Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools

Top Reports
Top Reports
 
Top Articles
Top Articles

Top Reviews
Top Reviews
   
Largest City in Canada Votes To Continue Fluoridating Water, Poisoning Its Citizens


The Toronto Board of Health voted earlier this week to accept the recommendation of Toronto's medical health officer to continue the use of poisonous fluoride in the city's water.

The board voted unanimously to reaffirm water fluoridation in the city.


The city's water supply has been fluoridated since 1963. Toronto's current level of water fluoridation is 0.6 milligrams per litre, according to Dr. David McKeown, Toronto's medical officer of health. Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm (part per million) fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can't repair damaged cells, we get old fast.

Random pictures flashed upon the screen attempting to compare the rotted teeth of children from Eastern European countries where there is no access to fluoridated water and the teeth of children in Toronto, representatives from various dental health organizations argued that fluoridated water significantly decreases tooth decay and enhances the dental health of citizens. Those in opposition clearly understood the flawed science regarding water fluoridation and the fact that its consumption has absolutely no effect on dental carries. Most public health officials refuse acknowledgement about the facts on fluoride.

The truth about fluoride and its toxicity levels are rarely publicized on the mainstream media. After all, how would the public react if they learned they were being deliberately poisoned by their own governments? However, a local news broadcast in Melbourne, Australia recently did just that, exposing the realities of what fluoride really does to the human body.

Fluoridation is one major and obvious difference between the provinces. More than three-quarters of Ontario residents live in areas where municipal water supplies contain the chemical. In Quebec, 94 per cent have water free of the additive, according to figures published by Health Canada in 2007.

Since then, Quebec City has voted to stop fluoridating, indicating that the difference between the two provinces is currently even more pronounced.

The vast Niagara Regional Water in Canada stopped fluosilicic acid injection into water when learning that 1) 1 ppm artificial fluoride in water interferes with thyroid function and in children this delays teeth eruption, where statistics when read correctly prove it does not prevent decay but delays it and 2) that all artificial fluorides are toxic compounds with lethality comparable to that for arsenic and lead in animal studies (Environmental Science and Engineering, 2008). Although arsenic is a natural trace ingredient in soils and water, it is a poison to be avoided, as are all artificial fluoride compounds, being calcium chelators. Children in dental chairs have had heart attacks after accidentally swallowing fluoride gel (sdsdw.org).

Clinical trials have never been done, so the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has never approved artificial fluoride in public water supplies and admit that it “is a drug, not a mineral nutrient” and fluoridation is an “uncontrolled dosage use of a drug”. In Hooper Bay, Alaska a water pump became corroded by artificial fluoride, causing an overfeed that poisoned 302 people with one killed by heart attack (New England Journal of Medicine, 1994, vol 330). In Pagosa Springs, Colorado, horses died from skeletal fluorosis after only 9 years drinking 1 ppm fluosilicic water (Fluoride, February, 2006). Salmon spawning is obliterated by artificial fluoride in water at only 0.3 ppm, but returns after discontinuing fluoride dumping (sdsdw.org).

“Fluoridation is no longer effective,” contends Hardy Limeback, head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto, who says adding the chemical to water is “more harmful than beneficial.”

Although fluoridation is touted as an unalloyed benefit by public health agencies, many community groups have sprung up across Canada lobbying to stop the practice, which is subject to repeal by local referendums. Some health professionals are worried fluoridation may have under-appreciated risks.

The current debate over water fluoridation in Toronto began as a result of Councillor Frances Nunziata's request that the Board invite The Toronto Coalition Against Fluoridation to a future meeting. The coalition had been lobbying councillors to end the city's 48-year policy of fluoridating water. The matter was referred to Dr. McKeown, who wrote a report recommending that the Board reaffirm its position to continue the fluoridation of the city's water, leading many who oppose water fluoridation through scientific fact to wonder if Dr. McKeown is being influenced by something other than science.

The issue of water fluoridation has been at the centre of a series of municipal debates and public referendums across the province. In November 2010, Waterloo city council voted for an end to fluoridating its water.

Several groups came out Monday to oppose Dr. McKeown's recommendation. Citing a report from the director of Dental and Oral Health Services, Aliss Terpstra of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health said that discontinuing the use of fluoride in water does not show an increase in tooth decay or other dental health issues.

She also stated that fluoridation chemicals leach lead into drinking water making the water hazardous and unsafe to drink.

Dr. Arlene King, Ontario's chief medical officer of health refuted claims such as Ms. Terpstra's saying that people need to refer to credible research on the subject. Dr. King is one of Ontario's biggest advocates to the "stop debating, keep vaccinating" argument which has created mass controversy.

“There is a plethora of information out there. We don't have a problem getting information, we have a problem vetting information.”

There is indeed a "plethora of information" available to public health officials as Dr. King suggests, however, it is the information that exposes the toxicity of fluoride which is being ignored.

Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al, 2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia (Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).

Public health services will claim there is a dental decay crisis. With the national average in the U.S. of only two decayed teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more than 15 decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half of all children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable success has been achieved in other developed countries without fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay in the U.S. often mentioned is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is obviously not helping.

Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis

Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled when only one concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is available in the drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006).

We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).

Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety

All the animal cancer studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. There is more than enough evidence to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer. Some communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is industrial grade fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to fluoridate the drinking water. In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000, Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134).

There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.

Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the seven-fold increase risk of bone cancer.

Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people with renal disease. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients who retain too much fluoride.

Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be halted on the basis that endocrine function in the U.S. has never been studied in relation to total fluoride intake.

Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. While some recent Chinese studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006), we need to study this more in depth in North America.

The evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation.


Share/Bookmark
...............................................................................................................



This site is owned and operated by PreventDisease.com 1999-2017. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details.
aaa
Interact
volunteerDonateWrite For Us
Stay Connected With Our Newsletter