‘Modern equipment’ at an unnamed location
SWIS NEWS – APRIL 2016 Ref: 615
U.K FREEDOM FROM FLUORIDE Edition: 0
Bedford Committee votes against fluoride – but is this the end?
(From Joy Warren)
On Tuesday, 12th April 2016, Bedford’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee unanimously recommended that fluoride should NOT be added to Bedford’s water. This followed a protracted debate over two exhausting years. Fluoride Free Bedford is to be congratulated for its tenacity and effectiveness.
A video record of the important decision can be viewed on https://vimeo.com/162820823
This is an unusual case since fluoridation ceased in 2009 due to technical problems. Legally, fluoridation can be resumed when new fluoridating equipment is installed. That has not happened. Although the Committee did not state that the cost of the fluoridation scheme was more than it could afford at this time, the year-on-year expense may have had something to do with their decision.
The unsatisfactory aspect of their decision is that they did not base their decision on the most important factors:
- Complete waste of tax-payers’ money since 96% of the acid goes down the drain and of the remaining 4% only a miniscule amount is drunk by disadvantaged children;
- No acknowledgement of the role fluoride plays in the onset of hypothyroidism. In fact, one of the Councillors is on record (on the video) as saying that there is no good research supporting the anti-fluoridation case – or words to that effect;
- No acknowledgement of the importance of having regard to individual choice;
- No mention that there is no ‘public’ support for the resumption of fluoridation (‘public’ as opposed to dental professionals);
- No mention of the statistically insignificant conclusions of PHE Bedford’s Oral Health Survey of 5-year-olds and the ‘impact of fluoride’ which, as it turned out, was no impact at all! Instead, we are told by a Committee member that the evidence supporting fluoridation is out-dated;
- No acknowledgement that tooth extractions are due to factors other than tooth decay;
We are told that Bedford Council will now have to consult Bedfordshire County Council and that the Sec. of State will eventually be involved in their decision. The issue could then go out to consultation and the public will be asked to respond within 3 months. We still have our work cut out for us!
This is the press release from Fluoride Free Bedford issued just before the council meeting on March 23rd
Fluoride Free Bedford calls for public consultation on water fluoridation
Campaigners from Fluoride Free Bedford  are poised to make their first bid for a public consultation on water fluoridation during next Wednesday’s (March 23rd) Full Council meeting , timed to coincide with their presentation of a further four hundred online signatures  to councillors and a long awaited debate on the issue.
Group co-ordinator, Cynthia Bagchi, said: “We hope it will be voted on that evening. Water fluoridation has to go forward for consultation among Bedford citizens because of the long period of absence of fluoride being added and the whole plant refurbishment.”
Last month, Castle Quarter resident and group administrator, Dee Dell, read out the petitioners’ appeal as she delivered one hundred pages of signatures, calling on councillors to “reject and prevent artificial fluoridation” of the town’s water supply due to its toxicity and proven inefficacy in the prevention of tooth decay. Watch video for more .
She said: “The significant thing about having 1,600 signatures is that it represents approximately one percent of the entire population of the borough. If one percent have signed – when many haven’t been asked – and you take the BBC’s theory that if someone complains about a programme it’s worth ten or more times that number of complaints in terms of the significance, we hope the council will take it [the petition] similarly as being extraordinarily significant.”
Watch Video Here: https://vimeo.com/158898759
Cynthia Bagchi added: “There’s a huge amount of people who don’t want fluoride. We didn’t have to spend hours getting these signatures. They were easily collected in the street in a few hours. If fluoride goes in, one to five percent of the population will immediately suffer adverse health effects. This has been shown in double blind studies. In a democratic society, no one should have a registered poison forced on them to drink on a daily basis.”
On March 1st, members of the Adult and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee quizzed an official from Public Health England over the cost of water fluoridation and were advised by the council’s lawyers (and verbally by Jacqueline Gray) that before termination of the fluoride contract can be requested a consultation process must be undertaken.
The capital cost of a whole plant refurbishment at the Manton Lane Water Treatment Plant is estimated at £388,136 and once begun will take six months to complete. 
 For further information about Fluoride Free Bedford see the website:
 Details of Bedford Borough Council Full Council Meeting, 23rd March 2016
 See online petition here:
 Video of presentation of petition to Full Council and commentary from petitioner, Dee Dell.
 Source of estimated capital cost of Manton Lane Water Treatment Plant: Freedom of Information request from Public Health England (August 5th 2014)
Caring For Our People Health and Scrutiny committee, chaired by very savvy lady. The officer serving the Committee is also very astutue. Wakefield turned down fluoridation in 2007. Now they want further research which points to fluoride being ineffective so that they can turn it down again.
Joy Warren presented the report and spoke about how xylitol destroys Streptococcus mutans. Experience in Sweden, suggests that this is an acceptable alternative to fluoride. Less expensive and less controversial by providing xylitol syrup, mints and chewing gum in nurseries and primary schools
Andy Burnham, Alan Johnson MP and Cllr Colin Inglis are all fluoridation proponents.Hull is a labour council and most Councillors are wedded to the idea that fluoridereduces
Colin Inglis is chair of Hull’s H&WB board and appears to have undue persuasive powers! Yorkshire Water has not been asked to do a feasibility study. We believe that Hull does not have enough money for initiating a fluoridation proposal.
There was no mention of fluoridation in January 2016 at the bi-monthly Health and Well-Being Board
YOUNG children in Somerset can get help with looking after their teeth as figures show one in four five-year-olds and more than a third of 12-year-olds have dental decay.
Fluoride varnish applications are being provided in selected early years settings and children’s centres as part of Somerset Smiles, a new service aiming to improve people’s oral health.
The new Primary Care Dental Service, commissioned by Somerset County Council and run by Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, will also offer oral health care training for carers, wider workforce training for professionals and the distribution of toothbrush and toothpaste packs.
Cllr. Anna Groskop, cabinet member for health and wellbeing at Somerset County Council, said: “Childhood is a key time to develop lifelong good behaviours relating to oral health, and we know that poor oral health affects the most vulnerable in our society.
“Our priority is to establish good health for all in Somerset and our new service aims to promote good oral health to the whole population, while targeting areas where it is needed most.”
Sue Wilson, oral health co-ordinator/senior dental nurse, Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, said: “We are very pleased to be working in close partnership with Somerset County Council in this exciting opportunity to deliver evidence-based targeted interventions to improve oral health and contribute to addressing oral health inequalities across Somerset.”
HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR ORAL HEALTH.
- Spit, don’t rinse when you clean your teeth – this washes away the fluoride from the toothpaste.
- Visit a dentist regularly, don’t wait until you have a problem.
- Take children to a dentist from an early age, this will help them to not be scared of going when they are older.
- Start cleaning infant’s teeth as soon as the first tooth appears.
- Avoid using a bottle after one year of age, don’t put sugary drinks in a bottle.
- Brush your teeth just before you go to bed, and before you have anything to eat or drink at breakfast.
- Eat a diet rich in vitamins and minerals, remember your five a day.
- Clean all the surface of your teeth – this should take at least two minutes. Flossing or using interdental brushes will help prevent gum disease.
- If your teeth are sensitive to cold water you may want to try cleaning your teeth with warm water.
Following an extended period when consumers were told not to use their water, reportedly from an excess of chlorine in the water, Severn Trent announced 14 March
– We’re pleased to say that ALL of our customers in the Derbyshire and Leicestershire area can now use their water supply as normal, and we’re now working hard to get the water network back to normal…. We’re investigating what caused the problem and identifying how we will compensate all 3,700 customers, both domestic and business, who were directly affected for an extended period of time. We’ll be contacting all affected customers directly in the next few days.
