Hide this
Previous Article Next Article
 

Canadians Vote Against Fluoridated Water Supplies

December 16, 2010 | 30,154 views
Share This Article Share

The residents of Waterloo, Ontario in Canada have voted to stop adding fluoride to their water supply. The decision has been welcomed by anti-fluoride campaigners.

The incoming head of the Ontario Dental Association, Dr. Harry Hoediono, has condemned the decision, claiming that people are unaware of the dental health benefits of fluoride. Campaigners against fluoride believe that adding the chemical to the water supply can cause health problems including cancer, thyroid disease and arthritis.

Cosmetic Dentistry Guide reports:

"Most councilors... voted in favor of stopping [fluoridation] to support public opinion... health officials had failed to run an effective campaign".

 

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Major congratulations are in order for the Canadians!

Waterloo stopped adding fluoride to their tap water at noon November 29, 2010 at four water treatment sites, after 33 years of fluoridation.

Wisdom finally won over ignorance and greed, and an important step has been taken toward safeguarding the health of their children. Two years of advocacy and hard work by anti-fluoridation community members led to a winning campaign.

The battle over fluoride, which was first introduced into the water supply in Canada in the 1940s, is part of a growing movement across North America. In the early 2000s several communities in British Columbia voted to get rid of fluoride, as did Whitehorse in 1998.

But setbacks do happen. In 2007, a group of 200 dentists unsuccessfully lobbied Congress to have this toxic chemical banned from the U.S. water supply.

The battle rages on and appears to be gaining traction as more health-conscious Americans and Canadians become educated about the dangers of fluoride to their health.

Many dentists are simply seriously misinformed about fluoride, warning that cavities and public health costs will rise and that low-income children are at special risk. The American Dental Association has had tunnel vision on the fluoride issue for decades, paying no attention to ample evidence of the damaging systemic health effects of fluoride.

How You Can Help Get Fluoride Out of U.S. Water Supplies

I've joined forces with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) to help end water fluoridation poisoning in Canada and the United States.

In the United States, we're likely not going to be able to pass a federal law against fluoridation. There is not going to be a Presidential mandate or even a statewide elimination. This change will occur one community at a time.

So stay tuned, as we will be working to devise a complete game plan to tackle this issue head on. Once we reach the tipping point, which may be as little as 5 percent of the population, we will be able to reverse the policies of water fluoridation.

Until then, you can remove about 80% of the fluoride from your drinking water using a reverse osmosis (RO) filter. It is really hard to remove all of it with virtually any commercial filter. If you are concerned about fluoride the BEST solution is to help the Fluoride Action Network in their campaign to remove it from the water supply.

The Fluoride Action Network is holding their annual fundraising event right now, and their goal is to raise $50,000 by midnight December 31 to edge closer to the final victory we all want: an end to fluoridation worldwide.

All donations are welcome no matter how large or small -- even $5 or $10 can make a huge difference -- and all donations are tax-deductible. You can show your support for the Fluoride Action Network, and help get this toxin out of our water supplies, by making your donation now.

The Growing Grassroots Movement Against Water Fluoridation

Fortunately, we also have people like Dr.Paul Connett leading this revolution. Professor Paul Connett is an environmental chemist and a key leader in the movement to get fluoride out of the water. He co-authored (with James Beck and H. Spedding Micklem) a new book, The Case Against Fluoride.

Paul and I agree that water fluoridation should be ended as soon as possible. However, we also believe there is little chance for meaningful action from the Federal government to end a practice the Department of Health and Human Services has endorsed and enthusiastically promoted since 1950.

We need your continuing help to put pressure on legislators to end this practice, one community at a time. Grassroots activism CAN work, as you can see from the decision in Waterloo—it was people like you who made the scales tip in the right direction.

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), headed by Connett, has been an extraordinary resource for engaging people in individual towns and states into a grassroots movement against fluoridation. As a result, FAN now has point persons in several states, towns and communities.

Three locations were recently selected for special attention: San Diego, California; Austin, Texas; and the province of Ontario, Canada. And in fact, it was these focused efforts in Ontario that led to the successful Waterloo campaign.

Why San Diego and Austin Were Targeted

San Diego was targeted because it has twice voted to keep fluoridation out, but is now being forced to fluoridate under a state law passed in 1995.

The following brave pioneers have led the local efforts in that city:

  • Patty Brooks, editor of the Presidio Sentinel
  • Dr. David Kennedy, local dentist and former president of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT)
  • Dr. Richard Sauereber, Professor of Chemistry at College and at the Weston Price Foundation
  • Dr.Paul Connett has given several presentations in San Diego, as well as holding several book-signing events there

Austin, Texas was chosen because it already had a very active anti-fluoridation campaign. The local coordinator of these efforts is Rae Nadler Oelnick, assisted by Linda Greene and Dr. Neil Carman, among others.

Paul Connett visited Austin in November 2010, with a side visit to San Antonio. He gave talks at two local universities, as well as a short presentation to the Austin City Council.

