Dr. Isra G. Levy, MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC, FACPM
Medical Officer of Health/Médecin chef en santé publique
Ottawa Public Health/Santé publique Ottawa
Phone/tel: 613-580-6744 x 23681
Fax/téléc: 613-580-9601

Dear Doctor Levy,

We are writing to you in hopes that you will be willing to listen to a different viewpoint than the one that is expressed in the standard response used as a reply for our Councillors to those who question the practice of Artificial Drinking Water Fluoridation (ADWF).

As you are probably aware, the City of Waterloo's residents voted to stop ADWF on October 25, 2010 and that City stopped fluoridating on November 30, 2010. Quebec City stopped ADWF on April 1, 2008, like numerous cities before and since, and the City of Gatineau, also like numerous cities before them, wisely chose not to implement ADWF on May 5, 2010.

The Waterloo decision happened in spite of recommendations of the Ontario Medical Association, who came out with a strongly worded statement in support of ADWF with a press release just before the October 25 vote. There were also many other respected authorities that came out in support of continued ADWF in Waterloo.

The Waterloo public vote against ADWF is very significant because it shows that the public, once again, are no longer just taking blanket statements from health experts unquestioningly as reliable guidance for them nor are they accepting non validated or manipulated data and faulty scientific research at face value.

Then on February 7 and 8, 2011, the Councils of the cities of Verchères, province of Quebec, and Calgary, Alberta, finally saw the light and voted in favor of the cessation of fluoridation. Efforts to convince these cities to reverse their decisions were a dismal failure and they are now going to be free of injecting this toxic waste product into their tap water. Feed systems are to be dismantled and the practice has been effectively put to bed.

Science, costs and ethics considerations each played a crucial role in all of the above decisions, as well as active participation by an informed citizenry. It is hoped that our fair city would heed these developments and also follow suit in assessing the countra-indications of artificial tap water fluoridation and cease practicing this harmful practice without having to resort to the kinds of pressures that would bring about dishonour or discredit to your office.

According to Dr. Hubert A. Arnold, a Statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omission of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude." These were some of the same "research" trials that were used to justify implementing ADWF.

In the pesticide issue in Ontario the public did not believe Health Canada because intuitively, it did not make sense that chemicals that were designed to kill a life form, had no possible effects on the human body. As people were made aware that the full contents of what was in a pesticide was not being disclosed to the public, they started to wonder how much Health Canada was tied to the chemical industry. The question often raised was “Aren't they protecting the industry?”

Once the public understands the truth about ADWF, they will question the information from Health Canada and from yourself in a similar fashion. Once again, intuitively it will not make sense that industrial waste is good for us and it is just not fine for us to consume. It will appear that the big winners in all of this, the chemical industry, not children's teeth, are being protected by those that are supposed to be protecting their teeth and our health.

The following are only some of the indisputable facts about ADWF and fluoride. Once the public is made aware of them it will not make sense to the public that this is indeed a good thing to do.

Hydrofluoroisilicic acid is toxic waste byproduct from the chemical fertilizer industry.

Hydrofluorosililic acid is neither the same fluoride found in toothpaste nor that used by dentists in dental fluoride treatments, which is typically the more benign calcium fluoride.

The public is told to spit out their fluorinated toothpaste after brushing their teeth but they are told that it's OK to swallow the industrial fluoride waste substance with every glass of water. In each case the amount of fluoride is nearly the same. Does that make any sense at all?

Incidence of dental fluorosis are significantly similar in large U.S. metropolitan areas and in countries fluoridated and unfluoridated. The cohort size of these samples allows for confounding factors to be accounted for.

Arsenic, cadmium, lead and other contaminants are all found in hydrofluorosilicic acid and each of these is nearly identical in toxicity. Arsenic and lead are allowed in drinking water in parts per billion, yet fluoride is allowed in parts per million. How consistent or rational is that?

Tooth decay world wide in industrialized countries are the same whether countries practice ADWF or not. The WHO has published data that proves this conclusively though they take no position for or against the practice.

Statistics Canada published tooth decay rates statistics, reproduced in the Globe and Mail in 2010, showing that they are nearly identical for Quebec and Ontario, yet Ontario has over 75% ADWF while Quebec has less than 7%. An unpublished study shows the same relationship between Alberta and B.C. where Alberta's ADWF rate was then over 74% and B.C. was less than 4%.

Only a tiny fraction of the chemical that gets into the body actually reaches the teeth. Since this is systemic medicine, this highly active chemical comes in contact with every single other organ in the body. Numerous studies over the last two decades have shown moderate to severe health effects from ingestion of as little as 0.1 ppm, the worst occurring from 0.5 ppm upward.

Also, since teeth are essentially a type of bone, where else is this fluoride being stored in the body? It has been incontestably shown that the pineal gland becomes heavily calcified over time under the action of fluorine ions from fluoride ingestion. What will make sense to the public?

Can you be completely certain that the persons extolling the purported benefits of ADWF at Health Canada understand all of the effects that fluoride has on every single other organ and gland in the body? Do you think that the public will continue to buy their assertions?

The arguments used by promoters of pesticide use were flimsy at best. Yes, they said, some of the pesticide entered the body, but the concentrations were so low that they weren't a problem. The public didn't buy it for a chemical that they had only occasional contact with. Will they buy the argument about a chemical that they ingest many times a day and for the rest of their life?

In 2001, Dr. David Carlsson, MD., PhD, and Nobel prize winer in medicine, said “The addition of fluoride to water supplies violates modern pharmacological principles. Recent research has revealed a sometimes enormous individual variation in the response to drugs. If a pharmacologically active agent is supplied via the drinking water, the individual variation in response, which is considerable even when the dosage is fixed, will be markedly increased by the individual variation in water consumption. In addition, this measure is ethically questionable and unnecessarily expensive.”

On one hand, the concentration and thus the variable dose is sufficient enough to cure tooth decay, but magically, the same dose has no effect on any organs or glands in the body to which fluoride is not a normal part of its delicate functioning. It also doesn't apparently accumulate in bones even though it accumulates in teeth? How can this be true? Once presented with these questions, is the public to believe that there Is no impact on the rest of their body? Will the public not see arguments in favor of ADWF as absurd and illogical?

Mass medication of a whole population with an untested and unapproved drug by whatever means (fluoride falls under such a category) without their express consent and without oversight by medical practitioner supervision is human experimentation. It is unethical and in violation of the Nuremberg Code which requires oversight and informed consent from every participant.

ADWF is pharmacologically untenable by virtue of how it is distributed and administered. What doctor in his or her right mind would prescribe a drug to any single patient and tell him or her that they can take as much as they want and must do so for the rest of their life? Is this not utter nonsense? Yet, that is exactly what ADWF does. It's in the water, which you can drink as much as you want, and you will do so for as long as there is a fluoride substance in the water.

Cancer is the leading cause of death of women over 25 years of age and takes many other lives well before their time. More and more people are making the connection between over-exposure to a overabundance of chemicals in their body that triggers one's own cells to act against themselves. Many other diseases such as Fibromyalgia, arthritis, diabetes and other degenerative diseases are alarmingly increasing concurrently with the increase in ADWF. Can this be just a coincidence when combined with our North American eating habits and lifestyle?

99% of this toxic waste called hydrofluorosilicic acid is not even ingested but flows through from drains everywhere to the Ottawa River from toilets, showers, washing machines, from extinguishing fires, as well as from commercial and industrial uses. It is classified by the EPA as a toxic waste product that can NOT be dumped into the air, lakes, rivers, the ocean or into the earth. So, I ask you, Doctor, why are we swallowing it with our tap water?

Plus, ADWF is known to cost our financially strapped city at least $400,000 per year.

There is much, much more but I won't belabor the many other points, points that are described as 'anecdotal' evidence by the less than knowledgeable promoters of this ill fated practice. In law, these would be akin to circumstantial evidence. The sheer volume of anecdotal evidence is now so overwhelming as to literally suffocate the meager and doubtful evidence in favor of ADWF.

Our intention is not to pick a public fight with you but we are very determined and will not relent until ADWF ceases in Ottawa. You may believe that you have an easy argument against a group like ours, by dismissing us as some crazy ‘activists’. Many of us have been through that before.

Fluoridation-Free Ottawa would like to sit down with you to discuss what makes sense in light of the evidence available and briefly exposed in this communication. Councillors will look to you for guidance but we are also contacting them to make them fully aware of the facts surrounding this unnecessary expense and health hazard.

Again, I emphasize that our intention is not to discredit the medical authorities that we rely on for guidance. But Health Authorities such as yourself have in the past taken a hard line on this increasingly defenseless position and you should be very aware that the public is no longer willing to take Health Canada and other authorities at their word every time that they pipe up to defend the chemical industry.

You are being presented with an opportunity to look at new evidence and evaluate clearly what works and what does not in this most contentious issue. Isn't it time to reevaluate ADWF in light of what is presented here?

I look forward to your response to the points raised in this communication and to your agreement to meet with us in open and franc discussion of this issue. A standard reply or one that does not address our concerns will be considered most disingenuous at best.

Respectfully,

Mon, 7 Feb 2011

To Health Services

Fluoridation's stated purpose is to treat tooth decay. That statement clearly and unequivocally defines fluoridation as medicine. It does not treat the water, it treats people.

Surely it is common sense that we should not medicate anyone unless the dose is appropriate to the patient. Hence mass fluoride medication cannot be the same for a thirsty diabetic with comprised kidneys, a 3-year-old toddler and a 35-year-old construction worker. All should require different amounts of medication and not be subject to the same tolerances of this (or any) medication.

“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for someone he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance, which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some people say that it can reduce tooth decay in children'.”
-- Dr Peter Mansfield, Director, Templegarth Trust

Clearly this dosage responsibility lies with each individual and her/his medical practitioner to determine for themselves.

How can one claim that such differing dosage is safe for all?

Also why are the real concerns of the community never addressed, namely, the collateral damages such as: “impairments to the liver, kidney, brain, bones, pineal gland, thyroid, heart and even teeth.” These too are clearly dependent on dosage and have severe effects on those with compromised health or immune systems.

Why are these major health impairments trumped for the sake of paltry, if not outright questionable, and totally unproven benefits to teeth?

How can anyone call so many deleterious health effects as health benefits?

We are told that mottled teeth from fluoridation of water is just a cosmetic effect, when in fact this is a proof positive sign of bone damage. In the British Medical Journal (B.M.J.), October 7, 2000 it is reported that 48% of children who live in fluoridated communities have developed dental fluorosis due to fluoride overdose. There are similar reports in the U.S. and Canada. When will this foolishness stop?

Now then, if the bone is damaged how are you going to get fewer cavities? This demonstrates that ingesting of fluoridated water to reduce tooth decay is clearly a myth.

What expertise do you have with regard to this fluoride's toxicity, the untested waste substance hydrofluorosilcic acid solution used to fluoridate that contains variable quantities of arsenic, lead and other toxic residues?

We are not allowed to adulterate our foods with any amount of lead, arsenic etc. Can you show why such adulteration of water can be an exception?

Most health units would be in a panic about lead. Are you not aware that this fluoride substance is more toxic then lead?

If yes then why do you support putting such a toxic substance in our water?

If you think that lead damages the brain, have you not considered what fluoride will do to it?

Then ask yourself why you should allow adding fluoride which is more toxic than lead for some perceived health benefit dogma at the exclusion of all its major deleterious health effects?

It is now time to stop this nonsense.

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Dr. Isra Levy <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>
Cc: Councillor Tim Tierney <Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 10:48:31 PM
Subject: Can you ignore any of the emclosed evidence?