Edward Priestley writes: It could be there were also high levels of aluminium (as with the Camelford accident.) I suspect there is more to this overdosing than has been reported in the media and by the water industry.
Ann Wills was also suspicious of the chlorine over dose and wrote to the Derby Telegraph
‘… The contamination must have been quite severe as people were told not even to flush their toilet with the water! What exactly was the contaminating substance, because at least one person stated that the water left an orange stain, which would not be normal for chlorine, which is a bleach. ‘ ‘
This document, mentioned in the March News and Resources, is described as ‘A toolkit to help local authorities make informed decisions on whether to implement, vary or terminate a water fluoridation scheme.’
Improving oral health: a community water fluoridation toolkit for local authorities Ref: PHE publications gateway number: 2015737PDF, 1.14MB, 80 pages
Do not expect any advice on the impossibly complex provisions of ‘terminating a scheme’. that should be as simple as turning off a tap, Nor is there any valid explanation of the twenty –year rule.
An item that reflects both ignorance of fluoride and a paternalistic arrogance to the rights of native Americans. Virtually all water supplied to native communities is fluoridated, despite evidence that they are likely to suffer disproportionately to fluoride exposure,
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium ‘ provides the highest quality health services for Alaska Native people’… http://anthc.org/
In partnership with the statewide Village Safe Water engineering group, ANTHC Tribal Utility Support staff members Darrin Bartz and Pierre Costello provided operator training in the operation of the new Buckland fluoridation system for the Northwest Alaska community….. Both Bartz and Costello have several years of experience in the application of fluoride systems in rural Alaska and teamed with Maniilaq Environmental Health Officer Chris Dankmeyer to provide the training.
Members of the City Common Council voted to end fluoridation for the town of 3,100 after the fluoride chemicals ate through a thick, steel-lined, concrete pipe for the third time in only four years. According to the Streets Superintendent, the corrosion was occurring at a “T” pipe where the fluoride is injected into the water supply.
Meanwhile, another Indiana town, Culver, is also considering an end to the practice.
Who, or what, is ‘One Smile Brockton’? and – ‘impaired speech’, uh!
Brockton officials have taken the first steps towards fluoridating the city’s drinking water.
In the early 1970s, the City Council voted down a measure that would have added fluoride to the water supply.
The Finance Committee recently met with One Smile Brockton and the city’s board of health to discuss the subject and talk about the benefits of fluoride,…
“It was better for young children because it protected their teeth. In particularly in low-income communities you find a lot of individuals with dental problems,” Ward 5 City Councilor Ann Beauregard said. “This impairs their speech, could cause other illnesses and for young children who miss school and that further increases [their] challenges.”
A plan to stop adding fluoride to water in the Downingtown Municipal Water Authority on April 15 has been put on hold after the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) said that the move will have to wait to face a public comment period and then state regulatory approval.
… The managers of the water system said that the removal had been in the works for nearly two years and argued that the savings, some $40,000 yearly or about $12 per household, would allow the DMWA to modernize equipment, including water meters more quickly, while removing an additive most people now get through toothpaste and other daily substances.
“I think there were a number of different factors (in making the decision)” said DMWA Executive Director David L. Busch said. “One of them is the idea of putting things in the water that are not there naturally.” Busch noted the pride his authority takes in using clean water from the Brandywine Creek — some of the best water in the region.
The Water Authority will stop adding fluoride to the water supply in April. The decision effecting 26,000 residents in both Gilford and Greene townships was made because they felt there were “conflicting opinions about the benefits of water fluoridation.” They also sent out a statement saying, “we believe we should not put anything into the water that is not required by regulation to maintain the potability and pH balance of your water.”
Andy Anderson, the chairman of the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority board of directors, and other water authority officials on that day appeared in Little Rock before the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) Administrative Board.
Anderson and the others were told that they would have to comply with Act 197, which mandates fluoridation of water systems with over 5,000 customers. Water authority officials indicated they did not intend to fluoridate, maintaining that the law did not pertain to them.
The ADH had requested a decision by Jan. 1, but at its December meeting, the authority board had voted to take the issue to court. The water authority’s big argument is that it doesn’t have 5,000 customers. It only has 18, the number of local water systems that buy from the authority. Each of those water systems, in turn, do not have 5,000 customers….
Anderson said he had wanted to talk about the dangers of fluoridation, but the administrative board “squelched” him.
Anderson went on to say that the authority’s customers and their customers have indicated that they do not want fluoride in their water. Some have even said that if fluoridation does occur, they will pull out of the water system.
The issue will now be referred to the full ADH board, probably at its July meeting. It will make a final ruling then. Anderson said he has been told he will be allowed to speak at that time.
If the ADH still rules that the authority must comply with the fluoridation act, the water authority can appeal to the Circuit Court.
Extracts from The Peninsula Daily News, that has much more on thes story of that involves two councilors, two separet anti- fluoride organisations, and their lawyers, or lack thereof. Beneath all the procedural challenges is a serious battle to stop fluoridation.
This week two boards will decide if Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd and Councilman Dan Gase violated the city’s code of ethical conduct at a Feb. 2 City Council meeting.
A complaint by Marolee Smith accuses Kidd, who favors fluoridation, of engaging in “abusive” conduct of residents who were present Feb. 2, many of whom spoke against fluoridation…..A similar complaint by the anti-fluoridation group Our Water, Our Choice! against Kidd also accuses Gase of being unethical by not objecting to her conduct…
Smith …also requested that city staff who were present at the Feb. 2 meeting make written statements or witness appearances regarding council rules and procedures “and the frequency and volume of the gavel pounding by Ms. Kidd.”
..Anti-fluoridation advocate Eloise Kailin …said she is hoping a city fluoridation advisory committee “will come back with a satisfactory answer to stop fluoridation,”
Port Angeles City Council members will receive an update on an ad-hoc committee on fluoridation when they meet Tuesday.
The regular council meeting will include a verbal report on the fluoridation committee by Councilman Brad Collins, who has voted for fluoridation of the city’s water supply, and Councilwoman Sissi Bruch, who has voted against it.
At the same time...
An ad hoc committee considering alternatives to fluoridation will not suggest whether the practice of fluoridating water should continue when the group makes its report to the Port Angeles City Council, Councilman Brad Collins said Wednesday.
“The fluoridation issue is not part of the recommendations of the ad hoc committee,” he said.“To fluoridate or not to fluoridate is considered a separate decision.“We didn’t think we could get consensus on that question.
The council decided Dec. 15 to continue a 10-year fluoridation program through June 2026, which sparked controversy that led to the committee’s formation.
Resident Steven Hargis said during the second public-comment session that consensus would amount to discontinuing fluoridation and allowing those who favor fluoridation to do it on their own.“True consensus would mean that we must remove fluoride from the water and then provide the win-win for both sides,” Hargis said.
And the result, or at least some of it
PORT ANGELES — A three-person board recommended this morning that Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd should be orally admonished by the City Council for violating the city ethics code.
.. Kidd had violated the code by bringing “disrepute” on the City Council for interrupting a speaker during a public comment session at a Feb. 2 meeting and then abruptly adjourning the meeting…Kidd cut short the meeting during the second public comment session after a speaker compared Kidd and three other pro-fluoridation council members to the four horsemen, which the ethics board took to mean “the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” according to the board.
(From FAN) Marin Ballot Initiative – The campaign Clean Water Sonoma-Marin is continuing to collect petition signatures–in hopes of collecting 14,000 by the end of April–so they can get a question on the ballot initiating a moratorium on fluoridation if additive safety standards are not met. A similar campaign was successful in Crescent City, California years ago, and success in Marin could ultimately set an example on how to circumvent statewide fluoridation mandates for campaigners throughout the country. They are currently requesting volunteer help collecting signatures, and financial assistance so they can hire professional petitioners to reach their goal on time. Click here to learn more.
