FYI: Water Fluoridation (Submission to Norfolk Council Members)

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

Norfolk Council-in-Committee's motion to remove fluoride from drinking water is an extremely progressive step to improve the health of the constituents.

Section C - Deputations: in the upcoming meeting of Nov. 12, 2008 THE CORPORATION OF NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA concerns me. Hence, this input:

i) Dr. Steven Malo, Haldimand Norfolk Dental Society Re: Benefits of Fluoridation(Staff Recommendation: Receive as information)

ii) Dr. Wayne McKay, Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit Re: Proposed Discontinuance of Fluoridation of Municipal Water in Delhi and Simcoe(Staff Recommendation: Receive as information)

The above pro fluoridation deputations never address the real concerns of the community namely: the collateral damage such as "impairments to the liver, kidney, brain, bones, pineal gland, thyroid, and even teeth*.

You may want to question why these major health impairments continue to trump the paltry, if not outright questionable, benefits to teeth?

How can the Norfolk Dental Society and the Health Unit call so many Health damages as health benefits?

* They tell us that molted teeth from fluoridation of water is just a cosmetic effect. When in fact this is a proof positive sign of bone damage. In the British Medical Journal (B.M.J.), October 7, 2000 it is reported that 48% of children who live in fluoridated communities have developed dental fluorosis due to fluoride overdose. Now then, if the bone is damaged how are you going to get fewer cavities? This demonstrates that ingesting of fluoridated water to reduce tooth decay is clearly a myth.

What expertize do they have with regard to Fluoride's toxicity let alone on the untested waste substance hydrofluosilicic acid (used to fluoridate) that contains variable quantities of arsenic, lead among other toxic residues?

We are not allowed to adulterate our foods with any amount of lead, arsenic etc. Ask them to show why such adulteration of water can be an exception?

Most health units are panicking about lead, are they not aware that Fluoride is more toxic then lead?

If yes than why do they want to put such a toxic substance in our water?

Why do kidney dialysis patients have to remove fluoride from city water in their machines**?
**If this is not done, it could kill some of them. Obviously this is a good demonstration of short term adverse reaction to the low level of fluoride in water. Hence it follows, that long term potential health hazards must be far worse and effect a much larger population... Our bodies work on trace amounts of minerals so how can "such low levels of fluoride" be an exception?
Examples of Fluoride poisoning linked to kidney dialysis patients can be viewed @
http://www.fluoridealert.org/annapolis.htmhttp://www.fluoridealert.org/U-of-C.htm

Just because something is low concentration, it does not follow it is safe.

If fluoridation is so safe then why is it banned in so many enlightened European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy, France etc.?

Why have the costs form so many health impairments, not considered? These costs are passed on to the constituents and other health bodies. Then ask them again why the damage from fluoride so harshly and recklessly ignored and covered up over the real threat to the people, they are supposed to protect, let alone call it a health benefit?

Fluoride is now everywhere. It is in the air we breathe and in the food and beverages we consume. It is impossible to eliminate our body's systemic ingestion of fluoride so why do we need to add more to our bodies? "In 1997, the EPA estimated that Americans were ingesting nearly five times more fluoride than in 1971 - from food and drinks alone."Smith G. 2001, Why Fluoride Is An Environmental Issue, Earth Island Institute, 22nd meeting of the ISFR, August 24-27

Here is a list, not complete by any means, on the adverse health effects (click each title for ref. or go to www.waterloowatch.com to get the full reports):

Fluoride And The BrainFluoride And CancerFluoride And ChildrenFluoride And Dental FluorosisFluoride And HypersensitivityFluoride And KidneysFluoride And Skeletal FluorosisFluoride And Thyroid FunctionFluorosilicate Toxicity - also known as Hydrofluorosilicic acidFluorosilicates Increase Blood Lead Levels

The above is bad enough, adding insult to injury, an untested industry waste product Hydrofluorosilicic acid which includes traces of arsenic and lead is being used to fluoridate the water - Fluoride also increases the up take of Aluminum and possibly other toxic metals!
Regarding tooth protection here is what Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH, Aesthetic Dentistry of Bellevue, Bellevue, Wash. has to say...

"As a dentist with a master's degree in public health for more than 25 years, I promoted water fluoridation and fluoride supplements. Current research has shifted, finding fluoridation in developed communities is unnecessary. Most European dental associations no longer recommend it.

Dentists are puzzled and can't explain why fluoridation no longer appears to reduce dental decay. One theory is the total fluoride intake from all sources, such as pesticides, dental and medical products and post-harvest fumigants, has reached high enough levels to provide the so-called "optimal" dose. [halo effect]

Significant increase in dental fluorosis in children, from 22 percent to 32 percent, supports this theory. Another theory is fluoridation never did reduce tooth decay, and flawed historical studies are at fault. The evidence is strong - fluoridation no longer reduces tooth decay.. Evidence for fluoridation intervention is lacking.

Dental expenses are a good example. After 60 years of fluoridation, people fluoridated should show a reduction in dental expenses if fluoridation were effective. Several studies have shown either no reduction in dental expenses or slight increases.

Non-fluoridated Portland, Ore. (19 percent of Oregon is fluoridated) had $210 average, annual dental expenses per person. Across the river, fluoridated Vancouver, Wash. (46 percent of Washington was fluoridated at the time) had $215. Add the cost of bottled water for infants and those who choose not to have fluoridated water, medical risks and cosmetic treatments for dental fluorosis damage, fluoridation equipment, chemicals and maintenance, and fluoridation makes no cents or sense, unless you own the company profiting.

Public health agencies are marching soldiers and do not question their orders. They have been told to "promote fluoridation," and they do so, regardless of the evidence."

Even one health effect in the incomplete list above, is reason enough to remove this toxin from the water given that anyone can get fluoride if they wish but, no one can avoid it!

So why do we need to continue to ADD fluoride to our drinking water?

This action is essential to prevent the damage to the health of constituents. These are serious health effects compared to the paltry and/or perceived if not moot dental benefits. Clearly more will get hurt the longer it is in the water. Norfolk council's a stance to remove this toxin from the water is a clear win for the community and a laudable and essential move!

Chris Gupta P. EngLondon, Ont.