonstrating safety, but the availability of 2 recent toxicology studies (see footnotes 1 and 2 and discussion below) showing health harm, the claims that these products are “safe” are not based on well-established scientific protocols designed to protect public safety.

In the absence of any studies demonstrating safety, the claims that these products are “safe” are not based on legal definitions and requirements designed to protect public safety.

A formal complaint was filed with the Auditor General of Canada on May 26, 2011 regarding the unregulated fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation. Executive Summary available from: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Canada_Request_for_Audit_2011_Executive_Summary.pdf

Due diligence

The performance of due diligence before lending your profession’s credibility (or your provincial office authority) to your statements would have revealed the facts noted herein.

It should be noted that under the Physician Services Agreement ratified in October 2008, Medical Officer of Health in Ontario make between $252,037.50 and $294,937.50 per year. In comparison, the annual capita income for citizens in Windsor-Essex county in 2007 was $30,900 according to the Windsor-Essex quick fact sheet 

Implications for misleading council and the public:

  • It is insulting to council members who work so hard to serve the public interest;
  • It is insulting to the taxpayers who pay the salaries of individuals or organizations who present this misinformation.

There 2 possible explanations for why individuals or organizations distribute False and Misleading information:

  1. Individuals/organizations do not have sufficient expertise on this issue, as implied by their position of authority; OR
  2. Individuals/organizations are intentionally misleading the public.

The content of this letter puts into question Dr. Heimann’s advice and opinions as being based on factual evidence.

Perhaps you were simply unaware of the facts contradicting your statements, or your testimony may have been intended as opinion, rather than a factual representation, for which you certainly have the right of expression.

I cordially request that Dr. Heimann make a public statement on the AM 800 CKLW, the Lynn Martin Show, that his opinions were not based on the facts available.

Yours truly,

Carole Clinch

Citations

1. Leite GAS, Sawan GMM, Teofilo JM, Port IM, Sousa FB, Gerlach RF. Exposure to lead exacerbates dental fluorosis. Archives of Oral Biology 2011, doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2010.12.011

2. Sawan RM, Leite GA, Saraiva MC, Barbosa F, Tanus-Santos JE, Gerlach RF. Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from lead-exposed rats. Toxicology 2010;271(1-2):21-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188782

Further, Clinch was able to get confirmation directly from the Ministry of Environment that the claims made by Dr. Heimann were indeed FALSE:

Dear Ms. Clinch,

1. Are the products which are used in Ontario for artificial water fluoridation (Hexafluorosilicic acid and Sodium silicofluorde) regulated specifically under the Fluoridation Act of 1990?
Answer: The Fluoridation Act (1990) does not regulate products used for artificial water fluoridation.

2. Are the products which are used in Ontario for artificial water fluoridation (Hexafluorosilicic acid and Sodium silicofluoride) regulated specifically by the Ministry of the Environment under the Safe Water Drinking Act of Ontario?
Answer: The products used for artificial water fluoridation are not regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (2002).

3. Does the Ministry of the Environment have any jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of products used as a medical treatment?                                                                                                                                                Answer: No. The manufacture and sale of products used for medical treatment do not fall within the scope of the Ministry of the Environment’s mandate.

Thank you for your email.
Steve Klose
Director, Standards Development Branch
Ministry of the Environment
40 St. Clair Ave. W. 7th floor
Toronto, Ontario

Who can council trust if they can’t trust the Public Health Unit?

What information should Windsor Utilities Commission rely on when deciding whether to medicate the water supply of its customers?

We will soon find out when the Windsor Utilities Commission releases its report on artificial water fluoridation.

, , , , , , ,

4 Comments

Get to know your Tooth Medicine

The prescription pad says

Fluoride is safe and effective for preventing tooth decay and artificial water fluoridation is a cost effective means of getting this medicine out to the population.  So says the government health and dental agencies. But they don’t define what ‘fluoride’ they’re talking about when they speak in favour of the artificial water fluoridation program. So, let’s get to know the fluoride that is actually put in our water supply as medicine for our teeth.

