February 26, 2017

News – Full View

Peel asks Ontario government to test toxicity of fluoride added to local drinking water

COF-COF Special News Find 300 x 300By: Roger Belgrave, Brampton Guardian, Region of Peel, Ontario 16-Feb-2017 – Peel is asking the provincial government to conduct toxicity tests on the additive used to fluoridate the region’s drinking water. Regional council wants the Ontario government to provide clear evidence the additive is safe for human consumption. After months of hearing scientific studies that have concluded water fluoridation has proven oral health benefits and contradictory arguments that the practice poses serious health risks, Peel councillors decided to drop the local controversy in the Ontario government’s lap. For a year now, councillors on Peel Region’s Community Water Fluoridation Committee have been re-examining the benefits and potential health risks associated with adding fluoride to the municipal drinking water system. The committee was established to form a recommendation for the regional position on continued use of water fluoridation in Peel. However, it appears council members are no closer to forming that position than they were a year ago. Committee Chair Carolyn Parrish admitted councillors have been “struggling” with the contradictory information presented on the benefits and dangers of fluoridation. “It’s not been an easy committee,” she confessed at recent council meeting, where council agreed to request the province take responsibility for testing and/or regulating the drinking water additive. Peel is currently using hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) produced from Phosphorite Rock. Critics of the water treatment have warned HFSA is a highly toxic form of fluoride, produced as a waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process. Regional health and water system officials have assured politicians the water based liquid additive used in Peel is NSF 60 (National Sanitation Foundation) certified, as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act, meets purity standards and complies with all Ministry of Environment and Climate Change regulations. A motion, presented by Brampton Coun. Michael Palleschi, asks Ontario to carry out comprehensive toxicity tests and/or assume legislative responsibility for regulating and administering HFSA in drinking water across the province. Brampton Coun. Martin Medeiros was the only council member present at the meeting to vote against the motion. Medeiros, who described the move as passing the buck, said he is comfortable with the advice received from regional staff on the issue and ready to make a decision on the future of fluoridation in Peel. “I was elected to make these types of decisions,” he said in an interview. Staff has consistently said HFSA meets health standards and there is scientific evidence to support the benefits of water fluoridation. “The vast majority of the scientific community does support (water fluoridation),” Peel Medical Officer of Health Eileen de Villa told councillors. She insisted opposition is coming from a small minority of the scientific community. “It’s not that there’s two equally sized factions,” she remarked. A loud antifluoridation lobby has countered any information presented in support of the practice. Brampton Coun. John Sprovieri, a vocal opponent of water fluoridation, said council members are not shirking their responsibility and will make a decision after the province responds to these requests. Peel had this same debate more than five years ago and decided to continue fluoridation. http://www.bramptonguardian.com/news-story/7142402-peel-asks-ontario-government-to-test-toxicity-of-fluoride-added-to-local-drinking-water/

Moncton city council extending fluoride decision deadline

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: Tori Weldon, CBC News, 07-Feb-2017 – Council is giving itself more time to decide if fluoride will return to the city's drinking water. Moncton Mayor Dawn Arnold has told a group of citizens council will take more than a month to decide if fluoride will go back into the city's drinking water. About 25 people rose to stand behind fluoridation opponent Jennifer Jones as she spoke at Monday's meeting. "Many of us watched last Monday's presentation [and] can't understand why you would only give yourselves a month to study this issue," Jones said. Jones, a mother and teacher in Moncton, asked council to take more time to consider the important decision, although her own mind has been made up. "Public water does not belong to dentists," she said. "Public water is not the way to administer a drug, especially a drug as controversial as fluoride." One week earlier, council held a special meeting to allow two groups to speak on the issue. Those who favour fluoride in water supplies say it is highly effective in reducing the number of cavities in children. Those who oppose it say it is dangerous and there isn't enough information about the long-term effects on people. Fluoride debate a 'hot potato,' says Moncton mayor Moncton to debate return of fluoride in drinking water Mayor Arnold and council decided before the meeting that the Feb. 27 deadline should be extended. "They were in agreement that we need a bit more time to make the decision and to have a proper mechanism in place so we can get the answers to some of our questions because as we dig through some of the research we're getting more and more questions," she said. Arnold said council will meet again to put a timeline in place. Five-year history In 2011, a group of citizens approached the city to remove fluoride from the water, citing health concerns and saying medicating water is a violation of rights. Moncton phasing fluoride out of water The city endured a contentious debate that year which ended with Moncton council voting 7–4 to remove fluoride from the water supply. At the time, Dieppe had voted to remove fluoride from the water supply, while Riverview voted to keep it. As the three communities all get their water from Moncton's Turtle Creek Resevoir, Moncton broke the deadlock between the communities. Dollars and cents In 2011, fluoridating the water cost an estimated 0,000 a year. Isabelle LeBlanc, Moncton's director of communications, said to bring it back would cost about ,000 a year in supplies plus maintenance, power and human resources, as well as a one-time cost of ,000 to update the facility. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fluoride-moncton-water-decision-1.3969828

