April 22, 2019

Motion to reconsider Calgary fluoride decision rejected by council

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: CBC News, Calgary, Alberta 14-Sep-2016 – Calgary city council voted against a motion Tuesday night to revisit whether fluoride should be added to the drinking water, then on Wednesday asked Mayor Naheed Nenshi to write to the provincial health authority asking it to explore the issue.

Couns. Peter Demong, Diane Colley-Urquhart and Richard Pootmans put forward Tuesday’s motion, suggesting the city invite experts from the University of Calgary’s O’Brien Institute for Public Health to offer advice on the matter.

Council rejected the idea by a vote of nine to five.

When the meeting resumed Wednesday, Coun. Druh Farrell put forward a motion directing Nenshi to write to Alberta Health Services, asking it to explore root causes of increased tooth decay in Alberta, including equitable access to dental care programs and services, especially for low-income families.

Nenshi was skeptical of what effect the letter will produce.

“This letter ain’t gonna amount to a hill of beans … but I’ll write it,” he told council.

A study published earlier this year by Lindsay McLaren, with the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine, found higher rates of tooth decay among Calgary kids compared to Edmonton since Calgary stopped fluoridating its water in 2011.

Dr. William Ghali, scientific director at the O’Brien Institute for Public Health, listened to the council discussion and said it appeared councillors would like to have more information on fluoride but simply saw too much political risk in formally requesting a study from his group.

‘Political hot potato’

He said even asking for the information could make it look like they were reopening the “very divisive issue” of fluoridation, just as they enter an election year.

“I think it was, in the end, just a political hot potato,” Ghali said.

“Even though there was no cost, I think the political sensitivity around signalling to the citizens of the city that they’re revisiting the question was too tricky to them.”

Ward 7 Coun. Druh Farrell, who voted against the motion, told the Calgary Eyeopener  she believes focusing solely on whether to add fluoride to the water misses the point.

“The problem is so much bigger than fluoride,” she said.

Farrell said the fact that Edmonton — where fluoride is still added to the water — also has high rates of tooth decay demonstrates that the problem is complex.

The onus should be on Alberta Health, not municipalities, to make dental care more accessible for low-income children and to promote healthier eating habits, she said.

“We’re focusing on this one solution that obviously isn’t working the way it should.”

Calgary family physician Dr. David Keegan said he’s disappointed in council’s decision.

“We’ve got a limited pool of public money and we have to make decisions. So those decisions that we should make, should be ones that are evidence-based and at the lowest cost for the value. Fluoride is one of them.”

A study published earlier this year by the University of Calgary, found higher rates of tooth decay among Calgary kids compared to Edmonton since Calgary stopped fluoridating its water in 2011.

Asked about the issue on Wednesday, Health Minister Sarah Hoffman said the province has research findings available regarding the safety of water fluoridation. She said ultimately it’s a jurisdictional responsibility of municipalities to determine whether to add fluoride to tap water.


Tooth decay up in Calgary kids after fluoride removed from drinking water: study

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: Anna Maria Tremonti, CBC Radio – The Current, Calgary, Alberta 14-Sep-2016 – A study from earlier this year suggests the problem with tooth decay is much worse for Calgary kids than for their counterparts in Edmonton, which fluoridates its water.

Calgary stopped adding fluoride to its drinking water in 2011, joining the ranks of many other Canadian cities — including Vancouver, Victoria, Waterloo and Montreal — that don’t fluoridate.

Dental hygienist Denise Kokaram leads the Alex Dental Health Bus program in Calgary. She tells The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti that since fluoride was removed in 2011, tooth decay has increased in thier clients — often vulnerable citizens, working poor and disadvantaged families.

“Typically we will see about a 50 per cent decay rate within this population and that decay rate, although it stayed at about 50 per cent, the degree of disease has increased,” says Kokaram.

Access to dental care, education and proper nutrition also play a role in this increase,  Kokaram says.

On Tuesday night, Calgary city council voted against any move to re-open the fluoridation debate.

Jim Stevenson was one of 10 councillors who voted to get rid of fluoride in 2011 and tells Tremonti why he voted to leave everything as is in the most recent vote on the fluoride debate.

“During the entire length of the study that they did, both Calgary and Edmonton have had increased cavity rates during that period of time. Edmonton has never stopped fluoridation but they still have a higher rate of both baby teeth and permanent teeth decay,” says Stevenson.

Stevenson has this issue with the study: it started six years before Calgary discontinued fluoride and two years after.

“We don’t know whether or not the increase, the trajectory is exactly the same after the fluoride was taken out as before. We’re not sure of that.”

“Research shows that fluoride is beneficial on the outside of the teeth.. There’s nothing that says that fluoride is beneficial for someone to ingest it,” says Stevenson.

In The Current’s interview, Tremonti points out that Tuesday’s motion was not to bring fluoride back but to engage researchers behind the study to get more information.

“There’s other things that can be done like better access to care and education and… there should be provincial government support, not city support,” says Stevenson.


