March 21, 2019

Archives for April 2, 2013

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 02-Apr-2013

Woman Who Helped Push Fluoride from Calgary Water Coming to Lethbridge

By: Patrick Burles, Country 95 News, Lethbridge, Alberta 02-Apr-2013

As a local group continues to fight to have fluoride removed from Lethbridge tap water, they’re bringing in an individual who helped drive the additive from Calgary’s drinking supply.

Fay Ash was a major part of the cause in Calgary for 20-years, following in the footsteps of her mother who worked to keep fluoride out of Calgary water in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Fluoride was eventually added to the water supply there in 1989, but after years of campaigning against it, the city finanlly removed fluoride in 2011.

Sean Fife with Fluoride Free Lethbridge talks about the message he expects Ash to bring to our city, “I think one thing she learned is that is that you can’t Mickey Mouse things. You have to be really hard hitting in your approach to the topic, because a lot of people are unsure of the benefits, you know, people are thinking ‘Well there must be some benefits otherwise why are they doing it.’ So she’s very clear on presenting the negative aspects of fluoride.”

Fife also took a moment to highlight their main message, “Really this whole thing comes down to a matter of choice. If there’s fluoride in the water then we don’t have a choice, because it’s there and unless people buy expensive filtration systems, they can’t have fluoride free water. If it’s not in the water and somebody wants fluoride, for whatever reason, they can buy fluoridated toothpaste, they can go to the dentist, they can get fluoride tablets from the pharmacist.”

Ash’s talk is open to the public and goes Wednesday night at 7 in the E.C. Fredericks Theatre at Lethbridge College.


Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 02-Apr-2013

Hold The Fluoride?

By: Cody Combs,, Tyrone, Blair County, Pennsylvania 02-Apr-2013

In a 6-2 vote, the Tyrone council recently voted to begin the process of potentially removing fluoride from the borough’s drinking water.

Fluoride is a chemical compound included in many drinking water supplies across the country.

The Center for Disease Control and American Dental Association both agree on its effectiveness in fighting cavities and helping oral health, but some are still weary of including it in drinking water.

Bellwood dentist Donald Miller said fears about fluoride are not grounded in facts.

“The research done for more than 60 years now proves that fluoride, when it’s regulated, doesn’t cause problems in people,” he said. “It has tremendous beneficial results.”

Miller added that he expects to see more cavities in children if fluoride is removed from the Tyrone drinking water.

Tyrone Councilman Mark Kosoglow voted in favor of eliminating fluoride, and while he acknowledged that fluoride helps fight cavities, he said he’s still concerned about including it in the borough’s drinking water.

“I’ve watched some documentaries,” he said. “The negatives outweigh the cavity thing.”

Kosoglow said the chemicals involved in the fluoridation process add to his concerns.

Back in 2007, Altoona City Council voted against adding fluoride to its drinking water because of what many felt were potential side effects and potential fluoride toxicity.

Over at his dental office, Miller said regulations take away any danger of fluoride, and he wrote a letter to the Tyrone Mayor William Fink, who voted in favor of beginning discussions to remove fluoride.

“I’m disappointed,” Miller said. “We’ve seen great results across the board historically with water fluoridation, it prevents tooth decay in children that otherwise have tooth decay growing up.”

In a phone interview with WTAJ, Mayor Fink said he’s not comfortable putting fluoride in everyone’s drinking water, and added that because it’s in toothpaste, people have the option of using it.

Fink added that a public speaks session on the matter will be scheduled for citizens to voice concerns both for and against eliminating fluoride from the water supply in the near future.