The product Windsor Utilities Commission has decided to use is called hydrofluorosilicic acid and ours comes from Solvay Chemicals. This particular product is not a pharmaceutical grade product, like you’d find in your dentist’s office.  Rather, it is an industrial grade product that is otherwise known as a waste or by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry.  A short history of how this product came to be:

In the 1960’s Florida passed laws restricting air emissions because the fluorine from the phosphate industry was found to be harming citrus trees and causing fluorosis in cattle. Wet scrubbers were introduced to phosphate manufacturing to remove two highly toxic gases that were damaging the local vegetation and animals: hydrogen fluoride (HF) and silicon tetra fluoride (SiF).  A spray of water is able to capture the gases and convert them to a solution of hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiFS or HFSA).  When the solution reaches a concentration of about 23% it is shipped untreated to be used as the fluoridating agent[i]

The answer to air pollution is tooth medicine?  To make matters more concerning this tooth medicine is contaminated with arsenic and lead.  Promoters of artificial water fluoridation rely on dilution of approximately 180,000 to 1 at the water treatment plant to bring all the contaminants in the wet-scrubbing liquid below regulatory levels.  However, the Environmental Protection Agency has set the maximum contaminant level goal for arsenic at zero because it is a known carcinogen – there is no safe consumption level for a cancer-causing chemical.  Dilution is not good enough.  One of the questions Fluoride Free Windsor has posed to the Windsor Utilities Commission (WUC):  is there arsenic and lead in the water before WUC adds the fluoridation chemicals and if the levels of arsenic and lead increase with fluoridation, by how much?  We have been assured by the chair of the commission that all our concerns and questions will be answered.

Contaminants aside, surely the health agencies can speak to the safety of ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid?

We have been advised by the current WUC Chair that “Fluoride was first introduced to Windsor water supply at the request of the Public Health Unit in 1953.”  One would think that the WUC would be in the business of supplying the cleanest water possible, and council would be in the business of deciding for the safest water possible. SO, if they’re willing to add a contaminated chemical to the purified water as medicine they MUST have been presented with some very convincing data, from the Public Health Unit, that it is safe for the whole population to ingest hydrofluorosilicic acid everyday for their lifetime. On November 2, 2011 the AM800 Lynn Martin Show discussed the topic of water fluoridation.  On the show was our local Medical Officer, Dr. Heimann. Listen Here

Lynn begins her interview with Dr. Heimann by asking him: is it true what opponents of artificial water fluoridation say, that the product (hydrofluorosilicic acid) has never been tested for safety?  Dr. Heimann answers by saying it is not true, that fluoridation of water has been studied and continues to be reviewed since its inception.  Lynn notices that Dr. Heimann didn’t answer her question about the product, it seems she wants him to clarify what fluoride product is considered safe and so she asks a second time ‘if the product that they use is regulated and approved by Health Canada?’  Dr. Heimann having been asked the same question twice is clearly uncomfortable and says ‘I beg your pardon?’  So Lynn proceeds to ask the same question a third time.  And here we finally get the truth about the actual product used in fluoridation.  Dr. Heimann admits that hydrofluorosilicic acid ‘doesn’t specifically have a regulatory requirement’ although he never does actually say the product’s proper name.  He goes on to say fluoridation chemicals are regulated by the Fluoridation Act and Drinking Water Act but is never able to confirm that the actual product has been tested for safety. Could it be that Health Canada has not tested and does not regulate the tooth medicine, hydrofluorosilicic acid, used in the artificial water fluoridation program that they endorse and recommend municipalities employ? If the product has been tested and shown safe wouldn’t Dr. Heimann want to share that with us?  Lynn asks the Health Unit doctor if he has anything further to add, we can hear him rustle papers as he finds what he’s supposed to say, as the local Medical Officer of Health, about the artificial water fluoridation program.  He tells us that fluoride is naturally occurring but notice he again avoids defining which fluoride chemical he’s referring to and as we’ve already learned above hydrofluorosilicic acid is definitely not naturally occurring.

Perhaps the Public Health Unit was more convincing in 1953, to sway council so?

It is tooth medicine after all, maybe the dentists know if it’s safe?

