Monday, January 23, 2012.
To each Councillor, the Mayor and staff
c/o the City of Ottawa
Ottawa City Hall
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1
Dear Councillor, Mr. Mayor Watson and staff.
I wish to address a practice that, in my informed opinion, was erroneously implemented over 45 years ago by the City of Ottawa based on insufficient information and from pressures by improperly informed authorities of the day. I hope my approach is not discourteous, does not unduly offend and that you may find it worthy of attention. Please bear with me, or at least humour me, by reading it through to its conclusion.
The issue I am currently concerned about affects our whole environment. Land, water and air pretty much define and insure who we are as a human species. We could not survive without them!
When was the last time you stopped to think about the one thing you can’t live without? I don’t mean the Internet, sex or TV – I’m talking about water. Without clean, drinkable, safe water, human life could not go on. This is why it’s so important that we know what is in our water. For over forty-five years, this City and many jurisdictions nationwide have been adding a controversial substance called “fluoride” to municipal water supplies. Yet, they do not define which “fluoride” they are talking about. Do you have any idea what kind of “fluoride” we are using? Have you checked the City’s own website page recently on fluoridation and read the blandishments printed thereon? Is it as innocuous as claimed when used as it is?
Is it not bad ideological thinking and a dangerous practice for our society to add anything else to our water supply for any reason other than to make it and keep it drinkable, as pure and safe as reasonably possible? I am speaking about the practice of water fluoridation in this community, more precisely the chemical compound added to it that is incorrectly and publicly mentioned and referenced as “fluoride” for the erroneously claimed purpose of reducing dental cavities.
However, is that really why we were made to add it to our water supply in the first place? The main benefits of fluoride is presumed and proclaimed to be for the strengthening of teeth. The effects of the Fluoride ion are currently believed to be topical, that is, to be applied to the surface of the teeth, and not ingested, and only for children starting at a specific age and ending at a specific age. So why do we still put it into the water supply? Everyone drinking our tap water is forced to swallow this tooth medicine! Yet even topical applications are currently being brought into question by some reliable researchers in dentistry, medicine and in numerous fields of science, but mainly in biochemistry.
Are you aware that there is also a major problem with the actual “fluoride” chemical used. It is not a natural chemical as often inferred by its promoters and supporters. And it is surely not one that is good for us to add to our water supply. It is a chemical called Hydrofluorosilicic acid whose chemical formula is H2SiF6. The name has been on our city’s web site here: http://ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/water_wells/quality/facts/fluoride/#P32_3079 for the longest time, under the sub-title How is Fluoride added to the drinking water? attempting to explain away any doubt about its use with much fanfare and marketing language before actually naming the actual substance. Why is that? However, the information fails to mention that it is not a pure chemical substance and that it is a banned U.S. EPA environmental contaminant that also contains many other co-contaminants such as Lead, Arsenic, Mercury, Polonium and many others depending on the batch supplied.
There may be a place for minerals or safe compounds, based specifically on individual needs and using a monitored, required dose, in our homes or in the dentist’s or doctor’s office. However, we should not make the entire inhabitants of our municipality the test subjects of this practice city wide, barring any emergency, and thus perpetrate such an attack on civil liberties.
I personally and firmly hold that it is unethical, immoral and unlawful. A close and careful examination of the ramifications of adding any drug for medicinal purposes to the water supply and that this is mass medication using the municipal water supply, will bear this out. There can be no valid reason for doing so, even for a proven, tested benefit, much less then for an unproven, unapproved, and untested benefit such as tooth decay prevention using an unregulated and unapproved substance as a drug.
I contend that we have gone down this path in error. Stop for a moment and think about this. What else might we add next into our water: the mineral lithium for bipolar disorder? or an antidepressant drug to try to minimize or prevent depression and suicides in children or the elderly? or a cholesterol lowering drug? or one to lower the incidence of ADD or ADHD among children? They all sound like reasonable ideas on the surface of it. But are they really? Adding this or any Fluoride substance to our water supply is just as bad an idea.