What Happened in Ontario Should Not Stay in Ontario

Ontario was selected because several cities there have already stopped fluoridation over the last few years.

Meanwhile, very few communities are still fluoridating their water in Quebec and British Columbia. It is believed that if one or two more cities in Ontario were to stop this practice, it could produce a domino effect that would bring an end to fluoridation in the key cities, Ottawa and Toronto.

With this in mind, Paul Connett gave presentations in Toronto, Oakville, and Waterloo, which overlapped the launching of his book and a review that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on October 17, 2010.

What followed was an exciting victory when citizens narrowly voted out fluoridation in a referendum held in the cities of Waterloo and Kitchener, which is being hailed by fluoridation opponents as fluoridation's "Waterloo."

The Ontario Dental Association Whines Over Sour Grapes, but has Only Itself to Blame

Not surprisingly, the Ontario Dental Association (ODA), which actively campaigned to keep fluoridation in Waterloo, was bitterly disappointed by this defeat, complaining in recent newspaper articles that the vote represented the efforts of a dedicated but poorly informed minority.

However, the ODA has only itself to blame.

On October 7, 2010, the organization had the opportunity to debate Professor Connett along with geologist Heather Gingerich in Waterloo—but refused to do so. Arrogant, overconfident, and condescending, the ODA shot itself in the foot and lost the battle.

Who is REALLY Poorly Informed?

Just who has the real FACTS in this debate? Is it the ODA, or is it the "dedicated but poorly informed minority"?

As it turns out, challenging the science about the "benefits" of water fluoridation has become much easier, thanks to the publishing of The Case Against Fluoride. This enlightening book by Connett, Beck and Micklem has received several glowing reviews, praising its readability and the comprehensive way it covers the science to date.

For the ODA and other proponents of fluoridation to salvage any credibility for this misguided practice, the onus will be on them to produce a response to this book with the same level of scientific documentation as that delivered by Connett, Beck and Micklem.

How long will you have to wait for the other side of the story?

If the grassroots movement is so "misinformed," it should pose no challenge at all for health policy makers to publish "The Case FOR Fluoridation," based on whatever evidence they feel exists to support their position.

But don't hold your breath on that one.

If such a book has not appeared within a year, most reasonable people are entitled to conclude that promoters do not have a scientific case to present.

Meanwhile, more and more scientists, who are independent of the influence of fluoridation's endorsing agencies, are no longer supporting this practice, as you can see in the above video. Sadly, too many promoters have endorsed this practice for so long that they don't know how to admit they are wrong.

Recapping the Main Arguments Against Fluoridation

The issue of fluoride in drinking water has a 60-year history that is far too involved to recount in its entirely here. But the main points are summarized below:

  1. Administering a drug to the masses in a “one-size-fits-all” approach is a major assault to your freedom of choice.

    Once you put it in the water, there is no way to control the dose, or who gets it and how much they get. There is no oversight. Everyone is essentially forced to take the same medication, with an uncontrolled and unmonitored dose.

    No other drug is administered in this “one size fits all” way. Fluoride in water is not even regulated by the FDA—even though it does regulate fluoride in toothpaste and other oral care products.

    It is also important to understand that fluoride is being used as a drug and no other drug has ever been administered as a public health measure. It really is a major intrusion on an individual’s freedom of choice as fluoride is really difficult to filter out of the water once it is added.

    Forcing you to ingest fluoride in your drinking water is a careless and dangerous public health practice, and it’s simply bad medicine. There is NO OTHER DRUG that is forced upon the public in this way. It’s a major assault on your freedom of choice.

  2. Fluoridation is unnecessary and avoidable.  

    Fluoride is a nonessential nutrient, meaning not required by your body. No disease develops in humans when they are “deprived” of fluoride. Even the promoters of fluoridation have finally conceded the benefits of fluoride are only topical—it works from the outside of your tooth, not from inside your body.

    So why swallow it? 

    Forcing people to ingest a topical drug is ineffective and unethical.

    Most European countries don’t fluoridate their water—including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, etc., and their teeth are as good as ours or better.

  3. Fluoridation is ineffective. It does NOT decrease rates of tooth decay.

    There is practically no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, and no difference between states that fluoridate a high versus low percentage of their water.

    Populations with diets low in processed sugar have virtually NO tooth decay, such as Korea—even among communities practicing minimal dental hygiene!

    A WHO study involving 12-year olds found tooth decay rates have decreased as fast in non-fluoridated areas as in fluoridated areas.

    The reason for this is that tooth decay is not caused by lack of fluoride, but instead by acids in the mouth produced by bacteria that are metabolizing sugar. The acid attacks the enamel, allowing the bacteria into the enamel, resulting in tooth decay.

    As Paul Connett said, reducing the rates of dental caries requires education, not fluoridation.

