Reduce Health Care Budget: End Fluoridation

Help reduce future cases of Alzheimer’s and dementia: end fluoridation now…

Also, ending fluoridation now will help reduce future cases of dental and bone fluorosis, cancer, arthritis, hypothyroidism, fibromyalgia, toothlessness, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and many others, and, most notably, all degenerative diseases and health conditions…

Why? Because the resulting Fluoride ion released in the water by adding any fluoride chemical to tap water is a protoplasmic poison, as admitted in:
1. the Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 23, page 568, April, 1936, titled Fluorine in relation to bone and tooth development by Floyd DeEds, Phd., and,
2. the Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943, Editorial. Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons”.

Ending fluoridation now will help reduce the burden on our future health care budget which we are told is spiraling out of control; it will also reduce the number of lost man hours that are lost due to the increase in these illnesses.

Anyone with any amount of intelligence can see that this is a massive fraud, a scam, when coupled with the knowledge that Fluoridation is a complete waste of tax dollars because it does nothing to end tooth decay and over 99% of treated water carrying this drug ends up in the environment where it was banned from entering in the first place by the U.S. EPA that classifies it as an environmental contaminant.

It’s a means for some polluting industries to get rid of their toxic fluoride industrial waste at a profit, using our water supply as a disposal system circumventing the EPA and Environment Canada regulations for its proper processing for disposal at great cost.

In 1983 the EPA’s Rebecca Hamner acknowledged that fluoridating water with phosphate-industry waste was a fix for Florida’s environmental pollution. “This Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long standing problem,” the Deputy Assistant Administrator for water wrote, adding: “By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them,” she added. Whatever twisted thinking drove her to that disingenuous and irrational recommendation is very difficult to understand except if you *follow the money*

If you have as little as $5 to spare to help our cause, please go to our web site <a href=”http://ffo-olf.org/”>http://ffo-olf.org/</a&gt; and click on our donate button. If we get enough money, we’ll put a well composed, stimulating and hard hitting ad in the local papers to get more people involved. Our communications team is starting to come together really well.

Advertisement

Ottawa Concerns about fluoridation

In 2o13, many Councillors and Dr Levy received the Ottawa Fluoridation Report from Fluoridation-Free Ottawa with actual documents showing that fluoridation is unwarranted; not just lists. They have ignored its contents. Some Councillors have even refused to meet with me and others like me who defend cessation of fluoridation. The Ottawa Public Health office received their copy of the Report in the hands of Dr. Etches, June 13, 2013. Did she read it? Did Dr Levy read it? We doubt it, because they would no longer support the poisoning of Ottawans with toxic waste HFS in tap water.

We have the science: proponents pushing fluoride claim they have science but they have yet to produce it. Their only “proof of science” is their statements on their authority, endorsements, doctored studies by vested interests and assurances that they have science on their side. They even resort to some of the most egregious and ludicrous claims of benefits unsupported by science.

So why do people believe them? People believe them to be the experts that they are not because they are supposed to be the authorities, right? Why would they want to mislead us? Because they keep the company of others subject to invincible ignorance spouting out their “belief” that it works in a way that it does not and can not possibly work. They are riding this tiger and they don’t know how or when to get off.

Many like me have asked for their science. What did we get? The best they could do was give me a list of documents that they claim shows fluoridation is not a health problem. I’ve read most of those and guess what? They are flagrantly in contradiction to their claims! No surprise there to me and to those who have been aware of and battling this problem even longer than me. Yet they insist on claiming that the documents in their list is really supportive of their claims.

Proponents of fluoridation keep saying that they base their decisions on science based medicine. Well, that may be the case for much of medicine, but not for fluoridation. It baffles the mind how they can make generalizations such as these without substantiating them for fluoridation. They substantiate it for others. Why not fluoridation?

The fluoride acid that is actually used, as supplied, is a contaminated mixture containing pollutants not permitted by Federal and Provincial Laws and Regulations to be added to the water supply: think Arsenic, Lead and Mercury. So, why then is this acid mixture being used? Ottawa’s web site calls it Fluoride, saying that fluoride is natural. Not unless it’s Calcium fluoride (CaF2). Then they say it’s present in the air, water and soil. Wait just a minute here. CaF2 can’t be in the air: it’s too heavy to float around freely in the air. Then they say Hydrofluorosilicic acid is what’s used. Okay, I guess they like to confuse everyone on what’s actually used. Whoever wrote this web page content simply copied and embellished it from a standard text supplied by fluoridation proponents. How do I know that? Because some variations of it are found everywhere that fluoridation is advocated or implemented. Fluoridation opposition is a national movement and we communicate with each other. I contend that the collusion to implement and maintain fluoridation is a conspiracy worth investigating… The only ones to benefit from this failed medical intervention is the fluoride polluting industries.

Dr. Levy should have been replaced by a more competent person. That person should have full knowledge of the implications of adding a toxic, fluoride, industrial, waste chemical mixture to the water supply in the lame ,unproven and unsupported belief that it may reduce tooth decay. Why? Because it is being recommended as an “oral health measure” – that’s a euphemism, newspeak, for a tooth decay remedy, as tooth medicine. Pushers of this “unlawful drug use” all say that it reduces tooth decay; the water treatment plant annual mandatory report to the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario says “fluoride is added for prevention of dental cavities:” then it undeniably has to be a medicine, a drug use that has no place in your water supply.

The fluoride chemical used has yet to be proven safe for human consumption even if it releases a low concentration of the Fluorine anion in the water supply. If anyone would be foolish enough to drink even a few ounces of the acid used in fluoridation, it would kill them. The Fluorine anion is bad enough by itself, being a known protoplasmic poison, but the Hydrofluorosilicic acid that contains it is even worse as a fluoridation agent, but the whole mix that it comes in is the worst culprit of all. It is a pollutant, a banned U.S. EPA environmental contaminant that needs special containment at every stage of its handling and delivery.

We have been asked to prove that fluoridation is not safe, which is the reverse of what should happen. Any water additive is required by law to be proven safe for water consumers before being used as such. This has yet to be done even after over 60 years of fluoridation in all of North America where it is implemented on an endemic scale. The claim is that it is certified by NSF but NSF does not do safety studies on the liquid mix that is actually used for fluoridation: they defer the responsibility to the user as they do for all of their certified chemicals: their only purpose to to certify that the chemical is exactly what is claimed that it is: it’s a sham to use the NSF to validate its use as a safe product.