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 02-Apr-2013

An alternative to swallowing fluoride

By: Daniel Nyberg (Letter to the Editor), Lethbridge Herald, Lethbridge, Alberta 02-Apr-2013

My wife cannot drink fluoridated water. It causes a reaction to her arthritis, with painful joint restrictions. She must drink fluoride-free bottled water. (However, she still absorbs the fluoride in the water as daily necessities of washing her hands, hair, cooking, cleaning, washing our dishes and bathing all contribute. Non-consumption does not mean non-absorption.)
Dr. Vivien Suttorp bases her reasoning on a Health Canada recommendation that ingesting fluoride reduces tooth decay, which has been disproved by world scientists. Why are these experts collectively saying no to fluoride? Why is fluoridating drinking water primarily confined to North America?
Health Canada has imprinted warnings on fluoridated toothpaste sold in Canada, from: “Do not swallow! Not for children under 12 years old!” to “Use a pea-sized amount under adult supervision to avoid swallowing!” (Why? Is it toxic, as science suggests?)
Health Canada has certified that ingesting municipal water containing fluoride is beneficial to our health on one hand and that it is harmful if ingested in toothpaste on the other. Exactly what are they telling us? If their warnings are based on fluoride consumption, then how much intake of fluoridated water is within their guidelines? How do, or can, they regulate this? How dangerous is over-consumption?
I do not have a problem in that brushing my teeth with fluoridated toothpaste is a good thing to do – providing I then spit it out and thoroughly rinse my mouth.
Here is my question: How much good does a glass of fluoridated drinking water gulped down do for my teeth? How many must I take? How often?
Instead of fluoridated drinking water, why does Health Canada not substitute it with a mouthwash mix of clean water and fluoride to be gargled for a specific period of time and then spat out? Would this concentration serve more realistically in helping with tooth hygiene, and not be harmful to children and those susceptible?
How much fluoridated drinking water is ingested and how much is waste? (It is suggested that only one per cent is ingested.) That translates to a mouthwash mix saving of $85,000 a year for Lethbridge. What would annual Canada-wide savings be?
We do not need to ingest fluoride to gain any benefit – just brush and gargle, spit and rinse. This seems more health-orientated.
For scientific opinions, go to: “Fluoride Free Ottawa” and/or “Fluoride: Industry’s toxic coup” on the web.

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 02-Apr-2013

Angie’s Insights: Local Activist Pam Wenzel’s Warning of Water Fluoridation in our Homes is Compelling

By: Angie Bado, Town Square Buzz, McKinney, Texas 02-Apr-2013

At a time when there is more news about the possible dangers of the fluoridation of city water supplies and more cities across the nation are considering legislation that would halt the adding of chemicals to water supplies, discussion about the fluoridation of our own city water supply is once again on the agenda for city council’s work session Tuesday afternoon.

According to the Facebook page Fluoride Action North Texas, McKinney residents are encouraged to attend the work session to show their support for ending the fluoridation of our water. In order to end this practice, all 13 cities that make up the North Texas Municipal Water District must agree.

Enter local activist and McKinney resident Pam Wenzel. Business woman, mother of two and wife, Wenzel has taken on the enormous uphill battle of challenging the status quo. She believes that fluoridation of the city’s water supply is pumping toxins into our bodies and that must be stopped.

Recently, I sat down with Wenzel to find out what is behind her strong belief that has spurred her to action. I am reminded of Erin Brockovich, and a million questions are on my mind. Is water fluoridation a similar situation where industry, the CDC and our government are in collusion to keep the public in the dark?

McKinney resident Pam Wenzel sits calmly across from me. Although sometimes portrayed as something of a psycho (her word, not mine) I don’t get that vibe at all. Legs crossed, her earnest brown eyes connect with me in what is an obvious effort to communicate her passion and knowledge on the subject of fluoridation of our water supply. Her voice resonates with passion about the topic, and she has a lot to say. She has done her homework.

“This is something I have to do,” said Wenzel. “Believe me, I’d rather be out on the Dye Course chipping out of a bunker,” she says emphatically.