The opportunity to ask a dentist promoting artificial water fluoridation as to the safety of ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid came on November 17, 2011 when the Windsor Star ran an article by Dr. Mady titled Fluoride has many benefits for teeth.  Dr. Mady states “Systemic fluoride is an excellent source because it is constantly delivered through our saliva.”  Systemic, as in when you drink the fluoride as opposed to the topical application of fluoride, such as the dentist would do in his/her office, when they warn you not to swallow it.  The article provided Dr. Mady’s email address and instructed any questions be forwarded to him.  Great!  Here is a bit from the letter a Fluoride Free Windsor member sent to Dr. Mady:

Can you confirm that the product the Windsor Utilities Commission uses, called hydrofluorosilicic acid, is a safe and effective form of preventing tooth decay?  I am not concerned about the topical application of fluoride but I am concerned that I can’t seem to find any toxicological study that ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe for my young children. Also, can you confirm that hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe for infants, children, the elderly and the ill (folks with diabetes, thyroid issues etc..)?  I’ve consulted both the Health Canada websites and the Centre for Disease Control websites The Health Canada information indicated that while they endorse water fluoridation they do not test or regulate the product my utility company is using.  They also indicate that too much fluoride is bad for us and that individuals should monitor their own fluoride intake.  This concerns me because fluoride does come from many sources including from places I’m sure I’m not aware of.  I also have one child that drinks a ton of water more than the rest of our family and I worry that she could be getting too much fluoride but I don’t know how to determine this.  Must I wait until she shows signs of fluorosis before I know – isn’t that too late?!

The Dentist doesn’t know if hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe for ingestion either:

“I can’t confirm anything related to the Windsor Utilities Commission. If you have any inquiries related to their water systems I suggest that you contact them directly. I can describe the benefits of fluoride for our teeth as I did in my article but any questions related to our water suppliers must be directed to them.  If you are concerned about fluorosis with respect to your child’s teeth, consult with your dentist.” Replied Dr. Mady.

Disappointed that the government dental health representative couldn’t speak to the safety or effectiveness of ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid, though thankful for the doctor’s reply, the member’s response:

Thank you for your reply.  When I contacted my local utility they said that water fluoridation was endorsed by the health and dental associations but they have not responded as to whether the hydrofluorosilicic acid they use has indeed been tested and found to be safe or effective.  It is disheartening to read endorsements of water fluoridation, by professionals such as yourself, and find that you’re not able to actually speak to the product being used in the practice you’re endorsing. I’ll continue my search for the science and proof that this is indeed a safe and effective practice as promoted by the government health and dental agencies and I’ll pursue a follow-up with my local water provider – surely someone somewhere has the toxicological science I’m looking for to feel good about following your endorsement.

So, hydrofluorosilicic acid might not be safe, no one promoting it seems to know BUT is it at least effective?

Has the local health and dental agencies studied our population to determine that citizens from Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle are deficient of fluoride to justify their recommendation that the whole population be indiscriminately medicated with hydrofluorosilicic acid?  Surely they have convincing data that the folks from the non-fluoridating towns of Leamington, Kingsville, Essex, Wheatley, Ruthven and Harrow have higher rates of dental caries than the customers of WUC?  We asked the Essex County Dental Association for these statistics and they replied that they didn’t have any such statistics.  However, there are some statistics we can observe to help us evaluate the effectiveness of the artificial water fluoridation program.  The Globe and Mail ran an article on April 15, 2010 titled Fluoridation may not do much for cavities.  They graphed data from Statistics Canada, a copy shown here.

The stats compare barely fluoridated Quebec to Canada’s most fluoridated province of Ontario as well as the dental health statistics of Canada as a whole.  In all age groups the difference in number of dental caries was LESS THAN ONE!  Are we drinking industry’s waste to prevent half a cavity? These dental caries trends are confirmed by the World Health Organization’s data comparing countries that do fluoridate with the majority of countries that do not.

So far our search for proof and toxicological science to support the claim that artificial water fluoridation is safe and effective has left us wanting and wondering what the government health and dental associations’ endorsements are based on?

Fortunately, the importance of addressing these concerns and many other questions we have asked the Windsor Utilities Commission has not fallen on deaf ears.