… Adding fluoride to Springfield’s water could be ways to improve health in Springfield and Clark County.,…Clark County Health Commissioner Charles Patterson said. A ballot issue for the fluoridation of water was placed on the ballot in 2005, but was defeated as 57 percent of voters came out against the issue. Many of those opposed expressed concern about adding a potentially toxic chemical to Springfield’s water.
Springfield is the largest municipality in Ohio without fluoridated water.
Tampa Bay, FL
CLEARWATER — For the past several years, Clearwater residents have been drinking water with fluoride levels lower than what is widely accepted to be optimal by dental professionals.
But in a sudden burst of urgency Monday, the City Council voted to accelerate its plans to add fluoride to the water supply that will meet recommended concentrations.The council voted 4-1 on the change, with newly elected member Bob Cundiff in opposition.
Cundiff said after the meeting that he doubts the science behind fluoride benefits and would like the issue to be decided by voters through a referendum.
“You can do a Google search and find at least 50 reasons why you should not fluoridate your water,” Cundiff said. “All I was asking for today was a fair hearing on the issues. I think there’s enough science out there to make me pause.”
From FAN: Leading Doctor Calls for Fluoride Investigations
The renowned medical doctor, nine-time #1 New York Times bestselling author, and television personality, Dr. Mark Hyman, has added his important voice to the fluoridation debate. He has joined other key national figures—including Erin Brockovich, Lois Gibbs, and Alveda King–who have recently called for an investigation into fluoride’s risks to diabetics, kidney patients, thyroid function, and the brain. As Hyman notes:
“There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain. A malfunctioning thyroid often leads to weight gain. And diabetics and patients with kidney disease are often thirsty, causing them to consume increased amounts of fluorides if they have access to only fluoridated water. Communities of color and the underserved are disproportionately harmed by fluorides because most rely on municipal water sources, many of which continue to add fluoride, despite research showing the potential harms and negating the potential benefits. I support federal investigative hearings looking into why our cities and towns are allowed to continue to add fluoride to public water sources and why the whole story about fluorides is only just now coming out.” (Dr. Mark Hyman via email on April 1, 2016)
Daniel G. Stockin, MPH, a public health professional known internationally for his work to end water fluoridation, made Dr. Hyman’s statement public in a news release earlier this week:
Prevention, not fluoride, key to preventing tooth decay among children: report. The University of Calgary School of Public Policy released its list of recommendations to address and increasing prevalent and serious disease among young children known as early childhood carries (ECC).
Previously, the disease was called baby bottle tooth decay.
The paper takes no position on the fluoridation of drinking water, only saying that while it could help, it won’t work without prevention and education.
Co-author Jennifer Zwicker says, while fluoridation can be useful, it wouldn’t be needed if oral health prevention was effectively practiced, pointing to a high rate of ECC in fluoridated Edmonton as well.
“It’s not preventing tooth decay. We’re seeing tooth decay on the rise in children in both Calgary and Edmonton,” she said.
The paper calls for increased parental education on feeding and dental hygiene for infants, and for empowerment of health care professionals (doctors and nurses) to integrate prevention practices in their early visits with parents.
Cornwall council will allow for at least two speakers to present arguments for and against the fluoridation of water at two succeeding meetings on April 11 and April 25…. local medical officer of health Dr. Paul Roumeliotis and American anti-fluoride advocate Dr. Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network.
The previous Cornwall council also debated the issue of whether to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water more than two and half years ago. That time finances had a bearing as the city had to decide whether to spend about $300,000 on new safety equipment.
A report to city councillors that will be discussed Monday suggests that even if fluoridation is stopped, it will still cost as much as $40,000 to rid the water treatment plant of the 15,000 litres of highly-corrosive hydrofluorosilicic acid still in storage at the facility.
If the practice is continued the work must still be done, because a new fluoridation system must be installed. Such a system comes with a $340,000 price tag and an annual cost of $50,000 to maintain.
Dr. Paul Connett of Fluoride Alert will speak Monday at city hall against treating our drinking water. Medical officer of health Paul Roumeliotis is expected later in April to speak on the benefits of water fluoridation….
Anti-fluoride university prof lobbies council to abandon practice
:Dr. Paul Connett speaks before city council Monday night.
CORNWALL, Ontario – An American university professor with a deep background in toxicology lobbied hard at city hall Monday night against the return of fluoridation to Cornwall water.
Dr. Paul Connett, who taught for 30 years at St. Lawrence University in nearby Canton, N.Y. and wrote a book against the practice of water fluoridation, told councillors they would be harming the general public by adding the substance to the municipal supply.
“You can’t control who it goes to. It goes to babies, to sick people, people with poor nutrition…and it violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medication,” he said. “What you’re contemplating is what a council can do to everyone, what a doctor can’t do to an individual.”
“It works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. It does not help the tooth by swallowing it.”
The council chambers at city hall were jammed with individuals to hear the first of two perspectives on the fluoride issue in Cornwall. Proponents of the practice, which was suspended three years ago because of safety concerns at the water treatment plant in Cornwall, will speaks later this month and lobby council to return to fluoride use.
Connett was vehement in his opposition to the plan and used graphic images of rotten teeth as “propoganda” and suggested proponents have exploited the fears of parents and caregivers who might consider supporting fluoridation.
Hydrofluorosilicic acid has been added to our drinking water in the past to create fluoride which advocates suggest promotes dental health. Opponents say the corrosive material is dangerous to workers and is detrimental to health over time.
Connett cited stidy after study that suggest lower IQs are prevalent in countries that fluoridate water, and a Government of Canada report that suggested 41 per cent of young teen children suffered moderate to severe dental fluorosis – a mottling of the tooth enamel.
“What have you got in your plan that allows you to say ‘Well, we’ll take a chance here,'” he said in attacking proponents of the practice. “Fluoride is extremely toxic.”
But Coun. Andre Rivette, who is also a member of the Eastern Ontario Health Unit board, was having none of Connett’s assertions. “The way it sounds…it sounds like we’re having genocide on our people here by using this,” he said. “I take exception to someone coming into Canada and knocking down our health system”
Another report of the meeting
An American anti-fluoride crusader, backed by about two dozen supporters behind him in the Cornwall council chambers, made his case to influence city council on Monday.
Near the end of his 45-minute appearance, the supporters applauded strongly when Dr. Paul Connett said: “No one will take legal responsibility that fluoride is harmful. You are forcing people on it who don’t want it. The only ethical question (for councillors) to answer, ‘I don’t know enough to force this toxic substance (on the public).'”…
Connett fielded questions for about 15 minutes after he was given 30 minutes to make a very detailed presentation, tapping into a raft of studies that he said should make people question the benefits weighed against possible detriments….
Grande Prairee, Alberta
The issue of whether or not to fluoridate the city’s drinking water is a boiling hot topic right now and has caused a division among the community living committee (CLC) members.
Coun. Chris Thiessen is against fluoridating the city’s drinking water as he views it as “forced medication of the population” and he’s worried about the environmental impact of fluoridation citing it a “moral and ethical” question.
“We shouldn’t be making a decision to medicate the population, especially since (fluoride) is not an essential vitamin or mineral for the human body to survive,” he said.
Thiessen asked the committee to open a plebiscite and Mayor Bill Given motioned the issue go to a council committee of the whole meeting as it was something that should be discussed among all elected officials. Couns. Dwight Logan and Rory Tarant voted against the motion taking administration’s report (which supported fluoridation) as information.
“Fluoridation has benefited the community and especially the kids,” said Logan, claiming European countries use fluoride and it improved the health of their teeth.
