June 3, 2017

Archives for September 2015

Fluoride debate returns

COF-COF News FindBy: Krista Conrad, Okotoks Western Wheel, Okotoks, Alberta 30-Sep-2015 – According to preschool oral health program statistics, 201 of a possible 248 monthly appointments were attended between January 2013 and July 2015. In a population of over 28,000 that number seems low, said Fischer.

With stern warnings of the importance of fluoride in water from AHS, the issue warrants more research and more consideration, she said.

Fischer would like to see what the dental community has noticed since fluoride was removed from the water, including how children under three are affected without having had it in their water, as well as those ages three to 10.

“It’s going to be difficult to pull together all of that information but I think it’s necessary,” she said. “We just don’t know enough.”

The preschool oral health program is a minor solution to a much larger issue, she said, because AHS continues to recommend fluoridation of the water supply and the clinics only see a small percentage of children in Okotoks.

“It also creates disparity,” said Fischer. “If it’s good for kids, it’s good for all kids. Not just those municipalities who choose to do it or can afford to do it.”

Fischer said she would like a definitive response from AHS outlining benefits or risks of fluoridation, rather than having health issues left to the discretion of municipal councils.

Former Okotoks councillor Florence Christophers said the issue is an ethical one and asking municipalities to choose whether to put fluoride in the water robs residents of their freedom of choice.

After conducting six months’ worth of research in 2011 and 2012, Christophers encouraged the Town to cease fluoridation of its water supply.

“There are really compelling arguments on both sides,” she said.

Christophers said there is little research being done as to the effects of fluoride on the human body when it enters the bloodstream, though she has found evidence of health risks.

“When you drink it and it goes into the bloodstream it goes through the bones and arteries too,” she said. “Just like teeth, bones are affected by fluoride. They harden and become more brittle.”

One problem with putting pharmaceutical products into the water supply is people drink different amounts so doses of fluoride could not be controlled, she said.

The decision to put fluoride into drinking water is beyond what should be expected of a municipal council, said Christophers.

“Why towns are being asked to make this health decision is beyond me,” said Christophers. “They are and should only be obligated to provide clean, safe water for residents.”

http://www.westernwheel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150930/WHE0801/309309996/0/WHE0902

Fluoride is not “Fluoridation”

COF-COF News FindBy: Peter VanCaulart, Fairview Post (Facebook Submission), Fairview, Alberta 29-Sep-2015 – Dr. Prybysh is correct in stating that fluoride is commonly found in the air, the food supply, and the liquids we consume daily. That people are caused to consume fluoride daily, however, is nothing to celebrate. Fluoride ingestion is a detriment to human and animal health. Volcanic emissions and contaminated groundwater account for most “natural” sources. Industrial discharges and man-made residues account for the rest.

1500 research professionals at the USEPA, many seasoned toxicologists and biochemists, are convinced that drinking fluoridated water could cause serious injury and impairment throughout the body. They also determined that there is little or no dental benefit from fluoridation. How does the dental profession, wherein no primary research on ingested fluoride toxicity is done, counter the findings of impartial EPA scientists who have examined this toxin? When did dentists become qualified as toxicologists, biochemists or drinking water quality experts?

Dr. Prybysh’s statement that fluoride is a micro-nutrient flies in the face of the findings of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There is not a single biological function that relies on fluoride. The claim that fluoride is “added to our food supply to help build and maintain a healthy body that is resistant to disease” is without merit. Fluoride is a known endocrine disruptor, which is why it’s part of fumigant and pesticide formulations. Chlorine too is a poison. When used to treat water, chlorine is first used to kill harmful organisms and then a trace is maintained to prevent microbial regrowth in water mains. Chlorine treats the water, not people, and everything is done to limit exposure to it.

In 2006, the National Academy of Science (often referred to as the ‘Supreme Court of Science’) published ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards’. The report emerged from a landmark 3.5 years analysis of 1077 fluoridation studies by a balanced panel of 12 preeminent fluoride experts. The panel was unanimous in its observation that fluoride, in some manner, appeared to be causative of cancer. That some refuse to heed the information related to ingestion doesn’t mean fluoride ingestion is safe.

Dr. Prybysh wants us to trust that fluoridation (putting silicofluoride waste by-products into our drinking water supply) is the same as using pharmaceutical grade fluoride within a dental practice. It isn’t. As a dental professional, is he positioned to speak with authority on how ingested fluoride affects the brain, bones, and thyroid? No. The second he steps into a discussion of fluoridation safety or benefit, he trespasses into the unfamiliar domains of the fluoride toxicologist and the drinking water professional.

The fact is, dentists often lack even a fundamental understanding of water fluoridation, without realizing it. Blame the larger dental associations for not providing that education. So, if dentists are confused, imagine the confusion suffered by politicians and the general public!

In Rebuttal To: http://www.fairviewpost.com/2015/09/16/dr-prybysh-unloads-both-barrels-on-fluoride-question

https://www.facebook.com/fairviewpost/posts/960816333991243

 

Fluoride debate packs council chambers

COF-COF News FindBy: Stephannie Johnson, Parry Sound North Star, Parry Sound, Ontario 18-Sep-2015 – Tuesday evening Parry Sound residents and some from surrounding municipalities filled town council chambers to capacity – and then some – to debate water fluoridation.

On June 2, council defeated a recommendation put forward by staff for the removal of fluoride from the town’s drinking water. The recommendation came due to the hazards associated with its distribution.

“This chemical is highly dangerous to work with,” wrote Peter Brown, town director of public works in his June 2 report. “Staff have to wear personal protective equipment each time the chemical is decanted. It has been shown to etch glass and degrade paint on walls in the plant. It is not a safe chemical. I believe the town may be placing the staff at risk when they are exposed to it.”

At that meeting there was only one deputation regarding Brown’s report and it came from North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit medical officer Dr. Jim Chirico who insisted the town keep the chemical in its water.

Brown said if the town chose to keep its water fluoridated, it needed to consider upgrading its storage and dispensing procedures for the health and safety of staff.

At its June 2 meeting, council defeated Brown’s recommendation, thereby keeping its water fluoridated.

At its September 1 meeting, Brown brought another report to council; this one outlining the necessary $250,000 upgrades to the Tony Agnello Water Treatment Plant. The upgrades would ensure staff is safe while dispensing the fluoride into the water system.

“The decision to continue fluoridation safely will be costly,” Brown wrote in his September 1 report to council. “The engineer has estimated the capital work to be in the range of $150,000. Engineering cost is estimated to be in the range of $50,000. Considering the amount of work required and time frames, I would estimate the cost of the entire work to be closer to $250,000. And to be quite frank, the Town of Parry Sound has no choice but to proceed with this plan.”

Council agreed and plans to spend the $250,000 for the upgrade.

Tuesday night, resident Andrea McIntyre, representing the group Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management, spoke and asked those in attendance to stand if they were in support of the removal of fluoride; nearly all present, about 70 people, stood or raised their hands.

“We know that you (council) have the wellbeing of us in mind and have based your decisions on information that fluoride is beneficial, but our research indicates that fluoride in our water is not the benefit that we have been lead to believe and is doing us more harm than good,” McIntyre said. “We are also concerned about the financial costs of adding it.”

She said the cost of maintaining the addition of fluoride in the town’s water supply wouldn’t stop at the reconstruction of one room.

“One must also consider the cost of the chemical, continuing maintenance costs, the time the staff take to administer it, and regular replacement of safety equipment,” she said.

McIntyre outlined the costs associated with the upkeep, an estimated $614,700 over 20 years.

“The decay rates at present are so low, that you would have to fluoridate for 40 years to save one filling per person. If we consider only children, which are the ones who would benefit the most, there are about 1,000 children aged 4 to 20 in Parry Sound and Nobel…that would only be a reduction of 500 cavities over 20 years for a total cost of $60,000 at $120 per cavity. You will spend 12 times as much as what you’ll save,” she said.