This thing that Wenzel feels she “has to do” is educate people about the fluoridation of our water supply, which most of us take for granted. But a growing body of evidence appears to support the fact that the chemicals added to city water supplies are toxic. As part of a local grassroots campaign, Wenzel spends her days researching information on the internet, writing letters to the various city council who make up the 13 member North Texas Water District Board, meeting with city and state leaders and posting information on the Fluoride Action North Texas Facebook page. Her end goal – to end the practice of adding fluoride, in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid, to the water in North Texas.

How did she get started down this path?

A few years ago, while on a weekend golf trip with her husband, Wenzel said she was struck by her husband’s attraction to the “spa water” in the hotel. She said neither typically drank much water at home.

“He (Wenzel’s husband) kept drinking the flavored water that the hotel offered. He rarely drank water at home. I realized that this form of hydration was a healthier choice than drinking sugary drinks or sodas.”

Wenzel said that when she returned home from the trip, she spent time researching the benefits of water and came to the conclusion that most Americans are chronically dehydrated and that dehydration could be a major risk factor in many of the chronic illnesses that individuals deal with in today’s world. She said she felt that her own lack of healthy hydration contributed to her battle with breast cancer at the young age of 27.

Convinced of water’s health benefits, Wenzel began researching recipes for spa water and in 2010 launched her business and Spa Water Collection. She encourages people to make water the beverage of choice over sugary beverages or soda. Her book, Spa Water Book – A Guide to Creating World Class Spa Water, contains 22 recipes healthy fruit and herb infused water recipes.

Wenzel explained that she brought in her technical support person, Jens Broecher, from Germany to help prepare for the business launch party. Broecher also brought something Wenzel didn’t expect — life changing information that he would soon share.

“On the first day of his arrival, he (Broecher) told me he could not drink our tap water because he was allergic to fluoride. He explained how the fluoride was so toxic that it was banned in Germany and many other countries. He explained how even showering in the fluoridated water would cause his head to ache,” Wenzel said.

Further explaining that she “was embarrassed” by the fact that she didn’t know as much about our water as her guest, Wenzel said, “I began to research his claims about what he said fluoride really was and how the Nazis would use it for mind control of their POW’s. I was very skeptical at first. Just as many may think I am crazy, I thought this of him at first, as well. After two years of researching and validating his claims, I began to understand the history and unbelievable chain of events in which fluoridation came to be.”

The information she dug up was startling — shocking —unbelievable.

According to Wenzel, the stuff we think of as harmless fluoride in our water supply is actually a toxic substance – hazardous waste that is scrubbed from the smokestacks of aluminum and phosphate fertilizer plants. This waste was originally pumped into the air, but upon finding that plants and animals in the area around the plants began to die due to fluoride poisoning, a system was put into place where wet scrubbers now harvest the residue, which is then collected and sent to cities and dumped into the water supply in the guise of water fluoridation.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports naturally occurring fluoride, but they handed off the responsibility of monitoring the water department to the National Sanitation Foundation, a private organization, Wenzel said. She added that fluoride is considered a drug, but there have been no random testing trials performed on fluoride to understand how it acts in the human body. What’s worse, pharmaceutical grade fluoride is not used in our water supplies. The same by-product that the EPA will not allow to be dumped in lakes, rivers and oceans because it is considered toxic waste, is being dumped into our city water supplies.

Wenzel encouraged me to read some of the documentation which led her to take on this battle, including The Fluoride Deception, written by journalist Christopher Bryson, (May 2004). The book is based on nearly 10 years of research and concludes that the safety standards for fluoridation are based on fraudulent science. Bryson uncovered correspondence by scientists that point to the very fact that fluoride is poison and is indeed harmful. Bryson says that fluoride science, like asbestos science and tobacco science, “is a racket.”

Outspoken and relentless, Wenzel said, “I couldn’t continue on promoting drinking water for your health. It’s tough to drink six to eight glasses of water a day, especially when it has become counter-productive. I have a business to run, and I have a reputation for promoting ways to make your water taste better. I can’t continue to promote drinking water for health when it is full of toxins.”