Another major difficulty with this particular practice is that the chemical used is not an approved, tested and regulated substance by any health authority in Canada, the U.S. or anywhere else in the world, yet it is vigorously promoted by Canadian health bureaucrats at all levels of government as a magical cure (a panacea) for tooth decay. The concentration or dose put into the water is controlled, more or less, but that does not control for how much water each resident may drink in one particular day, thereby causing many to overdose without their knowledge.
To be approved for medicinal use in treating tooth decay by incorporating any chemical in the water supply, that chemical would have to have undergone two stages of testing to satisfy the scientific and legal determination of safety. The scientific and legal determination of safety for ingesting medicinal chemicals is based on 2 types of research:
- Animal studies (toxicology studies), and,
- Human studies (clinical trials).
The actual Fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation (the silicofluorides H2SiF6 and Na2SiF6) have been used for over 40 years with neither the required animal studies (toxicology studies) nor the required human studies (randomized controlled clinical trials) to determine safety in order to protect consumer safety and satisfy the legal requirements in Canada.
Since neither of the two products used in Canada qualify under the above requirements for water additives they are therefore not lawful for use in water fluoridation. Why is this? What then is the real reason of adding this acid to our water?
A common and naive response to objections to fluoridation is that if there was any harm to health by water fluoridation, we would have seen some by now. That does appear to be a reasonable assertion to the objection. However, is this claim substantiated by any research to prove it? Unfortunately, there is none whatsoever even after over 65 years of deliberate water fluoridation in North America. In fact, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, the real life experience of people that demonstrates that the opposite is true. Countless individuals suffering from such ailments as Alzheimer’s, Fibromyalgia, diabetes, rheumatoid conditions of all types have stopped exposing themselves to fluoridated water, beverages and foods have experienced phenomenal recoveries. As the author of this letter, I am a living witness to this near miraculous type of recovery.
Another response to objections to fluoridation is that the quantity ingested is so small that it can not possibly have any harmful effects on our health. If that is true:
- Why do a large number of children develop dental fluorosis? If you don’t know what that is, ask me. Don’t ask the MOH: he believes that it is merely a cosmetic effect. But how can that be? Think about this for a few moments: the Fluoride has had to go through your whole digestive and circulatory systems to get there! If it does that to teeth, what does it do in its travels to get to the teeth?
- How can it be effective in tooth decay prevention if so small a quantity is claimed to be ingested without harmful health effects?
- Do you not know that it accumulates in your bones over time and that it destroys its structure and strength? That it calcifies an important gland called the pineal gland?
As mentioned before, Fluoride is the negative ion of the Fluorine element. Do you not know that it’s the most chemically reactive element and that it will react with every other element on earth?
Although fluoridation is touted as safe, can you not see from the above that it does not even satisfy safety requirements? It is now very apparent that it is associated with numerous side effects whose possibility is not even intimated, mentioned or acknowledged by any health authorities anywhere that fluoridation is implemented. Numerous attempts to bring health concerns related to fluoridation to their attention have been repeatedly treated trivially, ignored and those favouring cessation of fluoridation continue to be intimidated into silence, denigrated and belittled for their efforts.
As an example of the noxious capability of Fluoride chemical uses, Fluoride compounds, which are composed of the element Fluorine, such as in Sodium Fluoride, are part of an insecticide that has been used in the past as the single most effective ant poison and as a rat and other rodent killer. The element Fluorine, as the most extreme chemically reactive element on earth, can greatly increase the uptake of lead, aluminum and many other toxic metals and substances in your body. It is also used in many pharmaceutical drugs as a bio-activator or potentiator, that is, to make them more powerful. It is used in such noxious chemical weapons as Sarin and others.
We have been led to believe that water fluoridation is one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century, but I dare to differ. I passionately believe that this statement is in serious error. From my understanding, born of research and wisdom, I categorically and boldly assert the opposite conclusion that it is one of the greatest health disasters of the 20th century, surreptitiously harming us in hidden ways that we have just started to more clearly understand over the past thirty five years. In fact, the achievement statement was only used once in an internal memo at the CDC, but has nonetheless been parroted by fluoridation promoters as if it were some form of holy writ. It no longer appears in their internal memos! Why not?