In spite of not having to prove lack of safety, we who battle to end fluoridation have done so with a multitude of research reports, scientific studies, peer reviewed articles and mountains of anecdotal evidence. Their response? Junk science! Pseudo-science! Cherry picking! We’ve been told that anecdotal evidence is not scientific, yet, in a court of law, when there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to attempt to prove a case, the accused is usually found guilty. The mountains of anecdotal evidence now available is the same as that type of legal evidence: it is real data about real people suffering consequences from drinking fluoridated water. These fluoridation drug pushers are doing this illegally and must be charged for doing so and found guilty. The law is on our side and must now be used to the advantage of the population that is being poisoned by fluoridation.

Clearly: it is illegal to release the HFS used in fluoridation anywhere into the environment under any circumstances, but, for some unexplained reason, it becomes okay to drip it into the community water supply (your tap water) on the lame belief that it might prevent tooth decay: there are limited and doctored studies that appear to show very tiny reductions in tooth decay, but no real, science based research: studies are not scientific. Fluoride drug pushers use biased surveys to prop up support for their fluoride drug pushing: i.e. “Do you agree to the use of fluoride in the water supply to prevent tooth decay” – that is a loaded question: who does not want to reduce tooth decay? The correct question: “Do you agree to a fluoride drug being added to the water supply?” and give opponents an equal forum to explain its use and the contraindications of its use. If they choose to use the qualifier “to prevent tooth decay” they must also say: “using HFS, a toxic, fluoride, industrial, waste chemical.” – that would level the playing field by telling the truth about the chemical used in fluoridation.

Many municipal Councillors, in their confusion, exclaim that proponents have their science that proponents of ending fluoridation have their science, and it is impossible to know and decide who or what’s right. Councillors claim that they are not qualified to decide on the problem. However, they forget that fluoridation pollutes the water supply that has been purified for drinking. They forget that fluoridation forces all those drinking that water to ingest a drug without monitoring for side effects. No need for science or medical knowledge: just logic and common sense. What else are they forgetting? We are asking for an end to fluoridation as we shed legitimate doubt and concerns on fluoridation safety and effectiveness. Shouldn’t fluoridation therefore be stopped until the quandary is resolved, just in case it’s really true? I mean, isn’t the evidence there and admitted to?

Proponents raise a ruckus and cry out that tooth decay rates will be going up and ask if Councillors want the responsibility of millions of rotten teeth on their conscience. What? Are they mad? There is no proof of such ever being true. In point of fact, the opposite has been categorically shown to happen! My question to these alarmists is: Do you want to be responsible for the millions of people’s illnesses being triggered or aggravated by adding that toxic, fluoride contaminant into the water supply?

The chemical mix used is not pure Hydrofluorosilicic acid (chemical formula H2SiF6), a bad chemical by itself, but does not meet Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) standards. It is produced in unsanitary industrial conditions of

a) production,
b) packaging,
c) transportation and
d) storage.

We have been tricked into using the fluoride polluting industries’ toxic fluoride waste as a disposal method passed off, and accepted, as a form of “tooth medicine” when it does not even prevent, reduce, or otherwise protect against, tooth decay.

This leads us to one more thing. Did you know that you are being medicated without being consulted and thus without your consent? That is forced medication on a grand scale. A medical doctor who would force a patient to take medication would loose his license to practice medicine. So tell me: why is a MOH by force of recommendation, causing Councillors to allow fluoridation to continue, making them part of a collusion to poison everybody? Because if he did not support fluoridation he may stand to lose his job, his prestige, his/her grotesquely high salary, and the respect of his peers. To put that ahead of the health and well being of those he is sworn as a doctor to serve is grounds for his dismissal: this is a scandalous behaviour for a MOH.

I say to Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health: make the right choice now. Maybe the citizens of Ottawa will be lenient and respect you more for having made the right choice and ask that you remain as their health care manager without reduction in your scandalously high salary and perks. What should be more important to an MOH? The health of residents or his prestige and the approval of his peers?

I say to the Citizens of Ottawa and FFO: please keep up the pressure. Your future improved health outcomes and that of all of your children and grandchildren, depend on it: d you care? Not acting to end fluoridation means that you are unfortunately allowing all of your loved ones to be poisoned by fluoridation.

Fluoridation is wasteful, ineffective, unproven, unsafe, unnatural, unnecessary and unethical. The acid used as a drug is unregulated and unapproved: it does not have a DIN for its drug use and is technically unlawfully used as a drug in fluoridation. Water is for everyone: fluoride is not.

There’s more, so much more, but my time is up. I challenge anyone in authority to discuss or debate the subject with me in a public, open forum.

Fluoride in The Body – What it does

FLUORIDE IN THE BODY

WHAT HAPPENS to fluoride once it has entered the human body? To answer this question one of two methods is usually used.

In one the total quantity of fluoride consumed over a given period from all food and drink is measured and compared with the amounts of fluoride eliminated through the kidneys and bowels. This approach, however, is only partially reliable because some fluoride leaves the body with sweat, saliva, and tears, all of which are difficult to collect. The procedure was first reported in 1891 by two German pharmacologists, J. Brandl and H. Tappeiner, who over the course of 21 months fed slightly more than 14 ounces (403 g) of sodium fluoride to a 28-pound dog.¹ During this period the dog excreted 81 % of the fluoride through the kidneys and bowels. Of the fluoride detected in the dog when they then killed it, over 92% was present in the bones and cartilage. The rest, in decreasing amounts, was found in the skin, muscle, liver, teeth, and blood.

The second approach uses the radioactive tracer technique. Radioactive fluoride, ¹⁸F, is imbibed with water or injected into a vein, and a Geiger counter then records the amount of radiation which emanates from ¹⁸F as it passes through the body. Thus, it can be determined exactly where the radioactive fluoride localizes and how much is eliminated. In these experiments, all information must be obtained in about 8-10 hours because of the rapid disin­tegration of ¹⁸F, which has a half-life of 1.87 hours as it decays (by loss of a positron) to ¹⁸0, a stable isotope of oxygen. Radioactive tracer studies were first reported on rats in 1954,² on sheep in 1955,³ on rats and mice in 1958,⁴ and on humans in 1960.⁵ Many similar studies have been carried out subsequently.