McIntyre said the group doesn’t dispute that council believes it’s doing right by keeping fluoride, as is the general opinion of most people at present.

Veighey said council made the right decision when it choose to keep its water fluoridated and asked them not to give in to the recent “anti-fluoride mania that is championed by a select few. The only people who would benefit from the removal of fluoride from the water are the dentists, because we would be busier with the vast increase of dental decay. But the community will be much worse for it five or 10 years down the road.”

Wendy Cooper, resident and teacher, said her six-year-old’s recent blood work has shown to have high levels of arsenic and lead.

“Watching the presentation that our expert gave made me incredibly nauseous to think that we’re even considering continuing fluoridation in our water supply,” said an emotional Cooper. “You have a lot of community members with you here tonight who have shown up under short notice with not much coverage to show that this was going on and I think you’ve seen the amount of support you have and I’m sure if you need it we can get more support from fellow community members. Are you going to listen to those with a vested interest in earning or are you going to listen to your community members with a vested interest in our health and wellbeing? The amount of money that you would spend on fluoridating is clearly not worth it, it’s simple math. Look at the research from the experts in the field, please, I beg of you.”

Former Parry Sound councillor Conrad van der Valk commended council for making its original decision to keep fluoride based on information that was provided some months ago.

“Unfortunately you didn’t have the opportunity to hear the other side. You have tonight and it is your job as councillors to come up with a decision that works for a majority of the people,” van der Valk said. “I would suggest that you give the public the choice whether they want to have fluoridated water or not, instead of you taking the onus and responsibility. It is our body, we’re talking about my body, the bodies of the people here and they should have that choice.”

Dr. Lin Raimundo, with Parry Sound Family Dentistry, said if council chooses to remove fluoride, it needs to evaluate that decision and how it will ultimately affect those who are most vulnerable in the community.

“In my practice I see a lot of people who are on assistance programs and it’s wonderful if we all have insurance programs that paid for us (to visit a dentist) every six months; we don’t have that here,” Raimundo said.  “We have a lot of people who rely on sign-up – which is for children and youth care – we have a lot of people on disability. These are the people I don’t want to have slip through the cracks. They are just as important to our community as a whole…if you’re going to take away the one, because of the right to choose what’s in your drinking water, you still have to provide those groups that need it, with a solution.

“One of the comments was, well people can just travel up north to get the treatment that is paid for…that’s not necessarily possible…a lot of these people don’t have a car and they don’t have money for gas and they don’t have money for rent, but we’re telling them, drive on up there. We could definitely use a dentist or hygienist who would focus on those groups in our town…and people can go to a centralized centre if they don’t have any kind of funding and they can get that attention that they need. How fabulous would that be?”

One of the ways that the resolution regarding the water treatment plant’s upgrades can be brought back for council to rescind, is for a council member on the prevailing side of the original vote to provide a Notice of Motion at a council meeting. Then the motion would come before council at the following meeting.

http://www.parrysound.com/news-story/5919170-fluoride-debate-packs-council-chambers/

Fluoride debate packs council chambers

COF-COF News FindBy: Stephannie Johnson, Parry Sound North Star, Parry Sound, Ontario 18-Sep-2015 – Dentists, community group face off with pleas for, against fluoride

Tuesday evening Parry Sound residents and some from surrounding municipalities filled town council chambers to capacity – and then some – to debate water fluoridation.

On June 2, council defeated a recommendation put forward by staff for the removal of fluoride from the town’s drinking water. The recommendation came due to the hazards associated with its distribution.

“This chemical is highly dangerous to work with,” wrote Peter Brown, town director of public works in his June 2 report. “Staff have to wear personal protective equipment each time the chemical is decanted. It has been shown to etch glass and degrade paint on walls in the plant. It is not a safe chemical. I believe the town may be placing the staff at risk when they are exposed to it.”

At that meeting there was only one deputation regarding Brown’s report and it came from North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit medical officer Dr. Jim Chirico who insisted the town keep the chemical in its water.

Brown said if the town chose to keep its water fluoridated, it needed to consider upgrading its storage and dispensing procedures for the health and safety of staff.

At its June 2 meeting, council defeated Brown’s recommendation, thereby keeping its water fluoridated.

At its September 1 meeting, Brown brought another report to council; this one outlining the necessary $250,000 upgrades to the Tony Agnello Water Treatment Plant. The upgrades would ensure staff is safe while dispensing the fluoride into the water system.

“The decision to continue fluoridation safely will be costly,” Brown wrote in his September 1 report to council. “The engineer has estimated the capital work to be in the range of $150,000. Engineering cost is estimated to be in the range of $50,000. Considering the amount of work required and time frames, I would estimate the cost of the entire work to be closer to $250,000. And to be quite frank, the Town of Parry Sound has no choice but to proceed with this plan.”

Council agreed and plans to spend the $250,000 for the upgrade.

Tuesday night, resident Andrea McIntyre, representing the group Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management, spoke and asked those in attendance to stand if they were in support of the removal of fluoride; nearly all present, about 70 people, stood or raised their hands.

“We know that you (council) have the wellbeing of us in mind and have based your decisions on information that fluoride is beneficial, but our research indicates that fluoride in our water is not the benefit that we have been lead to believe and is doing us more harm than good,” McIntyre said. “We are also concerned about the financial costs of adding it.”

She said the cost of maintaining the addition of fluoride in the town’s water supply wouldn’t stop at the reconstruction of one room.

“One must also consider the cost of the chemical, continuing maintenance costs, the time the staff take to administer it, and regular replacement of safety equipment,” she said.

McIntyre outlined the costs associated with the upkeep, an estimated $614,700 over 20 years.

“The decay rates at present are so low, that you would have to fluoridate for 40 years to save one filling per person. If we consider only children, which are the ones who would benefit the most, there are about 1,000 children aged 4 to 20 in Parry Sound and Nobel…that would only be a reduction of 500 cavities over 20 years for a total cost of $60,000 at $120 per cavity. You will spend 12 times as much as what you’ll save,” she said.

McIntyre said the group doesn’t dispute that council believes it’s doing right by keeping fluoride, as is the general opinion of most people at present.

Veighey said council made the right decision when it choose to keep its water fluoridated and asked them not to give in to the recent “anti-fluoride mania that is championed by a select few. The only people who would benefit from the removal of fluoride from the water are the dentists, because we would be busier with the vast increase of dental decay. But the community will be much worse for it five or 10 years down the road.”

Wendy Cooper, resident and teacher, said her six-year-old’s recent blood work has shown to have high levels of arsenic and lead.

“Watching the presentation that our expert gave made me incredibly nauseous to think that we’re even considering continuing fluoridation in our water supply,” said an emotional Cooper. “You have a lot of community members with you here tonight who have shown up under short notice with not much coverage to show that this was going on and I think you’ve seen the amount of support you have and I’m sure if you need it we can get more support from fellow community members. Are you going to listen to those with a vested interest in earning or are you going to listen to your community members with a vested interest in our health and wellbeing? The amount of money that you would spend on fluoridating is clearly not worth it, it’s simple math. Look at the research from the experts in the field, please, I beg of you.”

Former Parry Sound councillor Conrad van der Valk commended council for making its original decision to keep fluoride based on information that was provided some months ago.

“Unfortunately you didn’t have the opportunity to hear the other side. You have tonight and it is your job as councillors to come up with a decision that works for a majority of the people,” van der Valk said. “I would suggest that you give the public the choice whether they want to have fluoridated water or not, instead of you taking the onus and responsibility. It is our body, we’re talking about my body, the bodies of the people here and they should have that choice.”

