After a proposal to remove it, Calgary’s city council has voted in favour of fluoride.
Despite the cost—approximately $600,000 per year, plus another $5 million to upgrade the fluoride systems at water treatment plants—and the health controversy, the city will keep the substance as part of its public water.
The city has held six plebiscites on the fluoride issue since 1989.
The artificial fluoridation issue will keep appearing on municipal Council agendas because neither Canadian water quality guidelines or Provincial standards (where they exist) can legislate a policy fraught with pseudo-science and potential liability. Water fluoridation was never about water quality(but sold as decay prevention). It’s really a waste management policy. Hydrofluosilicic acid (HFSA), the fluoridating compound, is a toxic waste which costs C$7,000/ton to treat. Sell it to municipalities as magic tooth medicine and it’s no longer classified as a waste, but as a “product.”
The feds don’t have jurisdiction over Provincial drinking water quality in Canada. That’s why there are no enforceable national drinking water quality water standards. This power is the domain of the Provinces. Where enforceable standards exist like Ontario’s SDWA and it Regs., the Province can prosecute for violations of prescribed water quality parameters, except fluoride. Why?
The only regulated action is to report concentrations of fluoridated water above 1.5mg/L when “artificial fluoridation” is used. When “naturally fluoridated” supplies are used, the reporting mechanism remains, but a soft limit of 2.5mg/L is permitted. There are no corrective actions for fluoride specified by legislation. It’s strange that fluoride is protected this way when no such limit exists for lead which is less toxic than fluoride. So why the double standard?
The conclusions for these questions are political. One that federal and provincial authorities have adeptly side stepped and downloaded onto municipalities. The prudent approach to water quality should be based in solid science and not in economics or the ability of a municipality to pay to remove contaminants. This is artificial fluoridation’s case today as it was with trihalomethane limits in the 80’s and 90’s.
Fresh research into the previous believed no harm concentrations of fluoride are now showing real harm to other body tissue and systems. Two of these harms are fluorosis and hypothyroidism, now mainstream health issues in Canada.
When the average person connects the dots and understands that swallowing fluoride compounds does not prevent decay, but topical fluoride (brushing, rinses, sealants)does, then they will demand the highest water quality possible from municipal providers. Artificial fluoridation of drinking water is needless infrastructure and cost. Apparently some municipalities get it, Calgary’s just not there yet.
Inform yourself at fluoridealert.org or waterloowatch.com
Peter Van Caulart, Director
Environmental Training Institute
The artificial fluoridation issue will keep appearing on municipal Council agendas because neither Canadian water quality guidelines or Provincial standards (where they exist) can legislate a policy fraught with pseudo-science and potential liability. Water fluoridation was never about water quality(but sold as decay prevention). It’s really a waste management policy. Hydrofluosilicic acid (HFSA), the fluoridating compound, is a toxic waste which costs C$7,000/ton to treat. Sell it to municipalities as magic tooth medicine and it’s no longer classified as a waste, but as a “product.”
The feds don’t have jurisdiction over Provincial drinking water quality in Canada. That’s why there are no enforceable national drinking water quality water standards. This power is the domain of the Provinces. Where enforceable standards exist like Ontario’s SDWA and it Regs., the Province can prosecute for violations of prescribed water quality parameters, except fluoride. Why?
The only regulated action is to report concentrations of fluoridated water above 1.5mg/L when “artificial fluoridation” is used. When “naturally fluoridated” supplies are used, the reporting mechanism remains, but a soft limit of 2.5mg/L is permitted. There are no corrective actions for fluoride specified by legislation. It’s strange that fluoride is protected this way when no such limit exists for lead which is less toxic than fluoride. So why the double standard?
The conclusions for these questions are political. One that federal and provincial authorities have adeptly side stepped and downloaded onto municipalities. The prudent approach to water quality should be based in solid science and not in economics or the ability of a municipality to pay to remove contaminants. This is artificial fluoridation’s case today as it was with trihalomethane limits in the 80’s and 90’s.
Fresh research into the previous believed no harm concentrations of fluoride are now showing real harm to other body tissue and systems. Two of these harms are fluorosis and hypothyroidism, now mainstream health issues in Canada.
When the average person connects the dots and understands that swallowing fluoride compounds does not prevent decay, but topical fluoride (brushing, rinses, sealants)does, then they will demand the highest water quality possible from municipal providers. Artificial fluoridation of drinking water is needless infrastructure and cost. Apparently some municipalities get it, Calgary’s just not there yet.
Inform yourself at fluoridealert.org or waterloowatch.com
Peter Van Caulart, Director
Environmental Training Institute
The board of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (in California) held a public meeting March 22nd on water fluoridation. This summer they are scheduled to vote on whether or not to fluoridate the water supply. The board and their staff were given 20 copies of a 75-minute cd of doctors explaining the history, origin, and health hazards of this toxic waste. Doctors included John Lee, John Yiamouyannis, and Phyllis Mullenix. The audio is posted at the website http://www.MaeBrussell.com. Just go to the bottom of the homepage.
If people were to burn a cd of that audio and spread it around (especially to churches, schools, health food stores and health clubs) you might find it very effective in waking up the public in your area. Good luck.
The board of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (in California) held a public meeting March 22nd on water fluoridation. This summer they are scheduled to vote on whether or not to fluoridate the water supply. The board and their staff were given 20 copies of a 75-minute cd of doctors explaining the history, origin, and health hazards of this toxic waste. Doctors included John Lee, John Yiamouyannis, and Phyllis Mullenix. The audio is posted at the website http://www.MaeBrussell.com. Just go to the bottom of the homepage.
If people were to burn a cd of that audio and spread it around (especially to churches, schools, health food stores and health clubs) you might find it very effective in waking up the public in your area. Good luck.