BALANCE STUDIES

In 1945 fluoride balance studies were described on five healthy young men for 28 test periods, each consisting of five eight-hour days. These findings indicated that more than 80% of the fluoride ingested in drinking water was being excreted in urine and perspiration.⁶ Indeed, sweat is “an important avenue for the elimination of fluoride,” the authors stated”

In a later investigation, the daily diet of nine male ambulatory patients, which averaged 4.4 mg fluoride, was supplemented by 9.1 mg of fluoride (as sodium fluoride).⁷ Of the total daily amount of fluoride (13.5 mg) thus consumed, 3.6 mg was retained, amounting to 115 mg during the 32-day experimental period. During the 18 days following termination of the experiment, the total amount of excess fluoride excreted in the urine and feces was 9.8 mg, which means that only about 10% of the 115 mg of fluoride retained during the experiment was subsequently eliminated.

ABSORPTION INTO THE BLOOD

Under ordinary conditions fluoride is detectable in the blood stream by ¹⁸F tracer within 10 minutes after ingestion and reaches a maximum concentration about 50 minutes later.⁵ About 47.5% is absorbed through the upper bowels and 25.7% through the stomach wall within one hour by simple diffusion, no active transport mechanism being involved.⁸ This “normal” course of the metabolic fate of fluoride, however, may be modified considerably by many factors. For instance, when accompanied by calcium, aluminum, magnesium, and phosphates present in food or water, fluoride is absorbed more slowly,^9,10 although increased intake of calcium and phosphorus has only a limited effect on the amount that is absorbed.⁷ Similarly, simultaneous ingestion of fat considerably delays the emptying of the stomach,¹¹ but enhances fluoride absorption into the blood stream.¹²

When the stomach is unduly acid, as in persons with stomach ulcers, fluoride is more rapidly and more completely absorbed than in a less acid stomach. Once fluoride has reached the lower bowels, little absorption takes place because, in contrast to the acidity of the stomach, the bowel content is alkaline, and some fluoride, instead of entering the blood stream, leaves the body with the fecal material. When fluoride is swallowed with food, tablets, or salt, less of it reaches the blood stream than when taken in water or most other liquids, as with milk, in which the calcium and protein tend to bind fluoride; the absorption is slower and less complete. In an experiment with rats, continuous feeding of fluoride caused greater retention in the body than interrupted feeding.¹³

In workers and in persons residing close to factories which emit fluoride, however, the respiratory tract is a major route of fluoride ingress. In its gaseous form – essentially hydrogen fluoride – the halogen readily enters the blood stream, mainly in the upper portion of the respiratory tract. The uptake of particulate fluoride compounds is governed mainly by the size of the particles: the larger ones settle in the nose, sinuses, and pharynx and are promptly removed from the body with mucus or swallowed.¹⁴ Particles with a diameter of 0.5-5μ will be impacted in the alveolar-capillary bed, the terminal areas of the lungs, where they are absorbed into the blood stream within minutes, especially if they are water soluble.¹⁵

In the blood stream between 80% and 90% of the fluoride is present in a “bound” or non diffusible form.¹⁶ Most of this fluoride appears to be attached by stable covalent bonds to organic molecules. The rest of the fluoride in blood is in a free, ionic form, the concentration of which reflects both the level of intake and the efficiency of excretion. The “normal” level of serum ionic fluoride, according to D.R. Taves of the University of Rochester, is 0.2-0.4 micromole/liter (μM) or 0.004-0.008 ppm “when the drinking water contains only traces of fluoride, and about 0.5-1 μmol (0.01-0.02 ppm) in a community with fluoridated water.¹⁷

In the most extensive studies to date, H. Hanhijärvi reported somewhat higher serum ionic fluoride levels (but in a comparable ratio) in 2200 hospital patients in a non-fluoridated and a fluoridated community in Finland.” His data showed that ionized plasma fluoride increases with age, diabetes, and renal insufficiency but decreases slightly during pregnancy. Diseases of the liver and heart also reflected higher serum fluoride levels, especially in the fluoridated community (Table 4-1, page 50).¹⁹

Table 4-1

Mean Ionic Plasma Fluoride Levels of 2200
Patients in Two Finnish Hospitals¹⁹

                                                                                                                                       Plasma Fluoride (μM)

Age (years) or Disease Mean age		Non-fluoridated Area	Fluoridated Area
	7	0.79	1.1
	27	0.87	1.2
	47	0.86	1.4
	67	0.96	1.6
	87	1.0	1.8
Mean		0.88	1.3
Diabetes (adults)		0.98-1.6	1.4-4.0
Liver diseases		0.95-1.4	2.3-3.5
Cardiovascular diseases		0.94-1.3	1.2-2.6
Collagen diseases		1.7	2.6

The small “free” or dissociated fluoride ion easily penetrates the walls of tiny capillary blood vessels and thereby reaches the cells of various organs in the body, especially the bones. In these movements the fluoride ion concentration and the calcium and carbon dioxide levels in the blood, together with the composition of the tissue fluids, all play a role in determining how much and how fast fluoride reaches the tissues.

TISSUE STORAGE

In bones and teeth, fluoride becomes incorporated directly into the crystalline mineral phase, called hydroxyapatite, to form fluoroapatite. The cancellous part of long bones and the surface of the shaft incorporate fluoride more rapidly than does the cortex [marrow].²⁰ Developing bones and teeth take up more fluoride than do mature ones.²¹ In the absence of kidney impairment adults therefore accumulate fluoride more slowly than children.

Although most of the body fluoride is stored in hard tissues – bones, teeth, and nails – we now know that the fluoride ion can penetrate into and be “stored” in virtually any tissue of the body, sometimes in rather substantial quantities.. Much fluoride is found,

for instance, in the aorta, the main artery of the heart²² – even at relatively uncalcified sites – and in ligaments. Under certain conditions, significant amounts of fluoride can also accumulate in the skin, bowels, kidneys, liver, muscles, and other organs.²³ The highest level of fluoride stored in soft tissue organs, 8400 ppm, was found in the aortas of two middle-aged men.²⁴

EXCRETION

The elimination of fluoride from the body – through kidneys and less through feces, sweat, saliva, tears, and milk – in general is unpredictable. During a person’s growth, the clearance of fluoride through the kidneys increases, but after age 50 it begins to decline, an indication of greater storage. Of a given dose in adults, 37% to 48% is usually retained, but these values vary considerably,²⁵ Early in my fluoride studies I administered to several patients, as a test dose, 15 mg of sodium fluoride (6.8 mg of F-), which is seven times the daily intake of fluoride recommended for prevention of tooth decay in children.²⁶ One patient eliminated in the urine as little as 3.6% in 24 hours, another as much as 99.5%.