What does it feel like to be labeled one of “those people?” It boils down to people’s lack of understanding, Wenzel explained. “It doesn’t matter what you support, there are going to be those people who try to embarrass those who have something to stand up for, and that’s just the way of the world.

“ I don’t sell water, I sell a book that is recipes on how to make our water taste better,” Wenzel said. “My efforts to end fluoridation of our water could actually hurt my business, but it’s a matter of doing what’s right. All the profit from my books went to the Avon Army of Women and their efforts to get members for breast cancer research.”

The information that Wenzel and other members of the grassroots organization to end fluoridation have uncovered makes one wonder why the government continues to support the concept. The FDA has never approved fluoride for the use of reducing tooth decay and they don’t monitor fluoride in the water supply.

Sharing information from The Case Against Fluoride, by Paul Connett, James Beck, Spedding Micklem, Wenzel cites these points:

1. Fluoridation is poor medical practice because it violates the right to consent. It also is delivered in such a way, though water, that dosage cannot be controlled. How do we determine what dose would be effective? People drink different amounts of water on any given day.

2. Fluoride is now known to work more effectively when topically applied (toothpaste, etc.) The evidence that fluoride, when ingested, decreases tooth decay, is weak.

3. Fluoridation uses dangerous chemicals — silicon fluorides obtained from the phosphate fertilizer industry — which are not naturally occurring fluoride compounds or the pharmaceutical-grade substances used in dental products. They are derived from wet-scrubbing systems, contain other contaminants, and are officially characterized as hazardous waste by the U.S. EPA.

4. When the fluoride program began decades ago, there was little evidence for its long-term safety in humans. Little study has been done over the years to monitor the long-term effects on our health. Most European countries do not fluoridate their water supplies.

5. There is some evidence to support the fact that fluoridation of water lowers the I.Q. of children.

6. Fluoridation has been shown to have an adverse effect on the thyroid gland and accumulates in the human pineal gland.

7. The accumulation of fluoride in bones from lifelong exposure to fluoride from fluoridated water and other sources has been shown in studies to increase the risk of hip fractures in the elderly, especially those who have impaired kidney function.

8. Studies have shown that fluoridation increases the risk of developing bone cancer.

“Fluoridation is unethical,” Wenzel said. “No government has the right to medicate the public – to force it on people. This practice deprives us of our right to informed medical consent.”

Is the EPA somehow complicit in the water program that we have today? Have they, and other government organizations ignored data on the critical toxicity of fluoridation? Wenzel thinks so.

“The EPA is trying to avoid getting in the way of the Dept. of Human Health and the political heat that would come down on them,” Wenzel said. She also feels that powerful industry pushed the EPA to cover up critical information about the possible negative side effects of water fluoridation. Admitting that this practice is dangerous to human health could open up a huge can of worms, allowing law suits from individuals who have had cancer over the years.

“I’m not doing anything until I’m finished focusing on this,” Wenzel said, reminding me of the message, “The argument isn’t that we don’t want fluoride. It’s that we don’t want additional, toxic dumped into our water supply.”

The next steps for Wenzel and the others who support this cause are to continue to speak at area city council meetings, write letters to local council members and state leaders and continue to educate the public with their message.

Wenzel shared with me that she recently had breakfast with Congressman Ralph Hall to discuss the issue. She said the Congressman understands the issue and is in favor of a congressional hearing on the topic of water fluoridation. He urged her to share this video with city and state leaders, including Senator Ken Paxton (R-McKinney).

Challenging the status quo is scary. It becomes an inconvenient truth to overturn decades of thought and practices. But many cities are looking at the subject through a new lens. I have to admit, although I was very skeptical when Wenzel and others spoke at the regular city council meeting in early March, after all the reading I’ve done, I think there is definitely something to the group’s argument.

What do you think?