Windsor Councillor and WUC Chair, Bill Marra has stated

I want to assure you that each one of your questions will be fully addressed in a report that will be forthcoming to the entire Windsor Utilities Commission.  Our senior administration is literally putting together a report that will provide the historical context of this issue for the commission, it will provide background information including but not limited to the questions you have tabled, it will also provide relevant stakeholder feedback and information from agencies such as our Regional Board of Health and our regional dental association etc… There will also be a discussion related to our duties and responsibilities, as Commissioners and elected officials, within the context of the Fluoridation Act of Ontario and specifically focus on options available in Section 3 of the Act which speaks to the “Discontinuance of system” (Fluoridation Systems).  Once this very thorough report is completed, it will be tabled to the WUC as an agenda item in a public forum….   As decision makers with both WUC and City Council, we need to ensure that we have valid and accurate information on this matter so that a well informed decision can be made in the best interest of our entire community.

And sure enough, at the Regular Commission Meeting held November 10, 2011 the following was moved by Mayor Eddie Francis and Seconded by E. Sleiman under New Business:

A discussion ensued regarding Fluoridation. The Commission wishes to take a proactive approach with respect to the ongoing fluoride debate. To that End, WUC administration has been asked to contact the surrounding communities to determine their stance with respect to fluoridation in the water system. Furthermore, a fluoridation report will be forthcoming at an upcoming Commission meeting.

Is it unreasonable for parents to want to see clinical data proving the safety and effectivenss of a medication before giving it to their children every day of their lives?

If you have concerns about the lack of safety and effectiveness proof available to support the artificial water fluoridation program – please let the policy makers of Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle know about it.  Our municipal governments are the ones responsible for the decision as to whether we get medicated with this industrial waste tooth medicine. We should have been consulted BEFORE our municipal representatives agreed to do as the Health Unit requested. But, IT IS NOT TOO LATE FOR OUR COUNCILS TO VOTE TO END ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION.


[i] This description comes from The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, PhD; James Bech, MD, PhD; H.S. Micklem, DPhil. The details of the history of wet scrubbers being included in the phosphate industry to prevent air emission pollution can be sourced from many places.

, , , ,

3 Comments

The Council of Canadians launches Unfluoridate It!

The Council of Canadians was founded in 1985 and is Canada’s largest citizens’ organization, with members and chapters across the country. They work to protect Canadian independence by promoting progressive policies on fair trade, clean water, energy security, public health care, and other issues of social and economic concern to Canadians.

They work with a network of over 70 volunteer chapters to organize speaking tours, days of action, conferences and demonstrations. They also produce research reports, create popular materials, and work with individuals and organizations across the country and around the world. They do all of this to ensure that governments know the kind of Canada we want.

The Council does not accept money from corporations or governments, and is sustained entirely by the volunteer energy and financial assistance of its members.

At their recent Annual General Meeting in Montreal the national board of Council of Canadians UNANIMOUSLY PASSED THE RESOLUTION FOR THE NATIONAL BOARD TO CALL FOR AN END TO FLUORIDATION.  This resolution couldn’t have come at a better time for our community.

Following is the resolution and you can read more on this issue on the Council Of Canadians website.

WHEREAS the effectiveness of water fluoridation on dental health has not been proven, and new reports from the York Review (British Dental Journal) and the Medical Research Council in England demonstrate the ineffectiveness of adding fluoride to drinking water;

AND WHEREAS fluoride maybe harmful for some people, including diabetics, people with kidney disease, babies and children;

AND WHEREAS a medication, without a doctor’s prescription, is being given to an entire population, each member of which has not given his or her consent and each member’s need for which has not been identified;

AND WHEREAS water purification plants do not remove fluoride, and the fluoride contained in drinking water is released into our waterways;

AND WHEREAS fluoride is toxic and bioaccumulative and we do not know the consequences of it on plants and wildlife;

AND WHEREAS fluoridated water is not a necessary measure for those who brush their teeth regularly. There are much more effective and less costly methods for the people who need it such as education in schools and the distribution of toothbrushes;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT WINDSOR will not fluoridate its drinking water.

 

 

 

, ,

1 Comment