Fluoride excretion in excess of intake may continue for a long time after large amounts of the halogen have been ingested. For instance, 27 months after the drinking water in Bartlett, Texas, was defluoridated from 8 ppm to about 1 ppm, the average fluoride concentration in urine specimens of 116 white males, age 7 to over 70, decreased from 6-8 ppm to about 2 ppm.²⁷ These values indicate that previously stored fluoride was metabolized and excreted in the urine.

Because there are wide variations among people in their retention and excretion of fluoride (Fig. 4-1, page 52), it is logical to conclude that there must also be great differences in the health effects of fluoride from person to person. Unfortunately, our knowledge about the behavior of fluoride in the human organism is still very imperfect. We do not know why some individuals respond so much differently to fluoride than do others. Are there predisposing – perhaps inherited – factors which explain the variations in retention of fluorine in some persons? What role do malnutrition, vitamin deficiencies, differences in food habits, functional impairment of certain organs, presence of disease, occupational exposure, and socio-economic factors play in the action of fluoride in the body? These questions indicate clearly that there are important areas of research which still need answers. At the moment, we have scarcely begun to formulate the questions, much less to grope for answers. The area to which scientists have given most attention is the action of fluoride on teeth, specifically its value in preventing tooth decay, and even here our knowledge is still incomplete.

  •  Living in Detroit, Mich. with 0.1 p.p.m. F- in water supply
O Living in fluoridated cities (about 1 p.p.m.)

Fig. 4.1 Unpredictable variations in 24·hour urinary fluoride excretion by age
among allergic persons living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.

(From G.L. Waldbott: Fluoride in Clinical Medicine.
Internat. Arch. Allergy Appl. Immunol., Suppl. 1 to Vol. 20, 1962.)

REFERENCES

1. Brandl, J. and Tappeiner, H.: Ueber die Ablagerung von Fluorverbindungen im Organismus nach Fütterung mit Fluornatrium. Z. Biol., 28:518..539,1891.

2. Wallace-Durbin, P.: The Metabolism of Fluorine in the Rat Using F¹⁸ as a Tracer. J. Dent. Res., 33:789·800, 1954.

3. Perkinson, J.D., Jr., Whitney,I.B., Monroe, R.A., Lotz, W.E., and Co­mar, C.L.: Metabolism of Fluorine 18 in Domestic Animals. Am. J. Physiol., 182:383-389,1955.

4. Ericsson, Y., and Ullberg, S.: Autoradiographic Investigations of the Dis­tribution of F¹⁸ in Mice and Rats. Acta Odontol. Scand., 16:363-374, 1958.

5. Carlson, C.H., Armstrong, W.D., and Singer, L.: Distribution and Excre­tion of Radiofluoride in the Human. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 104:235-239, 1960.

6. McClure, F.J., Mitchell, H.H., Hamilton, T.S., and Kinser, C.A.: Balances of Fluorine Ingested from Various Sources in Food and Water by Five Young Men. Excretion of Fluorine Through the Skin. J. Ind. Hyg. ToxicoI., 27:159- 170,1945. (Reprinted in Fluoride Drinking Waters, 1962, pp. 377-384.)

7. Spencer, H., Kramer, L., Osis, D., and Wiatrowski, E.: Excretion of Re­tained Fluoride in Man. J. Appl. Physiol., 38 :282-287, 1975.

8. Stookey, G.K., Dellinger, E.L., and Muhler, J.C.: In vitro Studies Concerning Fluoride Absorption. Proc. Soc. Exp. BioI. Med., 115:298-301, 1964.

9. Lawrenz, M., and Mitchell, H.H.: The Effect of Dietary Calcium and Phosphorus on the Assimilation of Dietary Fluorine. J. Nutr. 22:91-101, 1941.

10. Weddle, D.A., and Muhler, J.C.: The Effects of Inorganic Salts on Flu­orine Storage in the Rat. J. Nutr., 54:437-444,1954.

11. McGown, E.L., and Suttie, J.W.: Influence of Fat and Fluoride on Gas­tric Emptying of Rats. J. Nutr., 104:909-915, 1974.

12. McGown, E.L., Kolstad, D.L., and Suttie, J.W.: Effect of Dietary Fat on Fluoride Absorption and Tissue Fluoride Retention in Rats. J. Nutr., 106: 575-579, 1976.

13. Lawrenz, M., Mitchell, H.H., and Ruth, W.A.: The Comparative Assimi­lation of Fluoride by Growing Rats During Continuous and Intermittent Dos­age. J. Nutr., 20:383-390,1940.

14. Task Group on Lung Dynamics (Bates, D.V., Fish, B.R., Hatch, T.F., Mercer, T.T., and Morrow, P.E.): Deposition and Retention Models for Inter­nal Dosimetry of the Human Respiratory Tract. Health Phys., 12:173-207, 1966.

15. Collings, G.H.,Jr., Fleming, R.B.L., May, R., and Bianconi, W.O.: Ab­sorption and Excretion of Inhaled Fluorides: Further Observations. Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med., 6:368-373,1952.

16. Taves, D.R.: Evidence That There Are Two Forms of Fluoride in Hu­man Serum. Nature (Lond.), 217:1050,1968.

17. Hodge, H.C., and Taves, D.R.: Chronic Toxic Effects [of Fluoride] on the Kidneys, in Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization Monograph Series No. 59, Geneva, 1970, p. 254.

18. Hanhijärvi, H.: Comparison of Free Ionized Fluoride Concentrations of Plasma and Renal Clearance in Patients of Artificially Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Drinking Water Areas. Proc. Finn. Dent. Soc. 70: suppl. III, 1974.

19. Hanhijarvi, H.: Inorganic Plasma Fluoride Concentrations and Its Renal Excretion in Certain Physiological and Pathological Conditions in Man. Fluoride. 8:198-207,1975.

20. Weidmann, S.M., and Weatherell, J.A.: The Uptake and Distribution of Fluorine in Bones. J. Pathol. Bacteriol., 78:243-255,1959.

21. Savchuck, W.B., and Armstrong, W.D.: Metabolic Turnover of Fluoride in the Growing Skeleton. J. Dent. Res. 30:467468, 1951; J. Biol. Chem., 193:575-585,1951.

22. Waldbott, G.L.: Fluoride and Calcium Levels in the Aorta. Experientia (Basel), 22:835-837, 1966.

23. Waldbott, G.L.: Introduction to Symposium on the Non-Skeletal Phase of Chronic Fluorosis. Fluoride, 9:5-8, 1976.

24. Geever, E.F., McCann, H.G., McClure, F.J., Lee, W.A., and Schiffmann, E.: Fluoridated Water, Skeletal Structure, and Chemistry. Health Serv. Mental Health Admin. Health Rep., 86:820-828,1971.