Water Fluoridation Chemicals Now Officially Linked to Brain Harm & Cognitive Deficits

COF-COF Special News Find 300 x 300By: Alanna Ketler, The Event Chronicle, 14-Jan-2017 – A few weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was served with a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) petition, from a coalition of environmental, medical, and health groups, including national non-profit Moms Against Fluoridation (MAF). This notice is calling on the agency to completely ban the addition of artificial fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to an astounding amount of evidence that proves the risks that the consumption of such chemicals pose to the brain. The TSCA Petition includes over 2500 pages of scientific documents to support its claims that drinking water that has been fluoridated has the potential to cause profound harmful effects on the brain. These effects were not yet understood years ago when communities began adding fluoride and other chemicals to the municipal drinking water supply. Science is now a lot more sophisticated than it was at that time, and the proper laboratory tools and technologies are now available to more accurately examine the brain in greater detail. The petition reveals evidence of broad changes to the brain due to water fluoridation such as: IQ deficits, neuroanatomical and chemical effects, and the dire concerns of the effects on the developing fetal brain. “In times past when fluoridation was instituted, science only had the scalpel or basic X-ray technology, and we simply weren’t able to assess the brain in the way technology can today,” states MAF leadership. Because this petition was filed under the TSCA it authorizes the EPA with the ability to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an “unreasonable risk” to the general public or any sub-populations that are susceptible. This petition argues that the addition of artificial water fluoridation chemicals now absolutely constitutes an “unreasonable risk” to citizens. These risks have now been revealed by 196 new scientific studies that are included in the petition. Over A Decade Of Increasing Scientific Concern “…it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” “Not only do fluorides [adversely]affect transmitter concentrations and functions but also are involved in the regulation of glucagon, prostaglandins, and a number of central nervous system peptides including vasopressin… and other hypothalamic peptides.” “Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” Dozens more findings such as the ones listed above were published in the 507 page NRC report. If you’re wondering about the reported benefits that drinking fluoridated water has on our teeth, well those questions were addressed as well. Author of the petition, Michael Connet says, “It is now understood that fluoride’s predominant effect on tooth decay comes from topical contact with the teeth, not ingestion.” The Petition states: “Since there is little benefit in swallowing fluoride, there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity…” “It is important to note,” says a MAF representative, “that not only does it appear that drinking fluoride does nothing for the enamel, but not a single long-term fluoridation safety trial has ever been conducted on the fetus, the brain or the thyroid by our government. Not one.” It certainly appears as though the government has not done any safety trials on the effects of fluoride at all, but luckily there are many scientists around the world that are interested in fluoride and its toxic effects. The research has become so extensive that it can now be classified as in the same category as lead, mercury and PCBs as one of the “developmental neurotoxicants” according to the journal, Lancet Neurology. Physicians are also deeply concerned about adding this chemical to the drinking water, as Angela Hind, M.D. notes: “Right now we have 1 in 6 children in the U.S. with neuro-developmental brain disease, including ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorders, low IQ and behavioral disorders, and 1 in 8 women who will develop thyroid disease. These two epidemics tell us that chemicals like fluoride and lead, both developmental neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors, have no place in our public water.” Leading professionals in the field of dentistry are bothered as well. “As a practicing general dentist of 39 years, I was stunned when I saw the studies demonstrating the effects that drinking artificial fluoridation chemicals can have on the body—particularly, on the brain,” comments Dr. Bill Osmunson, D.D.S. of Bellevue, Washington. “This Petition is a watershed,” adds MAF. “Just as people once thought lead, DDT and asbestos were safe, there was a time, after much work and pushing by the people, when those erroneous assumptions shifted and the policies were forced to change. This is now that time for artificial fluoridation chemicals, as the science raises far too many concerns, and the EPA must act to protect the people.” Various organizations supporting this petition include Moms Against Fluoridation, The Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and many other individual co-petitioners. The Cat Is Finally Out Of The Bag Did you know that the majority of Europe has rejected water fluoridation? That alone should make you question- why? Someone once brought up an interesting point, they say fluoride is good for our teeth, so they add it in unregulated amounts to our drinking water. If they really cared that much for our health, wouldn’t they be adding essential vitamins and minerals as well? Do they really care about the health of our teeth. Something to consider. No longer can this crucial research go unnoticed and ignored. The evidence is there, how can they even reject this petition? It’s all there. Only time will tell how this situation is handled. The EPA has 90 days to respond. If you would like to view the petition you can do so here: http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Petition-To-United-States-Environmental-Protection-Agency-Regarding-Water-Fluoridation-22-Nov-2016.pdf Thank you so much for all of the hard work to all those diligent and dedicated people who were involved in putting this research together and presenting this petition. This is so important, and it would appear that there is nothing they can say now and water fluoridation will hopefully become a thing of the past, that we look back and say, “What were we thinking? How could we have ever thought that was a good idea to begin with?” http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/14/water-fluoridation-chemicals-now-officially-linked-to-brain-harm-cognitive-deficits/ http://momsagainstfluoridation.org http://cof-cof.ca/2015/10/our-daily-dose