With all of the scientific research now on hand, isn’t it time to seriously revisit fluoridation?
Furthermore, those most targeted for its presumed benefits are also the ones most unfortunately the first ones to be harmed by this untested mass drugging via the water supply.
Two questions have been repeatedly asked of you, Mr. Councillor, and of every City of Ottawa Councillor, of you Mr. Mayor Jim Watson, and you, Dr. Isra Levy, Medical Officer of Health for the City of Ottawa Public Health office, but to no avail. I have proof irrefutable of this outrageous refusal to respond to these two simple questions.
These two questions are:
“Please provide me with either primary research on:
- the safety of using hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation product in our municipal tap water for ending or reducing tooth decay,
- the effectiveness of using this hydrofluorosilicic acid in ending or reducing tooth decay,
if no documentation is available as requested in 1. and 2. above, please respond by simply stating that fact for each question. Please respond directly to the questions; please do not reply with any other supplementary information.
What is wrong with this picture? Why continued ineffectual responses?
The problematic relationship between Fluoride concentration in drinking water and “Fluoride dose,” due to varying amounts of water consumed by individuals and to other sources of ingested and absorbed Fluoride, severely complicates attempts to determine both health risks and benefits associated with any specific Fluoride concentration in drinking water. Ottawa’s fluoride injection concentration is currently set at 0.7 ppm in (January 2012). Concentration is expressed commonly in parts per million, or, ppm. In particular, commonly available foods and beverages contain from high (greater than 2 ppm) to negligible levels of Fluoride, and fluoridated toothpaste is variably used and often swallowed, while containing over 1,000 ppm. Adding to this disastrous picture is the complication of mouth washes and rinses with varying and sometimes undeclared amounts of Fluoride. Impartial researchers assert that these factors grossly complicate interpretation of Fluoride use in drinking water studies and may explain why the numerous studies conducted have come to a variety of conclusions that, in many cases, are quite different and contrary to one another.
Promoters and supporters have in the past protested that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in children, that it is reduced by an order ranging from 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, depending on who was speaking, however, they have now begun to sing the same tune as opposition has grown across the land. They have even changed their tune to adding that it gives lifelong health benefits, however, such is totally unattributable to Fluoride. In fact, the opposite is being proven time and again as independent research progresses, but medical authorities refuse to even consider the evidence, obstinate in their erroneous belief that fluoridation is a panacea for tooth decay whereas proper nutrition is the real answer. Ignoring even the possibility of any harmful effects to your health is an ongoing “modus operand” at our Ottawa Public Health office.
A long time ago, on Monday, November 15, 1965, according to a news clipping of that time, Ottawa implemented the practice of adding a “fluoride” chemical to its drinking water, presuming that it would most benefit those suffering from tooth decay, based on incomplete data made available at that time by individuals with that incomplete information.
It is time to revisit this practice. Current data on that practice dictate that a proper analysis and thorough study be done, and done by an independent panel of specialists in various fields of medicine, such as toxicology, terratology, neo-natology, neurology, pharmacology, ethics, law, philosophy and many others. Anything less would be to limit the scope to more of the same as what has been done in the past, that is, looking only at it’s possible and expected benefit to teeth. Such extensive and surprisingly thorough study was completed by one City, Fairbanks, Alaska, in 2011. A true copy of this report called “Report of the Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force” April 25, 2011, is available on the internet for all to read here: http://ffo-olf.org/files/FairbanksFinalReport.pdf.
To think or believe that any food or chemical that we put in our mouth only affects our teeth and not the rest of our anatomy is paramount to thinking or believing that a scorpion’s sting will only affect the place of its sting. Knowing the foregoing, I challenge anyone to counter this statement in a reasoned and unimpassioned manner. Therein lies the crux of the argument for cessation of fluoridation in any municipality. The kind of narrow thinking of fluoridation promoters is deficient, illogical, reckless and irresponsible.
