Health Canada and the Fluoride Debate

by sammielee24 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    yea...great news for Canada...

    Waterloo Region To Decide On Plebiscite Issue

    By Carole Clinch


    The Town of Dryden, Ontario voted against fluoridation of their water on April 22nd, ending a debate that has gone on for more than one year. Council will decide what to do with the $300,000 they set aside for the intended fluoridation. Perhaps Waterloo Region would save $300,000 a year if they stopped fluoridating. Both Kitchener and Cambridge have natural fluoride in their water. (0.1-0.3ppm) Ninety-eight percent (98%) of Europe has said no to fluoride.

    We’re finding out now that adding fluoride to drinking water to prevent cavities simply doesn’t make sense. Recent research demonstrates clearly that drinking fluoridated water does not prevent cavities. The same research shows a growing list of harmful effects. In a recent Globe and Mail article (Nov 28, 2007) Warren Bell, former head of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment stated; "The days of wholesale deliberate fluoridation ... are numbered." There have been significant developments in policy and in the research which are worth noting. For example, Health Canada now states that prescribing controlled doses of pharmaceutical grade fluoride under the care of a doctor is no longer recommended: "Health Canada does not recommend the use of fluoride supplements (drops or tablets).” Fluoride is a toxic chemical. Read the government warnings regarding toothpaste and mouthwash:

    • Keep out of reach of children under 6 yrs of age.”
    • “ If you swallow more than used for brushing, get medical help or contact a PoisonControlCenter right away.
    • "If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Centre right away."
    • “Never give fluoridated mouthwash or mouth rinses to children under six years of age, as they may swallow it.
    • Use non-fluoridated toothpaste or no toothpaste for young children.”
    “Hydrofluorosilicic acid is identified as a dangerous good under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations and has been classified as a Class 8 corrosive substance.” The disposal of these “hazardous waste” products is expensive. They may not be put into our lakes, rivers or streams. We are paying companies to put their hazardous waste into our drinking water, hence source water. Shouldn't these companies pay for the disposal of their own hazardous waste, in a manner that does not cause environmental or human health harm? The new 2002 Safe Drinking Water Act of Ontario does not permit the addition of “drinking water health hazards” to our drinking water and dilution of contaminants is “no defense”. Toxic substances by definition are “drinking water health hazards.” Health Canada, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, have not been able to find any chronic toxicology studies to demonstrate safety of the actual products used in water fluoridation systems after 60 years of use. Ingesting Fluoride is not Effective – Use Topically What is clearly emerging in the research literature is that fluoride is a toxic substance which should not be ingested, but should be applied topically, on the surface of the teeth. We apply sunscreen on our skin, where it is effective. We do not swallow it because it is toxic. 98% of Europe does not use water fluoridation. Many countries have banned it outright. Quebec City discontinued water fluoridation on April 1, 2008; Niagara Region passed a by-law in February 2008 prohibiting water fluoridation. Thunder Bay recently said no thanks to water fluoridation. The number of citizens drinking fluoridated water in British Columbia and the province of Quebec has dropped to about 4%. Policy Lags Behind the Science The Physician’s Desk Reference discusses the 1 to 4% of the population which may be hypersensitive to fluorides. Our understanding of allergic and hypersensitive reactions is enhanced by the research on penicillin and peanuts. There is a growing awareness that for some individuals there is no safe dose. The American Dental Association recommends that children under 12 months of age should not consume fluoridated water. A recent review in The Lancet describes fluoride as "an emerging neurotoxic substance" that may damage the developing brain. The National Research Council has identified fluoride as an "endocrine disruptor" while recent research from Harvard University has found a connection between fluoride and bone cancer that is “remarkably robust”. According to Dr. Kathy Thiessen, co-author of the National Research Council 2006 Report on Fluorides in Drinking Water: “A carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effect of fluoride cannot be ruled out from the available data, and at the very least, a cancer-promoting effect is likely. For carcinogenic substances, the risk of cancer increases with the amount of exposure, such that even a very low exposure carries with it some cancer risk.” Individuals with kidney disease and young children are unable to adequately filter toxins and individuals who drink large volumes of water such as lactating mothers, athletes and outdoor workers ingest more of these toxins on a daily basis, therefore are susceptible to overdose. Evidence suggests that those with kidney impairment should avoid fluoride consumption. The US National Kidney Foundation’s alleged failure to warn kidney patients that they are particularly susceptible to harm from ingested fluoride from drinking water and other sources is the subject of a precedent-setting letterto the Foundation from a legal firm. Is collateral damage to infants and minorities an acceptable price for fluoridation? We cannot control the dose Concentration is quantity of fluoride in a volume of water, expressed as milligrams fluoride in one liter of water (mg/L or ppm). Dose is quantity of fluoride ingested in a day, expressed as milligrams of fluoride in a day (mg/day). Any discussion of fluorides in drinking water must acknowledge the global increase of fluorides, as discussed in the January 2008 Scientific American article “Second Thoughts About Fluoride”. Fluorides are present in the air, water, foods (pesticides, fertilizers and post-harvest fumigants contribute to the fluoride content in our food chain), consumer products and drugs. Increased uses of fluoridated drinking water in the processing of foods and beverages have a multiplier effect in the food chain. We cannot control the dose of these ubiquitous fluorides because we cannot tell individuals how much to drink. Calculating how much fluoride exposure individuals receive from other sources is virtually impossible. Due to this inability to control the dose, it is reasonable to assume that the incidence and severity of such adverse health effects is likely to rise with the increases in fluoride exposures from all sources. According to the US National Research Council 2006 Report on Fluorides in Drinking Water, fluorides in drinking water are the largest source of fluorides (representing approximately 60% of our daily consumption). How can anyone claim that water fluoridation provides a SAFE dose when the dose cannot be controlled? Below is a chart demonstrating the fluoride doses at various fluoride concentrations (0.6-1.5mg/L), based on the amount of water consumed in a day. High water consumers (athletes, lactating mothers, soldiers, outdoor workers, diabetic patients) consume up to 12 liters of water per day: Water/day Fluoride consumed/day by concentration level 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5(mg/L)