February 14, 2011

Dr. Isra Levy

Medical Officer of Health
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Dear Dr. Levy,

Here is some compelling evidence for you to consider:

NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
BEN FRANKLIN STATION, BOX 7672, WASHINGTON D.C. 20044 - PHONE 202-566-2789
INTERNET http://www.nteu280.org E MAIL Al-Mudallal.Amer@epa.gov

DESCRIPTION - NEWSLETTER - CURRENT ISSUES - PRESS RELEASES
LINKS - MEMBERS PAGE - HISTORY - SITE INDEX

WHY EPA HEADQUARTER'S UNION OF SCIENTISTS
OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail¹.

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers² showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers³ gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others⁴ reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm.

In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China^5,6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke⁷ has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston / Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston⁸.

From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue⁹. The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study¹⁰ in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g. ^{11a,11b,11c,11d} and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey¹², Washington and Iowa¹³ based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997¹⁴. Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.^{15a,15b,15c,15d,15e} Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.¹⁶ The latest publication¹⁷ on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important¹⁸. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.

Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health.^19,20,21 However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste.²² Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media,²³ that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America's children now have dental fluorosis (in 2010, this value is now reported as an alarming 40.6% of all children in fluoridated and non fluoridated areas combined?), is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston, New York¹⁷ is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the et al.⁴ data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01 mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.²⁴

This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.

Original available from http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

When it came time to decide whether or not to fluoridate, Thunder Bay water department conducted its own independent tests and found that adding fluoridation chemicals at Health Canada's recommended level of 0.7 ppm caused a nearly three-fold increase in lead leached into the drinking water. Dr. Cooney dismissed this objective finding. How reliable is this person for being objective?

FACT: In another context, unbelievably, he told Red Lake council that “dental fluorosis was not caused by drinking fluoridated water” (even Health Canada admits this).

He also worked hard to convince Dryden to keep fluoridating, but unbelievably said that he “didn't see anyone growing horns from drinking the (fluoridated) water.”

So, what are we to think of this man's assertions? I apologize if this offends you, but, is this what we should expect of an expert?

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: Dr. Isra Levy <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Thu, February 24, 2011 6:36:15 PM
Subject: A Toxin So Dangerous - Even CDC Now Warns Against Consumption by Infants

February 24, 2011

Dr. Isra Levy
Medical Officer of Health
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

The Toxin So Dangerous — Even CDC Now Warns Against Consumption by Infants

A new study has found that the protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. This raises questions about how this renowned cavity-fighter really works.

"The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay".

Another new study shows that exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence. In addition to toothpaste, fluoride is added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies. PR Newswire reports:

Sources:
Science Daily December 18, 2010
PR Newswire December 21, 2010
Langmuir December 21, 2010;26(24):18750-9
Environmental Health Perspectives December 17, 2010 [Epub ahead of print]

Dr. Joseph Mercola's Comments:

Fluoride is a potent neurotoxin that's been fraudulently promoted as a cure for cavities for the past five decades. Finally, we're beginning to see the kind of research needed to hopefully reverse this great injustice…

The two recent scientific developments above deserve special notice as together they offer a compelling picture of the truth. Not only do we now have yet another study showing that fluoridated water has a significant impact on children's IQ, but researchers have also discovered that the benefits of topical application of fluoride is highly questionable.

Folks, there are FAR better options for decreasing tooth decay than using a topical poison or ingesting a harmful industrial pollutant.

Fluoride Does Not Make Your Teeth More Resistant to Deca y

According to Science Daily, Americans spend a staggering $50 billion a year on the treatment of cavities. Fluoride, long heralded as the answer to decaying teeth, can be found in a vast assortment of toothpastes, mouthwashes and professionally applied fluoride treatments. It's even added to your drinking water for this purpose.

Now, a groundbreaking study published in the journal Langmuir has uncovered that the fluorapatite layer formed on your teeth from fluoride is a mere six nanometers thick. To understand just how thin this is, you'd need 10,000 of these layers to get the width of a strand of your hair! Scientists now question whether this ultra-thin layer can actually protect your enamel and provide any discernible benefit, considering the fact that it is quickly eliminated by simple chewing.

An Even Bigger Issue: Water Fluoridation

The conventional wisdom has been that topical application of fluoride can help strengthen your enamel and help prevent decay. If that's untrue, then the case against water fluoridation—the ingestion of fluoride—becomes even stronger than it ever was before.

There's just no doubt that ingesting fluoride has no beneficial effect on your teeth. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence indicating that fluoride is a potent toxin that can cause a wide array of severe health problems once ingested.

When evaluating the issue of water fluoridation it is also important to understand that fluoride is a drug. You can't get fluoride without a prescription. Yet it's being added to your water supply on a mandatory basis at various levels that may or may not be safe for various individuals, especially children, the sick, and the elderly. Water fluoridation is a major assault on your freedom of choice – to be drugged or not.

Sodium fluoride, which is a far simpler toxin than the fluoride compounds used for most water fluoridation, has also been used for rat and cockroach poisons, so there is no question that it is highly toxic.

Amazingly, the United States is only one of eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its water supply. (The other seven are: Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore.) In Europe, Ireland is the only country that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its drinking water, and England fluoridates 10 percent. Most of mainland Europe is not fluoridated, and yet, according to World Health Organization data, their teeth are just as good, if not better than Americans'.

Studies Link Water Fluoridation to Reduced IQ in Children

The latest study linking water fluoridation to lowered IQ was announced in a December 21 news release. However, this study was recently withdrawn from publication according to Jane Schroeder (NIH/NIEHS). In an email response she explained the reason for the withdrawal as follows:

"Following Ahead of Print publication EHP learned that many of the data had been published in a previous paper (Xiang et al. 2003. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94), in violation of EHP¹s policy regarding the use of previously published material in original Research Articles. Consequently, the paper had to be withdrawn from publication."

That said, the data published in 2003 still stands and is still valid. Dr. Connett has also stated that his comments still stand.

According to Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network:

"This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest because the authors have controlled for key confounding variables and in addition to correlating lowered IQ with levels of fluoride in the water, the authors found a correlation between lowered IQ and fluoride levels in children's blood.

This brings us closer to a cause and effect relationship between fluoride exposure and brain damage in children.

What is also striking is that the levels of the fluoride in the community where the lowered IQs were recorded were lower than the EPA's so-called 'safe' drinking water standard for fluoride of 4 ppm and far too close for comfort to the levels used in artificial fluoridation programs (0.7 – 1.2 ppm)." 

Trained as a chemist specializing in environmental chemistry, Dr. Connett is known throughout the world as a leader in the movement opposing water fluoridation because of his knowledge base. His organization, the Fluoride Action Network, contains a wealth of information on this topic.

Earlier this year I joined forces with Connett to publicize his game plan to end water fluoridation in Canada and the United States. I'll review it again at the end of this article. 

In December 2010, a second study reporting an association with exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children was pre-published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.  

According to the authors, “our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children's intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose–response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.”

This study indicates a 5 point lowering in IQ as the fluoride level in drinking water went from about 0.3 ppm to 3.0 ppm. 

Fluoride has Been Repeatedly Linked to Brain Damage

In addition to this study, there are 23 more from four different countries (Mexico, Iran, India and China), which indicate that even moderate exposure to fluoride lowers IQ in children.

According to Dr. Connett, there are also more than 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage, spanning all the way back to 1941. Unfortunately, most of the IQ studies have been unavailable in English, which is why the 2006 fluoride report created by the National Research Council of the National Academies contained only five of the available studies.

Still, while reviewing just 20 percent of the evidence, the panel concluded that there was a consistent and plausible link between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. The news release quotes Tara Blank, Ph.D., the Science and Health Officer for the Fluoride Action Network as saying:

 " Millions of American children are being exposed unnecessarily to this neurotoxin on a daily basis. Who in their right mind would risk lowering their child's intelligence in order to reduce a small amount of tooth decay, for which the evidence is very weak."

Indeed.

According to Dr. Connett,  the newest studies show that over 40 percent of American children are overexposed to fluoride. How can we know? Because they have the telltale sign of dental fluorosis. In its mildest form, dental fluorosis looks like little white specks on your teeth. But as it gets more serious, it begins affecting more of the surface of your teeth, creating yellow, brown and orange mottling. 

Promoters of fluoridation scoff at these signs, saying that they're "just cosmetic."

But, since we already know that water fluoridation does NOT effectively reduce dental caries, this is an unnecessary cosmetic defect, and, worse yet, it is a worrisome indication that your body has been overexposed to fluoride. If it's having a detrimental, visual effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it's also damaging something else inside your body, such as your bones.

Other Fluoride-Induced Health Problems

In fact, fluoride will accumulate in your body and can, over time, lead to far more serious health concerns. There are plenty of studies showing the dangers of fluoride to your health—besides dental fluorosis—such as:

Parents Beware: Never Use Fluoridated Tap Water when Making Infant Formula

Most of the people who are educated about fluoride will avoid drinking municipal tap water that is fluoridated, and a reverse osmosis system is about the only way to rid your water of fluoride. However, there are many who simply don't have the resources or the know-how to protect themselves and their young children. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) sent out an email to alert its members of their recommendation to parents to not use fluoridated tap water to make infant formula. A few days later, the CDC followed suit.

But neither of them openly informed the public!

So millions of parents are still using tap water to make up formula, oblivious of the fact that the agencies that promote fluoridation in this country have issued a specific warning against using fluoridated water for this purpose. Not only that, but by fluoridating the municipal water supply, you doom many low income families to fail to protect their young children from this dangerous drug, even if they have this information.

What's the REAL Cause of Tooth Decay?

Tooth decay is caused by acids in your mouth, typically created from sugar being metabolized by bacteria (Streptococcus mutans), and as you may already know, the number one source of calories in the United States is high fructose corn syrup.

The acid produced then attacks your enamel. Eventually the bacteria can get into the dentine, at which point tooth decay sets in. You typically don't find dental caries in more primitive societies that do not consume these vast amounts of sugar. So, the real answer lies in your diet. Avoid excessive sugar consumption, and your dental health will improve along with the rest of your body.

How You Can Help End Water Fluoridation in Canada and the United States

The Fluoride Action Network is an absolutely phenomenal resource for further education, and they're doing much to pressure the US government for change.

Later this year we plan on developing a massive social networking initiative to form local groups in which you can work on removing fluoride in your local community. We will have access to online tools that will help you replicate success other Canadian and American municipalities have had in removing fluoride.

Until then if you are a professional you can sign FAN's  statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide now been signed by more than 3,230 professionals. We encourage all medical and science professionals to sign this statement.

So please, get informed; stay involved. In addition to the Fluoride Action Network, you can find a wealth of scientific literature at this link. I also highly recommend getting a copy of Dr. Connett's new book, The Case Against Fluoride to learn more.

How much evidence do you need to stop promoting fluoridation, directly or indirectly?

When will you advise our City Councillors to declare a moratorium on fluoridation?

From: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
To: "Connelly, Gillian" <Gillian.Connelly@ottawa.ca>
Cc: "Levy, Isra" <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>; "Etches, Vera" <Vera.Etches@ottawa.ca>; "Steinbachs, John" <John.Steinbachs@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Mon, February 28, 2011 12:27:25 PM
Subject: Fluoridation of Ottawa's Drinking Water - Response to your email

February 28, 2011

Gillian Connelly M.Sc
Program & Project Management Officer
Strategic Support Branch / Direction du soutien stratégique
Ottawa Public Health / Santé publique Ottawa
100 Constellation Cr., 7 West
Ottawa K2G 6J8
Mail code / Code de courrier 26-50
ottawa.ca/health ottawa.ca/sante

Dear Gillian Connelly

Thank you for responding on behalf of Dr. Levy. How fortunate that you have been assigned such a daunting task.

Although I did not address the issue of "the City's awareness of, and position on, research conducted about water fluoridation," it is clear to me that there is nothing in the standard statement that provides a satisfactory response to my informational email of Thursday, February 24, 2011. That makes the response you have provided somewhat disingenuous at best.

I am somewhat annoyed that the two questions I asked were not addressed in your response, to wit:
a) How much evidence is needed for the City to stop promoting fluoridation, directly or indirectly?
b) When will your office advise our City Councillors to declare a moratorium on fluoridation?