Much has changed and much has become known since that fateful implementation of the fluoridation of Ottawa’s water supply. I firmly believe that it is time for this City’s policy on water fluoridation to be completely vetted and reviewed as detailed above. I therefore strongly recommend that the City of Ottawa undertake to investigate the subject of water fluoridation by impartial, objective and learned third parties who have no vested interest in either maintaining or opposing the status quo of deliberate, artificial drinking water fluoridation, followed by a thoroughly publicized, full public disclosure of the practice of deliberate, artificial drinking water fluoridation as currently practiced by the City of Ottawa. However, a cheaper alternative exists. Publicize the Fairbanks Report, publicize the presentation to Moncton Councillors, and the decision of he City of Windsor that led to their well reasoned decision to end willfully adding this contaminant to their water supply.
Please see my response to the current standard reply the OPH office to those who object to fluoridation or advocate for its cessation: http://ffo-olf.org/aResponse.html, especially the opening paragraph in the preamble. Please bear in mind that the only ones who really benefit from water fluoridation are the corporations who are by this means able to dispose of their industrial toxic waste at a profit instead of having to process for safe disposal it at great cost.
As the Mayor or a Councillor of the City of Ottawa, you have been by now provided with sufficient evidence to judge for yourself that the practice of water fluoridation is unwarranted, wasteful, irresponsible and verifiably harmful to at least a subset of the residents of Ottawa. This in itself should move each of you, our municipal representatives, to act for the protection of those individuals who reside in all wards of the city. This has yet to be done in spite of a multitude of email letters written to you. Emails have now been blocked from being received by many Councillors as if they are spam whenever they contain useful links to additional information. Why? Is the truth I am sending so difficult to take? Is the truth so hard to believe that they must resort to such uncanny tactics? Am I just seen as a troublesome individual who needs to be shut out? This does not augur well for the City of Ottawa’s public representatives or for those they pretend to represent.
I believe that the City of Ottawa should properly discharge its duty of care and due diligence in this matter, in light of modern research findings in this area of public health and come to a fully informed and enlightened decision. Our municipal politicians could then vote in good conscience to discontinue this practice while ignoring undue pressures from vested interests. In taking their responsibility in hand, our Councillors could hold their heads high in the knowledge that they have acted in the best interest of all of this City’s residents and save the City’s beleaguered taxpayers the cost of an expensive and senseless investigation, plebiscite or referendum.
Many Councillors have responded that they are not medical practitioners, dentists or scientists and that they choose to defer to the medical officer of health in the matter of water fluoridation because it concerns health. However, when a simple citizen such as myself and many others with no medical or scientific training can make sense of this particular medical practice, it becomes self evident that Councillors do not even want to consider the subject for whatever reason. This is dereliction of duty. This is escapism from reality and is unwarranted when so many individuals object to this practice.
Fluoridation has no benefits for people, animals or plants, just profits for corporations needing to dispose of their toxic fluoride industrial waste chemicals by fraudulent means, by misrepresentations and disinformation.
There is no bodily function that requires fluoride unless you consider tooth fluorosis, bone fluorosis, Alzheimer’s, hypothyroidism, aging and causing or aggravating all manner of diseases in so many bodily functions.
As a person adversely affected by fluoridation who has dutifully advocated for cessation of fluoridation, I expect that you, as Mayor, or as one of this City’s Councillors, will prevail to ignore the marketing efforts and pressures for maintaining the status quo proposed by misguided health bureaucrats and that you will decide to ban this amazingly defective practice. Failing this, you may wish to declare a moratorium on fluoridation until all the facts and science are in that might prove whether or not fluoridation is indeed as safe and effective for the treatment of tooth decay as it is claimed to be.
Fluoridation is unproven, unsafe, unnatural, unnecessary and unethical and uses an unregulated and unapproved substance.
Water is for everyone, fluoride is not.
3755 Loch Garry Rd
Apple Hill, K0C 1B0
613-527-2589 – text: 613-852-8692.
revised: October 31, 2013.
P.S. People need to write to their Councillors and demand that this harmful, wasteful practice be ended, and soon, or more and more people will develop ill health and our climbing health care system costs will get higher and higher until we can no longer afford it.