25. Largent, E.J., and Heyroth, F.F.: The Absorption and Excretion of Fluorides. III. Further Observa­tions on Metabolism of Fluorides at High Levels of Intake. J. Ind. Hyg. Toxicol., 31 : 134-138, 1949.

26. Waldbott, G.L.: Comments on the Symposium “The Physiologic and Hygienic Aspects of the Absorption of Inorganic Fluorides.” Arch. Environ. Health, 2:155-167,1961.

27. Likins, R.C., McClure, F.J., and Steere, A.C.: Urinary Excretion of Fluoride Following Defluoridation of a Water Supply. Public Health Rep., 71: 217-220, 1956. (Reprinted in Fluoride Drinking Waters, 1962, pp. 421-423.)Fluoride, Fluoridation,

SOURCE: Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma, George L. Waldbott, MD, Albert W. Burgstaller, PH.D, H.Lewis McKinney, PH.D, Coronado Press, 1978, pp 47-54.

For more information, consult our information web site: http://ffo-olf.org/.

Fluoridation Evangelization – U.S. Public Health Service

NOT satisfied with trying to inflict compulsory mass medication of public water supplies on the American people starting around 1956, the U. S. Public Health Service sent staff members and U.S. tax dollar subsidies abroad to spread its pseudo orthodox fluoridation doctrine to the whole world.

The effort, of course, embraced enlistment of the World Health Organization  and of course that branch of the United Nations was a pushover. The effort did not stop there.

One cannot help wondering about the real motive behind this elaborate missionary venture. It hardly seems realistic that it should have been a drive by the PHS as an extension of mere pomp and power. Nor would one ex­pect to find that effort included among its ambitions for abstract leadership in one-world government.

To be sure, elevating fluoridation to universal status could vastly expand the market for sodium fluoride, its substitutes and for handling machinery with which to apply it and hold in partial check its corrosive unruliness. But the PHS surely could be relied on to deny that so base a motive could have actuated it.

Whatever the motive, the world program proved to be a dud except for the weasel like response of he WHO and its effectiveness bore little relation to its noisiness.

In his introduction to the Exner-Waldbott book, The American Fluoridation Experiment, 1961, James Rorty, its editor, suggested that the fluoridation program had made little head­way abroad. This remains true even today in the new millennium.

In 1955, the dentists of France, at their annual conven­tion, voted against it after the “Institut Pasteur” and the Ministry of Health had failed to approve it.

Switzerland was going slow as a result of experiments which indicated that fluorine might aggravate thyroid im­balance in persons suffering from goiter.

In the February 12, 1955, issue of the British Medical Journal, Dr. Hugh Sinclair, director of Oxford University’s Laboratory of Human Nutrition, had declared that “the Health Ministry’s plan to put chemicals called fluorides into drinking water may poison millions of people.

Among the reasons stated by the French dental society for its action was that fluoridation would be compulsory medica­tion of such nature as to be contrary to human rights and that no government should possess the power to order it.

France, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Russia and India re­fused to sanction fluoridation of public waters.

In Great Britain, Belgium, Switzerland, and New Zealand there had been “experiments” on a trial basis. All but Great Britain have rejected fluoridation completely.

The struggle over fluoridation became a battle royal in Sweden. A few years ago that nation’s Supreme Adminis­trative Court unanimously ruled that experimental fluorida­tion of public water supplies in Norrköping, a seaport at the head of a long inlet of Norrköping Bay, with 84,000 inhabit­ants, was unlawful and “must be stopped immediately.”

Within less than a year the Swedish parliament enacted a new law authorizing Swedish communities to fluoridate if they wished to. Next to none have done so and later abandoned fluoridation under public pressure.

Then the Swedish scientist, Dr. Hugo Theorell, winner of a 1955 Nobel Prize for his work in the field of enzymes, in a report to the Royal Medical Board of Sweden said, “Even if the experiments so far carried out with the fluoridation of water have scarcely given grounds for all too great fears of chronic water poisoning, one must, in connection with water fluoridation on a very great scale, reckon with unfavorable results in a certain number of individuals.” (Emphasis added.)

Dr. Theorell went on to say, “It strikes the undersigned as in principle wrong to open up possibilities for a majority decision in a body of laymen to be able to impose upon all individuals in a municipality the consumption of a water that is not 100 percent guaranteed harmless. It may be ob­jected that the advantages of a reduced caries frequency would nevertheless outweigh the disadvantages. This argu­ment implies that one should force some people to risk some­thing of their health to improve that of others …. ”

“Equally good or even better alternatives than water fluori­dation (A) exist in the form of either local application of fluorine preparations (B) or the administration of fluorine through other vehicles than water (C).”

Following Dr. Theorell’s report the Swedish government refused to permit general mass fluoridation!

The U. S. Public Health Service horned into this foreign dispute with a $44,000 grant of American taxpayer money to be spent by Professor Ingve Ericson, the most powerful fluoridation promoter in Sweden, according to announcement in May, 1962, by the government-controlled Swedish radio. Added to $60,975 similarly contributed in 1959, this brings to $104,975 the total, as of 1962, of Uncle Sam’s financial pressure to cause Swedes, in their own country, to submit to specific compulsory medication of their drinking and cooking water.

In declaring the old law invalid as of December, 1961, Sweden’s highest tribunal, which only parliament can over­ride by legislative enactment, declared that:
Adding of fluorides to the public water supplies is not done in order to purify the water, or to make it, in any other respect, more fit for drinking and cooking purposes.

The possibility cannot be excluded that fluoridation may involve certain risks to the health of consumers. The way in which water is supplied to the community makes it impossible for anyone to avoid using such water should he wish to do so.

The Norrköping experiment was the only public fluorida­tion project in Sweden. In 1955, after it had been in progress for three years, the Royal Swedish Health Board, which cor­responds to the Public Health Service in the U.S., issued a warning, officially reporting to the Swedish govern­ment that it did not find that the absolute safety of fluorida­tion had as yet been established. Its suggestion was ignored.

Three years later, in 1958, the Royal Health Board pro­posed that a law be passed to permit a local community to fluoridate if it so chose.

This proposed legislation fell by the wayside because of popular resistance.

Technically, in its 1961 decision, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court ruled that Paragraph No. 3 of the sani­tary code must be applied. That paragraph provides that the Country Administration concerned “shall see to it that ap­propriate measures are taken for removal of such sanitary anomalies as have come to its knowledge.”