However, your response opens up an opportunity to provide you with some facts about that statement and on fluoridation.

Before I bring to your attention certain inaccuracies contained in the statement you have provided me with, please entertain the following brief eight questions.

1. Do you know that the substance used for water fluoridation in Ottawa is a toxic waste substance called hydrofluorosilicic acid

2. Do you know that the acid's name is misspelled ("Hydrofluorosilic acid") on the City's web site page at: http://ca.mg202.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.partner=rogers-acs&.gx=1&.rand=bkg69s6ifbmug?

3. Are you aware that this acid is an untested, unapproved and unpurified toxic waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry and contains the following banned toxins: arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive nucleotides, and others?

4. Do you know that this acid and the fluorine element in it is not in fact a nutrient?

5. Do you know that when you add a substance to water that claims to reduce or cure an illness, dental caries, in this case, that it is de facto defined as a drug?

6. Do you know that many residents of Ottawa who swallow this toxic waste with their tap water are seriously, adversely affected?

7. Are you drinking the City's toxin injected tap water?

8. Have you ever read a single, unbiased report or research paper on the deleterious effects of water fluoridation?

As to the inaccuracies found in the statement provided to all those who question fluoridation of Ottawa's tap water, would you be good enough to read this critique of same.

1. "Fluoride and the possible effects of adjusting its level in drinking water is one of the most intensely researched areas of public health with several hundred recent publications."

Our team, along with reliable individuals all over the world have searched the Internet and libraries for medical, dental, paediatric and scientific journals and all forms of periodicals, papers, and reports throughout North America and the rest of the world dating back over 80 years about fluoridation. We have examined the data behind the few claims of benefits found in a small number of all these published data. We have found no credible evidence in the literature of any significant benefits in the reduction of dental caries to justify the expense of adding the toxic waste product called hydrofluorosilicic acid to fluoridate our City's drinking water supply.

Would you be kind enough to supply 3 or 4 valid examples in writing of the contents of such publications that fully support the statement that it "is one of the most intensely researched areas of public health" and detailed citations to at least 20 more such publications.

The best that one valid and credible research report that we found was that in one single locality, only six tenths of one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces would be saved from decay by the ingestion of fluoride substances injected artificially in drinking water.

We are familiar with all of the reviews mentioned in that phrase. Unfortunately, everyone of these were self-serving Government reviews. Each was a whitewash of the concerns that are very disquieting about fluoridation.

There is one anti-fluoridationist charge that does have some truth to it. Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the cost and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favour of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together the reports (10 are named) are rife with names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.

How can such reviews be accepted as unbiased and not be a whitewash of the situation?

Three other recent reviews in Ireland (2002), Australia (2007) and Canada (2008) are striking examples of a great waste of time & tax dollars in support of the now discredited and ineffective fluoridation of tap water for the purpose of reducing dental caries.

Ireland: The Fluoridation Forum "review" was published with the participation of only pro-fluoridation experts and government employees

Australia: The Australian national Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has endorsed fluoridation since 1958 and produced a report used extensively as a reason to implement fluoridation in Australia. It used large portions of the York Review but without its caveats.

Canada: This review was undertaken by Health Canada when growing opposition to fluoridation began to surface. The panelists for this review were by far the most biased that could ever have been selected.

Each of the above, on close scrutiny, clearly fall into the category of a whitewash of fluoridation.

It is only reasonable that if you do not look for adverse effects, or leave them out of a review, you will not find them. We have reviewed the contents of the Canadian Government's panel of experts and found that the majority of them actually used some reports that were over 50 years old, and that most of them were of very poor quality and design, not accounting for confounding factors, and left out conclusions contrary to the support of fluoridation.

On close scrutiny, we find that all of the reviewers were from the dental community, had very little or no expertise in toxicology or fluoridation research and all of them were fully supportive of water fluuoridation. Hardly an unbiased selection of individuals to report on water fluoridation.

The EPA's own 2006 review concluded that even at low levels, chronic ingestion of fluoride substances can have serious, deleterious effects to a significant number of people when a large enough cohort is examined. Promoters and supporters claimed that is was not relevant because it looked at fluoride levels of 4 ppm or greater. This is a false and misleading misrepresentation of that report.

a. That phrase is a simple parroting of the old claim that still remains to be validly, credibly proven. The evidence of safety has now been totally refuted. Many people become ill or have an existing illness aggravated by the ingestion of fluoride substances. I am one of those that have been so affected. Having removed as much of any amount of identifiable traces of fluoride substances from my nutrition and drinking purified water has allowed me to start returning to health. My own doctor can hardly believe the results.
b. As to effectiveness, the only things that the hydrofluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate our tap water is
1. clearly and irrefutably effective at causing dental fluorosis among a significant number of children,
2. returning over 99% of the acid back to the environment where it was banned in the first place,
3. wasting our precious tax dollars, and
4. causing harm to the health of a significant subset of the population: those many of us with chemical and environmental sensitivities.

Proclamations, pronouncements, statements, declarations and endorsements in support of fluoridation are not science. These are given by individuals in charge of government or prestigious organizations who astoundingly have no or very little knowledge of the science behind the effects of fluoride substances on the human anatomy. What about dental fluorosis? It is not just a cosmetic effect as ignorantly claimed by promoters and supporters of fluoridation. It is not as innocuous as it is made out to be. It is illogical that fluoride targets only the teeth once ingested. If this toxic waste substance does this to children's teeth, what else does it do to the rest of their delicate developing bodies.

It is a well known bio-medical fact denied by the fluoridation promoters that fluoride has a deleterious impact on the thryroid gland, the pituitary gland and a definite calcifying effect on the pineal gland and that it damages the whole endocrine system. There is further reputable scientific evidence also denied by the fluoridation promoters that acute and chronic exposure to fluoride causes the lowering of IQ, rheumatoid conditions such as various arthritic conditions and that it significantly contributes to Alzheimer's because it facilitates the transfer of aluminum across the blood-brain barrier. Fluoride is now also well documented but again denied by the fluoridation promoters to be mutagenic, neurotoxic and carninogenic, not the least of which is its contributiuon to a 30% increase in osteosarcoma in young men in fluoridated areas versus non fluoridated areas.

It is also known that many of these authorities imply that they have the scientific knowledge when they have it not and will accuse their opponents of not having such knowledge or of not possessing the ability to understand it. Both of these claims are false and derogatory, and are used to intimidate us and anyone opposing them. It is time that these travesties be rectified in the case against fluoride.

When challenged under its own ethics code to produce peer reviewed scientific evidence that water fluoridation has improved dental health as claimed, the CDC admitted in writing to the Lillie Center of Georgia, U.S., that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim. Yet our Canadian authorities continue to make the same arrogant and misleading statements that it does so.

There is absolutely no statement extant that the WHO (World Health Organization) has directly endorsed water fluoridation. That is an error of fact that should without fail be removed from the standard statement provided to all who question water fluoridation.

When challenged to produce the evidence of any research they may have done, the OMA responded that they could not find any such research. That effectively put to rest the falsehood pronounced by Dr. MacLeod that there is overwhelming evidence that our drinking water in Ontario has been and is safe. There is not one iota of such evidence available anywhere: there is no proof.

In a court of law, when there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence of guilt, the conclusion is always one of guilty. The evidence of harm to human and animal health and to vegetation from fluoride is so overwhelming that promoters and supporters of this assumed health measure can no longer ignore it. Should it not be so for you?

Despite numerous requests for the detailed review claimed to have been done, that review is still forthcoming. It's availability has been stonewalled to the extent that we are led to believe that it does not exist at all. Furthermore, the claim that opponents of fluoridation only selectively or partially examine the issue is absolutely false and is a major affront to the dedicated researchers and scientists who work diligently to amass the extensive documentation against fluoridation.

Furthermore, a list of documents issued occasionally by the Ottawa Public Health office in support of water fluoridation contains numerous references, however, none of these refer to the use of the actual chemical used in water fluoridation. The chemical in these documents address Sodium Fluoride (NaF), a known toxic substance, but not Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (H₂SiF₆), a chemical compound much more pernicious and hazardous to human health.

Anyone who drinks six 250 ml glasses of water per day would then consume 1.05 mg of this toxin! What about athletes, labourers, diabetics, persons on dialysis, and others who may consume in excess of 6 liters per day? At only 6 liters per day, one would ingest 4.2 mg of that toxin. They are being poisoned and they don't even know it!

Oops! Then why add to the toxic load. Also, how can this be true for the numerous persons who may consume in excess of 6 liters of water for whatever reasons as poited out above?

This is a spurious claim that evades a number of questions. What are those unnamed opportunities and at what type and amount of cost?
a) natural spring water from unnamed sources that may be contaminated
b) bottled water that is often bottled from tap water and sold without any further processing purchased from retailers at great cost
c) bottled water from unknown sources that is neither untested nor regulated purchased from retailers at great cost
d) distilled water that may be purchased from retailers at great cost
e) the City does not defray the cost of such purchases for those who must avoid tap water due to chemical sensitivities
f) the City does not and can not control the quality of bottled or distilled water.

Some final points.

2. Any substance used to help reduce tooth decay is classified as a drug by Health Canada regulations. However, hydrofluorosilicic acid is neither a regulated nor a controlled drug. This is against the Canada Food and Drugs Act, Section 1(1).

"Drug" includes any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in

(a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, in human beings or animals;
(b) restoring, correcting or modifying organic functions in human beings or animals; or
(c) disinfection in premises in which food is manufactured, prepared or kept.
So, why are we using this acid in our water?

4. Holding a plebiscite or referendum on this is both uneconomical and unreasonable. I would love for this City to go that route, because fluoridation would lose as it has in most cases where it's been done, because most people today are adamant about authorities dictating to them what is good or not for them, not to mention the knowledge they would gain about the lack of innocuousness of hydrofluorosilicic acid. But, more important than this, adding fluoride to tap water automatically defines it as a drug (medication), as seen above, because it is proposed as a treatment for a human diseased condition. It is not used to treat the water, to make it more drinkable. However, neither the public as a group nor Council can lay claim to being licensed medical practitioners. It is beyond their purview. As it is therefore medical malpractice for non medical persons to prescribe medication, especially using a substance that is neither controlled nor approved by Health Canada as a drug, shouldn't fluoridation be immediately stopped until such approval and controls are in place and sufficient medical personnel are assigned to provide full oversight for side effects and proper medical follow-up?

5. The claim is that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay. Yet, it is a fact that less than 1% of the presumed beneficial substance actually gets to the emerging teeth in children. The rest literally goes down the drain: baths, showers, dishwashers, clothes washers, lawn and garden watering, driveway and window washing, etc, plus in commercial (car washes and dry cleaners come to mind), industrial uses and to put out fires. Nearly half a million dollars is spent purchasing, handling and otherwise maintaining the equipment and safety of employees handling the substance. And, if the claims of effectiveness of effect are true, how is it that the data used clearly shows that only six tenths of a tooth surface of a possible 128 tooth surfaces is saved by the effects of fluoride ingestion (Brunelle and Carlos, Journal of Dental Research, Volume 69, pages 723-727, 1990, Table 6) ? Wouldn't you agree that this a monumental waste of scarce tax dollars for such a minuscule benefit?

6. Since less than 1% of the fluoride substance goes to the teeth, where does the other 99% go? Back to the environment where it was originally banned by the EPA in the first place. The phosphate fertilizer industry can not dump their waste product into the air, or its converted version, hydrofluorosilicic acid, into any waterways, into the ground or the ocean, because it's an environmental pollutant banned by the EPA. Yet, magically, once it is sold as a product for fluoridation, it seems to be perfectly safe for us to drink (ref. Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 Before The Subcommittee On Wildlife, Fisheries And Drinking Water United States Senate June 29, 2000). How rational is that?

7. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is known to contain arsenic, lead and chromium in significantly toxic quantities (http://www.nofluoride.com/chemical_analysis.cfm). Fluoride is also almost equally toxic to lead and arsenic: a little less than arsenic, a little more than lead (Lead vs Fluoride vs Arsenic Toxicity). Yet arsenic and lead are only allowed to be present in tap water in parts per billion, whereas fluoride is allowed in parts per million. Where's the logic in that?

8. Dental Fluorosis. This unfortunate development over the past 30 years is now endemic in all fluoridating countries, but almost non-existent in non-fluoridating countries. U.S. data shows 40.6% of children 12-15 years of age now have dental fluorosis (CDC Report, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf, page 2, figure 2). Pitted, cracked, spotted and stained teeth, formerly called "mottled teeth" have been proven beyond any doubt to be caused by fluoride substances ubiquitously present. Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, Associate Professor of Dentistry and Head of the Preventative Dentistry Program at the University of Toronto, has calculated that costs of repairing fluorosis of teeth can range as high as $20,000 per person depending on the severity of the condition. Is the City of Ottawa prepared to pay the cost for having contributed to this massive teeth problem by fluoridating its water?

9. How can a claim for effectiveness be justified when non fluoridating countries have had equivalent caries reduction rates to fluoridating countries? See this dramatic WHO graph that proves this: WHO-DMFT.

Most Sincerely,

March 18, 2011

Dear Mr Connelly

I thank you for your response, sent March 10, to my request of March 5.

I have a number of additional questions arising from the information that you supplied. Firstly, I requested that you provide the “chemical composition' of the fluoridation slurry as received by the City of Ottawa from your supplier. Unfortunately, you only mentioned the fluoride as 20% by weight. I would appreciate information on the remaining 80% (i.e., the complete chemical analysis).

In your third paragraph, you mention your review of “major studies”. I would appreciate if you would please provide me with the correct citations so that I could review these studies personally.

In paragraph 4, you mention that the OMA has “conducted extensive research on the issue”. I would also appreciate a citation for the studies that the OMA has researched, or failing that, a contact from whom I might request such.

In paragraph 5, you mention that “ Fluoride exposure from drinking water generally represents 50% or less of the total daily exposure”. Would you please share with me the analysis that supports this figure.

In paragraph six, you mention the NSF Standard 60. As you may be aware, this standard applies to the treatment of water. Since fluoridation is not a water treatment chemical, but an additive, I am not sure how the standard applies. You also mention that the city “also verifies the chemical concentration and conducts testing for trace impurities.” Would you please indicate the date of the most recent test for trace impurities and provide me with the test results. At what point in the fluoridation process do these tests take place?

In paragraph seven, you mention certain economies derived from the fluoridation process. Would you please indicate how these figures were derived, or provide me with the information source in CDC. You also mention that “the studies also indicates that 12-year-old children living in states where more than half of the communities have fluoridated water have 26% fewer decayed tooth surfaces per year than 12-year-old children living in states where less than one-quarter of the communities are fluoridated. Are you referring to the “Dean” study, and if not would you please provide me with the appropriate citations that support your data.

I thank you for the information provided to this point and look forward to receiving answers to my above queries.

Subject: Fluoridation of Ottawa's drinking water
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:30:51 -0400
From: Gillian.Connelly@ottawa.ca
To: BA email@domain.name
CC: John.Steinbachs@ottawa.ca; Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca; Nancy.Kennedy@ottawa.ca; Vera.Etches@ottawa.ca; Aaron.Burry@ottawa.ca; Ian.Douglas@ottawa.ca

Dear Mr. A,

I received your emails regarding fluoridation of Ottawa's drinking water, which you sent me on March 18th and April 5th. Sorry for the delay in responding to you. I have sent your questions to program staff who will shortly respond to your queries.

Thank you,

Gillian Connelly.

Gillian Connelly, M.Sc.
Program & Project Management Officer
Strategic Support Branch / Direction du soutien stratégique
Ottawa Public Health / Santé publique Ottawa
100 Constellation Cr., 7 West
Ottawa K2G 6J8
(613) 580-2424 x21544
Fax / téléc. : (613) 580-9601
Mail code / Code de courrier 26-50
ottawa.ca/health ottawa.ca/sante
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. S'il vous plaît considérer l'environnement avant d'imprimer cet e mail.

This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.
Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

Subject: Fluoridation of the City's drinking water
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 17:46:08 -0400
From: Gillian.Connelly@ottawa.ca
To: BA email@domain.name
CC: John.Steinbachs@ottawa.ca; Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca; Nancy.Kennedy@ottawa.ca; Vera.Etches@ottawa.ca; Aaron.Burry@ottawa.ca; Ian.Douglas@ottawa.ca

Dear Mr. A,

Please find attached documents outlining the information you requested.

As indicated in our previous correspondences, Ottawa Public Health fully supports fluoridation of the City's drinking water as a public health best practice. Recently, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario strongly endorsed fluoridation of drinking water and stated that the removal of fluoride from drinking water puts the oral health of residents at risk. Please note that the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario provides direction and guidance to all health units in Ontario.

Once again, thank you for all your inquiries,

Gillian Connelly.

Gillian Connelly, M.Sc.
Program & Project Management Officer
Strategic Support Branch / Direction du soutien stratégique
Ottawa Public Health / Santé publique Ottawa
100 Constellation Cr., 7 West
Ottawa K2G 6J8
(613) 580-2424 x21544
Fax / téléc. : (613) 580-9601
Mail code / Code de courrier 26-50
ottawa.ca/health ottawa.ca/sante
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. S'il vous plaît considérer l'environnement avant d'imprimer cet e mail.

This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.
Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

From: BA <email@domain.name>
To: gillian.connelly@ottawa.ca
Subject: RE: Fluoridation of Ottawa's drinking water
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 11:57:48 -0400

Hi Gillian

As yet I have received nothing from the "program staff" in response to my questions that you forwarded to them.

Would you mind finding out when I can expect an answer from them?

Thank you

BA

April 14, 2011

Dear Dr. Burry, (ref.: DOH - Dental Officer of Health, Ottawa Public Health Branch)

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to you as an outraged citizen about the fluoridation of the City of Ottawa's water supply. My name is AD, I am a science graduate in biochemistry from the University of Ottawa, and a member of the Canadian Forces. With regard to the fluoridation of Ottawa 's water supply, I have several serious concerns, four of which I will address here:

1. There is a mountain of rapidly growing scientific evidence demonstrating that fluoride consumption even in small concentrations can be seriously harmful. Specifically fluoridation of water results in a higher risk of osteo-sarcoma (bone cancer) in boys, lowered IQ in children, skeletal fluorosis and thyroid problems, among other things. There is a growing body of thousands of medical and dental professionals around the world opposing it.
2. Fluoridation of water supplies is a completely medically unethical practice that amounts to forced medication. There is no economically feasible way for an individual citizen to remove it from the water, and sensitive portions of the population are left exposed. Even the slightest indication of harmful side affects from water fluoridation on any segment of the population makes the practice unethical. Almost all European countries do not fluoridate their water for this reason alone.
3. Dose versus concentration. As there is no way to regulate or know how much water each person consumes, therefore there is no way to regulate the amount of fluoride consumed by each person. An athlete or person who consumes more water than average is being exposed to much higher doses of fluoride and as such is at greater risk.
4. The benefits of fluoride for teeth have been found to derive from topical application, hence there is no logic to having it in drinking water or ingesting it. If the City of Ottawa is concerned with the oral health of the it's citizens, it should subsidize toothpaste rather than spend more than 300 000 dollars a year that it costs to dump poisonous fluoride into Ottawa's drinking water. Swallowing fluoride to prevent tooth decay is equivalent to swallowing sunscreen to prevent sun burn.

I am well aware of the city of Ottawa 's official position on water fluoridation, and have already received the standard cut and paste response from my city councillor. I find the city's justification for the fluoridation of our drinking water to be highly unsatisfactory.

I would like to know Dr. Levy, if you yourself have personally reviewed some of the copious amounts of research that demonstrates the harmful effects of fluoride on human health?

I would also like to request copies of the “ several hundred recent publications” that have been reviewed by the Ottawa Public Health Department, and apparently ‘'all concluded that water fluoridation is a safe and effective method of reducing decay at all stages of life.''

I thank you for your attention to this matter, it is my hope that with a thorough examination of the available research regarding the dangers of water fluoridation, you will come to question the safety, legitimacy and ethics of water fluoridation, any of which is sufficient to have the practice stopped. Providing me with another formulated response citing the recommendations of Health Canada or the CDA would be most disingenuous.  Dr. Levy, I urge you to please take action on behalf of the people of Ottawa  to have this harmful practiced stopped.

I am earnestly awaiting your reply

Thank you kindly,

AD
Name and address details withheld by request

For more information, please refer below to just a few of the many, thoroughly researched publications available regarding this matter:

• Paul Connett et al. 2010. The Case Against Fluoride, Chelsea Green Publishing Co.

• Dr. Pierre-Jean Morin, et al. 2010. Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error, Graham and Parent.

• National Research Council, U.S.A, 2006.Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.

• Bassin EB. (2001). Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Ostosarcoma for Children and Adolescents. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine.

Also, please visit:

April 14, 2011

Dear Dr. Burry, (ref.: DOH - Dental Officer of Health, City of Ottawa)

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to you as an outraged citizen about the fluoridation of the City of Ottawa's water supply. My name is AD, I am a science graduate in biochemistry from the University of Ottawa, and a member of the Canadian Forces. With regard to the fluoridation of Ottawa's water supply, I have several serious concerns, four of which I will address here:

1. There is a mountain of rapidly growing scientific evidence demonstrating that fluoride consumption even in small concentrations can be seriously harmful. Specifically fluoridation of water results in a higher risk of osteo-sarcoma (bone cancer) in boys, lowered IQ in children, skeletal fluorosis and thyroid problems, among other things. There is a growing body of thousands of medical and dental professionals around the world opposing it.
2. Fluoridation of water supplies is a completely medically unethical practice that amounts to forced medication. There is no economically feasible way for an individual citizen to remove it from the water, and sensitive portions of the population are left exposed. Even the slightest indication of harmful side affects from water fluoridation on any segment of the population makes the practice unethical. Almost all European countries do not fluoridate their water for this reason alone.
3. Dose versus concentration. As there is no way to regulate or know how much water each person consumes, therefore there is no way to regulate the amount of fluoride consumed by each person. An athlete or person who consumes more water than average is being exposed to much higher doses of fluoride and as such is at greater risk.
4. The benefits of fluoride for teeth have been found to derive from topical application, hence there is no logic to having it in drinking water or ingesting it. If the City of Ottawa is concerned with the oral health of the it's citizens, it should subsidize toothpaste rather than spend more than 300 000 dollars a year that it costs to dump poisonous fluoride into Ottawa's drinking water. Swallowing fluoride to prevent tooth decay is equivalent to swallowing sunscreen to prevent sun burn.

I am well aware of the city of Ottawa 's official position on water fluoridation, and have already received the standard cut and paste response from my city councillor. I find the city's justification for the fluoridation of our drinking water to be highly unsatisfactory.

I would like to know Dr. Levy, if you yourself have personally reviewed some of the copious amounts of research that demonstrates the harmful effects of fluoride on human health?

I would also like to request copies of the “ several hundred recent publications” that have been reviewed by the Ottawa Public Health Department, and apparently ‘'all concluded that water fluoridation is a safe and effective method of reducing decay at all stages of life.''

I thank you for your attention to this matter, it is my hope that with a thorough examination of the available research regarding the dangers of water fluoridation, you will come to question the safety, legitimacy and ethics of water fluoridation, any of which is sufficient to have the practice stopped. Providing me with another formulated response citing the recommendations of Health Canada or the CDA would be most disingenuous.  Dr. Levy, I urge you to please take action on behalf of the people of Ottawa  to have this harmful practiced stopped.