In fact, only about 2% of the European population receives fluoridated water: Those in the U.K. (5,797,000), Republic of Ireland (3,250,000), Spain (4,250,000), and Serbia (300,000), according to a 2012 study by the British Fluoridation Society.
Thiessen also raised the question of how artificial fluoridation impacts the environment.
Fluoride naturally occurs at 0.1 parts per million. Aquatera fluoridates its water to 0.7 ppm and as it flows through the city’s water system and back into the environment, the total amount of fluoride left in the water is 0.5 ppm.
No known scientific body has studied the impact of municipal fluoridation on nature, according to the city’s environmental stewardship department.
Since Aquatera’s shareholders are the city, the County of Grande Prairie, and the Town of Sexsmith, should one of the three shareholders decide to remove fluoridation from its water, all would have to agree to the change because the distribution system is connected.
The fluoridation issue was first brought to council in May 2015 by a delegation. In October 2015, the CLC directed administration to request input from a number of academic and government groups on the benefits and detriments of water fluoridation.
Thiessen has a final shot at addressing the fluoridation issue with council at their next meeting on April 4 when the minutes of the CLC are approved.
The council crystal ball indicates there are fluoridation debates in Norfolk’s future. Nothing has been firmed up. However, as improvements are made to the county’s water infrastructure, there will be opportunities to introduce fluoride where it presently isn’t offered.
“When working on other systems, it will be brought forward to council for consideration at that time,” Lee Robinson, Norfolk’s general manager of public works, told Norfolk council recently.
Norfolk County does not have a consistent policy on fluoridation.
Nairn, Sudbury, Ontario
In a 3-2 vote during Monday night’s meeting of council, councillors Brigita Gingras and Charlene Martel were outvoted by councillors Rod MacDonald and Riet Wigzell. Mayor Laurier Falldien broke the tie and voted in favour of dropping fluoride from the municipal water supply.
A survey had been sent out during the previous month that asked residents if they wanted the chemical removed or not. The amount of surveys handed in was not enough to determine the population’s wishes.
During a tense discussion between Gingras and Falldien, she said she put her faith in health professionals and scientists who have studied fluoridation in water and recommend keeping the chemical in.
…MacDonald, who favouredf having the fluoride dropped, wanted to wait to see if the provincial government was going to mandate there be fluoride in water, which is something Gingras was also hoping for..
Falldien said …they would have to upgrade the current equipment regardless of whether the province mandated it or not but added he doesn’t think the province will be successful in mandating fluoride be in drinking water.
MacDonald said he came prepared to vote Monday night to remove it, but added that he wanted to wait for information from the province. … “Then let’s make the decision, Mr. Chair,” said Gingras. “I am alright in making a decision tonight. I don’t want you to think I am a spineless jellyfish.”
After discussion, council opted for a recorded vote.
The bylaw to remove fluoride out of the township water was passed in front of two taxpayers.
Did the township make the right decision? asked the Sudbury Star on April 23,. Result at time of voting on April 23rd:
Yes: 62% (198 votes)
No: 38%/ (123 votes)
Parry Sound, Ontario
Despite fluoride being shut off, it will remain in the system for a time, says the town’s director of public works.
“There will be fluoride in the water for a while, because you have two full towers, plus the distribution system,”
Brown said the town will continue to test its water regularly as per requirements by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Environment, but won’t be testing for fluoride for another five years.
from Parry Sound North Star
Shortly before 1 p.m. on Friday, March 18, Town of Parry Sound staff flicked the switch off at the Tony Agnello Water Treatment Plant, ending the fluoridation of its water supply.
During its regular council meeting on March 15, council approved the bylaw to remove fluoride from the town’s water.
In a recorded vote, all of council was in favour of the chemical’s removal, except for Coun. Bonnie Keith, who remained a staunch supporter of fluoridated water.
“…Keith said the one positive to come from the vote Tuesday, was it would allow council to move on to other issues.
The move to discontinue fluoridation comes after a nine-month battle by Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management that began in June 2015 after the town agreed to keep the chemical in its water.
In September of 2015, Peter Brown, director of public works recommended the town spend $250,000 in upgrades to the plant to ensure the safety of staff that dispenses fluoride into the water system. Additionally, another $4,500 to $5,000 would be needed annually to keep the water fluoridated.
By November 2015, the group suggested a referendum to let Parry Sound and McDougall residents decide if they wanted their water fluoridated.
McDougall Township has been purchasing water from the town since 2007.
If Town of Parry Sound council chose not to bring the issue back to the table, a referendum at a cost of $19,000 plus staff time would have been held if 10 per cent of both Parry Sound and McDougall’s electorate signed a petition wanting fluoride removed.
In January, members of the group headed out on foot, canvassing the streets of Parry Sound soliciting signatures in support of removing fluoride.
More than 90 per cent of those polled in Parry Sound wanted the chemical out, while surveys sent out to McDougall residents showed that of the 349 surveyed, 99 respondents wanted fluoride out, and 16 wanted to keep the water fluoridated.
A question will be put on the municipal election ballots in both Parry Sound and McDougall in 2018 asking voters if they want the water fluoridated.
Friday afternoon a handful of members of Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management met outside the Tony Agnello Water Treatment Plant to celebrate.
“We’re obviously very, very pleased with the outcome and very thankful for the support from our local pharmacists, doctors and biologists as well as the huge majority of the people in Parry Sound and McDougall,” said group member Joe Moloney Monday morning. “We’re also very thankful for the support of Doctor Hardy Limeback. It was wonderful to see so many people who were engaged and we realize that it’s coming up at the next election and we’ll ensure there will be a lively debate at that time and we look forward to it. It’s one less unnecessary chemical in the water and the amount of money that the town doesn’t have to spend.”
Town says “No” to fluoride in its water…for now. McDougall Township and the Town of Parry Sound have passed by-laws to end fluoridation of the drinking water.
The issue surfaced in North Bay recently during budget deliberations when council learned it could save $50,000 by not using fluoride in the drinking water.
However, public backlash, led mostly by the city’s dentists, spiked the idea.
Now, a battle is shaping up in Parry Sound where a group of anti-fluoride activists have forced the town to take the chemical out of its water supply.
Effective March 18, the Town of Parry Sound no longer added fluoride to the drinking water system. The change also affects residents in McDougall Township which uses Parry Sound’s municipal water system.
The anti-fluoridation group went out and gathered enough signatures to force the town to hold a plebiscite on the issue.
To save the $20,000 it would cost, the town has agreed to put the question to a vote during the next municipal election.
Council passed a resolution instructing staff to add the following question to the Municipal election ballot in 2018: Are you in favour of the fluoridation of the public water supply of this municipality? Under the Fluoridation Act, this is the only question allowed on a municipal ballot.
“My understanding is that both camps will have to register themselves if they want to campaign just like someone running for municipal office,” Mayor Jamie McGarvey told BayToday.
“If we were to have kept the fluoride in the water the way it was, we were going to have to do a $250,000 upgrade to our water treatment plant where the fluoride is stored and put into the water system.”
McGarvey says he questioned spending that kind of money if within two years the fluoride was coming out.
“We’ll see how the ballot goes and if it’s to be kept in then we’ll spend the money at that time to upgrade the plant, and if it’s out then we’re not out $250,000.”
From FAN: Parry Sound, Ontario — While the initial vote to end fluoridation in the towns of Parry Sound and McDougal took place at the end of January, neither town could officially stop adding the chemical until a public comment period had occurred and two by-laws were successfully passed. On March 15th, the final bylaw was approved, and on March 18th the water treatment employees “flicked the switch off” on the fluoride injection equipment. It will still take a while for the remaining water towers filled with fluoridated water to be used up, but no more fluoride will be added to the supply, and the injection equipment will be removed over the summer.