It must be borne in mind that the U. S. Public Health Service has not tried, by bare Federal fiat, to compel Ameri­can communities to fluoridate. But the PHS deserves little credit for not attempting that obviously impossible tactic.

Instead, it has propagandized local health officials and/or mayors and city or town councils to embrace its program and, to that end, has applied pressures high and low, behavior polite or boorish to suit the occasion, dialectic, ideology — ­in fact the whole gamut of dialectic, ideology and cajolery; throwing dignity out the window and barefacedly putting science to shame. And, through it all, its ADA and other understudies have diligently demanded that, under no circumstances, should municipal nabobs permit submission of the proposed policy directly to the voters by referendum. Their fear and loathing of the populace and their uprising has been demonstrated time after time.

In 1955, the PHS asserted that 1,095 American communi­ties, with estimated aggregate population of 28,000,000, were fluoridated. That figured down to an average population of 25,571 per fluoridated community.

But by that date organized opposition had developed and 500 cities and towns, comprising 40,000,000 people, had either initially rejected fluoridation or abandoned it after trial. These rebelling communities had an average population of 80,000 each. Population-wise they were more than three times the importance of the hamlets with a sprinkling of, mostly, lesser cities that “took fluoridation lying down.”

And a large majority of those rejections were by referen­dum, proving that Dentist Frank Bull at least knew his politi­cal onions when he told the fourth annual conference of his fellow state dental directors in 1951:
If you can – I say if you can because five times we have been unable to do it -keep fluoridation from going to a referendum.

From the original by Robert M. Buck, The Grim Truth bout Fluoridation, 1964.

If you have as little as $5 to spare to help our cause, please go to our web site http://ffo-olf.org/ and click on our donate button. If we get enough money, we’ll put a well composed, stimulating and hard hitting ad in the local papers to get more people involved. Our communications team is starting to come together really well.

How Fluoride Got Its Beginning – Short Story

Starting in 1945, shortly after four human trial experiments on public water fluoridation, Newburgh-Kingston (C), NY; Grand Rapids-Muskegon (C), Michigan; Evanston-Oak Park (C), Illinois; and Brantford-Sarnia (C), ON, Canada, fluoride was introduced to most public water supplies of the United States and Canada without ever a single clinical trial or animal experiment to prove its safety

In the early 1950’s, Edward Bernays, the ruthless and renowned “father of marketing” initiated a very successful propaganda campaign for adding “fluoride” to water supplies and other social engineering experiments in manipulating human consent. During this time the American Dental Association (ADA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) endorsed sodium fluoride’s addition to the community water supply having more or less previously warned that this should never be done.

The few dissenting health studies and reports were quashed by the government and medical opinion leaders. Dissenting writers and voices were ridiculed and dismissed as quacks regardless of their credentials. Only a few years earlier the AMA and the ADA in their own journals claimed fluoride was a protoplasmic (cellular) poison. Canada soon followed suit along with a number of gullible other western countries. Eventually, most of Europe opted out of fluoridation for ethical, medical, moral, legal and practical reasons, with the exception of most of Ireland, some parts of the U.K. and Spain.

So those in control of government and public research and a slick public relations campaign rammed the concept of fluoridation through our public health services and medical associations. Today, the fluoride used in over 90% of North American municipal water systems is actually of a much lesser and gross quality than that used during the post war era. It is a Hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) which is a silicon fluoride that goes by numerous other names and most of the “fluoride” sold to North American water facilities is supplied from Florida but when in short supply, it is imported from China to U.S. cities.

If you find this too hard to believe, read Christopher Bryson’s book, “The Fluoride Deception.” It clearly depicts an unambiguous connection between the nuclear industry, metals, phosphate and other processing industries, producing toxic fluoride industrial waste that needed to be disposed of at a profit and to minimize lawsuits against the effects this waste had on factory workers, farmers, ranchers, orchards and the environment. I’m not making this up. These are well documented historical facts, in spite of attempts to rewrite the history of fluoridation.

The perfect excuse for disposing of this toxic waste used national security and tooth decay medication as the ideal purpose for disposing of both problems.

There appears to be a tenuous connection between fluoride and the Nazi and Communist attempts to control large prison populations using fluoride chemicals, but this remains to be adequately proven.

If you have as little as $5 to spare to help our cause, please go to our web site http://ffo-olf.org/ and click on our donate button. If we get enough money, we’ll put a well composed, stimulating and hard hitting ad in the local papers to get more people involved. Our communications team is starting to come together really well.

Reduce Health Care Budget: End Fluoridation

Help reduce future cases of Alzheimer’s and dementia: end fluoridation now…

Also, ending fluoridation now will help reduce future cases of dental and bone fluorosis, cancer, arthritis, hypothyroidism, fibromyalgia, toothlessness, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and many others, and, most notably, all degenerative diseases and health conditions…

Why? Because the resulting Fluoride ion released in the water by adding any fluoride chemical to tap water is a protoplasmic poison, as admitted in:
1. the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), Volume 23, page 568, April, 1936, titled Fluorine in relation to bone and tooth development by Floyd DeEds, Phd., and,
2. the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Sept 18, 1943, Editorial. Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons”.

Ending fluoridation now will help reduce the burden on our future health care budget which we are told is spiraling out of control; it will also reduce the number of lost man hours that are lost due to the increase in these illnesses.

Anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence can see that this is a massive fraud, a scam, when coupled with the knowledge that fluoridation is a complete waste of tax dollars because it does nothing to end tooth decay and over 99% of treated water carrying this drug ends up in the environment where it was banned from entering in the first place by the U.S. EPA that classifies it as an environmental contaminant.

It’s a means for some polluting industries to get rid of their toxic fluoride industrial waste at a profit, using our water supply as a disposal system circumventing the EPA and Environment Canada regulations for its proper processing for disposal at great cost.

In 1983, EPA’s Rebecca Hamner acknowledged that fluoridating water with phosphate-industry waste was a fix for Florida’s environmental pollution. “This Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long standing problem,” the Deputy Assistant Administrator for water wrote, adding: “By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them,” she added. Whatever twisted thinking drove her to that short sighted, disingenuous and irrational recommendation is very difficult to understand except if you *follow the money*

Other names for the acid used in most fluoridation schemes: hydrofluorosilicic acid, hydrofluosilicic acid, hexafluorosilicic acid, (HFSA), hexafluosilicic acid, fluorosilicic acid, hydrosilicofluoric acid, hydrogen fluorosilicate, hydrogen hexafluorosilicate, hydrosilicofluoric acid, silicofluoric acid, hydrogen silicofluoride, silicon hexafluoride dihydride, dihydrogen hexafluorosilicate: however, its defining identification comes from its chemical formula: formula H₂SiF₆.

