Canadian doctors spurn hazardous fluoridation of water

[sociostudent]

http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?sid=12664605798891371912784012642&ctid=1000136&cnid=1002015
Toronto fluoridates its water, medicating residents without their permission and often without their knowledge.
The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) does not support fluoridation of drinking water for the following reasons.

 1) The decline in caries in communities that are fluoridated has been highly significant -- but so has the decline that has occurred in non-fluoridated communities. There has, in fact, been a general decline in dental caries throughout the Western world, and the decline in fluoridated cities has not exceeded that in non-fluoridated communities. For example, BC drinking water is 95% non- fluoridated, whereas drinking water in Alberta is 75% fluoridated; yet the two provinces have similar rates of caries. Furthermore, Europe is 98% non-fluoridated, but global European dental health is generally equivalent to or better than that in North America. Whatever the reason for the decline in dental caries, it can not be concluded that it is the result of drinking water fluoridation.

 2) The incidence of toxic effects in humans from fluoridation may well have been underestimated.

The most serious potential association is with osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in boys, which appears to have been loosely associated with age of exposure to fluoride. It is true that the CDC has (as has the original researcher) acknowledged that current data are tentative, but a further larger-scale study is pending from the Harvard School of Dentistry. At the very least, such data are grounds for caution.

 3) Animal studies have shown a wide range of adverse effects associated with fluoride. It has been shown to be a potential immunotoxin, embryotoxin, neurotoxin and harmful to bony tissues, including both dental and ordinary bone. In addition, it can damage (inhibit) thyroid function in several species, including humans. Its effect on ecosystem balance has been little researched, but is unlikely to be positive.

 4) The intake of fluoride from drinking water is uncontrolled, and can lead to dental fluorosis in children who are inclined to drink large amounts of water. Both natural and artificially flouridated water can cause this effect, which is, of course, simply a visible representation of an effect on the entire bony skeleton. The cost of repairing teeth damaged by fluorosis is not trivial; moderate to severe effects can require $15,000 or more in dental fees.

It seems clear that a) fluoridation is unlikely to be the cause of the decline in caries in Europe and North America b) the potential for adverse effects is real, and c) current evidence points in the direction of caution. Over the last decade, recommendations with respect to acceptable fluoride exposure have steadily declined, and cautions have increased. Any dental benefit that may accrue from fluoride exposure is fully achieved by controlled topical application of fluoride compounds by trained dental professionals, not by fluoride ingestion. [The analysis of Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head, Preventive Dentistry, at the University of Toronto, further clarifies these points.] On the basis of this "weight of evidence" we believe that fluoridation of drinking water is scientifically untenable, and should not be part of a public health initiative or program.

2009-01-13 13:19:31

[Pheonix Renewed]

YAY!! Good on them! It's past time!

[Dreadly03]

http://www.draytonvalleywesternreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1373584

Town cuts fluoride from water supply
Graham Long

Fluoridation of Drayton Valley’s drinking water is now a thing of the past. Last Wednesday town council voted to make the temporary suspension of the practice a permanent move.

Fluoride had been added to the town’s water supply since 1966 to help prevent dental problems, particularly in children. However, last year Drayton Valley’s water plant manager Bernie Berube approached council with a number of concerns including the safety of workers handling the chemical. In June council decided to temporarily halt fluoridation while the pros and cons of the practice were considered. The Town later received a petition with close to 700 names calling for fluoridation to be discontinued permanently.

At last week’s meeting the original proposal was for council to set a date on which to make a final decision on fluoride. However, Coun. Kyle Archer said he thought the debate had already gone on for as long as it had to.

“I think we’ve had adequate time . . . I think this has been out there long enough,” he said.

Coun. Keith Ebbs said all the medical professionals he had spoken to supported fluoridation. He wanted council to hear directly from them before making a decision.

“There’s a lot of misinformation and a lot of conflicting information out there,” he said. “I don’t want to make a political decision about a health issue.”

However, council opted to proceed to a vote that day and a motion to permanently stop fluoridation was passed with only Ebbs voting against.

Stopping fluoridation means the Town’s water treatment expenses will drop by a small amount. But Mayor Moe Hamdon says this was never about the bottom line.

“This was not done for cost savings,” he said. “This was not a budgetary issue. This was what council felt was in the best interests of the community.”

[sociostudent]

http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1388163
Posted 1 day ago
   

By PAUL MORDEN

The Observer

While the fluoride in drinking water debate rages on elsewhere in Sarnia-Lambton, it’s all quiet on the Petrolia front.

The town is still adding fluoride to the water it draws from Lake Huron and treats at its plant in Bright’s Grove, before sending it through a pipeline that supplies more than 10,000 customers in central Lambton County.

Some leaders in communities that get their drinking water from the Lambton Area Water Supply System (LAWSS) plant near the Blue Water Bridge have called for an end to the system’s practice of adding fluoride.

They’ve pointed to health concerns raised by some about fluoride levels, while public health officials have supported the practice as a way to fight tooth decay.

Health Canada is currently preparing a report on the issue.

But leaders in two of the central Lambton municipalities that buy drinking water from Petrolia say they aren’t hearing concerns about fluoride from residents.

The Petrolia water plant, which received a $7.5-million update in 2005, treats drinking water for the town’s 5,222 water users, as well as just over 5,000 customers in Enniskillen Township, Oil Springs and parts of Brooke-Alvinston Township, St. Clair Township, Plympton-Wyoming and what once was Sarnia Township.

“It’s not an issue,” said Oil Springs Mayor Gord Perry. “No one has raised it. No one has expressed any concerns about it.”

Mayor Jim Burns said it’s the same in neighbouring Enniskillen Township.
Still, Petrolia operations manager Terry Blackmore said he’s preparing a report on the fluoride issue that is expected to go to Petrolia council in February.

Blackmore said the fluoride added by Petrolia averages 0.67 milligrams per litre — well below the maximum set out in the regulations the plant operates under.

Blackmore said the town tests the lake water before it’s treated, and has found it can already contain fluoride (a naturally occurring substance) at a rate of 0.2 milligrams per litre.

“Basically, our fluoride levels are the same as what they are in the (LAWSS) system,” said Petrolia Mayor John McCharles.

Any decision about the future of adding fluoride at the Petrolia plant would be made by Petrolia council, he said.

So far, its councillors haven’t expressed an opinion, McCharles said.

“I personally believe that there’s good and bad about it,” he added.

“If council were to make the decision to take fluoride out of the water, I wouldn’t oppose that.

“If they want to leave it there, I wouldn’t oppose that either.”

If town council were to consider any change, McCharles said, “It only be reasonable that we would ask our users, outside our own municipality, what their feelings were.”


(If this is such a "non-issue", then why did the journalist feel the need to even do an article on it? Obviously, there's a few people in that town that DON'T think water fluoridation is a "non-issue")