There are calls for the Queensland Government to again mandate fluoride in the state’s water supply after the LNP government forced the decision on local governments in 2012.
Eli Waters resident and nutritionist Nikki Boswell has started a petition to “request the House to resume the mandate and state government control of water fluoridation in Queensland”.
“Since 2012 when control of water fluoridation was handed over to local councils, many regions have opted to cease water fluoridation in spite of it being the most effective and socially equitable way to prevent dental caries,” the petition reads.
The Newman Government’s decision to hand the fluoride debate and future to local government drew criticism from many Fraser Coast councillors who said the state was passing the buck.
Do you think fluoride should be debated again?
This poll ended on 13 April 2016.
Yes- let’s have the discussion again – 35%
No- the region has made a decision – 62%
I don’t care enough – 1%
This is not a scientific poll. The results reflect only the opinions of those who chose to participate.
HISTORY OF FLUORIDE
– The installation of the equipment cost $2.4 million and was borne by the state government.
– In December, 2012, the state government was criticised after it amended the Water Fluoridation Act 2008, such that “a local government may decide that fluoride not be added to the water supply – if it is satisfied the decision is in the best interests of the community”.
The Chronicle has requested comment from the state government.
The Tasmanian branch of the Australian Dentists Association has highlighted concerns about fluoridation levels in a submission to the State Government’s draft “Healthy Tasmania — Five Year Strategic Plan”. The association called for communities with as few as 500 people have access to fluoridated water supplies.
“Tasmania is more decentralised, has an older population, lower socio-economic status, and a higher proportion of people eligible for public dental care than mainland Australia,” the submission says.
Towns without fluoridated water are: Adventure Bay, Bell Bay, Bicheno, Bothwell, Bracknell, Branxholm, Colebrook, Coles Bay, Conara, Cornwall, Currie, Derby, Dowlings Creek, Ellendale, Epping, Fingal, Gladstone, Gormanston, Grassy, Gretna, Herrick, Judbury, Lady Barron, Legerwood, Mathinna, Maydena, Mole Creek, Mountain River, Ouse, Pioneer, Ringarooma, Scamander, Tullah, Tunbridge, Wayatinah and Whitemark
|Press Release from FIND (Fluoride Information Network For Dentists)Apr 18DHB Data Show No Benefit From Water Fluoridation: Data released by the Ministry of Health today confirm that water fluoridation is having no noticeable effect in reducing tooth decay.Around one in three NZ children have at least one cavity by age 5, and growing up with water fluoridation seems to offer no benefit.
Children in areas without fluoridation, like Christchurch and Nelson-Marlborough once again have among the best teeth in the country, with less tooth decay among 5 year olds than most fluoridated areas, such as Auckland and Counties-Manukau.
Hastings, the first area to have fluoride put in its water as an experiment in the 1950’s still has just as much tooth decay than its non-fluoridated neighbor, Napier, the town originally used to demonstrate the benefit of water fluoridation. Sixty years on there is still no benefit.
The overturning of the Hamilton council decision to stop fluoridation in 2013 also appears a wasted effort, with non fluoridated Waikato areas having less tooth decay than the fluoridated city.
“It’s very hard to see, with their own data consistently showing these trends for over 20 years, how Health Minister Coleman, the DHBs as well as the NZ Dental Association, can continue to make New Zealanders believe they will obtain a 40% reduction in tooth decay if councils fluoridate. Such statements are not backed by the science, nor by the facts, which are blatantly obvious in the school dental service data” says Dr. Stan Litras, spokesperson for the dentist group FIND who consider waterfluoridation a futile distraction.
“It’s clear to anyone who has looked at this in any depth that tooth decay is linked to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and access to health care, not to water fluoridation. We think the health authorities are barking up the wrong tree, simply because it’s more convenient to pretend that’s going to fix the problem than to address the real issues”.
“While fluoridation enthusiasts fêted the government announcement last week aiming to give DHBs the power to force fluoridation on councils, assuming this would result in mandatory national fluoridation, we believe such a move could also give DHBs the power to end fluoridation if they look at the facts and act responsibly.”
School dental service data can be found on www.health.govt .
(FAN-NZ report) The residents of the Franklin Ward townships of Buckland, Patumahoe, Clarks Beach, Waiau Beach and Glenbrook Beach who receive reticulated water have been consuming fluoridated water since 2014 without their knowledge or the legally required consultation. The details emerged of the clandestine act when Fluoride Free NZ investigated the actual readings provided by Watercare’s own annual water quality reports. The analysis showed that these townships had never been fluoridated
Chair of Auckland Council’s Policy and Strategy committee decided unilaterally today that a petition from Fluoride Free New Zealand could be received but not debated on. This left councillors no option other than to vote to accept the petition or not.
The petition to Council was over the illegal fluoridation of some Franklin communities.
In 2014 Watercare changed the source of water to the Franklin communities of Buckland, Patumahoe, Clarks Beach, Waiau Beach and Glenbrook Beach to a fluoridated supply. These communities had never had fluoridation in the past. Council was made aware of this last week through a petition that was lodged with the Council.
Council should have been allowed to have a discussion on this and then decide what should be done. Instead, one councillor has dictated to the entire council. He decided the issue could not be considered even though it is hugely signifcant and puts Auckland Council in the position of endorsing the fluoridation of these communities without the required consultation and without even advising the residents of this important change to their water supply.
It is also concerning that only one councillor was provided with the legal advice that Watercare obtained and this advice was denied to other councillors. According to the councillor who received it, Watercare said that their only obligation was to provide potable water and adding fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water did not make the water less potable. If this argument can be used to start fluoridation without consultation then the same argument can be used to stop fluoridation as not adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking water, definitely does not make a water supply less potable. In fact this decision means not only can councils stop fluoridation without consultation, they don’t even have to notify anyone.
According to the 2002 Local Government Body Act, councils are legally required to consult communities on issues of significance. Since then all other councils have considered fluoridation to be an issue of significance and fluoridation has not been stopped or started without some form of consultation such as a referendum, Tribunal style process, or inclusion in the draft annual plan.
In 2010 when the Kapiti Coast Council nearly stopped fluoridation, the Ministry of Health threatened to instigate a judicial review as they did not believe they had been sufficiently consulted. This was despite the fact that Kapiti Coast Council had undertaken consultation via the draft annual plan process. It is highly likely that if any council in New Zealand chose to stop fluoridation without public consultation the Ministry of Health would legally challenge that decision.
Auckland Council is now ignoring the law, and astonishingly has allowed Watercare, an Auckland Council owned business contracted to the Council to provide water services, and not elected by the community, to ride roughshod over the Franklin residents.
Where is democracy at Auckland Council if councillors are not even allowed to discuss important petitions that are put before them?
Also produced by Scoop:
utting water fluoridation decisions in the hands of district health boards, rather than local councils, should lead to more water supplies being
The Government is planning to implement mandatory fluoridation to the whole of New Zealand. Currently, only around 50% of households are on fluoridated water, with only 23 out of 67 local councils still fluoridating, while voicing their growing concerns about fluoridation risks and dangers. In response to more and more councillors and mayors deciding against fluoridation, the Government is now taking the decision away from local councils and communities and putting the power into the hands of District Health Boards (DHB), who are under the direct control of Central Government.
This legislation is a misguided response to the growing public demand on councils to stop fluoridation. Councillors in many areas have had the opportunity to hear both sides of the issue, including the latest science. Like most New Zealanders, once they are aware of all the facts, they become much less likely to support fluoridation.
The Ministry of Health knows now they can no longer win this debate in an open public forum. This legislation will close down debate and force fluoridation onto everyone, including people who are hypersensitive to fluoride. Claims that the DHBs will still be open to public input are pure spin, since the DHBs are contractually obligated to carry out MoH policy.
The local DHBs will be forced to add fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water of every community in the country, and councils and the public will be powerless. New Zealand will then be one of only three countries in the world with mandatory fluoridation, along with Singapore and the Republic of Ireland. Places such as Christchurch, Nelson, Rotorua, Napier and Whangarei that have never had fluoridation will now get it. And places such as Ashburton, Tauranga and New Plymouth that fought to stop fluoridation will also have it forced back on them.
To their surprise and confusion, the latest published research from pro-fluoride New Zealand dentists shows that there is no difference in tooth decay rates between non-Maori children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. In fact, what New Zealand research also shows is that twice as many children (30% compared to 15%) of children in fluoridated areas have permanent damage to their teeth in the form of dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is the first outward sign a child has been over exposed to fluoride when their teeth were developing. Fluoride is a toxin, and not a nutrient by any definition, as it was thought to be, seventy years ago. Some fluoridation supporters have not yet learned this.
It is obvious that fluoride exposure should be immediately and dramatically reduced, as Auckland council has quietly done just last month, yet the Government is taking the perverse backward step of increasing it.
Last year, Kent University (UK) published a study in the British Medical Journal which examined 98% of all medical practices, which found that women in fluoridated areas were 60% more likely to suffer from thyroid disease. In the most comprehensive review of fluoride ever to be conducted, the US National Research Council found that even very low levels of fluoride are damaging thyroid function. Thyroid disease is today at an all-time high, affecting fertility, metabolism and depression.
Also last year, published research from the US, found children in fluoridated areas were more likely to have ADHD. Because of this, and the hundreds of other studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ and other neurological damage, the prestigious US National Toxicology Program is now reviewing all the available literature to determine what level damage to the brain occurs from fluoride exposure. They will also conduct their own new animal studies. Panel member, Dr Linda Birnbaum stated “We know nothing of the individual vulnerability or susceptibility”. [see more about this here]
Why then does the Government want to give every New Zealander an uncontrolled dose of this Class 7 neurotoxin?
The legislation proposed for later this year would eventually be in place by 2018. Therefore, New Zealanders from all corners of the country need to voice their strong opposition. The obvious solution for dental health is to adopt a NZ version of the proven international programmes like Scotland’s Childsmile, which is saving teeth, saving pain, and saving millions of dollars. Scotland has never had fluoridation, and since they’ve implemented the Childsmile programme, Scottish kids now have much better teeth than Kiwi kids [see more about this here]
See Fluoride Free’s National Campaign page for details of public meetings and what you can do.
Friday 15th April, 2016
FIND Calls for National Debate on Fluoridation. With NZ moving towards government enforced water fluoridation, there has never been a more urgent time for open public discussion on a national level.
“A national level decision demands national level debate” says Dr. Stan Litras of the dentist group FIND.
Dentists from FIND have been presenting evidence at public meetings around the country and in Australia, as well as to city councils since 2013, with the aim of “filling in the gaps” which they see being left by fluoridation promoters such as the NZ Dental Association and the DHBs.
“We believe the current state of knowledge on water fluoridation is being misrepresented to the public, and to decision makers, with benefits being exaggerated and dangers being dismissed”
Fluoridation has been banned in many countries over health concerns as well as ethical considerations. These countries include Japan, Scotland, Northern Ireland, China, Russia, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Israel, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic.
We believe the facts speak for themselves, and the NZ public must be assured that any national level decision on fluoridation is the correct one based on these facts.
This is a legal requirement under the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005), to which NZ is a signatory which states that “in no case should a collective agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent”.
FIND has invited health authorities and NZ Dental Association spokespeople to attend public meetings for a balanced debate on several occasions and they have declined to do so.
“When you are talking about the deliberate addition of a substance considered a contaminant by the World Health Organization to the whole nation’s water supply, the arguments need to be aired in the public arena, not decided behind closed doors.”
“For our part, we would be quite open to change our views on fluoridation if we are shown any sound evidence to support it, which to date we have not, rather than a list of endorsing organizations.
So let’s sit down in front of the cameras and put our arguments and evidence directly to the New Zealand public”
Additional reportr woth comments:
And from ‘NZ doctor’ long justification of proposals
READ MORE FROM NEW ZEALAND DOCTOR http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/news/2016/april-2016/12/fluoridation-decisions-to-be-shifted-to-dhbs-under-proposed-legislation.aspx
A typical local view:
All of Hawke’s Bay’s water supplies could be fluoridated in the future if DHBs are granted the power to make the decision.
…Hawke’s Bay DHB clinical director for oral health Dr Robin Whyman said it was too early to say if the DHB would be moving to fluoridate the region’s water supply, but when asked did not rule out the possibility. “In time that’s a possibility, but at the moment it’s not a decision,” he said.
…Before making any decisions, Dr Whyman said the district health board would be looking at the legislation, having consultations and discussions about fluoride, working through technical issues, and looking at the health needs of communities throughout the region. When asked about the possible costs associated with fluoridating the region’s water supply, Dr Whyman said he thought they “would reside where they are now” – with councils.
Currently, Hastings is the only district in the Hawke’s Bay area with a fluoridated water supply.
A bill is expected to be introduced to Parliament later this year.
Another day, another poll. So, the result – what a surprise –
Voting NO in the Scoop poll Do you think Christchurch watER should be fluoirdated? brought the response
63% Agree with you
Apr 15: At that time there were 2368 voters
and the headline:
Poll shows most oppose adding fluoride to Christchurch water ..
This extract from the ‘NZ Herald -Northern Advocate’ had included a less usual view form a dentist
…Northland water supplies are not fluoridated. A referendum was held on this issue by the Whangarei District Council in 2002, and 70 per cent of those who responded voted against it.
In 2007, the Far North District Council began a two-year fluoridation trial in Kaikohe and Kaitaia. The trial did not continue after 2009, despite NDHB offering to fund it.
Whangarei dentist Lawrie Brett said his opinion was that fluoridation would not bring the benefits claimed by the Government and sugar was a far greater danger to youngsters’ teeth.
Dr Brett said there was plenty of scientific research that showed fluoride was a toxin and he did not believe fluoridation would help reduce dental decay.
“The Ministry of Health has statistics that show in areas where fluoridation was removed from drinking water the dental health of children in those areas actually improved after the fluoride was removed.
From Timaru in 1975, Ashburton in 2002 and New Plymouth in 2010, all those places stopped fluoridation and saw dental health improve afterwards,” he said
Those are the Ministry of Health’s statistics so it has to be explained: Why the big rush to force fluoridation on people when they don’t want it?”
Dr Brett said NDHB had campaigned for years to fluoridate the region’s water supplies and he thought it was a fait accompli that public supplies would be fluoridated.
“A referendum would just give the result the Government wanted as the pro-fluoride lobby would have millions of Government funding to push their case but the opponents wouldn’t have that financial backing to get their messages out,” he said.
It’s been two years since ex-Health Minister Yael German (Yesh Atid) ordered the removal of fluoride from water sources not naturally containing the chemical. But with the collapse of the ruling coalition and new elections in 2015, German lost her ministry – and the battle over water fluoridation.
In 2015 Yaakov Litzman (United Torah Judaism) replaced German and quickly ordered the renewal of water fluoridation.
Despite the setbacks, however, German has refused to surrender. On Tuesday German and Yael Cohen Paran (Zionist Union) called upon the judicial establishment to halt the fluoridation program, labeling it a violation of citizen’s right to autonomy.
Fluoride naturally exists in many water supplies, and is generally believed to be a safe and cost-effective means of preventing tooth decay and cavities. Many countries, including the United States, add small amounts of fluoride in water supplies that lack the chemical.