    1L/day 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5(mg/day)
    2L/day 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 3.0
    3L/day 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.5
    4L/day 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 6.0
    5L/day 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.5
    6L/day 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2 9.0
    7L/day 4.2 5.6 7.0 8.4 10.5 8L/day 4.8 6.4 8.0 9.6 12.0 9L/day 5.4 7.2 9.0 10.8 13.5 10L/day 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 15.0 11L/day 6.6 8.8 11.0 13.2 16.5 According to the United Nations: “As a general guideline, prolonged total Fluoride intake exceeding 1.0 mg/day can produce clinical signs of Fluorosis in adults." Many communities in Southwestern Ontario have fluoride concentration levels well in excess of the Health Canada maximum acceptable contaminant level (MAC) of 1.5mg/L, such as Stratford (2.1mg/L), Sebringville (2.76mg/L), Chepstow (1.89mg/L), Mitchell (1.93mg/L), to name a few. The use of hydrofluorosilicic acid may be doubling our exposure to lead through the interaction of fluorosilicates with lead pipes, lead solder and leaded brass infrastructure components. We also need to be concerned about the arsenic we are adding to our drinking water. It is a level 1 carcinogen. The Thyroid-Iodine-Fluoride Connection Thyroid pathologies such as simple goiter and hyperthyroidism, and breast mastopathies such as fibrocystic breast disease and breast cancer are associated with iodine deficiency and seem to be preventable. Fluoride is a well-established enzyme disruptor. It interferes with the uptake of iodine in thyroid and extra-thyroid tissues like the breast, which require iodine for normal architecture and function. A growing number of researchers and clinicians hypothesize that breast changes due to iodine deficiency lead to breast cancer. Iodine is an essential nutrient. Fluoride is not. Health Canada does not consider fluoride as an essential nutrient.” Fiscal Imbalance Municipalities, burdened with burgeoning costs of these fluoridation chemicals due to shortages may now upload dental health care to where it rightfully belongs – to the province – with the announcement by the McGuinty government on March 17, 2008 to spend $135 million over 3 years on a dental care plan for low-income families. Providing effective delivery of dental education and dental care which can be targeted to those in need is essential if our society is seriously interested in facilitating improvements in oral health. An ideal environmental solution to pollution Rebecca Hamner from the United States Environmental Protection Agency wrote in 1983; “In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized.” In response to the above comment, Dr. Hirzy, Senior Vice-President of one of the EPA Headquarters Union wrote; "If this stuff gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it's a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing!" With background levels of fluoride (up to 0.25mg/L) in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence waterway exceeding the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (0.12mg/L), adding these toxic substances into our drinking water, hence source water is not a sustainable activity. Harm of aquatic species such as water flea and salmon is known to occur at these current background levels, and where sewage effluent enters our waterways, the fluoride levels are in excess of 1.0mg/L, diluting to background levels only after several kilometers. <1% of fluoridated water is actually consumed. >99% is returned to our environment and our source water. Is this an efficient or effective method for delivering this drug? Hurricane damage to some of the mining facilities in Florida has created a temporary shortage in fluoridation chemicals. This shortfall is mitigated by increased exports of these fluoridation chemicals from China. To learn more about the complex environmental, legal, public health and ethical issues surrounding water fluoridation please visit Waterloo Watch or the Fluoride Alert Network.