Investigation finds closed door Peel council fluoride meeting violated Municipal Act

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: Roger Belgrave, Mississauga News, Brampton, Ontario 18-August-2016 – Politicians violated Municipal Act rules when they closed the doors to the public last January to discuss the pros and cons of water fluoridation.

That’s the conclusion of an investigation held into the special meeting.

However, there is no penalty for the legislative breach in transparency.

Brampton resident Christine Massey, who has been among those protesting water fluoridation in Peel, wanted to know why the public was barred from the Jan. 21 meeting.

As is the public’s right, she requested a Closed Session Investigation under the Municipal Act.

Peel Region appointed Local Authority Services to conduct the investigation.

Local Authority Services contracted Amberley Gavel Ltd., a London Ontario-based company formed in 2007 to assist municipalities with closed meeting investigations, to look into the matter.

Last month, Amberley Gavel investigator Nigel Bellchamber ruled Peel regional council “breached the open meetings requirement of the Municipal Act” when the meeting was moved in-camera.

Under the Act, educational or training sessions may be closed to the public as long as council members do not discuss or deal with any matter “in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making” of council.

Bellchamber said presentations, questions and answers at the meeting “strayed away” from being an education session and into dealing with material that could be the subject of future municipal decisions.

Despite the ruling, the public still can’t get access to minutes of the meeting and there was no penalty recommended for breaching the act.

“The finding does not make the meeting public,” said regional clerk Kathryn Lockyer, who added the ruling would be used to help determine how closed sessions would be conducted in the future.

The meeting last January was organized to ostensibly “educate” regional councillors about the benefits and concerns around water fluoridation.

The education session was well publicized in advance – even providing the community with an agenda detailing the time, location and list of delegates scheduled to appear.

However, council members voted to conduct the proceedings behind closed doors.

Experts on both sides of an ongoing debate on the health benefits and risks linked to municipal water fluoridation were brought in to speak to council members.

A week after that education session, councillors convened for their regular meeting and agreed to form an ad hoc committee to take a deeper look at the longstanding practice of adding fluoride to Peel’s drinking water and establish a regional position on the issue.

The public’s exclusion from the session angered some residents.

Those in the community advocating for an end to water fluoridation were particularly upset.

Many in the anti-fluoride lobby believe municipal staff involved in the current review process is pro-fluoride and trying to muffle contrary comments and research.

The Municipal Act requires the report be made public, so it has been posted on the region’s website. The investigator also recommended it be included in an upcoming council meeting agenda.


Is putting fluoride in our water rational?

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: Dr. James Winter, Windsor Independent, Windsor, Ontario 17-Jun-2016 – The Ontario government may soon require municipalities to fluoridate water — a contentious move that would reverse a direction Windsor took three years ago.

This would move decision-making away from local voters, and overturn many recent municipal government decisions to keep fluoride out of the water.

What happens if one examines this issue, not with the eyes of someone with an undergraduate degree in medicine (MD), or as a dentist who profits from applying topical fluoride treatments, but as someone trained as a social scientist, to conduct, evaluate, and teach research, with a research doctorate?

Since 2010, more than 150 North American communities have rejected water fluoridation, as many western European countries did much earlier.

Earlier this month, the city of Wakefield, England, banned fluoride. Last month it was Cornwall, Ontario.

Mainstream media and the usual powers-that-be, such as Health Departments, continue to tell us that fluoride prevents cavities and is safe to use.

They’re so committed to this idea that they’ve been medicating us with fluoride for decades, by adding it to our drinking and bathing water without our permission.

As a social scientist, it’s unclear to me what their motivations are, given the research that exists, which I have carefully examined.

Below, I will review some recent studies into the effects of fluoridation. What is very clear is that numerous studies document the serious, harmful effects of fluoride, for anyone with an open mind to see and weigh for themselves. Not all studies indicate harmful effects, but this is the way of scientific research. We base our recommendations upon the bulk of evidence.

What politicians need to know is that fluoride harms people, and as such, it is foolish and dangerous to add it to our drinking and bathing water. If people want to use fluoride, they can of their own volition use almost any toothpaste and apply it directly to their own teeth.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has ranked fluoridation as one of the top 10 health achievements of the 20th century, and numerous very early studies indicated that fluoridation prevents tooth decay. The National Cancer Institute states on its Web site: “Many studies, in both humans and animals, have shown no association between fluoridated water and risk for cancer.”

Earlier this year the Toronto Star reported that: “There is little scientific evidence that fluoridation poses a risk to people’s health.”

The Windsor Star suggested that those opposed to fluoridation are a bunch of grassroots militants without credentials. The Calgary Herald said those opposed to fluoride are “a persistent rabble of internet-educated health ‘experts.’” Ontario Liberal MPP Bob Delaney writes on his webpage, “There is a vocal group of nutheads and fanatics that use junk science, myth, paranoia and downright misinformation to suggest that fluoride is harmful.”