Dr. Lin Raimundo, with Parry Sound Family Dentistry, said if council chooses to remove fluoride, it needs to evaluate that decision and how it will ultimately affect those who are most vulnerable in the community.

“In my practice I see a lot of people who are on assistance programs and it’s wonderful if we all have insurance programs that paid for us (to visit a dentist) every six months; we don’t have that here,” Raimundo said.  “We have a lot of people who rely on sign-up – which is for children and youth care – we have a lot of people on disability. These are the people I don’t want to have slip through the cracks. They are just as important to our community as a whole…if you’re going to take away the one, because of the right to choose what’s in your drinking water, you still have to provide those groups that need it, with a solution.

“One of the comments was, well people can just travel up north to get the treatment that is paid for…that’s not necessarily possible…a lot of these people don’t have a car and they don’t have money for gas and they don’t have money for rent, but we’re telling them, drive on up there. We could definitely use a dentist or hygienist who would focus on those groups in our town…and people can go to a centralized centre if they don’t have any kind of funding and they can get that attention that they need. How fabulous would that be?”

One of the ways that the resolution regarding the water treatment plant’s upgrades can be brought back for council to rescind, is for a council member on the prevailing side of the original vote to provide a Notice of Motion at a council meeting. Then the motion would come before council at the following meeting.

http://www.parrysound.com/news-story/5919170-fluoride-debate-packs-council-chambers/

Fluoride debate continues

COF-COF News FindBy: Stephannie Johnson, Parry Sound North Star, Parry Sound, Ontario 16-Sep-2015 – Residents of all ages from all walks of life filled Parry Sound council chambers to capacity – and then some – to debate the town’s decision to keep its water fluoridated.

Although a vast majority of those in attendance were against fluoride, a handful of local dentists also spoke in favour of keeping the chemical in the water.

Resident Andrea McIntyre, representing the group Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management, spoke at length, asking those in attendance to stand if they were in support of the removal; nearly all those present got to their feet.

“We know that you have the well-being of us in mind and have based your decisions on information that fluoride is beneficial, but our research indicates that fluoride in our water is not the benefit that we have been lead to believe and is doing us more harm than good,” McIntyre said.

After each presentation in favour of the removal of fluoride, most of the audience gave a standing ovation in support.

Davidson Veighey, of Riverview Dental Care, with support from local dentists, spoke in favour of keeping fluoride in the town’s water supply.

“There’s been a very vocal minority in the country and in town, trying to force the removal of fluoride from the water against the wishes of the majority of the people and against the recommendations of countless scientists, health providers and regulatory bodies,” said Veighey. “The Canadian Dental Association said, ‘the appropriate use of fluorides in prevention of dental decay is one of the most successful preventative health measures in the history of health care.’”

http://www.parrysound.com/news-story/5914593-fluoride-debate-continues/

Vote for fluoride yes or no, but VOTE

COF-COF News FindBy: Chris Eakin, Fairview Post, Fairview, Alberta 16-Sep-2015 – The town of Fairview is holding a plebiscite on Oct. 5 on the question of whether to discontinue the addition of fluoride to the town drinking water or not.

This is an important question and I personally believe the right thing to do is continue fluoridation of the water.

I grew up in a community without fluoride in the water and probably wasn’t as careful as I should have been about brushing my teeth.

Result: a mouth full of teeth with fillings – minus a few that had to be pulled for various reasons.

Fairview has been putting fluoride in the water for long enough that any ill-effects would have shown up by now and there have been none.

Fluoride is added to the water in amounts which are careful measured and monitored by the government, because in excess, it can cause some health problems including fluorosis in the teeth.

But, the town employees follow the regulations and if in doubt, leave it out until they can verify the level.

As I said, I believe continuing fluoridation is the right thing to do and encourage anyone who agrees with me to vote against the town plebiscite.

However, if you believe otherwise, it is your duty to vote according to your beliefs if at all possible.

As the plebiscite does not allow for advance polling, if you are going to be out of town or otherwise occupied, you won’t be able to vote, which is unfortunate.