  4. Fluoridation is probably causing harm.

    Dental Fluorosis

    Thirty-two percent of American children now have signs of dental fluorosis (mottling of the teeth), indicative of enamel damage. Dental fluorosis signifies overexposure to fluoride. Fluoridation promoters claim this is just a “cosmetic effect.”

    But this is far more than a cosmetic effect—it’s an indication your body has been overexposed to fluoride.

    If fluoride has damaged developing tooth cells, then there is every reason to believe it has had damaging effects on other cells in your body. Your teeth are the “window” to your bones—you can SEE your teeth, but you can’t see your bones, so bone damage can go unnoticed.

    Skeletal Fluorosis

    The first signs of fluoride poisoning are arthritis-like symptoms such as joint pain, as evidenced by studies in regions of India and China with naturally high fluoride levels. Despite this, no study has ever been conducted in the U.S. to investigate whether there's an association between people living in fluoridated areas and higher arthritis rates.

    It is a known fact that 50 percent of the fluoride you ingest accumulates in your bones over your lifespan.

    Fluoride in bones increases brittleness and bone fractures. Bones appear denser on x-ray, but this density does not mean they are stronger—they are actually weaker because they are more brittle.

    Brain Development

    Fluoride is known to interfere with basic functions of nerve cells in your brain. There are now 30 animal studies demonstrating the damage fluoride inflicts on your brain, including your pineal gland.

    Which is more important—protecting your children’s teeth or protecting their brains?

    Thyroid

    Fluoride also lowers thyroid function. Fluoride was used in European medicine during the 1930s through 1950s to treat patients with overactive thyroid glands. This is a very real and significant concern today as millions of people suffer with low thyroid function.

    The levels of fluoride people are now getting from fluoridated water (and other sources) now equal the levels used in Europe to suppress overactive thyroid glands. [From page 234 of “Fluoride in Drinking Water” (2006), National Research Council]

    Infants/Children

    No one is more susceptible to fluoride’s effects that infants and children. Their blood-brain barrier is immature, allowing more fluoride to flow into and accumulate in their brains.

    Twenty-three studies from four different countries, one being China, have indicated that moderate exposure to fluoride is lowering children’s IQ.

    Many of these studies have been peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences.

    In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) sent out an email to alert its members of their recommendation to parents to refrain from using fluoridated tap water for making infant formula. A few days later, the CDC followed suit. But neither of them openly informed the public!

    So there are millions of parents out there using tap water to make up formula, oblivious to the fact that the agencies promoting fluoridation in this country have issued a specific warning against using fluoridated water for this purpose.

    Major disconnect here—it’s absolutely bizarre!

    Not only that, but by fluoridating the municipal water supply, many low income families are doomed to fail at protecting their young children from this dangerous drug, even if they have this information, because they can’t afford water filtration systems or bottled water.

    There is a great deal of evidence that fluoridation can damage other body systems.

    For example, one study linked fluoride to anemia in pregnant women. If you have kidney disease, you are especially prone to a buildup of fluoride in your body because your kidneys excrete about 50 percent of your daily fluoride intake. Elevated fluoride consumption in childhood has also been shown to cause kidney damage. And fluoridation has been linked to some forms of cancer.

    For more about the dangers of fluoride, I invite you to review my article from May of 2010, and download my free report on water fluoridation.

  5. The type of fluoride being added to your water supply is NOT pharmaceutical grade fluoride, but rather an industrial waste product.

    It is important to make a distinction between the fluoride your dentist applies topically to your teeth, and the type of fluoride added to your drinking water. They are radically different.

    The type of fluoride your dentist uses is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride. If pharmaceutical grade fluoride were added to municipal water, it would be cost prohibitive.

    So, they came up with a cheap and convenient substitute—a widely available toxic waste product they cleverly marketed as a health product.

    The type of fluoride added to your water is actually a toxic byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry called hexafluorosilicic acid, or its sodium salt (silicofluoride). In other words, this form of fluoride comes from toxic gases captured by industrial wet scrubbing systems.

    This is NOT a pharmaceutical fluoride but instead a noxious combination of industrial byproducts, including arsenic and heavy metals... fluoride ala smokestack.

    Silicofluoride cannot be dumped into the sea by international law. It can't be dumped locally because it's too concentrated. But if someone buys it, it's no longer a hazardous waste—it's magically a health product.

    The public water utilities buy this stuff and put it in your drinking water. It's completely absurd.

What You Can Do

Essentially, you can help by educating yourself and staying involved. The best central source of information is the Fluoride Action Network (www.FluorideAlert.org). Their statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide now been signed by more than 3,200 professionals, and again you can help further their mission by making a tax-deductible donation during their annual fundraising event now.

If you are a medical or science professional, I also encourage you to sign their statement.

I also highly recommend your picking up a copy of the book The Case Against Fluoride.

We're not going to be able to pass a federal law against fluoridation. There is not going to be a presidential mandate or even state statutes. This change will occur one community at a time.


[+] Sources and References