I guess that one of these “nutheads” is the Nobel Prize winner in medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, who noted in an interview in 2005, that “…fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete. I don’t think anybody in Sweden, not a single dentist, would bring up this question anymore.”

Despite the corporate media perspectives, the World Health Organization has warned that “….excessive exposure to fluoride in drinking-water, or in combination with exposure to fluoride from other sources, can give rise to a number of adverse effects. These range from mild dental fluorosis to crippling skeletal fluorosis as the level and period of exposure increases.”

We first have to realize that the so-called “fluoride” added to our water is actually hexafluorosilicic acid, or silicofluorides, a toxic waste by-product collected from the smokestack scrubbers of the phosphate fertiliser industry. It is NOT naturally-occurring fluoride.

As Dr. Hardy Limeback, whom I’ll discuss below, says, “I find it absurd that industrial toxic waste is shipped to the water treatment plants in large tanker trucks and trickled into the drinking water of major cities in North America…. if a major spill should occur…. people’s lives would be at stake.”

Now, if the authorities were medicating us with a neutral or harmless product, that would be one thing. But as mentioned, even in small amounts, fluorosilicic acid is toxic. How do we—the so-called “nutheads”—know this? Because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air and Radiation classifies it as severely carcinogenic and hazardous, and as a cause of fluoride poisoning. It’s classified as hazardous waste.

In the last few decades, at least 23 studies have established statistically significant links between fluoride exposure and lower IQs in children. A study conducted by the Center for Endemic Disease Control in China found that each additional milligram of fluoride detected in every litre of a child’s urine was associated with a 0.59 point decrease in their IQ score. Another study found that fluoride exposure slashed the number of children achieving “high IQs” by more than 70 percent.

Harvard University researchers reviewed the literature in what’s called a “meta-analysis,” or an overview of the research, in 2012. Working with Chinese counterparts, Drs. Anna Choi and Phillipe Grandjean found strong indications that fluoride adversely affects cognitive development in children. The authors looked at 24 studies, and only one of these failed to find an adverse effect of fluoride.

The average loss in measured intelligence was reported as seven IQ points. Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas.

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Dr. Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

The authors published a follow-up study two years later, in which they studied 51 Chinese school children. They again concluded that, “Elevated fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be neurotoxic.”

Two Indian scholars also studied the research on fluoride in 2012 and reported that:

“Fluoride is a neurotoxin and it makes a serious adverse impact on the developing brain. Impaired mental functions are observed among children in endemic fluorosis areas and in experimental animals with fluoride-induced neurotoxicity.”

Despite these studies and more, in January, 2012, Windsor’s then-Medical Officer of Health MD Allen Heimann said, “there is no credible evidence that adding fluoride to drinking water is harmful or contributes to the concentration of fluoride in the waterways.”

It’s unclear what Dr. Heimann thinks happens to the added fluoride. Does it just vanish? It would behoove Dr. Heimann, or his successor MD Gary Kirk, to investigate this matter. Apparently, Heimann is also unaware of The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) report on fluoride, which in 2006 reviewed all of the published literature, and lists hundreds of references, encompassing 56 pages of scientific references.

The NRC documented numerous negative effects of fluoride on many organ systems including increased potential risk for bone fractures (the well-characterized disease of skeletal fluorosis) possible increased risk of osteosarcoma, or bone cancer, reduced IQ, thyroid dysfunction, endocrine dysfunction and more.

The NRC says exposure at 4 mg/L “clearly puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis,” which causes structural damage to the teeth.

“…fluoride can weaken bones and increase the risk of fractures…” the NRC says.

The NRC also says, “The chief endocrine effects of fluoride exposures in experimental animals and in humans include decreased thyroid function, increased calcitonin activity, increased parathyroid hormone activity, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, and possible effects on timing of sexual maturity.”

In his published review of the lengthy NRC study, Dr. Robert Cartona noted:

“…the following are all adverse health effects: moderate dental fluorosis, stage I skeletal fluorosis (arthritis with joint pain and stiffness), decreased thyroid function, and detrimental effects on the brain, especially in conjunction with aluminum. The amount of fluoride necessary to cause these effects to susceptible members of the population is at or below the dose received from current levels of fluoride recommended for water fluoridation. The recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water should be zero.”

In 2001, Dr. Elise Bassin published a Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard University that concluded: “Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma (bone cancer).” These findings appear to have been suppressed. Her study was finally published in 2006.

Has this drug called ‘fluoride’ ever received Health Canada approval as a drug? Have the individual members of the population been individually assessed for their need for such a drug? Have medication doses and drug interactions been considered? Has anyone even written a prescription for this drug?

Former American Medical Association President Charles Gordon Heyd is a leading anti-fluoridation voice. “I’m appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs,” he says. “Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long term basis.”

Want a Canadian expert? I would suggest Dr. Hardy Limeback, a professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto. Dr. Limeback also holds a Ph.D. He wrote to the City of Windsor, Ontario, in 2012, when Windsor was considering removing fluoride from its water, which it subsequently did.

Dr. Limeback served for 3 ½ years on the U.S. National Academies of Science Subcommittee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. The NAS sets up unbiased or balanced committees to review scientific issues of concern to Americans. His committee looked at the health effects of fluoride in drinking water. As a result of the report by Dr. Limeback’s committee, the U.S. EPA lowered its recommendation for levels of fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L (ppm) from 1.4 mg/L.

The American Dental Association and the Center for Disease Control in the U.S. both agree that fluoridated tap water should not be used to make up infant formula, as that increases the risk of dental fluorosis. “To me, dental fluorosis is a biomarker for fluoride poisoning,” Dr. Limeback says.

Dr. Limeback has personally conducted studies looking at fluoride’s impact for years. In one 2010 study, he compared the hip bones of residents of Toronto, which has added fluoride to its water since 1963, to residents of Montreal, which has never added fluoride. Dr. Limeback says, “Studies like ours indicate that not only does extra fluoride in the water cause defective enamel (that is VERY expensive to treat) but also defective bones.”

Dr. Limeback concludes that, “Fluoride has NOT been shown to be safe and effective. In fact…it has become clear to me that the pendulum is certainly shifting to ‘Not safe, and no longer effective.’”

Dr. Limeback rejects fluoridation of water supplies for four reasons. First, fluoridation is no longer effective, as research studies show no difference in cavities between communities with and without fluoridation. Second, fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis, which is a biomarker for fluoride poisoning. Third, the chemicals used in fluoridation haven’t been tested for safety. For example, most cities use hexafluorosilicic acid, a toxin. Finally, there are serious health risks from fluoridation, including: bone cancer; bone fracture; detrimental effects on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid; and adverse neurological effects such as lowered IQ.

Do you have thyroid troubles? One in every eight U.S. women do, and 23 million Americans in total. And in 2015 a British medical journal article reported that people in fluoridated communities are nearly twice as likely to have hypothyroidism.

The deciding factor in this fluoride debate may turn out to be class action lawsuits against municipal governments for the damages caused by fluoride, and the unauthorized dispensation of drugs. Lawsuits are currently underway in Clallam County, Washington, Gallatin, Tennessee, and the Southern District of California. In 2014, the city of Prince George, B.C. was sued. Another U.S. federal court case has been filed against Nestle U.S.A. and Gerber Product Company for selling fluoridated bottled water and allegedly causing fluorosis.

Natural News has an animated film called The Fluoride Deception at this link: http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=42652E035A1B1BAAAE1F340B54694975

According to Natural News, roughly 99 percent of the municipal water pumped through any given city never ends up in the mouths of the people. Most water is used for showering, washing dishes, washing clothes, watering yards and filling pools. Almost none of the fluoride dripped into the water supply comes into contact with human teeth.

It does, however, end up downstream, says Natural News, where it contaminates rivers, streams and ultimately the oceans of our world. In this way, water fluoridation policies have become a convenient loophole through which the phosphate mining industry can dump its toxic waste by-products into the environment without adhering to any EPA regulations whatsoever. Phosphate mining companies even turn a profit by selling their hazardous waste to cities, then labeling it “fluoride” even though this name is scientifically inaccurate.

It is apparent even from this small sample of the evidence I’ve studied that it is foolhardy and irresponsible to add hexafluorosilicic acid to the water we drink.


Dr. James Winter is a professor at the University of Windsor, who has taught research methods to graduate students, and has published many scholarly articles and books.


There are low levels of lead and arsenic in water, Peel fluoride committee told

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: Roger Belgrave, Brampton Guardian, Brampton, Ontario 10-June-2016 – Trace amounts of lead and arsenic have been detected in Peel’s drinking water, raising concerns for those opposed to fluoride.

Acting Director of Peel’s Water Division Jeff Hennings told members of a committee reviewing fluoride that the type of fluoride currently used in treating the region’s drinking water meets regulatory standards and is managed in the same fashion as the chlorine added to water.

Hennings told the Community Water Fluoridation Committee Thursday morning that the fluoride is approved and regulated by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).

The fervent anti-fluoride lobby that is watching committee proceedings with a critical eye and have questioned the objectivity to regional staff on this issue, raised questions about the type of fluoride being pumped into the region’s drinking water system.

Peel is currently using hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) produced from Phosphorite Rock.

Critics of the longstanding practice of water fluoridation have warned HFSA is a highly toxic form of fluoride, produced as a waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process.

According to Hennings, this HFSA is the most common fluoride additive in North America.

Backed by Medical Officer of Health Dr. Eileen de Villa, Hennings added that levels of lead and arsenic in treated drinking water “would be below the detection limit.”

Brampton Coun. John Sprovieri, who is among those opposed to the use of fluoride, challenged assertions that low chemical detection levels are an assurance the levels consumed by residents pose no health risks.