If you can’t vote but know other people who will be able to, please encourage them as much as possible to vote according to their beliefs.

It would be sad if the plebiscite was to be decided by a minority of the town population.

Also, the stronger the majority is in the vote, the more likely town council is to stick with the decision for a longer period of time.

For myself, I would prefer that a resounding majority of people come out to vote to keep fluoridation but I realize it could also go the other way.

Either way, it will take a while for the effect, if any, to be felt.

If fluoridation is discontinued, children who are born this year will be the ones whose dental health reflects whether or not fluoridation is a good thing.

According to Alberta Health and my dentist, fluoridation has the most benefit for those whose teeth are still growing – in other words, children.

There is a minority of other people who believe fluoride is harmful for children, but in the past decades no evidence of harm to Fairview children has shown up that I am aware of.

However, if you have children you will have to make the call as to which way to vote yourself.

Just remember what the evidence is when you make that decision and what the source of that information is.

Be a responsible citizen, think about Fairview’s future citizens , get out and vote on this plebiscite.

http://www.fairviewpost.com/2015/09/16/vote-for-fluoride-yes-or-no-but-vote

Keeping fluoride comes with hefty price tag

COF-COF News FindBy: Stephannie Johnson, Parry Sound North Star, Parry Sound, Ontario 11-Sep-2015 – Now that the town has decided to keep fluoride in its water, it approved a $250,000 upgrade to safely store and distribute the chemical into the town’s water system.

In June, the town unanimously agreed to keep fluoride in its water following a lengthy deputation from North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit medical officer of health Dr. Jim Chirico.

At the same meeting, Peter Brown, the town’s director of public works, said the chemical poses potential hazards for town staff that dispense it in its raw form, and said the town needed to upgrade its storage and dispensing procedures.

“When the plant was built, it was standard procedures to place all chemicals in the same room – as long as they didn’t react to one another,” Brown said during the June 2 meeting. “If we continue to use this chemical, public works will have to plan for such a design in the very near future resulting in a significant cost to our ratepayers.”

According to Brown, Ministry of Environment inspectors were concerned about the location of fluoride in the water treatment building, but there was a significant price tag attached to relocating the chemical to a safer storage room.

“This chemical is highly dangerous to work with,” Brown said. “Staff have to wear personal protective equipment each time the chemical is decanted. It has been shown to etch glass and degrade paint on walls of the plant. It is not a safe chemical. I believe the town may be placing the staff at risk when they are exposed to it.”

At its September 1 meeting, council approved the necessary upgrades.

This summer, staff had ch2m Hill, the company that constructed the plant, conduct an extensive review of the existing fluoridation system and provide a proposal outlining the upgrades and modifications.

“The decision to continue fluoridation safely will be costly,” Brown wrote in his September 1 report to council. “The engineer has estimated the capital work to be in the range of $150,000. Engineering cost is estimated to be in the range of $50,000. Considering the amount of work required and timeframes, I would estimate the cost of the entire work to be closer to $250,000. And, to be quite frank, the Town of Parry Sound has no choice but to proceed with this plan.”

Brown estimates the work will take about five months to complete.

“The decision by council to continue to use the fluoride allowed me to proceed with the project to make fluoride safe at the workplace. Presently the system is antiquated as far as the use of it in the water plant. We have to bring it up to health and safety standards to make the chemical safe for the staff to use…in order to continue the use of fluoride safely for the staff, this is what I recommend,” said Brown.

Coun. Bonnie Keith asked if other municipalities who also use fluoride in their water have had to upgrade their systems.

“Approximately six or seven years ago the District of Muskoka had a similar project that involved the water plant on Highway 60 in Huntsville,” Brown said. “(They) had their fluoride system upgraded in a similar fashion at a similar cost. A lot of municipalities in the province are following in this path; they’re mandated to ensure the health and safety of the staff, as are we. This is the only real recourse since council has approved the use of fluoride in the water.”