I am earnestly awaiting your reply

Thank you kindly,

AD
Name and address details withheld by request

For more information, please refer below to just a few of the many, thoroughly researched publications available regarding this matter:

• Paul Connett et al. 2010. The Case Against Fluoride, Chelsea Green Publishing Co.

• Dr. Pierre-Jean Morin, et al. 2010. Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error, Graham and Parent.

• National Research Council, U.S.A, 2006.Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.

• Bassin EB. (2001). Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Ostosarcoma for Children and Adolescents. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine.

Thank you for taking the time to continue to advocate your position. Councillor Fleury and Dr. Burry forwarded your emails regarding fluoridation of Ottawa's drinking water to me.

Please note that your questions, concerns and position have been noted. I appreciate your correspondence.

Sincerely,

Dr. Isra Levy

I.G.Levy, MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC, FACPM
Medical Officer of Health/ Médecin chef en santépublique
Ottawa Public Health/ Santé publique Ottawa
Phone/ tel: 613-580-6744 x 23681
Fax/ téléc: 613-580-9601

April 28 2011

Dr. Aaron Burry, DDS
Dental Officer of Health
City of Ottawa
Ottawa Public Health Branch

Dear Dr. Burry

You really should read all of this email, especially the part about FluorideGate! It will only take you about 3 minutes.

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "NYSCOF@aol.com" <NYSCOF@aol.com>
To: nyscof@aol.com
Sent: Wed, April 27, 2011 6:12:32 PM
Subject: Don't Feed Babies Fluoridated Water say NYS Health Officials

News Release: NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

Don't Feed Babies Fluoridated Water say New York State Health Officials

New York – April 2011 -- Babies fed infant formula mixed with New York 's fluoridated tap water risk developing enamel fluorosis or discolored teeth, according to the New York State Department of Health.¹ Bureaucrats fail to effectively broadcast this vital information beyond their little-read websites which places babies at unnecessary risk of developing fluoride-damaged teeth, reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

Fluoride chemicals are added to tap water serving 12 million New Yorkers (8.4 million in NYC) in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridation costs NYC about $20 million yearly.²

In 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) cautioned that infants can fluoride-overdose via reconstituted baby formula using “optimally” fluoridated water and risk growing white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted permanent teeth (enamel fluorosis).³

“Parents, who are concerned about the risk of enamel fluorosis, can mix liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula with water that is fluoride-free or contains low levels of fluoride. Examples are water that is labeled purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water,” according to the NYS DoH's website (1) Advanced enamel fluorosis (pitting, brown stains) can be reached with exclusive and/or excessive formula use over a prolonged period, they report.

“Of course, parents are concerned about possibly disfiguring their baby's brand new teeth,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. “Officials should inform new mothers about this in every way they can. Instead they omit or downplay its significance seemingly to protect fluoridation policy,” says Beeber

Over 41% of adolescents are afflicted with enamel or dental fluorosis, reports the CDC.⁴

“As a cosmetic dentist, it is not uncommon to have patients receive gorgeous porcelain veneers to correct their dental fluorosis…Costs range from several hundred dollars to well over $25,000 and need to be retreated every 10 to 20 years for life time costs which may exceed $100,000 per person, writes Bill Osmunson DDS in the British Medical Journal.⁵

Fluoride exposure is rising and causing children's tooth imperfections, ranging from white spots to brownish discolorations and pitting, according to dentist Elivir Dincer in the NYS Dental Journal. “Such changes in the tooth's appearance can affect the child's self- esteem," Dincer writes.⁶

The NYS DoH joins many fluoridation-promoting organizations which quietly advise against feeding fluoridated-water to infants, e.g., US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, American Dental Association, Academy of General Dentistry, Mayo Clinic, California Dental Association, Vermont Department of Health, Minnesota Dental Association, Delta Dental, and others.

“All formula, either concentrates or ready-to-feed, [already] have some fluoride,” says Dr. Howard Koh, Assistant Secretary for Health, US Department of Health and Human Services.⁷ Koh advises low-fluoride bottled water be used for routinely reconstituting infant formula.

“Government and University officials who protect the chemical fluoride over children's health should be de-funded including researchers, state health commissioners and their dental bureaus,” says Beeber.

The Fairbanks, Alaska City Fluoride Task Force recommends ending fluoridation because, “ This will reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of significant incidence and severity of fluorosis, especially fluorosis associated with the use of [Fairbanks fluoridated] water to prepare infant formula.”⁸

In 1990, some scientists tried in vain to get the word out. (“Suppression by Medical Journals of a Warning about Overdosing Formula-Fed Infants With Fluoride,” Journal Accountability in Research)⁹

FluorideGate? A recent article in an American Association for Justice newsletter for trial lawyers described potential upcoming fluoride legal actions based on personal injury, consumer fraud, and civil rights harm.¹⁰

SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

News Release online at: http://groups.google.com/group/fluoridation-news-releases/browse_thread/thread/3ec5d55ab4802077

What will you do to protect infants from being poisoned by this toxic waste product being dripped into our tap water? It's as easy as printing a conspicuously placed and visibly sized and coloured warning on water bills for mothers of infants under 2 years of age to not use fluoridated tap water to make up and feed their children reconstituted infant formula or any other foods prepared for them using fluoridated water? Is this too much to ask?

Please respond by either providing any valid, written proof of contrary information or if none, that action be taken to protect infants from the possibility of tooth damage from dental fluorosis from the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation agent.

Please do not send me one of the two standard medical statements on fluoridation. I am all too familiar with these. They are full of misrepresentations of facts and misleading, unproven statements, not the least of which is the false claim that the WHO "endorses" water fluoridation.

I am asking for your personal response to my letter and a statement of what you are prepared to do to help our children escape the future damage to their teeth that awaits them if they continue to ingest this hydrofluorosilicic acid used as a fluorinating agent in our tap water.

A copy of this email has been sent to all members of Council, to the Mayor and to the MOH under separate cover.

Respectfully submitted,

April 28 2011

Dr. I.G. Levy, MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC, FACPM
Medical Officer of Health
City of Ottawa
Ottawa Public Health Branch

Dear Dr. Levy,

You really should read all of this email, especially the part about FluorideGate! It will only take you about 3 minutes.

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "NYSCOF@aol.com" <NYSCOF@aol.com>
To: nyscof@aol.com
Sent: Wed, April 27, 2011 6:12:32 PM
Subject: Don't Feed Babies Fluoridated Water say NYS Health Officials

News Release: NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

Don't Feed Babies Fluoridated Water say New York State Health Officials

New York – April 2011 -- Babies fed infant formula mixed with New York 's fluoridated tap water risk developing enamel fluorosis or discolored teeth, according to the New York State Department of Health.¹ Bureaucrats fail to effectively broadcast this vital information beyond their little-read websites which places babies at unnecessary risk of developing fluoride-damaged teeth, reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

Fluoride chemicals are added to tap water serving 12 million New Yorkers (8.4 million in NYC) in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridation costs NYC about $20 million yearly.²

In 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) cautioned that infants can fluoride-overdose via reconstituted baby formula using “optimally” fluoridated water and risk growing white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted permanent teeth (enamel fluorosis).³

“Parents, who are concerned about the risk of enamel fluorosis, can mix liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula with water that is fluoride-free or contains low levels of fluoride. Examples are water that is labeled purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water,” according to the NYS DoH's website (1) Advanced enamel fluorosis (pitting, brown stains) can be reached with exclusive and/or excessive formula use over a prolonged period, they report.

“Of course, parents are concerned about possibly disfiguring their baby's brand new teeth,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. “Officials should inform new mothers about this in every way they can. Instead they omit or downplay its significance seemingly to protect fluoridation policy,” says Beeber

Over 41% of adolescents are afflicted with enamel or dental fluorosis, reports the CDC.⁴

“As a cosmetic dentist, it is not uncommon to have patients receive gorgeous porcelain veneers to correct their dental fluorosis…Costs range from several hundred dollars to well over $25,000 and need to be retreated every 10 to 20 years for life time costs which may exceed $100,000 per person, writes Bill Osmunson DDS in the British Medical Journal.⁵

Fluoride exposure is rising and causing children's tooth imperfections, ranging from white spots to brownish discolorations and pitting, according to dentist Elivir Dincer in the NYS Dental Journal. “Such changes in the tooth's appearance can affect the child's self- esteem," Dincer writes.⁶

The NYS DoH joins many fluoridation-promoting organizations which quietly advise against feeding fluoridated-water to infants, e.g., US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, American Dental Association, Academy of General Dentistry, Mayo Clinic, California Dental Association, Vermont Department of Health, Minnesota Dental Association, Delta Dental, and others.

“All formula, either concentrates or ready-to-feed, [already] have some fluoride,” says Dr. Howard Koh, Assistant Secretary for Health, US Department of Health and Human Services.⁷ Koh advises low-fluoride bottled water be used for routinely reconstituting infant formula.

“Government and University officials who protect the chemical fluoride over children's health should be de-funded including researchers, state health commissioners and their dental bureaus,” says Beeber.

The Fairbanks, Alaska City Fluoride Task Force recommends ending fluoridation because, “ This will reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of significant incidence and severity of fluorosis, especially fluorosis associated with the use of [Fairbanks fluoridated] water to prepare infant formula.”⁸

In 1990, some scientists tried in vain to get the word out. (“Suppression by Medical Journals of a Warning about Overdosing Formula-Fed Infants With Fluoride,” Journal Accountability in Research)⁹

FluorideGate? A recent article in an American Association for Justice newsletter for trial lawyers described potential upcoming fluoride legal actions based on personal injury, consumer fraud, and civil rights harm.¹⁰

SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

News Release online at: http://groups.google.com/group/fluoridation-news-releases/browse_thread/thread/3ec5d55ab4802077

What will you do to protect infants from being poisoned by this toxic waste product being dripped into our tap water? It's as easy as printing a conspicuously placed and visibly sized and coloured warning on water bills for mothers of infants under 2 years of age to not use fluoridated tap water to make up and feed their children reconstituted infant formula or any other foods prepared for them using fluoridated tap water? Is this too much to ask?

Please respond by either providing any valid, written proof of contrary information or if none, that action be taken to protect infants from the possibility of tooth damage from dental fluorosis from the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation agent.

Please do not send me one of the two standard medical statements on fluoridation. I am all too familiar with these. They are full of misrepresentations of facts and misleading, unproven statements, not the least of which is the false claim that the WHO "endorses" water fluoridation.

I am asking for your personal response to my letter and a statement of what you are prepared to do to help our children escape the future damage to their teeth that awaits them if they continue to ingest this hydrofluorosilicic acid used as a fluorinating agent in our tap water.

A copy of this email has been sent to all members of Council, to the Mayor and to the DOH under separate cover.

Respectfully submitted,

April 30, 2011

Dear Dr. Levy,

It has been over two weeks since our last correspondence, I would like to inquire to the status of my request and that of many other citizens of Ottawa for copies of and references to the supporting data and apparently dozens of studies that the City claims have proven that water fluoridation is safe. Also, I am still waiting for your response as to whether or not you have fully examined all the data on both sides of the issue before drawing conclusions.

In the past, I have provided numerous references and links to studies indicating clearly that water fluoridation has been found to be unsafe.

Given your position, I'm sure that you take the health of the city's public very seriously, and would not be one to try to avoid providing the citizens of Ottawa with this information and further examining the issue.

Again, I thank you for your attention to this urgent matter  and am earnestly awaiting your reply.

Sincerely,

May 6, 2011

Dr. Isra G. Levy, MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC, FACPM
Medical Officer of Health/Médecin chef en santé publique
Ottawa Public Health/Santé publique Ottawa
Phone/tel: 613-580-6744 x 23681
Fax/téléc: 613-580-9601

Dear Dr. Levy and associates,

How do you explain such a move on the part of these Corporations and how do you counter it?