Exit le fluor, bienvenue la santé dentaire ! / Exit fluoride, welcome dental health !

Boris 2016 CaricatureRéal Boisvert, Gazette de la Mauricie, 5 janvier 2017 – Maintenant que la fluoration de l’eau à Trois-Rivières est chose du passé, revenons à l’essentiel. Intéressons-nous à la santé dentaire de tous les enfants de la région. Et rappelons-nous en même temps que la carie dentaire est probablement l’un des problèmes de santé les plus faciles à traiter. Comme de fait, une très large proportion d’enfants de la région ne présente aucune carie. Sauf exception, il est vrai que ces enfants ont la chance d’appartenir à un milieu familial relativement aisé. En effet, la carie –et cette statistique n’a pas encore été démentie- évolue selon un profil épidémiologique voulant que 80 % des caries se retrouvent dans la bouche de 20 % des enfants les plus défavorisés, qui résident eux-mêmes dans les communautés locales les plus déshéritées de la Mauricie. La fluoration de l’eau avait donc pour seul objectif de prévenir la carie chez les enfants les plus pauvres et, détail non négligeable, à Trois-Rivières seulement. Cela en espérant que ceux-ci ingèrent effectivement leur dose quotidienne d’eau fluorée, nonobstant son inefficacité contre le tartre, la gingivite ou une carence vitaminique quelconque. « 80 % des caries se retrouvent dans la bouche de 20 % des enfants les plus défavorisés » La recette à la base de la santé dentaire passe par une alimentation correcte, une hygiène buccodentaire adéquate et une visite annuelle chez le dentiste. Si la santé publique est résolue dans sa volonté de combattre la carie chez les enfants les plus pauvres, il lui suffit de tabler sur ces axes d’intervention en les adaptant au contexte particulier des familles en situation de précarité socio-économique. Au premier chef, il s’agirait d’inclure davantage de considérations relatives à la santé dentaire dans le domaine de la lutte contre l’insécurité alimentaire. Du même coup, il serait indiqué d’en faire autant en ce qui concerne les interventions propres à l’adoption de saines habitudes de vie, surtout que l’hygiène buccodentaire s’avère à la portée de tous, quitte à distribuer gratuitement des brosses à dents et du dentifrice dans les écoles les plus défavorisées. Ces deux mesures restent cependant insuffisantes en l’absence de l’amélioration significative des conditions de vie des enfants les plus démunis. La santé publique nous a toutefois démontré par le passé qu’elle agissait comme un acteur de premier plan en matière de développement collectif, en particulier en ce qui a trait à ses efforts visant l’amélioration de la capacité d’agir des individus et des communautés regroupés dans les premiers quartiers de nos villes. Dans cette mouvance, on retrouve un bassin de leaders et d’entrepreneurs sociaux aptes à soutenir une forte mobilisation citoyenne autour de l’importance d’offrir aux enfants les plus démunis une visite annuelle chez le dentiste. Au demeurant, les dentistes du réseau de la santé, si on se fie à l’opiniâtreté avec laquelle ils ont promu la fluoration, sont bien placés pour rappeler au ministre l’excellent rapport coûts-bénéfices d’une telle politique. À moyen terme, en tant que vecteur de l’estime personnelle et de la confiance en soi, on sera surpris de voir à quel point un sourire complet et éclatant peut créer un effet positif sur la réussite scolaire des élèves les moins favorisés. www.gazettemauricie.com/exit-fluor-bienvenue-sante-buccodentaire/ _________________________ Boris 2016 CaricatureRéal Boisvert, Gazette de la Mauricie, 5-Jan-2017 – Now that water fluoridation in Trois-Rivières is a thing of the past, let's get back to the basics. Let's look at the dental health of all the children in the area. Remember that tooth decay is probably one of the easiest health problems to treat. As a matter of fact, a very large proportion of children in the region have no caries. Except, it is likely that these children have benefited by belonging to a relatively affluent family environment. Indeed, decay - and this statistic has not yet been denied - evolves according to an epidemiological profile that 80% of the cavities are found in the mouth of 20% of the most disadvantaged children, who themselves reside in the most deprived localities of the region of Mauricie. The only objective of water fluoridation was to prevent dental decay in the poorest children and, not surprisingly, in Three-Rivers only. This, while hoping people would ingest their daily dose of fluoridated water as being worthwhile, notwithstanding its ineffectiveness against tartar, gingivitis or any vitamin deficiency. After fluoridation, what about a mobilization for overall dental health? Now that fluoridation in Three-Rivers is a thing of the past, let’s return to the essentials. Let’s be concerned about dental health for all the children of the region. Let’s remember at the same time that dental decay is probably one of the easiest health problems to treat. "80% of cavities are found in the mouth of 20% of the most disadvantaged children" The basic recipe for dental health is a healthy diet, adequate oral hygiene and an annual visit to the dentist. If public health is resolved in its fight against caries among the poorest children, it is enough to rely on these methods of intervention by adapting them to the particular context of families carrying the most socioeconomic risk. First and foremost, it would involve the inclusion of more dental considerations in the area of food insecurity. At the same time, it would be useful to look for interventions appropriate to the adoption of healthy lifestyles, especially since oral hygiene is available to everyone, especially if we freely distribute tooth brushes and toothpaste within the most disadvantaged schools. These two measures, however, remain insufficient in the absence of significant improvement in the living conditions of the poorest children. However, public health has demonstrated to us in the past that it has acted as a major player in community development, particularly in its efforts to improve the capacity of individuals and communities in the oldest/poorest neighbourhoods of our cities. In this movement, there is a pool of leaders and social entrepreneurs able to support a strong citizen mobilization around the importance of offering to the poorest children an annual visit to the dentist. In fact, dentists in the health care system, based on the perseverance with which they have promoted fluoridation, are already well-placed to remind the minister of the excellent cost-benefit ratio of such a policy. In the meantime, as a vehicle for self-esteem and self-confidence, it will be interesting to see how a complete and brilliant smile can have a positive effect on the academic success of less privileged students.