“The only other option,” Mayor Jamie McGarvey said. “Would be if council changed its mind – which we have the right to do.”

Coun. Doug McCann said he could see both sides of the argument, but it was the cost he was having difficulty with.

“Where are we finding the $250,000? This is most controversial thing we’ve dealt with – in my term anyway – has been the maintaining of fluoride. I think there seems to be equal arguments on each side of the fence, but I’m having a hard time coming up with $250,000 to continue with this,” McCann said.

Coun. Paul Borneman said taking the safety of its workers into account, the cost was reasonable.

“We voted, I think, unanimously, when Dr. Chirico was here. I think that there were questions at the table before he arrived and there none when he left about the health benefits of the continuation of the fluoridation of the water here, so I would say that $250,000 to ensure public health so far as we can to protect our workers is a reasonable price to pay,” said Borneman. “It is odd to hear that something that is 15 years old or thereabouts described as antiquated and it does speak to the issues that we’re having with infrastructure, technology, and such in the municipal world.”

Brown told council the upgrades would last a minimum of a decade before more upgrades might be necessary.

All of council except Coun. McCann voted in favour of Brown’s report and recommendation.

At council’s next meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 15, the group Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management will be making a deputation opposing council’s decision to keep fluoride in the municipal water system.

http://www.parrysound.com/news-story/5838061-keeping-fluoride-comes-with-hefty-price-tag/

Anti-fluoridation voice heard from leading up to plebiscite

COF-COF News Find

By: Dr. James S. Beck (Letter to the Editor), FairviewPost.com, Fairview, Alberta 10-Sep-2015 – Safety of fluoridation is a more important issue. The chemicals used to fluoridate dissociate almost completely, releasing the fluoride ion in the treated water.

That fluoride combines in the stomach with hydrogen ions to form hydrofluoric acid (HF). HF crosses the walls of the stomach and intestines and enters the blood which distributes it to all the tissues of the body.

Fluoride makes many enzymes, the natural chemicals that govern the chemical reactions of all tissues, less effective.

Also fluoride effects cell walls in a way that disrupts the normal effects of hormones and other chemicals inside the cells.

Consequently we should expect to find negative effects on many different tissues and organs and we do find such effects.

It should be recognized that substantially numerous groups in the population of a city are particularly sensitive to the possible harms of fluoridation.

These groups include infants, diabetics, people with kidney disease, the elderly.

Besides effectiveness and safety, there is the ethical question. In medicine and in governance it is unethical to force on a person a drug without their informed consent.

James S. Beck, MD, PhD

Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics

University of Calgary

http://www.fairviewpost.com/2015/09/10/anti-fluoridation-voice-heard-from-leading-up-to-plebiscite

Disposing of fluoridation system to cost city

COF-COF News Find

By: Charelle Evelyn, Prince George Citizen, Prince George, British Columbia 10-Sep-2015 – Fluoride is gone but not forgotten.

On Monday night, city council will receive an update from engineering and public works general manager Dave Dyer about the status of the city’s now-defunct fluoride injection system.

The system was turned off following city council’s vote on Dec. 15 to abide by the results of the Nov. 15 referendum where nearly 54 per cent of voters expressed opposition to the continued addition of fluoride to the city’s drinking water.

“Residual fluoride in the city’s distribution system was monitored by sampling the drinking water and by Dec. 22, 2014, the results from the last samples were at a level of naturally occurring fluoride in Prince George’s groundwater,” said Dyer’s report.

By the beginning of March, the injection equipment was removed from the four water pump stations.

However the material itself, 9,300 litres of fluorosilicic acid, remains in holding tanks at the pump stations.

Fluorosilicic acid is toxic when stored in bulk concentrations and needs to be removed and neutralized by a specialized professional.

It will cost an estimated $140,000 to remove the acid from the tanks and once the product is removed and disposed of, it will cost another estimated $60,000 to remove the holding tanks, which need to be physically cut out.

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/disposing-of-fluoridation-system-to-cost-city-1.2055877