If you have $5 or more to spare, please go to our web site and help us with  a small contribution to help us in our battle to end fluoridation in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; please go to our web site, http://ffo-olf.org/ and click on our donate button.

2012 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 2,300 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 4 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

Ottawa Health Officer Bases Fluoridation Support On Worthless Health Review

“The city of Ottawa’s chief medical officer of health is dismissing concerns from a fledgling Ottawa group that the presence of fluoride in the city’s water supply is harmful.

In a statement to the Citizen, Ottawa’s medical officer of health Dr. Isra Levy said Ottawa Public Health has reviewed a number of major studies that have examined the issue and concluded that fluoride poses no public health danger.”
Ottawa Citizen, Oct. 19, 2012.

However, he’s refused to acknowledge all valid data to the contrary, evidence made available to him over the past two years by many people associated with our group. Being blind to the truth does not mean the truth of adverse health effects doesn’t exist.

Why does he not know that such studies are fundamentally flawed?

It was put together by entirely biased anti-cessation, fluoridation supporters and promoters, all of them associated to the dental community in highly paid bureaucratic positions.

What to do about it!

Write a letter and an email to your city Councillor and ask that he take measures to end the practice of adding the toxic fluoride industrial waste chemical hydrofluorosilicic acid to your tap water or provide compensation for obtaining alternative water not containing any fluoride additive in it.

Tell him/her that there are known adverse health effects from doing so and that this practice must stop.

You will either get no response or a marketing propaganda message from him/her.

Write him or her that this does not address your concerns about the adverse health effects of water fluoridation.

Then join the revolution with the rest of us to stop this toxic waste from being added to our water!

See other letters already written here, http://ffo-olf.org/letterToCouncillor.html, for inspiration.

Public awareness must be increased to make the evidence more known to the residents of Ottawa so they can cause this practice to end by the express political will of our municipal politicians.

Obtain media cooperation in publicizing the truth about water fluoridation.

Newspaper ads must be placed in the media and in all electronic and social media to raise that awareness.

Information leaflets need to be distributed door to door to all residents.

Get leaflets here: http://ffo-olf.org/leaflets.html.

Hold public seminars and conferences in all public venues.

And if you have $5 to spare, make a donation to the cause at http://ffo-olf.org/: that’s less than a few cups of coffee in a month, coffee with fluoride in it!…

Fluoridation Scam And Fraud

The original purpose of fluoridation, based on extensive research.

Fluoridation was initially invented for two major reasons hidden behind national security and prevention of tooth decay:

1. to hide the fact that workers in industries being poisoned and dying from exposure to a toxic industrial fluoride waste, thereby lowering the likelihood of lawsuits that were chipping away at corporate profits;

2. to turn the expensive disposal cost of this toxic industrial fluoride waste into a profit.

Please read investigative reporter Christopher Bryson’s brilliant expose of fluoridation’s origins in his book “The Fluoride Deception” in which he poured 10 years of research to produce.

Before water fluoridation was actually started, a group of greedy industrialists were concerned about the astronomical cost of disposal of their toxic industrial fluoride waste in an economical or profitable way, and, to prevent any further lawsuits from chipping away at corporate profits.

The initial toxic chemical of concern was sodium fluoride, the waste from metals (steel & Aluminium) production and Uranium nuclear enrichment industry, which was poisoning all life within, and downwind from, the production factories.

This led to the second reason behind the push for fluoridation. They needed a way to cover up the disposal of their toxic fluoride waste.

They found it in the pretense of making it appear to be good for tooth decay prevention.

Somehow, they managed to turn waste disposal into a profit and disenfranchise lawsuits against damage from that same toxic waste.

Their answer was tap water (municipal water supply) fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, falsely demonstrated by fraudulent science.

Once we were all well baited on sodium fluoride (NaF), and it became more and more expensive and more difficult to obtain, there was a switch to more toxic, cheaper, fluoride chemicals, called fluorosilicates: hexafluorosilicic (hydrofluorosilicic) acid (H2SiF6) or its salt sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6). This is called a bait and switch tactic.

And without so much as a single proof of effectiveness or safety, no toxicology studies whatsoever, they started using this highly hazardous industrial toxic fluoride waste substitute as a water additive on the pretence that it was some kind of miraculous tooth medicine. The absolute recklessness of such a move is so much beyond belief that it’s in the realm of the twilight zone. Hitler and his henchmen said that if you told a big enough lie, people could not believe that it was untrue, and the more you repeated it, the more everyone would believe it. They were unfortunately so right.

We can now see how well it has all become akin to a religious belief when you listen to the passion with which its promoters speak about it without providing any facts or science, how they even create fictitious and elaborate rationalizations for their belief in water fluoridation being good not just for teeth but also for health in general and for all ages.

The sheer stupidity of it all has become almost laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Help us battle this atrocity. Please go to our web site, http://ffo-olf.org/ and donate so we can publicize it city wide.

Please write your Councillor about this today and once a month from now on.
Richard Hudon, President Fluoridation-Free Ottawa (on Facebook)
http://ffo-olf.org/ – Rich-Hudon@ffo-olf.org

What Do You Know About Ottawa Fluoridation

DO YOU KNOW?

the City of Ottawa puts a chemical in our tap water they call Fluoride?
that Fluoride is the negative ion of the element called Fluorine?
that Fluorine is the most dangerous chemical on earth, much more than Chlorine?
that putting Fluoride in the water is called fluoridation?
that it’s NOT used for making the water more drinkable?
that Fluoride does not purify water?
that it’s claimed to be done to prevent tooth decay in children?
that there’s no real proof of that last claim?
that fluoridation actually damages teeth?
that it has many, many health risks?
that it actually causes and aggravates many illnesses?
that most doctors and dentists don’t know any of the above?

MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

Most medical professionals believe there’s nothing wrong with fluoridation!

Why is that? They’ve never been taught anything else from their medical schools and their Professional Associations make sure it stays that way.

Why? Have you ever heard the expression: Follow the money?

It’s all about profits, perks, prestige and keeping one’s job!

BUT HOW DID IT ALL START?

In the beginning, before fluoridation, Aluminium, Steel and other metals processing, and, producers of Uranium and fertilizer products had two big problems from the fluoride gas emissions going up the smokestacks of their factories. Please read “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson for more background on this part of the fluoridation history!