If they are removing pharmaceutical grade fluoride from some of their toothpaste plus providing and promoting fluoride free toothpaste, what does that say for the untreated, "unpurified" and unregulated hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) solution used for water fluoridation in Ottawa's tap water?

Isn't it time we cease to use this toxic waste product in our tap water? Why? because once it's in tap water, it gets into everything we cook, bake or otherwise prepare for eating and drinking.

Awaiting a response to my request on the cessation of tap water fluoridation,

Sincerely,

Richard Hudon, for
Fluoridation-Free Ottawa – Ottawa Libre de Fluoration,
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, Ontario
K1J 8B5 — 613-747-7157
http://ffo-olf.org/ — ffo-olf@rogers.com
P.S. This letter will be distributed to all of the growing number of people now objecting to the use of the untreated H₂SiF₆ solution as a fluoridating agent.

For immediate release: April 28, 2011

Carole Clinch BA BPHE
307 Normandy Ave
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2K 1X6
519-884-8184

May 18, 2011

Dr. Isra G. Levy, MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC, FACPM
Medical Officer of Health/Médecin chef en santé publique
Ottawa Public Health/Santé publique Ottawa
Phone/tel: 613-580-6744 x 23681
Fax/téléc: 613-580-9601

Dear Dr. Levy and Associates,

I hope this email finds you in good health.

• New Fluoride Warning for Infants - Mothering Magazine, November 2006
• Vermont Health Dept Issues Fluoridation Warning - Brattleboro Reformer, December 19, 2006
• Dental Experts: Too Much Fluoride Is Bad For Babies - WCVB TV, January 3, 2007
• Parents Warned Against Fluoride in water - WKRN, November 25, 2006
• Fluoride And Babies Don't Mix, Says ADA - WTVF, Novvember 24, 2006
• ADA offers interim guidance on infant formula and fluoride - American Dental Association, November 9, 2006
• Government Data Finds Babies Over-Exposed to Fluoride in Most Major U.S. Cities - Environmental Working Group, March 22, 2006
• Suppression by medical journals of a warning about overdosing formula-fed infants with fluoride (pdf file) - Accountability in Research, 1997
• Formula-fed infants receiving high fluoride burden - FAN Science Watch, August 27, 2004
• Fluoridated Water & Infant Formula - FAN Science Watch, May 7, 2004

"A major effort should be made to avoid use of fluoridated water for dilution of formula powders."
SOURCE: Ekstrand J. (1996). Fluoride Intake. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. Pages 40-52.

"If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride."
SOURCE: American Dental Association (2006). Interim Guidance on Reconstituted Infant Formula. November 9, 2006.

"[I]nfant formulas reconstituted with higher fluoride water can provide 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breastmilk, or cows milk."
SOURCE: Levy S.M., Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

"[P]arents of children using powdered infant formula should be warned by their medical practioners to use unfluoridated or defluoridated water to reconstitute the formula."
SOURCE: Diesendorf M., Diesendorf A. (1997). Suppression by medical journals of a warning about overdosing formula-fed infants with fluoride. Accountability in Research 5:225-237.

"Our analysis shows that babies who are exclusively formula fed face the highest risk; in Boston, for example, more than 60 percent of the exclusively formula fed babies exceed the safe dose of fluoride on any given day."
SOURCE: Environmental Working Group, "EWG Analysis of Government Data Finds Babies Over-Exposed to Fluoride in Most Major U.S. Cities", March 22, 2006.

"[M]ore than 50 percent of infants are currently formula fed by 1 month of age, and these infants are likely to be continuously exposed to high intakes of fluoride for 9 or 10 months - a circumstance quite rare in the 1960s and early 1970s."
SOURCE: Fomon S.J., Ekstrand J. (1999). Fluoride intake by infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59(4):229-34.

"Fluoride is now introduced at a much earlier stage of human development than ever before and consequently alters the normal fluoride-pharmacokinetics in infants. But can one dramatically increase the normal fluoride-intake to infants and get away with it?"
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 176.

"[F]luoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain... The findings are provocative and of significant public health concern."
SOURCE: Schettler T., et al. (2000). Known and suspected developmental neurotoxicants. pp. 90-92. In: In Harms Way - Toxic Threats to Child Development. Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility: Cambridge, MA.

"Infant foods mixed with water pose a special problem ... One wonders what a 50-fold increase in the exposure of fluoride, such as occurs in infants bottle-fed with water-diluted preparations, may mean for the development of the brain and other organs... There is reason to be aware of the possibility that fluoride may affect the somatic and mental development of the child."
SOURCE: Carlsson A. (1978). Current problems relating to the pharmacology and toxicology of fluorides. Lakartidningen 25: 1388-1392.

"The entire Board holds serious concerns about the current fluoride exposure of infants between the ages of zero and six months. We deem this exposure to be a "significant public health risk", and one that should be given immediate attention by the city and state."
SOURCE: Burlington Board of Health (Vermont, USA) August 31, 2005. See copy of full report.

Have you seen this one from the CDC: Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004 at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm

Or this one on Dental Fluorosis, Overview: Infant Formula and Fluorosis: "Fluoride intake from water and other fluoride sources, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, during the ages when teeth are forming (from birth through age 8) also can result in changes in the appearance of the tooth's surface called dental fluorosis" http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm, paragraph 2. " January 7, 2011.

Surely it is not too much to ask of you to can take 5 minutes from your busy schedule to read these official publications.

The standard health statement that I have received more than once over my objections to the use of fluorinated water (water fluoridation) using the fluorosilicate called hydrofluorosilicic acid states: "Fluoride and the possible effects of adjusting its level in drinking water is one of the most intensely researched areas of public health with several hundred recent publications."

OFFICIAL REQUEST
Would you be kind enough to please supply me with at least six (6) such research reports, or papers, or articles, failing which, at least the specific references to them so that I may find them and read them for myself?

A response is respectfully requested.

Sincerely,

Dear Mr. Hudson, (notice the misspelling of my name here — deliberate or just sloppiness?)

Dr. Levy forwarded your inquiry to me to respond on his behalf. Thank you for continuing to advocate your position. Your position and questions have been noted.

Ottawa Public Health reviews major studies on water fluoridation on an ongoing basis. Based on the literature, Ottawa Public Health fully supports water fluoridation as a public health best practice (a list of references are attached). In addition, in April 2011, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario strongly endorsed fluoridation of drinking water and stated that the removal of fluoride from drinking water puts the oral health of residents at risk (http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/news/bulletin/2011/hb_20110404_2.aspx).

Thank you for your inquiry, and your continued interest on the matter.

Sincerely,

Gillian Connelly.

Gillian Connelly, M.Sc.
Program & Project Management Officer
Strategic Support Branch / Direction du soutien stratégique
Ottawa Public Health / Santé publique Ottawa
100 Constellation Cr., 7 West
Ottawa K2G 6J8
(613) 580-2424 x21544
Fax / téléc. : (613) 580-9601
Mail code / Code de courrier 26-50
ottawa.ca/health ottawa.ca/sante

My immediate response!

Thank you for the document "Reference List Apr2011.doc" which you have so kindly provided me.

I will be reviewing each document with the members of my team. We will read and develop a thorough commentary for each of the references cited in that document as well as the Health Bulletin that the link you have provided refers to.

Once our team has completed its review, I will communicate our conclusions from that review to all of you on the Cc: list.

I welcome this opportunity to dialogue with Ottawa Public Health and believe that this will be an educational experience for all of us.

Sincerely

Dr. I.G. Levy, MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC, FACPM
Medical Officer of Health
City of Ottawa
Ottawa Public Health

Dear Dr. Levy and Associates,

While you ladies and gentlemen await our response to the latest communication from Gillian Connelly on behalf of Dr. Levy, here is some evidence for your consideration that is realistically and radically contrary to the status quo on fluoridation.

HOW DARE ANYONE CLAIM THAT THESE PRODUCTS ARE SAFE!

It is common knowledge that these products are used as a medication for dental caries, therefore: Fluoride is unregulated, unapproved and illegal

Is Health Canada illegally “downloading” responsibility for the safety of fluoridation products to provinces and municipalities?

The Supreme Court of Canada (Metropolitan Toronto v.  Forest  Hill  (Village), [1957] S.C.R. 569) ruled that fluoridation is “compulsory preventive medication” used for a “special health purpose.”

That decision has never been overturned or contested.

FOOD AND DRUGS ACT definition of “DRUG”
“includes any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in: the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, in human beings and animals”

A FAILURE OF LOGIC?
Swallowing controlled doses of “government regulated” fluoride [substances] are NOT RECOMMENDED by Health Canada.

“Health Canada does not recommend the use of fluoride supplements (drops or tablets),” http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/environ/fluor_e.htm

Swallowing uncontrolled doses of unregulated fluoride products in drinking water ARE RECOMMENDED.

2 QUESTIONS RARELY ASKED
1. Should your neighbour (in a referendum), or your municipal council, or anyone, force you to consume an unregulated medication in drinking water?

2. Do Canadians deserve the protection of the Food and Drugs Act, which is regarded as the “single most important element of the federal/provincial/territorial safety net system” according to the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities, which is designed to help protect Canadians from unsubstantiated claims of safety and efficacy.

In the absence of these safety studies, any claims that these products are "safe" are NOT LOGICAL and certainly FALSE and MISLEADING.

In the absence of safety studies, any claims that these products are "safe" are not based on well-established scientific protocols.

In the absence of safety studies, any claims that these products are "safe" are not based on legal definitions and requirements as defined in various Canadian and US laws and regulations.

This letter will eventually be published on our web site here: http://ffo-olf.org/letterToMOH-DOH.html#14.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and when they have woven, threat by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” — Leo Tolstoy

Respectfully submitted,

Monday, June 6, 2011

Gillian Connelly M.Sc.
Program & Project Management Officer
Strategic Support Branch / Direction du soutien stratégique
Ottawa Public Health / Santé publique Ottawa
100 Constellation Cr., 7 West
Ottawa K2G 6J8

Dear Ms Connelly, Dr Levy and associates,

I note that the 1st, 9th 13th, 14th, 15th, 22nd, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 35th, 39th, 46th, 48th, 49th, 51th, 53rd through 57th, and 59 through 64th documents cited in the Fluoridation Review References that you have provided are in fact reviews and overviews conducted by government agencies that are heavily involved in promoting fluoridation and are self-serving of the fluoridation propaganda agenda.

Documents 17 and 58 are essentially the same document, number 58 being the final version of the former. Why you have included both is puzzling to me.

Members of our team are acquainted with one or more of each of the above reviews and all have been read by us.

We will be providing a brief critique of some of these as exemplars in a future communication. Suffice it to say that we know that they do not treat of the possible health side effects of consuming fluoride substances from all sources, but concern the possible but non-existent benefits to teeth of the use of fluoride substances in water.

In their recent book Fluoride Wars (John Wiley, 2009), which is otherwise mostly supportive of fluoridation, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr concede this point when they write: The individual documents that you have cited in the references are familiar to us.

"There is one anti-fluoridationist charge that does have some truth to it. Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the cost and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favour of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together the reports (10 are named) are rife with names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous."

I would be grateful if you would forward to me a copy of PRIMARY health studies conducted in Ottawa, in Ontario or anywhere else in Canada that have actually investigated the possible health side effects of consuming fluoridated water and fluoride substances from all other sources contaminated with "fluoridated" water.

The primary research literature is always a better guide to scientific veracity than summary documents and pronouncements made by politically sensitive entities who have a vested interest in protecting their vaunted programs.

Sincerely,

Dr. I.G. Levy, MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC, FACPM
Medical Officer of Health
City of Ottawa
Ottawa Public Health

Dear Dr. Levy and Associates,

I trust this email letter finds you and your staff all in good health.

Please accept my apologies for the amount of time it has taken to fully respond to the documentation supplied to us from your office by Ms. Gillian Connelly, May 31, 2011, however, it was necessary to take the time to properly examine, evaluate and respond to the whole of the email letter and all documentation.

Our response is finally ready and this email letter is the final draft of our response.

Executive Summary

In 1945, a proposal was advanced by some researchers and apparently social minded individuals that seemed to be a solution to an ever growing oral health problem. The solution presented was called water fluoridation. Before 1955, a few cities were artificially fluoridated after uncompleted socio-medical experiments were fully analyzed, but seemed to indicate that this approach was indeed a solution to the ever growing problem of tooth decay.

The initial promoters had a vested interest in seeing that the results of the experiment showed a positive outcome. To that effect, the data were selected that showed only positive results from the experiments in the Newburgh-Kingston, New York, the Grand Rapids-Muskegon, Michigan, the Evanston-Oak Park, Illinois and the Brantford-Sarnia, Ontario, cities selected for these so-called fluoridation trials. In 1950, before the trials were even completed, the U.S. PHS (Public Health Service), under tremendous corporate pressures, began to recommend that water utilities add an untested and unapproved fluoride substance to public drinking water to prevent cavities, especially in young children. The CDC and ADA quickly endorsed the recommendation and thus began the practice of artificial public water supply fluoridation that continues to this day.

In 1951, Ast et al. reported that the “initial clinical examinations made in Newburgh and Kingston in 1944-1946 were made by one examiner, at which time the DMF rates were the same.”

These studies exhibited numerous deficiencies. No control was employed in the study in Brantford, and the Grand Rapids study lost its control in 1951 as a result of the fluoridation of the Muskegon water supply. In the extremely important matter of the water supplies, both the source and the composition of the Newburgh water is considerably different from that of Kingston. Further examinations were “carried out at yearly intervals” only in Grand Rapids-Muskegon, and in Newburgh-Kingston until 1952; if yearly examinations were made in the latter study after that year, the results for all years were not published. In the Evanston trial, only two examinations were made in the control city, and few data from it have been published; in the test city only one age group was examined each year.

In Brantford and in Evanston, and in the first and the last dental reports from the Newburgh-Kingston study, data from children of different yearly ages were added, thus introducing the possibility of “weighting”. In some instances, at least, the degree of “weighting” found indicated that the comparisons were not being made between similar groups in the test and the control cities. No pre-fluoridation data were gathered in Brantford by the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare, for that study was not commenced until over two and a half years after the fluoridation of the city water supply.

In all of the studies that have been considered, it has been seen that fluoridation of the water supply of the test city was initiated before the initial caries rates in the control city were known. This late examination of the control cities, on first thought, may not seem to be of much consequence. However, it means that, in all of these studies, a matter of fundamental importance was disregarded: it could not have been established that the children of similar ages in the test and the control cities, prior to the commencement of the experiment, had reasonably comparable caries attack rates.

As can be seen from the above, there is no mention of any considerations of adverse health effects from the fluoridation of municipal water supplies. Only dental caries were considered to be of import by the authorities of the day. It is our contention that this is the most significant and serious consideration that has been omitted from all documentation used to promote and implement water fluoridation. It is n experimental flaw that does not augur well for the validation of human experimentation using fluorinating substances.

In addition, there are two glaring omissions in the supplied statement and documents that stand out as most egregious. Those omissions are that the fluoride substance used for water fluoridation is neither mentioned specifically nor is the term fluoride itself defined.

In your response of May 31, 2010, to my email letter of May 18, 2011 you sated that " Ottawa Public Health reviews major studies on water fluoridation." However, do you ever examine the contents of those studies? Are you not aware of the disconnect between the claims and the results of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent?

Following a thorough examination of 1. the Health Bulletin document, 2. the document from your office that contains the contents of the reviews and 3. the documentation therein, it is apparent to us that the initial assumptions upon which the fluoridation of drinking water were based have persisted to this date in all documentation supplied.

Our comments regarding the documentation

Fluoridation Review References

Let us first proceed to the examination of the document Fluoridation Review References as supplied by Gillian Connelly in her May 31, 2011 email to me.

Please refer to the attached document, PublicHealthBestPractice-Fluoridation_FFO-OLFcommentary.doc for our complete commentary on that document, also duplicated and available as a web page on our web site at:
http://ffo-olf.org/fluoridationReferences.html.

We specifically bring your attention to the U.S. NRC review called: Fluoride In Drinking Water: A Scientific Review Of EPA's Standards Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council Of The National Academies, The National Academies Press Washington, D.C.2006, which we have numbered as 17. in your document.

We believe that once you read the contents of that review with an open, objective mind that you will be open to being convinced of the error of continuing with fluoridation. You will find much to ponder about that review that should allow you to adjust your thinking and pronouncements on the value of fluoridation and it's adverse health effects.

Please also see also the document on fluorine, also duplicated and available as a web page at:
http://ffo-olf.org/fluorine.html
the active ingredient in all fluoride substances, products, or compounds.

Please also see two pertinent statements by the WHO, attached.

The Health Bulletin

Now, let us consider the Health Bulletin document "Drinking Water Fluoridation" which you so kindly supplied to us, being the statement from Dr. Arlene King, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario, dated April 4, 2011.

The first paragraph of this statement comes immediately to grief by its statement that there is "consistent evidence that water fluoridation is safe and effective."

It has been known for some time that there is not a shred of evidence from any primary research that supports this key part of the statement. The concern about "the loss of fluoridated drinking water in certain communities" is therefore unfounded and totally irrelevant to any meaningful discussion about the subject of adverse health effects from water fluoridation. There is neither any data extant in the literature that proves that the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid for water fluoridation is safe, nor is there any that prove that it is effective for any claimed purpose, not the least of which is the vaunted claim of benefit in alleviating, and much less, eliminating dental caries (tooth decay).

Does this document mention that the fluoride substance used for water fluoridation is hydrofluorosilicic acid? No. Why is that? Maybe because it begs the question regarding its origins. Are you aware that this acid is the unregulated, untested, untreated, uncontrolled and unpurified, highly hazardous, toxic industrial waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry banned as a polluting contaminant by the EPA which comes in a solution that also contains other noxious contaminants.

1. There is nothing scientific, factual or convincing about a group of organizations parroting one another's endorsements about some non existent, perceived benefit believed to exist from the mass medication of a population using the waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry to stop tooth decay. You can endorse the belief that the world is a cube against all available evidence: that does not change the fact that the world is more or less a globe and not a cube;
2. As difficult as it is to believe that so many organizations can be convinced to believe that benefits can be derived from using a toxic waste product to alleviate a medical condition, tooth decay, that is exactly what these organizations have been contrived to believe by force of repetition and marketing. What is worse is that they have taken this religious like belief and convinced whole populations that this belief is real when it is not real;
3. Recommended levels of a toxic waste product used as medication takes no account of how much of the medication each individual will consume when it is served to them in tap water. It is therefore very easily possible for some individuals to overdose and suffer dire consequences either immediately or at some later time after overdosing depending on ones sensitivity to the toxic medication, nutritional habits and the state of health of the individual;
4. There are absolutely no valid data available anywhere that prove that the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid used as medication in tap water fluoridation has any effect in preventing tooth decay. It has now been proven beyond doubt that the original data used to make a case for fluoridation was fraudulently manipulated, selected froma mountain of adverse data and then propagandized as the needed panacea for preventing tooth decay. Dr. Bob Carton lost his job at the EPA for exposing that particular fraud.

Paragraph 4 begins with a bald faced misrepresentation that "The benefits of water fluoridation are well documented." Here again, there is not a shred of evidence that proves this assertion anywhere in the literature. There is no primary research extant that supports such an assertion.

To state that "According to expert research, fluoridated drinking water reduces the number of cavities in children's teeth" is a fallacy that can only be arrived at in an "Alice in Wonderland" fantasy world. In fact, the best valid research that was ever conducted to attempt to prove this, only managed to achieved a meagre reduction in cavities of 6/10th of a tooth surface out of a possible 128 tooth surfaces in the mouth. However, that savings remains questionable due to other mitigating factors, not the least of which is delayed eruption of teeth caused by fluoride ingestion. And for that putative saving, our water is being poisoned, contaminated with a toxic stew of hydrofluorosilicic acid and its co-contaminants.

To say that "Reductions of tooth decay have also been observed in adults and seniors who reside in communities with fluoridated water" is a claim that exceeds the reality of the mechanism of tooth formation and mineralization. No amount of water passing through the mouth or ingested for a systemic effect can alter the impact of the decaying process of teeth once teeth are fully formed in the mouth. It is just an anatomical anomaly that does not and can not possibly exist. Of course, in an adult or senior that no longer has any teeth, there is certainly cause to rejoice: in these cases of toothlessness, there is a total and complete lack of tooth decay in communities with fluoridated water. No teeth, no tooth decay.

To state that "water fluoridation continues to be effective in reducing tooth decay by 20-40 per cent." Is a complete fabrication and a fraudulent misrepresentation of findings that were falsified by the initial promoters of tap water fluoridation. There are absolutely no valid data that are available that show that tap water fluoridation using hydrofluorosilicic acid has any impact on the reduction in tooth decay as demonstrated in our second previous paragraph above, much less such an outrageously high rate of reduction.

In paragraph 5, the claim advanced that "removing fluoride from drinking water systems has the potential to contribute to increased rates of tooth decay" has never been proven by actual data obtained from valid, controlled research on equitably validated population cohorts where cessation of fluoridation has occurred, whether in Canada or elsewhere. This conjecture is a scare tactic used by promoters of fluoridation that has absolutely no basis whatsoever in reality, but is based on an irrational religious like belief that fluoridation prevents tooth decay even in the face of facts to the contrary. Only if you firmly believe that fluoridation prevents tooth decay can you make or believe this type of conclusion by ending water fluoridation.

To say that "The findings of several studies, including from the CDC, suggest that tooth decay generally increases in a population after water fluoridation is discontinued." has yet to be shown by the production of documentation to that effect. The CDC does not have any such studies in their possession, and there are no organizations that have come forward with any such valid documentation. The 2007 report of "kindergarten children at high risk of developing tooth decay in Dorval, Québec" has been shown to be falsified by the culling of data to prove the desired outcome by selecting children from cohorts of two different socio-economic strata. It's relatively easy to fool people who are unable to get access to the raw data or are unable to analyze these data once made available to them.

In paragraph 6, it is claimed that "Water fluoridation also has the capacity to help reduce dental care expenditures" completely ignoring the impact that dental fluorosis made inevitable by water fluoridation can cost in excess of $20,000 per patient depending upon the severity of the condition. Yet even this statement pales in the light of the multifaceted adverse health effects occasioned by the effects of the fluorination of our whole anatomy brought about by this practice, thereby placing an even more disgraceful burden on our health care system that can even be imagined by the intent of this whole paragraph. Were the fluoridation promoters to concentrate instead upon proper nutrition and exercise, eliminating the plethora of sources of sugar consumed daily by our children, they would find that a cost benefit ratio would result that is by far supremely superior to those they contemplate in this paragraph.

In light of the above, paragraph 7 then becomes another " Alice in Wonderland" statement. What is most irritating is the claim that "drinking water fluoridation extend to all residents in a community, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, education or employment." This statement really pushes the envelope of believability beyond the reasonable. However, is there not a saying that "the bigger the lie, the easier the sell" (Adolf Hitler). To use ones authority by this type of hyperbole to convince people of a non existent benefit borders on criminality. It can easily be concluded that the opposite occurs. The availability of mass poisoning with this fluoride chemical is actually going to increase our health costs because of all of the adverse health effcets associated with the use of that particular acid. But their only concern is about teeth, not the rest of your anotomy!