“It’s clear that they don’t test for safety of the product, but only the amount,” pointed out Sprovieri, who added Health Canada lists fluoride as a dangerous substance.

Discussion also revealed that even without fluoride in the system, there would still be trace amounts of heavy metals in the Region’s drinking water.

Distilled water would be the only option that is 100 per cent pure, Hennings suggested.

He added, producing distilled water would cost a “fortune.”

Currently, the HFSA being used costs the Region $321,000 a year and $130,000 in operating and maintenance costs.

HFSA produced from Calcium Fluoride would cost about $43,000 more a year to purchase.

Figures provided by Hennings indicated using Sodium Fluorosilicate or Sodium Fluoride would cost just $200,000 a year, but require $250,000 a year in operating and maintenance costs and another $2 million in retrofits to water treatment facilities.

As for the possibility of using pharmaceutical grade fluoride, Hennings noted that it is not subject to NSF 60 (National Sanitation Foundation) certification or approved for use by the government.

Article updated June 10 at 1:13 p.m. to reflect Coun. Sprovieri believes measuring  chemical levels is not the same as measuring safety.


La question manquante

Trouvailles Médiatiques 300 x 300Par: Martin Francoeur, Le Nouvelliste, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Publié le 03 juin 2016 (Mis à jour le 03 juin 2016) – On entend beaucoup parler, depuis jeudi, des résultats d’un sondage sur la santé buccodentaire réalisé pour le compte du CIUSSS de la Mauricie-Centre-du-Québec. On y parle beaucoup de l’utilisation du fluor et de la fluoration de l’eau potable. Mais il y a une question qui manque à ce sondage.

Il aurait été intéressant qu’on demande aux quelque 1800 répondants – dont 900 de Trois-Rivières – s’ils souhaitaient ou non que du fluor soit ajouté à l’eau potable de leur ville.

Ça ne peut pas être plus clair comme question. Dans le sondage réalisé par la firme SOM, on ne fait que surfer sur la question de la fluoration de l’eau potable. On n’évalue que les perceptions, sans aller à la question directement.

Le sondage révèle que même si elle est vue positivement par une majorité de répondants, la fluoration de l’eau potable est loin de faire l’unanimité. À Trois-Rivières, 44 % de la population sondée considère qu’il y a un risque d’ajouter du fluor à l’eau destinée à la consommation. C’est considérable.

Une des données les plus intéressantes du sondage – qui est presque passée inaperçue – est celle qui concerne la responsabilité en matière de santé buccodentaire. Pas moins de 85 % des répondants estiment qu’ils sont les uniques responsables de leur santé buccodentaire. Cette perception de responsabilité individuelle devrait à elle seule exclure toute intervention municipale visant à ajouter du fluor à l’eau potable.

Il n’est pas étonnant que la Direction de la Santé publique, en prenant connaissance du sondage et en rendant publics les résultats, ait fait le constat qu’il restait beaucoup de travail à faire pour convaincre l’ensemble de la population, ou du moins une majorité significative, que la réintroduction de la fluoration de l’eau potable serait une bonne chose.

Mais où se trouve la limite entre la persévérance et l’acharnement?

Parce que c’est à ça que le débat commence à ressembler. À de l’acharnement. De part et d’autre. La Santé publique veut à tout prix faire la démonstration que c’est bon, alors que les opposants multiplient les interventions au conseil municipal, les lettres d’opinion, l’appel aux signatures pour leur pétition. De part et d’autre, l’émotion l’emporte parfois sur la raison, si bien qu’il ne semble plus y avoir quoi que ce soit de positif ou de constructif à tirer de ce débat.

À ce propos, la proposition du conseiller municipal de Pointe-du-Lac, François Bélisle, est peut-être la chose la plus sensée qu’on a entendue depuis un bon bout de temps dans ce débat. Il souhaite que soit décrété un moratoire sur les travaux en cours pour la reprise de la fluoration, mise en veilleuse depuis quatre ans déjà, ne l’oublions pas. Un moratoire qui serait valable jusqu’à ce que la population elle-même soit consultée en bonne et due forme, par le biais d’un référendum qui pourrait se tenir en même temps que la prochaine élection municipale, en novembre 2017. Cela permettrait de poser à tous les Trifluviens la question qui n’a pas été posée dans le sondage.

Et cela semble aussi être la seule façon de clore le débat et d’empêcher du même coup que la décision d’ajouter un produit à l’eau produite par la Ville revienne à une poignée d’élus qui n’ont ni les compétences, ni l’intérêt pour le faire.

Si la fluoration est si bonne que le prétendent les dentistes et la Santé publique, il y a longtemps que Québec aurait dû la rendre obligatoire à l’ensemble des municipalités. Là, on a plutôt l’impression que les autorités gouvernementales mènent un combat pour éviter d’échapper Trois-Rivières, un des derniers retranchements de la fluoration à grande échelle.

Cela fait quatre ans que l’eau n’est plus fluorée à Trois-Rivières.

On doit bien être capable d’attendre encore dix-sept mois.


Fluoration: le débat pour un référendum est relancé

Trouvailles Médiatiques 300 x 300Par: Paule Vermot-Desroches, Le Nouvelliste, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Publié le 03 juin 2016  – Le débat sur la fluoration de l’eau potable à Trois-Rivières pourrait bien être relancé au conseil municipal. C’est du moins le souhait du conseiller de Pointe-du-Lac, François Bélisle qui, devant les résultats du sondage rendu public par la Direction de santé publique jeudi, souhaite maintenant que l’on décrète un moratoire sur les travaux visant à fluorer l’eau potable, jusqu’à ce qu’un référendum se tienne sur la question, soit à l’occasion de l’élection municipale de novembre 2017.

«La DSP plaide qu’elle a (encore) besoin de temps pour réussir à convaincre les gens de notre ville de leurs mauvaises perceptions concernant la fluoration de notre eau potable? Selon moi, les gens de la DSP font preuve d’une certaine pointe d’arrogance et de mépris envers l’intelligence de notre population», a indiqué le conseiller sur sa page Facebook. En entrevue, il ajoute vouloir une fois pour toute trancher la question et ce, à peu de frais.

«Le critère numéro un dans les décisions qui se prennent de nos jours, c’est l’acceptabilité sociale. On a un sondage qui nous dit que c’est très divisé. On a aussi une pétition de près de 18 000 noms de personnes qui n’en veulent pas. Ce n’est pas une question de victoire ou de défaite d’un camp par rapport à un autre, c’est uniquement de se dire qu’enfin, on en aurait le coeur net», croit le conseiller.

Selon lui, il est impensable de constater que des villes comme Montréal, Sherbrooke, Québec et Saguenay aient tourné le dos à la fluoration, mais que Trois-Rivières doive absolument poursuivre dans cette voie. Un avis que partage son collègue du district des Estacades, Pierre-Luc Fortin. «Il n’y a qu’une poignée de municipalités qui fluorent leur eau potable. De ce nombre, plusieurs ont décidé d’abolir cette mesure depuis les dernières années. Et ce sont nous qui avons mal compris le message de la Santé publique? Si on fait le constat que les gens n’y adhèrent pas, on aura notre réponse», croit M. Fortin.

François Bélisle compte désormais présenter une résolution au conseil municipal, au cours des prochaines rencontres, afin de demander à ses collègues de l’appuyer dans sa demande d’obtenir un moratoire et un référendum sur la question. Une démarche qui a d’ailleurs l’appui de certains conseillers consultés par Le Nouvelliste, dont Pierre-Luc Fortin, Marie-Claude Camirand, Luc Tremblay ainsi que Jean-François Aubin, malgré que ce dernier avait voté en faveur de la fluoration en février 2014. Bien qu’en faveur d’un moratoire et d’une consultation populaire, sa position sur le fluor n’a pas vraiment changé. «Je garde ma position, car les experts et la preuve scientifique vont dans le sens favorable à la fluoration. Par contre, quand j’ai voté, je n’avais pas mesuré à quel point nous n’avions pas l’acceptabilité sociale dans ce dossier. Même si je suis en faveur de la mesure, je ne crois pas qu’on doive forcer les gens à tout prix à y adhérer. Devant une si grande division, je dis qu’il faut aller demander à la population», signale Jean-François Aubin.

Une option que rejette catégoriquement le maire Yves Lévesque. «C’est fini! La démocratie a parlé et deux fois plutôt qu’une. Et le résultat du sondage, c’est que 56 % des répondants ne craignent pas l’ajout de fluor, et que 93 % des gens ont confiance aux ordres professionnels qui eux, recommandent la fluoration. On a pris une décision intelligente et réfléchie, basée sur des faits et des données scientifiques, et non pas en fonction d’un groupe de pression. Arrêtons de jouer au yo-yo et de brasser les cartes. Si la fluoration est un acte criminel, comme certains veulent le laisser entendre, appelez la police et allez faire arrêter tous les ordres professionnels ainsi que la Santé publique», clame Yves Lévesque, visiblement agacé que le dossier revienne à nouveau dans l’actualité.

Parmi les conseillers municipaux consultés vendredi, René Goyette, Pierre-A. Dupont ainsi que Jeannot Lemieux ont indiqué eux aussi trouver que l’idée d’un moratoire et d’une consultation populaire était inutile. «S’il fallait qu’on aille en consultation populaire à chaque fois que quelque chose ne fait pas l’unanimité, ça ne finirait plus. Les spécialistes nous le recommandent, et tant qu’on ne m’aura pas prouvé le contraire, je ne changerai pas d’idée», lance Pierre-A. Dupont.

Le Nouvelliste a tenté de joindre l’ensemble du conseil municipal pour connaître l’opinion de chacun, mais plusieurs conseillers municipaux n’ont pas retourné nos appels.

Un manque de transparence de la Santé publique, plaide la CTETS

La Coalition trifluvienne pour une eau très saine (CTETS) a évidemment appuyé le moratoire suggéré par le conseiller municipal François Bélisle. Du même coup, l’organisme déplore ce qu’il qualifie de manque de transparence de la part de la Santé publique, dans la divulgation des résultats du sondage.

La CTETS soutient que, contrairement à ce qu’a affirmé la directrice de la Santé publique, le produit ajouté à l’eau pour la fluorer n’était pas homologué par Santé Canada. «Jamais la direction de la santé publique ne nous a fourni une réponse sur la nature réelle et légale d’un tel produit, malgré toutes nos demandes. Dans son dépliant, l’Ordre des dentistes de l’Ontario mentionne bien que le fluorure ajouté à l’eau n’est pas de qualité pharmaceutique. Or, à Trois-Rivières, on ne mentionne aucunement cette information», a affirmé Nicole Renaud, naturopathe et membre de la Coalition.




Santé Canada fait la promotion d’un produit illégal

Trouvailles Médiatiques 300 x 300Par: Stéphane Lessard, Le Nouvelliste, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Publié le 03 juin 2016 (Mis à jour le 03 juin 2016)  – Dans Le Nouvelliste du 8 avril dernier, le porte-parole de la Ville de Trois-Rivières, Yvan Toutant, indiquait que la Santé publique québécoise aurait demandé à Santé Canada de clarifier la question des risques de corrosion des vieux tuyaux de plomb ou ceux soudés avec du plomb par l’eau fluorée. Il affirmait toutefois que la Ville de Trois-Rivières n’était pas engagée dans cette demande.

La Ville souhaite obtenir des précisions de Santé Canada pour décider la poursuite ou non des travaux de mise à niveau des installations de fluoration de l’eau potable des quelques 135 000 Trifluviens.

Qu’advient-il de cette demande? Va-t-on avoir l’heure juste? Et si oui, quand?

Nous pouvons déjà affirmer que Santé Canada fait activement la promotion de la fluoration avec les provinces, mais refuse d’en prendre quelque responsabilité que ce soit pour la fluoration de l’eau potable. Santé Canada est responsable de l’homologation des suppléments, des dentifrices, des rince-bouches, des gels, des soies dentaires, des amalgames contenant des fluorures, il est même responsable du fluorure de sodium ajouté à l’eau embouteillée (qui doit être de qualité pharmaceutique). Toutefois, il n’est pas responsable – même s’il en fait la promotion – des fluorures ajoutés à l’eau potable, car il considère ces fluorures (acide hexafluosilicique, fluosilicate de sodium et fluorure de sodium industriel) comme des produits chimiques de traitement de l’eau.

Or, les produits de traitement de l’eau sont de juridiction provinciale (l’eau potable est de juridiction provinciale et est sous la gouverne du ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques).

Sauf que l’ajout des fluorures dans l’eau potable dépend de la Loi sur la santé publique et ils ne sont pas ajoutés dans le but de traiter l’eau, mais comme affirmait le MDDELCC, «ils sont ajoutés pour une autre raison que de traiter l’eau».

Les fluorures ne sont donc pas sous la juridiction du MDDELCC. Ils sont sous la juridiction du MSSS. Mais même s’il en paie les services, il n’en est pas responsable. Ce sont les municipalités seules qui prennent la décision et ce sont elles qui en sont responsables.

Alors, il faut être très clair relativement au fluor. Quel fluorure faut-il faire préciser? La question revient donc à la fameuse nature légale des produits chimiques de fluoration ajoutés à l’eau potable.

Santé Canada n’a rien à faire avec les produits chimiques de fluoration sauf qu’il préconise leur utilisation pour prévenir la carie dentaire, ce qui revient à dire qu’il préconise l’utilisation illégale de produits non homologués, impropres à la consommation humaine, pour un usage thérapeutique de prévention d’une maladie.

Les quelques fonctionnaires pro-fluoration du MSSS et des DSP régionales peuvent-ils contredire ces faits? Pourront-ils continuer dans la même veine que Santé Canada, c’est-à-dire poursuivre la recommandation aux villes de fluorer leur eau potable avec des produits illégaux? Ou bien reconnaîtront-ils leur erreur et feront-ils amende honorable en proposant le remplacement du programme de fluoration par des mesures socialement plus acceptables pour l’amélioration de la santé bucco-dentaire des citoyens?

Les conseillers municipaux avaient-ils toutes ces informations quand ils ont voté pour la reprise de la fluoration? Il est encore temps de faire marche arrière et décréter l’arrêt immédiat des travaux de fluoration afin de ne pas intoxiquer les buveurs d’eau potable de Trois-Rivières.

Martine Chatelain

Jean-Yves McGee

Coalition Eau Secours!