Moncton to debate return of fluoride in drinking water

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: CBC News, 16-Dec-2016 – Council wants to hear from interest groups at public meeting Jan. 30 and residents online by Feb. 6. Moncton councillors will hold a special public meeting next month to discuss reintroducing fluoride to the city's drinking water supply. Only special interest groups will be allowed to make presentations at the committee-of-the-whole meeting, which is set for Jan. 30, at 5 p.m., in council chambers, the city said in a statement on Friday. But residents are being encouraged to submit their comments online at www.moncton.ca/fluoride by Feb. 6. Council will debate the topic during a second public meeting, which will be held a few weeks later, once councillors have had an opportunity to review all the information, the statement said. A date has not yet been set. Dentists call for return of fluoride in Moncton water It was on Dec. 19, 2011, that council voted to stop adding hexafluorosilicic acid to the water supply for five years, "at which time it will be reviewed." The motion included a pledge to ask the provincial Health Department or the New Brunswick Dental Society or both to collect data during the five-year period "using valid statistical research methods, comparing dental cary rates among individuals of different ages in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities in New Brunswick, in order that the issue may be appropriately assessed." 50% increase in tooth decay in children Earlier this fall, the New Brunswick Dental Society publicly urged Moncton to resume the practice of putting fluoride in the water. "A tremendous change" has occurred in the level of tooth decay in Moncton patients in the last five years, vice-president Suzanne Drapeau-McNally had said in September. She estimated tooth decay in children has increased approximately 50 per cent. Elderly patients are also exhibiting more decay, she said. The Department of Health did not conduct a study to measure the effects. "The benefits of fluoridation are well-documented for all individuals in the community regardless of age, education, or socio-economic status," spokeswoman Véronique Taylor had said. Council voted to remove flouoride following a call to do so by a Moncton group that argued water fluoridation was "dangerous and a violation of rights." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/moncton-fluoride-water-meeting-1.3900235