Under Safety of Fluoridated Drinking Water, paragraph 8, we have the following comments:

1. "Fluoride in drinking water is also safe:" This oft repeated falsehood is covered under our comments about paragraph 1 above. Suffice it only to add that any substance that contributes, or has any possibility of contributing to illness as is the case for hydrofluorosilicic acid as mass medication without supervision is NOT safe.
2. "In Ontario, fluoride additives are required to meet rigorous standards of quality and purity before they can be used." It is a published fact that the acid substance used for artificial tap water fluoridation in Ottawa and elsewhere in this country is NOT pure and NOT of rigorous quality. The hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) solution used is itself a banned EPA contaminant that also contains the following impurities and contaminants in significant amounts to be harmful to human health even when diluted in the water supply:
a) fluorine, lead, arsenic, HF (hydrogen fluoride), chromium, phosphorus, cadmium, iron, iodine, mercury, silver, as witnessed in a copy of the specifications for the product available here: HFSA Specifications, and,
b) has been tested in Toronto to reveal radionuclides not limited to: uranium 238, barium, radon, radium, plus, polonium has been detected in some samples in other tests by some U.S. laboratories.
These radionuclides are present by virtue of the nature of the extraction and acidulation process used to obtain the "final solution" - pun intended.
3. "studies have not linked fluoride to cancer, bone fractures or intelligence levels." There are no valid studies whatsoever published or extant anywhere available to support this claim for hydrofluorosilicic acid. However, studies abound that show a definite link between fluoride ingestion and cancer as well as other illnesses. Just look here: cancer, bone disease, thyroid disorders, brain damage, birth defects and more
4. "Studies have also found that water fluoridation is safe for the environment, and poses no risk to plants and animals." Here again, there are no studies whatsoever published or extant anywhere available to support this claim for hydrofluorosilicic acid. However, there is supportive data that has proven that salmon will not swim upriver where water fluoridation has been practiced, confirmed for the Columbia and Fraser Rivers of North America.

Under this same title, paragraph 9 gingerly admits to the unavoidable problem of dental fluorosis, it being such a pervasive and inescapable reality resulting from chronic exposure to fluorinated water, foods and other beverages ubiquitous in our western diet.

Unfortunately, dental fluorosis is a diseased state of the teeth caused by the careless and willful addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid to the water supply as an illegitimate form of mass medication. The dental fluorosis is much worse than is implied here. The statement makes light of the fact that thousands of young people suffer peer ostracizing due to the spotting and striations from dental fluorosis that turn to a brown discoloration which can require up to and sometimes more than $20,000 to repair over time depending upon the severity of the condition (statement from Dr. Hardy Limeback, a Toronto DDS, supported by Dr. Bill Osmunson, an Oregon, U.S. DDS, January 2011).

The title Good Oral Health Means Good Overall Health is indeed a very good motto to hold to and we agree with the first sentence of this 10th paragraph. However, where we diverge is the opinion expressed that "water fluoridation is, and must be recognized as, a very important public health measure." Why? Because the very ailments that precede this statement are aggravated by water fluoridation. There is now ample proof in the literature that shows that all degenerative diseases and allergic afflictions are part of the numerous ailments that are bio-activated by the ingestion of fluoride substances, the worst of which is this hydrofluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation.

In the final and 11th paragraph, that such a large proportion of Ontarians are being mass medicated without their consent, without professional medical oversight, continues to be a breach of ethics of the highest order. For a medical bureaucrat to "urge all Ontarians to continue to support the fluoridation of their municipal drinking water systems" is to condemn them to a life of misery and suffering that is immediate for some of us whereas it hides in the future of maladies that appear unconnected to the originating bio-activating source, namely, the banned EPA contaminant hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant contaminants, being: fluorine, lead, arsenic, HF (hydrogen fluoride), chromium, phosphorus, cadmium, iron, iodine, mercury, silver, uranium ²³⁸, barium, radon, radium, polonium and other radionuclides.

How is it possible that "everyone can enjoy the lasting health benefits" of the result of ingesting this pollutant, an unregulated, untested, untreated, uncontrolled and unpurified, highly hazardous, toxic industrial waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry that is responsible for aggravating or generating ailments such as:

dental fluorosis,
inhibition of proper tooth crystallization and mineralization,
brittle teeth,
skeletal fluorosis,
cancers (Hoover: 1991, Cohn, 1992: NTP, 1990: Bassin: 2006) especially osteosarcoma,
pineal gland calcification,
pituitary gland malfunction,
brain and nerve damage (myelin, axon and dendrite deterioration),
A.D.D.,
A.D.H.D.,
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis,
lowered IQ,
brittle bones,
arthritis,
hypothyroidism,
diabetes,
chronic fatigue syndrome
Fibromyalgia
obesity,
coronary problems,
endocrine disruption,
protein disruption and destruction,
liver damage and failure,
kidney damage and failure,
lowered testosterone,
lowered progesterone,
genotoxic effects such as DNA damage and dysregulation, and
inhibition of RNA activation,
Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's,
dementia,
programmed cell death (apoptosis),
multiple sclerosis,
osteoarthritis,
osteoporosis,
mitochondria function disruptions,
immune system dysregulation,
bone demineralization,
bone decalcification,
and others yet to be determined.

All of the preceding have been offhandedly but misleadingly dismissed by the most recent and previous Health Canada reviews of fluoridation. It is noteworthy to appeal to the precautionary principle in the use of fluorinating substances. Why? Even if only one of the problems cited above were true, or even if there was a possibility that some or even one of the aforementioned problems might occur, it is best to err on the side of caution when it comes to the use of fluorinating substances if only because of the possibility of adverse effects on human health.

The current plethora of anecdotal evidence of adverse health effects resulting from the ingestion of hydrofluorosilicic acid and its contaminants is so overwhelming that it has to be an indictment against its use as a beneficial health measure. Just as in law the weight of evidence from circumstantial evidence can easily indict a criminal for his crime, such it is for an indictment of adverse health effects from the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent in water fluoridation.

Since there is no appetite in government health organizations for primary research and investigation on possible health effects in the use of fluoride substances like hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluorinating agent, it remains up to the private sector to pick up the ball and perform this kind of investigative work. Some have done so in earnest in the hope of finding some saving grace in the use of fluoride substances for health benefits, but positive results remain elusive. Government bodies continue to deny the possibility of adverse health effects in spite of growing evidence to the contrary, to the detriment of the population oppressed by this practice of mass medication with the highly hazardous, toxic waste substance, the hydrofluorosilicic acid solution.

Thank you for having given us this opportunity to review and respond to the documentation used by the Ottawa Medical Office of Health.

Inclusions (can also be viewed as web pages):
1. Public Health Best Practice - Fluoridation - FFO-OLF commentary: web page, download word document;
2. WHO Statements public health administrators should be aware - 1994 and 1971: web page, download.pdf document;
3. Fluorine - The Element, Description, Uses & Dangers of Exposure: web page, download word document.

Respectfully yours,

I note your response of 12 September.

There appears to be a disconnect in your records.  You do not mention my Email of 12 May 2011 which was a response to your Email of 5 May 2011 and requested some specifics on the information you provided in that Email.

I also followed-up on 6 July and repeated the contents of my 12 May Email as well as requesting the source of the hydrofluorosilicic acid purchased by the City of Ottawa and used for fluoridation.

In view of having received no response to that Email, I sent my last Email on 28 August requesting a response from you.  Your Email of 12 September is in response to that Email.

I would like to point out that you have not yet responded to my Emails of 12 May, and 6 July, which requested clarifications and details.  I do not consider that your Email of 12 Sep responds to either of those two Emails.

Would you please respond to those two Emails as soon as possible (it has now been over 4 months).  If there is any problem that we could rectify with a telephone conversation, I would be pleased to do so.

BA

Hi Gillian

I am unhappy to have to tell you that in view of the "un-returned" telephone calls and Emails, I will have no choice but to emphasize the lack of response of your organization. The words "unresponsive" and "recalcitrant", will be freely applied, along with "stonewalling" and "hiding" as well as other less seemly words. Seriously, a psychologist (for which i have had some training) would say that the Health Unit has gone into a siege mentality. This is normally an attempt to exert great control because of some sense of fear of revelations of weaknesses in one's position. Unfortunately this approach consistently backfires. Experience indicates that retreating from openness leads to a more shattering problem at a later date. As a great man once said:

The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. - Winston Churchill

Wise words from a wise man and worthpaying attention to.

Good luck. I'm afraid that you'll need it

BA

Wednesday, September 21, 2011.

Dr. Isra G. Levy, MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC, FACPM
Medical Officer of Health
City of Ottawa
Ottawa Public Health

Dear Dr. Levy and Associates,

I hope that his email letter finds you, those who work with you and all those you hold dear in continued good health.

Please consider what the following organizations and countries have decided to do with regard to fluoridation and attempt to reconcile their decisions with the current policy to maintain the fluoridation of the City of Ottawa's water supply using hydrofluorosilicic acid.

Resolution regarding artificial water fluoridation

May 20 2009. Therefore be it resolved that Great Lakes United supports statements by the United States Environmental Protection Agency labor unions, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), and professionals worldwide that the practice of artificial drinking water fluoridation be terminated. Therefore be it further resolved that Great Lakes United works to reverse existing government policies supporting artificial drinking water fluoridation.

NOTE: They are "the only non-governmental organization in the region working binationally" against Great Lakes toxification, pollution and invasive species. Resolution

Civil Rights Violation Regarding Forced Medication

WHEREAS, the League of United Latin American Citizens is this nation's oldest and largest Latino organization, founded in Corpus Christi, Texas on February 24, 1929; and ... (17 WHEREAS' in all)

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that LULAC
1. commends efforts by organizations that oppose forced mass medication of the public drinking supplies using fluorides that are industrial grade, toxic waste by-products which contain contaminants (arsenic, lead, mercury) which further endanger life; and
2. supports efforts by all citizens working to stop forced medication through the public water system because it violates civil rights; and
3. opposes the public policy of fluoridation because it fails to meet legislative intent; and
4. demands to know why government agencies entrusted with protecting the public health are more protective of the policy of fluoridation than they are of public health. Approved this 1st day of July 2011. Margaret Moran, LULAC National President. Resolution

Twelve (12) European Countries as well as China have disavowed any use of fluoridation as stated in letters to us as can be seen on this web page: http://ffo-olf.org/europeanStatements.html

Please then consider requiring Ottawa City Council to impose a moratorium on artificial drinking water fluoridation until valid, objective and unbiased data have been obtained that proves that the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe for the health of all Ottawa residents and effective in reducing dental caries.

Respectfully yours,

Richard Hudon, for Fluoridation-Free Ottawa – Ottawa Libre de Fluoration
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, Ontario
K1J 8B5 — 613-747-7157 — text: 613-852-8692
Let's get fluoride out of our tap water.
http://ffo-olf.org/ — ffo-olf@rogers.com — rich.hudon@rogers.com
http://www.facebook.com/groups/FluoridationFreeOttawa/

---

LETTER # 20

From: LF <email@domain.name>
To: "Levy, Isra" <Isra.Levy@ottawa.ca>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:04:23 PM
Subject: Budget Increase for Ottawa Public Health

Dear Dr Levy:

Ref: Metronews : Ottawa Wed 21 Sep 2011 pg 3 User fees not ruled out to boost revenue I notice at the ref above that you're looking for another $500,000 in the next budget.

Though I've already suggested this to the Budget2012 initiative at <budget2012@ottawa.ca>, by stopping the forced medication by fluoridation of Ottawa municipal water-drinkers you would already have about 80% of your proposed funding available.

While I never like the sound of budget increase proposals the cessation of fluoridation in Ottawa would make a slight tax increase easier to swallow (and much cheaper for me than drinking bottled water or installing a reverse osmosis filter (~$1,000)).

Now that we have toothpaste with fluoride, we all have some choice in whether or not we ingest this toxin.  In fact as you're probably aware many parents actively search out toothpaste without fluoride for their children after reading the warning on each tube of toothpaste.

Thank you for your consideration,

LF
613-###-####
Name and address details withheld by request

to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa

---

Go to Welcome page | Letters to Councillors | TAKE ACTION page | Main information page

---

LETTER # 21