Gilles Parent

Mireille Guay

Front commun pour une eau saine

Joan Hamel

Christiane Bernier

Philippe Giroul

Coalition trifluvienne pour une eau très saine


Charlottetown sticks with fluoride, while others won’t make the switch

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: CBC News, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island 02-Jun-2016 – Charlottetown has fluoridated its water for more than half a century and has no plans to halt the practice. The City of Charlottetown plans to continue its practice of fluoridating drinking water when the new Miltonvale well comes on stream later this year.

Eddie Rice, the city councillor who chairs the water and sewer commission, said Charlottetown has fluoridated its water for more than half a century and has no plans to halt the practice.

“The Canadian Dental Association advises fluoride and we’re going to keep on using it until we have something concrete,” said Rice.

“It will have to take, I would say, some very heavy duty information from the federal department of health and a number of other agencies before any decision would be made to even start discussing this with people.”

Tooth decay on the rise in Calgary

Earlier this year, a study by the University of Calgary concluded there was a jump in tooth decay among children after fluoride was removed from Calgary’s water supply in 2011.

Health Canada says on its website, “Many studies have shown that fluoridated drinking water is a safe, effective and cost effective public health measure which significantly reduces the number of cavities in children’s teeth.”

Health Canada says it’s up to municipalities and provinces to decide whether to fluoridate or not. If communities do add fluoride to their water, Health Canada has guidelines on the concentrations needed.

Summerside not convinced

Of the four municipal waters systems on the Island, Charlottetown is alone in adding fluoride to its water.

Stratford and Cornwall both say it’s not an issue that has been raised by the residents of their communities.

In Summerside, questions have been raised, but Greg Gaudet, director of municipal services with the city, said the debate over flouridation has not been settled.

“There have been a lot of studies done on fluoridation, some of them very good, that Health Canada recommends, as well as some others, technical review journals of possible potential harmful effects from over-fluoridation or the build up of fluoridation in certain children and adults at large,” said Gaudet.

“So, with the controversy on using the chemical, Summerside water utility decided not to add a chemical into the system that was still in a debate mode.”

Gaudet said fluoridation may not be necessary because of the dental services provided by the province, which cover fluoride cleaning and treatment for school children from three to 17 years of age.


No fluoride in city water

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: Greg Peerenboom, Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, Cornwall, Ontario 25-May-2016 – Updated version of story: Cornwall residents won’t be ingesting fluoride through their tap water.

After a drawn-out debate, a motion from Coun. Andre Rivette to “continue” fluoridation did not pass after a deadlocked, recorded 5-5 vote.

Rivette had the support of councillors Denis Carr, Bernadette Clement, Elaine MacDonald and Mark MacDonald.

Opposing the motion were councillors Claude McIntosh, Maurice Dupelle, David Murphy, Carilyne Hebert and, with the last vote, Mayor Leslie O’Shaughnessy.

Coun. Justin Towndale is on a leave of absence, but indications are he was leaning toward discontinuing fluoridation.

After clerk Helen Finn announced that a tie vote means the motion was defeated, about a dozen spectators in the gallery applauded.

“Hundreds have said they don’t want it,” O’Shaughnessy said before the vote.

On the other hand, he could “count on one hand” the number of residents he’s talked to who are in favour of adding fluoride to the water, which was taken out in 2013 as a result of equipment failure.

The mayor explained that “I’m not a scientist” so he could not make a scientific decision.

Others preceded the mayor, citing their lack of scientific training in medicine to make a decision based on information supplied by fluoride proponents and opponents.

In April, council heard from pro-fluoridation Eastern Ontario Health Unit medical officer of health Dr. Paul Roumeliotis and Chief Dental Officer of Canada Dr. Peter Cooney and anti-fluoridation’s Dr. Paul Connett.

Contacted Wednesday, Roumeliotis offered a brief statement of dismay.

“We are extremely disappointed that council did not listen to the scientific/evidence-based advice of health professionals that are mandated and committed to protecting and promoting the health and wellness of all Cornwall residents.”

Carr briefly expressed his belief that fluoridation should continue because the status quo wasn’t defeated, but the mayor explained the motion was to “continue” and that it did not require a two-thirds support.

It’s not clear whether the issue has finally been settled.

After the meeting, after he left the chambers, O’Shaughnessy told Rivette that he would consult a lawyer on the legality of the vote.

Rivette humbly admitted afterwards that he should have worded his motion to ask council to “discontinue” fluordiation, surmising that with a tie, the city would revert to the status quo of adding fluoride to the water.

Mark MacDonald also tried to introduce a new motion to present another option, but was denied by the mayor.

Contacted Wednesday, MacDonald said he wasn’t going to press forward, deferring to the mayor’s position of power, but felt the debate “wasn’t handled properly. As far I’m concerned it’s the mayor’s fault – it wasn’t handled properly.”

Rivette’s motion followed an attempt by Clement to hold a referendum that would allow Cornwall voters to cast ballots for or against fluoridation during the 2018 municipal election.

“I’ve never seen the public so engaged in an issue,” Clement said, of the interest expressed through calls to council or through the media.

The referendum motion only attracted two supporters, O’Shaughnessy and Elaine MacDonald.