First problem: They were facing huge lawsuits from townspeople, workers, ranchers, farmers and fruit growers who were being poisoned or whose crops and cattle were all dying or being made sick by the smokestack fluoride gas emissions.

Second problem: Being forced to collect the fluoride gas emissions in a process called wet scrubbing, they had to find a way to dispose of what was now an industrial toxic waste that could not be dumped anywhere in the ground or in any waterways and especially not in the ocean.

The answer came to these industrialists by way of water fluoridation. But how did they come to that solution? It was discovered that in some southern part of the U.S. a report had come to light that few dental patients had tooth decay, but that they also had pitted teeth and brown stains on their teeth. They were known then as mottled teeth. After some research, it was found that fluoride in the water, calcium fluoride (CaF2) in that case, was the cause of this condition. As a result of this finding, it was afterward called dental fluorosis

What was not mentioned was that the water also contained trace amounts of other minerals later found to be useful in reducing tooth decay. Also not mentioned: the patients being treated were those that could afford dental services, not the poor and the less well nourished people in the area. Nutrition, proper oral hygiene and genetic predispositions are the real factors that affect tooth decay. Lack of fluoride has never been proven to can an increase tooth decay, and fluoride ingestion has never been scientifically proven to reduce tooth decay. Claims that there are hundreds or thousands of studies and research that show that fluoride reduces tooth decay are disinformation at best and fraudulent at worse.

From this discovery, the industrialists thought up a way of getting proof that adding a fluoride chemical into the water supply could be good for preventing tooth decay. This would solve both of their problems. After all, if it’s good for teeth, it can’t be bad for health, ranchers, farmers, fruit growers and factory workers. They devised a ten year experiment where they would fluoridate four cities and keep another four non fluoridated for comparison. These came to be known as the fluoride trials.

Before even five years into this experiment, they declared the experiment a success and began fluoridating more and more cities everywhere in North America. They could now sell their industrial toxic waste at a profit to water treatment facilities as tooth medicine, ignoring the fact that this was an unethical medical use of the water supply: everybody gets medicated whether they need it or not, no choice, no medical oversight, no follow up for possible side effects or long term (chronic) adverse health effects.

Because these industrialists had a lot of money and influence, they were able to place their supporters in key government and professional association positions to help convince the people and the medical professionals that fluoridation worked, was good for children’s teeth and that it was a great medical achievement. What they did not reveal was that they had manipulated the data from their experiment to prove what they wanted to prove. They also hired the most prominent and successful advertising specialist of their time, Edward Bernays, to promote the water fluoridation scheme across the U.S. and Canada, and voilà! we have fluoridation.

PROBLEMS WITH FLUORIDATION

Meanwhile, many people suffer from the adverse health effects of swallowing this fluoride, the negative ion of the element Fluorine, with every glass of water, and, with every gulp of juice or other beverage and every bite of food prepared with tap water. All foods, juices and beverages prepared with tap water will contain Fluoride in them. You also indirectly or sometimes directly swallow some fluoride with fluoridated toothpaste, mouthwashes and rinses, and whenever you get fluoride treatments at the dentist. But, fluoridation uses hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆)!

This hydrofluorosilicic acid that Ottawa puts in its tap water has no toxicology studies and no safety tests for use in tap water and invariably harms infants and children more than adults. It’s a water additive that is not used to treat water but to treat people, to treat tooth decay. Does that not then qualify it as tooth medicine?

Another problem with fluoridation is that it costs us money, lots of it. First we pay to have our water purified to make it drinkable. Then we pay to have this highly hazardous industrial toxic waste put into it. How stupid is that for an assumed benefit that does not exist? Many of us have to pay to purchase pure water to prevent health issues caused by having this toxic waste in our water. Then there’s the money many parents have to pay for repairing the damage done to the teeth of their children caused by the Fluoride in the water and every thing they eat, drink or wash with. The cost has been conservatively estimated to be as much as $20,000 by a reputable Toronto dentist: the dental profession supports fluoridation and could cause him to loose his licence to practice dentistry if he publicly speaks out against fluoridation. In the U.K. it has been estimated to cost approximately ₤35,000 for a lifetime of dental repair from dental fluorosis.

It is estimated that about 5% of the population have serious health complications from this fluoridation. That’s about 50,000 people in metro Ottawa. Is that fair? It is now well known by reputable scientific researchers and journalists that many health conditions are aggravated or even caused by swallowing fluoride chemicals with our water, food, beverages, health products and washing with it: dental and bone fluorosis, cancer, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, hypothyroidism, fibromyalgia, lowered IQ, diabetes, DNA harm, kidney failure, fertility problems and more. Here’s the bigger problem: the vast majority of people don’t know this and even many of those that you tell about this won’t believe you. So, we need to step up and make the change happen. We have the research, they don’t in spite of their claims that they do. We’ve asked for their research for decades and none has been given out. Just vacuous endorsements and empty endorsements. We know the truth! We need to spread the truth.

WHAT TO DO NOW?

We need to get the City to stop putting any type of fluoride in our water. You need to write to your City Councillor and say that you want fluoridation stopped. It’s the dumping of an industry’s toxic waste passed off as tooth medicine that does not work. Most of them believe what our misinformed Medical Officer of Health tells them about fluoridation. They don’t realize what’s behind his statement that fluoridation is safe and effective. It’s only safe if you don’t swallow any of the fluoride and it’s only effective in causing or aggravating illnesses. We have to stop this dangerous, reckless, wasteful and useless practice that’s ruining many people’s health and helping to wreck our health budgets by putting an unnecessary extra burden on health costs. We need to make our protest loud and clear. We need to make this right! We need to do this starting now.

ADDENDUM: contributed by Alice, a fluoridation cessation advocate from Toronto.

Did you know that Ottawa public health officials don’t work for the Ottawa public? They work for the province.

Did you know that the province assumes, but legally lacks, the authority to cause adverse effects of fluoride to children?

Did you know that you cannot file a complaint about your provincial MLA or the Minister of Health and Long Term Care for giving false information about the safety and legality of fluoridation to your elected municipal reps?

Did you know that your elected municipal reps have all the liability for breaking the Safe Drinking Water Act, but no authority to hold the province accountable for advising them to break the law by fluoridating the water with HFSA?

Please write your Councillor about this today and once a month from now on.
Richard Hudon, President Fluoridation-Free Ottawa (on Facebook)
http://ffo-olf.org/ – Rich-Hudon@ffo-olf.org

One more thing: Please donate $10, $20, $50, $100 or more to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa. Please go to our web site and click on the Donate button.