    News Home Page | Columns/Newsletters
  • marmot
    marmot

    NEWSFLASH! Bored "concerned" busybodies feel sense of pride for combating the planet's latest grave perceived threat du-jour. Pardon my cynicism but big whoop.

    I've drunk tap water all my life, I chewed fluoride tablets when I was a kid, I'm still alive and well thank you very much and I've never had a single cavity (all while brushing maybe once every couple days).

    I mean honestly, how much tap water do kids even drink these days? Everything is bottled or filtered.

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

    I wouldn't write it off as a non-issue out of hand, but I would like to see some large-scale studies comparing fluoride-water drinking communities with non-fluoride ones. Not studies showing that fluoride is bad by itself, or studies showing how rats act this way or that way. Studies of the actual populations and how the two groups compare.

    Until that research is done, all this other stuff is just not convincing enough to worry about. In my opinion.

    Dave

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    There is a lot of data already out there and it goes back to pre 1960 including why you have it in your water and who benefitted from it. There are those who could care less about the issue and those that do - I am one of those that do. The new diseases and ailments that keep showing up every year aren't for no reason - we put more junk in our bodies than ever before including more pills to combat all that junk. One less chemical in the body for no reason is one step to reclaiming your body. There never has been any proven results for the complete water system to be fluoridated. If the case for tooth decay is the reason - that is easily accomplished by fluoride toothpaste and not necessary for all your water to be chemically altered. Chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, parkinsons, alzheimers, obesity, rampant diabetes, attention disorders - all these are far more prevalent during the past 40 years than at any time before - a lot of things we ingest and breath, the way we prepare our meals, the use of chemical compounds like HFCS - it all adds up. sammieswife.

  • What-A-Coincidence
  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

    >> Chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, parkinsons, alzheimers, obesity, rampant diabetes, attention disorders - all these are far more prevalent during the past 40 years than at any time before

    Are those things more prevalent in countries with fluorinated water than those without? THAT would be the study I'm looking for.

    Dave

  • Mincan
    Mincan
    Niagara Region passed a by-law in February 2008 prohibiting water fluoridation.

    Thanks for that. Good to know, I've been bitching about this for a while. Sigh of relief... except for all the tasty toothpaste I ate as a child!

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    There is a bit of solubility issue involved. Calcium in the teeth bonds with topical fluoride, creating a substance called calcium fluoride. This is one of the most insoluble substances on the planet, which is why fluoride in toothpaste prevents cavities. And it can work. Notably, sodium fluoride is the form that is used.

    This works against you if you ingest fluoride. The fluoride now bonds with calcium in the food, creating the same insoluble substance. Only this time, the calcium cannot be absorbed because of it and is lost. Without calcium to reach the teeth, fluoride has nothing to bond to and is totally worthless. And the teeth are left vulnerable to cavities because of no calcium. As a bonus, the bones are robbed of calcium in the process.

    I do not think fluoride, except that which occurs naturally in the water, belongs there (and the naturally occurring form is sodium or calcium fluroide, already bound to calcium). Topically, it is very useful and I use it. But the kind of fluoride found in tap water is a slow poison, and can prevent calcium from being absorbed and lead to more, not less, cavities.

    Is it any wonder our leaders want the education system to be crap?

  • What-A-Coincidence
    What-A-Coincidence

    Fluoride in Drinking Water

    Science Shows it Softens Bones and Teeth


    Nature did a good job of evolving teeth and had half a billion years to do it. I'm an evolution biologist. I see the detail, complexity and adequacy of evolution. To think nature has flaws which humans can improve through crap like fluoride is biological fraud.


    Evidence is accumulating in science to indicate that fluoride softens bones and teeth. There is a scientific logic to explain why. Calcium, the primary hardener for bones and teeth, can form two bonds with oxygen to create chains. Fluoride can only create one bond. So if fluoride combines with calcium, it breaks the chain.

    The words of Dr. John Yiamouyiannis: "The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic."

    Yiamouyiannis adds, "In highly naturally-fluoridated areas, the teeth actually crumble as a result. These are the first visible symptoms of fluoride poisoning."

    http://nov55.com/fld.html

  • littlerockguy

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit