April 22, 2019

Archives for July 2009

Thunder Bay council says no to fluoride

By: Jamie Smith, tbnewswatch.com, 21-Jul-2009, Thunder Bay, Ontario — City council rode a wave of perceived public opinion early Tuesday morning, voting against a resolution to study the fluoridation of Thunder Bay’s water.

An option that would have brought the matter before citizens as a plebiscite was also turned down by a vote of 6-5.

“We can educate people on nutrition, proper oral care…those are the steps that I’m prepared to take first,” said Coun. Trevor Giertuga. “I personally don’t want (fluoride) in my water.”

While Giertuga said calls and emails from the public were three to one against fluoridation, Mayor Lynn Peterson said she believed it was more like 10 to one. Peterson voted against the resolution due to environmental concerns and personal choice.

“My issue is 2 million pounds of (fluoride) being washed through our system with only one per cent being consumed (by the public),” said Peterson. “The rest being flushed into the Great Lakes.”

Council heard deputations supporting the resolution from more than 10 public health officials from across the province. Ontario Dental Association president Dr. Ira Kirshen, Chief Dental Officer for Health Canada, Dr. Peter Cooney and Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario president Dr. Frank Stechey all spoke at the meeting to convince council of the benefits of fluoridated water.

“I sit here dumbfounded that you don’t listen to the experts that you hire,” Stechey told council. “Your public health officials are telling you this (fluoridating water) is the way to go.”

Thunder Bay District Health Unit officials have been actively campaigning to get the city’s water supply fluoridated since 2007. Three officials from the health unit spoke to council regarding the safety of fluoride and the urgency in which it’s needed for the local water supply.

“The oral health of Thunder Bay’s children is poor and it’s getting worse,” said the health unit’s Cathy Farrell. “We’re well above red flag levels for tooth decay.”

City administration said the matter could still be put to a plebiscite if a petition can be signed by 10 per cent of the city’s voters – about 8,600 signatures.
The marathon meeting concluded at 2:40 a.m.

With much of the agenda left untouched, council deferred other matters until Tuesday evening.

http://www.tbnewswatch.com/news/61442/Council-says-no-to-fluoride

Health Canada’s Chief Dental Officer Dr. Peter Cooney insists water fluoridation is the best way to reduce cavities?

Thunder Bay, Ontario (20-Jul-2009, 8 min. 51 sec.)

Health Canada’s Chief  Dental Officer Dr. Peter Cooney insists community water fluoridation is the best way to reduce dental cavities/caries, during a City of Thunder Bay, Ontario council meeting on July 20th, 2009;  under questioning from Thunder Bay Councillor Frank Pullia.

Now consider this:

In 1992 Comox/Courtenay/Campbell River communities in British Columbia, Canada ceased fluoridating their drinking water supplies.

Two Canadian studies were ultimately conducted by the same researchers on this same population event.

One study focused upon dental caries rates following this fluoridation cessation.

The other study measured the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis following this fluoridation cessation.

These two studies could have ended debate about artificial water fluoridation. How? By publishing all the results together in one place and time.

Remarkably, the two pieces of this single cohesive Canadian study were published separately, and five years apart, overseas in a Danish journal.

Why publish this single event population correlated data separately, and five years apart?  Taken together, this research clearly shows that water fluoridation is not successful at reducing dental caries rates.  Something happened when local fluoridation was shut-off, which resulted in an overall decline in the population’s dental caries rates. In fact, after fluoridation was shut-off, caries rates dropped and continued to drop, as did dental fluorosis rates. The only thing known to causes dental fluorosis is ingesting (swallowing) too much fluoride. Therefore, when dental fluorosis rates drop, you know the population is swallowing less fluoride. Relevant confounding variables were controlled for during this research. The use of fluoride supplements and fluoride dentifrice (fluoride toothpaste) also decreased during this same time period. Furthermore, shutting off local fluoridation does not suddenly alter or change a given population’s present socioeconomic status, level of education, health/dental insurance, diet, access to and use of tooth brushing, parenting skills, general lifestyle, method of earning a living, and so fourth. That makes this research noteworthy in its variable controls. Fluoridation was shut-off, and there was no subsequent heightened alternative fluoride ingestion, as was demonstrated by the noticeable decline in dental fluorosis rates within the communities studied.

The two separately published studies:

Gerardo Maupome´, D. Christopher Clark, Steven M. Levy & Jonathan Berkowitz, Patterns Of Dental Caries Following The Cessation Of Water Fluoridation,  Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology, 2001, 29: 37–47

Researchers compared prevalence and incidence of dental caries between fluoridation-ended and still-fluoridated communities in British Columbia, Canada. Data was collected on snacking, oral hygiene, exposure to fluoride technologies, and socioeconomic level. The prevalence of dental caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the still-fluoridated community. Quick assumption was made that multiple sources of alternative fluoride, besides water fluoridation, must have  been responsible for dental caries decline in the fluoridation-ended community. No mention was made about any attempt to measure dental fluorosis in the fluoride-ended community to determine if fluoride was still being received through other sources. Why not, since that data was also available to these researchers?

read the study

D. Christopher Clark, Jay D. Shulman, Gerardo Maupome´ & Steven M. Levy, Changes In Dental Fluorosis Following The Cessation Of Water Fluoridation,  Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology, 2006 34: 197–204

Five years later in the same Danish journal these researchers published the findings on the prevalence of dental fluorosis after water fluoridation ended. (Why a Danish journal when these are Canadian studies?) When fluoride was removed from the water supply the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis decreased significantly. The use of fluoride supplements and fluoride dentifrice (fluoride toothpaste) also decreased during this same time period.

read the study

Something even more troubling:

Health Canada’s Chief Dental Officer Cooney , as well as Clark and Levy (two principal researchers leading these two studies, and two of six experts sitting as Health Canada’s 2008 review panel on water fluoridation) are aware of this research, yet the expert panel still voted unanimously to support water fluoridation policy in Canada.