This process, known as water fluoridation, is not without controversy, with some European states refraining from adding fluoride to public water supplies.
German and Cohen Paran appealed to the Attorney General over the matter, claiming that the addition of fluoride violates the rights of Israeli citizens. The two also argued that water fluoridation is hazardous and could cause serious health problems.
The two MKs also called upon the Health Ministry to reverse its decision to reinstate water fluoridation. Should the ministry fail to respond, Cohen Paran and German say they will turn to the Supreme Court to intervene in the matter.
Articles and Links to Reports, Replies and further reading
An introduction to this article, describes the author, Marie Lasater, as ‘not only a medical professional, but an excellent researcher and talented communicator. Please share the article with others and for Missourians, pay particular attention to the last paragraph’ The Missouri state proposal mentioned may provoke an uncomfortable reminder of certain U.K. legislation Note that Flint, Michigan is the scene of the recent lead pollution, a problem, exacerbated by fluoridation, according to a FAN rfport ( see March edition)
Get The Lead Out
By: Marie Lasater
There is a lead crisis looming in our country, and it is being fueled by the increase in water fluoridation. I was born in Flint, Michigan and lived there until age 6. My father was from the Appalachian Mountains of east Tennessee, and was kind of dropped off there when he got out of the Navy. He met my mom in the boarding house grandma ran after grandfather’s death. The problem with being born in Flint is the fact that in 1945 Grand Rapids was the first US city to add fluoride, followed by Flint, just in time to fully fluoridate a young kid like me, and I have the tooth fractures to prove it.
Fluoride is not naturally found in the body, and whenever you introduce an unknown quantity to any living system, there are going to be problems. Fluoride, like lead, is a calcium imitator,therein lays the problem. Both substances replace healthy calcium, and in the case of teeth,fluoride causes a frequently occurring problem caused dental fluorosis. Simply put, dental fluorosis is the replacement of calcium in your teeth by fluoride, causing cosmetic mottling, butmore importantly fluoride fracture lines. When fluoride replaces calcium, it can cause teeth tobreak off, often at the gum line, and almost always on the inner aspect of the tooth that comesin contact with fluoridated beverages.
But fluoride is much more hazardous than broken teeth. The relation of fluoride and lead is coming to the forefront. Both fluoride and lead can cross the blood-brain barrier and produce toxic effects on the central neural system, resulting in low learning and memory abilities,especially in children because of their rapidly developing nervous systems. In 2012, the Harvard School of Public Health issued a statement on “The impact of fluoridation on neurological development in children.” Researchers found an average loss of 7 IQ points in children exposed to fluoride from drinking water.
Water fluoridation has always been unpopular. From the very start water fluoridation has been an unwanted intervention, and the overwhelming majority of the communities actually able to vote against fluoridation have rejected it. Fluoridation was not established through public referenda, but rather through executive actions by government bodies, including city councils.And city councils have the ability to stop fluoridating your water overnight, but that is about to change.
Fluoride is classifed as a pharmaceutical because it is has no nutritive qualities, and is added to the water to treat a disease (cavities). Over 97% of Western Europe has rejected fluoride as it is considered unethical to mass medicate an entire population without the required informed consent. While topical applications of fluoride to the teeth through toothpaste and mouthwash have been shown to prevent tooth decay, keep in mind that these products contain
pharmaceutical grade fluoride, as opposed to industrial grade fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, that is added to our water. Fluorosilic acid has been proven to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other toxins. There is no need to ever swallow fluoride in any form, and even your tube of toothpaste cautions you to immediately contact Poison Control if you do so. An analysis of phone calls Regarding Fluoride Exposure made to New Jersey Poison Control Center from 2010 to 2012 documented 2,476 reports of excessive fluoride exposure, with the majority of phone calls made by mothers whose children had swallowed a fluoridated dental product. Initial toxicity was treated by the administration of calcium as an antidote, but the long-term effects are still not known.
The relationship between fluoride and lead has been recognized for decades. A study published in Neurotoxicology in Dec. 2000 found that for every age and race group there was a consistently significant elevation of fluoride-treated community water and elevated blood lead. As far back as 1964, a pediatrics textbook noted that the incidence of lead poisoning was rising in certain fluoridated metropolitan areas in the eastern United States. Blame was placed on children eating lead paint, but children had been eating paint chips long before the crisis arose in 1964. In the interim, a new source of lead was provided to children – lead contaminated fluoridated water, also capable of leaching lead from pipes. There is also lead in brass fittings on water supply lines, added to increase flexibility. Data collected by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) show that children drinking water treated with FSA and other fluorosilicate chemicals are 20 percent more likely to have dangerous levels of lead in their blood. The CDC has yet to warn the public about the fluoridation/lead risk, but continues to promote water fluoridation.
Several recent studies are examining the relation of fluoridated water and lead levels. A 2010 study in the journal Toxicology examined the fact that higher blood levels of lead have been reported in children living in communities with fluoride-treated water. Researchers found that fluoride consistently increases lead levels in both blood and calcified tissues, showing an association between increased blood levels in children living in water-fluoridated areas. In a manuscript entitles “how does fluorosilicic acid leach lead?” by Dr. Sauerhaber, he describes the process as follows; ‘When diluted in water, fluorosilicic acid breaks down in drinking water into fluoride ion, hydrogen fluoride, and orthosilicic acid, H4SiO4. Orthosilicic acid is classed as a weak acid and is often dismissed as relatively harmless. Unfortunately for our health, it is able to dissolve – slowly but surely – lead salts out of lead based pipes and fittings, especially brass.”
Call to Action. There is a very important bill currently in Senate Committee, HB1717 that requires the public water system to notify the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Health and Senior Services 90 days prior to any vote to cease fluoridation. You can consider this a fluoride protection bill, as there is no requirement to notify these entities prior to ADDING fluoride to the drinking water, which on the face of it would be of greater concern to the DNR as fluorosilicic acid is considered a pollutant, and companies are fined if they dump it in rivers or streams. Somehow it is okay to add it to our drinking water, which eventually ends up in the rivers and streams. This bill will make it almost impossible for your city council to remove fluoride from your drinking water. I have experienced firsthand the huge resources put forth by the government to keep fluoride in place. In order to kill this bill in the Senate Committee, contact your State Senator, or send them a copy of this article.
The Downington article led to over 160 comments, some replying to lengthy contributions from fluoride protaganist Mr S Slott Here are three selected for their arguments and/or useful references:
2.1 John Mueller: As a licensed professional engineer with water treatment plant operator certification (both for more than 20 years), I have professional experience with the addition of arsenic-contaminated fluorosilicic acid (FSA) to the otherwise already substantially purified public drinking water.
In my experience in Tulsa, OK, the Certificates of Analysis of the FSA delivered from the Mosaic Company, under a contract for which I prepared technical specifications, typically show arsenic levels from 35 to more than 50 parts per million (ppm).
The first limit setting step by the EPA for a regulated contaminant is to establish the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), which is the unenforceable “level of contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected health risk.” The enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is then established based on the economic and technologic feasibility of treatment – what current water treatment plant processes can realistically achieve without breaking the bank – while minimizing those known health risks. The MCLG for arsenic is zero.
The MCL for arsenic is 10 parts per billion. Analytitical methods approved by the EPA for arsenic leaving treatment plants typically cannot detect concentrations below about 4 ppb, so the arsenic that we know is being added typically goes unreported to the public in a utility’s annual report to its customers because of its dilution down to the neighborhood of 0.15 ppb
. Nevertheless, fluoridation with FSA knowingly adds the carcinogen arsenic to the drinking water in which results in concentrations at the tap above the EPA’s established MCLG of zero….