A legitimate concern:

Why not tell the public the whole truth?

If the public was told the whole truth we would all know the questionable ‘merits’ of water fluoridation.

Also See:  Does Water Fluoridation Really Save Dental Treatment Dollars?

Read even more telling Canadian water fluoridation research here…

Ontario Dental Association and its President Dr. Ira Kirshen push for mandatory water fluoridation in Ontario

Thunder Bay, Ontario (20-Jul-2009, 3 min. 13sec.)

Ontario Dental Association President Dr. Ira Kirshen speaks in favour of mandating/mandatory artificial water fluoridation across Ontario, during a City of Thunder Bay (Ontario) council meeting on July 20th 2009; under questioning from Thunder Bay Councillor Mark Bentz.

After boldly mandating water fluoridation in southern California, California State’s Proposition 65 proposed ‘fluoride and its salts’ as a high priority for investigation of potential cancer causing properties.

AMAZINGLY… the American Dental Association’s countermeasure was to provide $200,000.00 “to assist in our effort to prevent the placement of fluoride and its salts on the list of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity…”

WHY NOT PUT THIS MONEY INTO PRODUCING HARD SCIENCE TO DETERMINE WHAT CANCER AND REPRODUCTIVE RISKS FLUORIDE AND ITS SALTS ACTUALLY POSE ???

With respect to mandating / forcing water fluoridation in San Diego, California in 2007-2008; on May 29th of 2009 the California State Proposition 65 Carcinogen Identification Committee provided the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment advice on the relative priority of 38 chemicals for possible Hazard Identification. The committee also recommended 9 of these 38 chemicals be placed in a ‘high’ priority group, including fluoride and its salts as number 5 of 38 in high priority for further study. Silicofluoride, ingested from hydrofluorosilicic acid fluoridation and sodium silicofluoride fluoridation, is included in the ‘group’ category ‘fluoride and its salts’. read more at source

As a countermeasure, the American Dental Association responded by granting the California Dental Association $200,000.00 to “assist in our effort to prevent the placement of fluoride and its salts on the List of Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity that is produced by the State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) requires the governor to publish this list of toxic chemicals each year. OEHHA is currently considering fluoride and its salts for inclusion in the Proposition 65 listing.” read more at source

You would think the American Dental Association and the California Dental Association might like to end the debate on fluoride/fluoridation by allowing proper State-wide investigation into potential health harms. Why try to shut down such scientific discovery, if you truly believed no possible cancer or reproductive toxicity harm did exist ?

ALSO SEE:

San Diego County, California population 3,001,072

City of Los Angeles, California population 3,849,378

SOURCE: United States
Census Bureau, 2008

Vukmanich, Effects of Fluoridating Agents on Water Chemistry – Thunder Bay, Ontario

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The water chemistry of Thunder Bay treated water poses unique problems for additional treatments and especially corrosion control.

This report describes the effects of three fluoridating agents on the chemistry of Thunder Bay drinking water and in particular their effect on lead-pipe corrosion. Static corrosion tests were performed with hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), sodium silicofluoride (Na2SiF6), and sodium fluoride (NaF), each at concentration levels of 0.5, 0.7, 1.5 parts per million as fluoride ion. One additional experiment was conducted using a pH ( pH=8.5) adjusted solution of hydrofluorosilicic acid at each of the three levels. The static corrosion tests used lead coupons that were fabricated from common lead water supply pipe. The experiments measured the amount of lead leached into solution from the coupons immersed in the solution of the fluoridating agent. Fixed samplings at 6, 24, 96, 168, and 360 hours were analysed.

The fluoridating agent that caused the greatest amount of lead leaching was the solution of un-buffered hydrofluorosilicic at a concentration of 0.7 ppm. The rate was about 2.6 times the control. When the same hydrofluorosilicic acid is used in a pH adjusted solution (pH=8.5) the relative corrosion rate was about 8 times lower, than the un-buffered acid.

Sodium silicofluoride was found to have a relative corrosion rate of about 1.4 times lower then free hydrofluorosilicic acid.

The solution of sodium fluoride at 0.7 ppm as fluoride had the lowest corrosion rate.

The findings show that all the fluoridating agents chosen increase the corrosion of lead pipe to some extent in Thunder Bay tap water. The pH adjusted hydrofluorosilicic acid appears to be the best compromise since it had the next lowest corrosion rate. This choice would require an additional neutralizing agent, sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment.

Vukmanich, Effects Of Fluoridating Agents On Water Chemistry – Thunder Bay, Ontario 2009

What Happens To Ontario Dentists Who Speak Out Against Water Fluoridation?

 

Thunder Bay, Ontario – Water Fluoridation Council Meeting (20-Jul-2009, 10 min. 24 sec.)

After seemingly trying to side-step this direct question, Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario President Dr. Frank Stechey finally answers what would happen to Ontario dentists who chose to speak out against community water fluoridation; speaking at a City of Thunder Bay, Ontario – Water Fluoridation Council Meeting on July 20th 2009, under questioning from Thunder Bay Councillor Linda Rydholm. Thunder Bay Council subsequently voted to NOT implement municipal water fluoridation in their community, despite the many months of Public Health and others pushing heavily for fluoridation.