2.2 iru Cossaboon: Most of Europe bans fluoridation, because it is not effective and not safe! Also the element Fluorine (F9) is a highly toxic gas which binds with other chemicals to form fluorides. There is nothing natural in the fluoridation chemicals that are added to our water: hydrofluorocilic acid and sodiumhexafluorosilicate which are both industrial waste products of phosphate fertilizer industry.
You can say there are no studies proving harm at “optimal” levels, but even the 2006 NRC found many and advised that there were no studies proving safety at ANY levels….. here are 14 recent studies pertinent to 2016 conversations:, a few 2014-2015 studies and reports plus two on fluoride and lead:
- S Peckham, D Lowery, S Spencer. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. J Epidemiol Community Health. 24 February 2015. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-204971. http:// jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/02/09/jech-2014-204971
- Navneet Singh, et al. A comparative study of fluoride ingestion levels, serum thyroid hormone & TSH level derangements, dental fluorosis status. Springerplus. 2014; 3: 7. 2014 Jan 3.
- I. Gutowskaa, et al. Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages. Toxicology in Vitro. Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2015, Pages 1661–1668.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233315001605
- Louveau A, et al. Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels. Nature. 2015 Jul 16;523(7560):337-41. Epub 2015 Jun 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
- A Malin and C Till. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence. Environmental Health 2015, 14:17 doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0003-1. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/s12940-015-0003-1.pdf
- Zhang S, et al. Modifying Effect of COMT Gene Polymorphism and a Predictive Role for Proteomics Analysis in Children’s Intelligence in Endemic Fluorosis Area in Tianjin, China. Toxicol Sci. 2015 Apr; 144(2):238-45. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfu311. Epub 2015 Jan 1. PMID: 25556215. http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- Anna L. Choi, Ying Zhang, Guifan Sun, David C. Bellinger, d, Kanglin Wang, Xiao Jing Yang, Jin Shu Li, Quanmei Zheng, Yuanli Fug, Philippe Grandjean, Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Volume 47, January–February 2015, Pages 96–101.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036214001809
- Khan SA, Singh RK, Navit S, Chadha D, Johri N, Navit P, Sharma A, Bahuguna R. Relationship Between Dental Fluorosis and Intelligence Quotient of School Going Children In and Around Lucknow District: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Nov;9(11):ZC10-5. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/15518.6726. Epub 2015 Nov 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26673535
- Grandjean P, Landigran P. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , 330 – 338. March 2014.http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract
- F. Liu et al.. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. Physiol Behav. 2014 Jan 30;124:1-7.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
- Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass part. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1023-31. Epub 2007 Jun 30.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697714
- Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology. 2000 Dec;21(6):1091-100: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11233755
13 Martín-Pardillos A, Sosa C, Millán Á, Sorribas V. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2014.01.012. Epub 2014 Feb 18. PMID: 24561004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2456100
14 Main, Douglas. Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows. Newsweek (Tech and Science). 29 June 2015.http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
2.3 jwillie6: Recent scientific studies tell the true story. Check the following research studies showing increased cancer with fluoride.
There are many PubMed ( US National Library of Medicine®) scientific studies showing that fluoride in drinking water causes cancer. Here are a few. Go read them yourself.
A fivefold increase in bone cancer in young people:
Uterine cancer mortality:
Cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary
2.4 Dan Germouse ... The forced-fluoridation fanatics often try to claim that the low rates of dental caries in western European countries which do not have artificially fluoridated public water supplies are due to naturally occurring fluoride in water, or some other kind of artificial fluoridation such as salt fluoridation. They are lying.
From Carol Kopf: The CDC finally informs us that some fluoridation chemicals were contaminated with black particles, a bird’s nest, plastic bags, waxy material, iodine and 1,2-dichlorobenzene. That’s in addition to the lead, arsenic and other toxins the CDC welcomes in the fluoridation chemicals added to public water supplies even though the safe level of lead and arsenic is zero.
The CDC updated its “water fluoridation additives” page, on March 31, 2016, and directs our attention to “Trace contaminants in water treatment chemicals: sources and fate” by MacPhee, et al. published in the December 2004 peer-reviewed Journal of the American Water Works Association (AWWA).
For details of My latest blog’ : http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2016/04/contaminated-fluoride-chemicals.html
“What Doctors Don’t Tell You” mag. April 2015. “HARD TO SWALLOW.” (3-page article.) Summary.
It’s been one of the quietest retreats in modern medical history. From being the pioneer & champion of adding fluoride to public water, the USA has dramatically reduced the fluoride levels that are permissible in water, effectively ending the practice in some regions. It’s a remarkable reversal by a country that in 1951 was the first to adopt fluoridation. The policy shift, announced by the US Dept of Health & Human Services, reduces the safe level of fluoride from 1.2mg/Lof water to just 0.7mg/Lwater. As mineral deposits are a natural source of fluoride in drinking water, many US areas will have to stop artificial fluoridation to stay within the new limits. Before the new guidelines last year, 42 of the 50 States had fluoridation reaching 74% of the population via the water. The lower limits were set after a Centers for Disease Control study found 40.7% of
12 to 15-year old adolescents had dental fluorosis. The article then gives details of the harms from fluoridation: Neurotoxic & linked to IQ problems; Skeletal fluorosis; Thyroid problems; Male fertility; Bone Cancer (osteosarcoma.) With scientific references given.
(WDDTY can be bought once a month from some shops – some W.H. Smiths etc. Or by subscription. www.wddty.com)
‘Waking Times’ article spotted by Bill Edmunds, that recalls evidence of fluoride dangers going back to 1946 .
Don’t get carried away by ‘pee –reviewed’, argues Doug Cross. ‘Not all published science is good science’ Read his article :http://ukcaf.org/
And at least attempt the source of the recently published essay to which he refers: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False by John P. A. Ioannidi.
A letter from a resident in Terrace, B.C.
It was sad to see the City of Terrace decide to bow to local medical information in deciding not to hold a referendum on regarding fluoridation of its water.
Here we are in northwest Canada, still in the dark ages compared to Europe.
These are my questions:
We are feeding poverty-stricken children fluoridated water to prevent cavities.
But are they actually drinking this water? Enough to impact their teeth, that is. What is the magic number for that to work, by the way?
Or are they drinking/sipping baby formula (which has sugar), milk (which has sugar), certain yogurt mixtures and the like (which has sugar), juice (which has sugar), fruit drinks (which have sugar) and pop (all sugar)?
Let’s not even talk about donuts, cakes, candy or cookies getting stuck in their teeth.
What are we doing to support people changing their diets, learning how to cook, teaching them the damage sugar does to teeth?
And are they being taught – and their parents fully and continuously supported – to make sure they brush their teeth after every meal?
Teach a kid to stay away from sugar, get back to their indigenous diet (no matter where you are from, could be Scandinavia like me), and brush your teeth – gee! I wonder what would happen then?
We don’t need fluoridation. We need education in taking care of our bodies. Let’s teach people to eat good food. Let’s get at the root cause, not place Band-Aids on the problem.
Marianne Brorup Weston,
Apr 10 Fluoride Free NZ’s new book is available for $10. Please support our work and read up on the latest information on fluoridation from New Zealand and around the world.
From FAN: The National Fluoridation News:
Thanks to Doug Cragoe of Los Angeles, you can now download and read PDF versions of the 176 bi-monthly issues of this historic newsletter published from 1955 to 1988. , the publication based out of Detroit, Michigan reported the latest fluoride news, victories, legal battles, research, and campaign “hotspots” to subscribers and fluoride-free campaigners throughout the world This is a great resource as there is a wealth of information in the National Fluoridation News that are now available online.