Fluoride, attendance and more taken on by council

Tyler Clarke
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

City council ran the gambit of discussion during Monday’s executive committee meeting.

Resident Maureen Logue holds up a stack of paperwork last year that she submitted to city council of the day. On Monday, a new city council considered her recommendation that they discontinue the fluoridation of city drinking water. 

City council ran the gambit of discussion during Monday’s executive committee meeting.

In addition to tentatively agreeing that voluntary snow removal is the way to go and that a handful of committees they deem as redundant will be dissolved, as reported in Tuesday’s Daily Herald, council discussed the following items.

Since Monday’s meeting was an executive committee meeting, everything decided by council is tentative until next Monday’s city council meeting.


Fluoride injection


Almost a year after meeting with city council in hopes of convincing them to stop injecting fluoride into Prince Albert’s drinking water, Maureen Logue is following up.

With nothing coming out of her presentation, she’s trying again. On Monday, a new city council considered an anti-fluoride letter Logue wrote to them.

Fluoride, she wrote, is a contaminant, and may pose a legal liability, and is a waste of funds.

“In the States, the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) admits that 41 per cent of children between 12 and 15 have fluorosis, and that monetary damages for veneers and dental care would be about $50,000 per child.”

First to speak up on Monday was Coun. Charlene Miller, who motioned for council to seek more information on the subject before making a decision during next week’s city council meeting.

Her hope, she said, is to seek someone to “explain how important it is to actually put it into our water.”

On that note, Mayor Greg Dionne said that it’s not a cut-and-dry discussion.

He said that he asked six dentists their opinion of fluoride injection into the city’s drinking water.

“Three think it’s wonderful, three think it’s awful,” he said.

The city hasn’t been injecting fluoride into its drinking water for about a year, the city’s director of public works Colin Innes said, due to ongoing upgrades to the facility.

“I should let everybody know, though, that part of our river water is a naturally occurring level of (fluoride), so all the city is really topping up the level that’s there,” he said.

Seeking even more information than Miller requested, Coun. Martin Ring asked that dental professionals from the University of Saskatchewan also be contacted to provide council with information.

Having also talked to a few dentists about the fluoridation debate, he said, “they’ve all got differing positions on it.”

“This is what we talk about now, but 50 years from now, if there’s tooth decay and such, is it going to be attributed to us not putting fluoride in the water? That’s going to be an argument that we may never see settled out, here.”

In the States, the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) admits that 41 per cent of children between 12 and 15 have fluorosis, and that monetary damages for veneers and dental care would be about $50,000 per child. Local anti-fluoride advocate Maureen Logue


Councillors’ attendance


City council attendance throughout 2012 was near perfect, for both those remaining on council and those not re-elected in October.

When it came to city council meetings, both regular and special, attendance among those still on council ranged from missing between only one and five of 40 meetings.

Private committee of the whole meetings were also well attended, with councillors notching a maximum of two of 17 meetings not attended.

The same applies to executive committee meetings, for those remaining on council.

Since the October election, all of the newly elected members of council have boasted a 100 per cent attendance record for all meetings of council, including Monday’s.


RM of St. Louis request


What council deemed the strangest item in Monday’s agenda was a request from the RM of St. Louis for city funding toward their 100-year celebration, to be held June 21-23.

“I’m surprised that they would come to us to ask,” city manager Robert Cotterill said, addressing Coun. Charlene Miller’s suggestion that the RM look into grants that may be available to them instead of city funds.

“This is a rural municipality, and I’m not sure why they would have any ask or even any sense to ask for money from the City of Prince Albert, whether it’s in the form of a grant or whatever,” Coun. Martin Ring said.

“The City of Prince Albert isn’t in a habit of giving out money to another municipality.”


Other items


The city’s elected officials discussed or flipped past various other items in preparation for next week’s city council meeting.

During next week’s meeting they will also discuss a daycare centre application for 449 10th St. E., proposed changes to the council inquiry process, a request for a lighted crosswalk at St. Francis School, and a $76,000 waste water treatment plant programmable logic controller and human machine interface, among various other items.

The meeting will take place at council chambers on Jan. 14, beginning at 5 p.m. As always, the meeting will be open to the public. 

Organizations: Daily Herald, Prince Albert, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention University of Saskatchewan Francis School

Geographic location: Prince Albert, St. Louis

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Sarah
    February 26, 2013 - 11:55

    I completely support Maureen Logue and I'm sure many others would too! I am beyond disappointed to find out we have fluoride in our water, I think it's an absolutely terrible decision! Here's to hoping our new mayor will step up and take it out or I'm buying bottled from now on.

  • Kallie Miller
    January 08, 2013 - 14:48

    Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation | Cof-Cof In an article in the January issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) authors Armfield and Melbye indicate that "Studies of dentists' attitudes about water fluoridation suggest that a lack of knowledge and preparedness are barriers to discussing the topic ... more than one-half of the respondents believed they needed more information and training on the issue," reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dental-journal-article-admits-that-dentists-know-little-about-the-science-of-fluoridation-but-urges-them-to-promote-the-practice-anyway-2013-01-08 There are no toxicology studies on the long term use of the toxic waste, hydrofluorosilicic acid, used to fluoridate in tap water so how can the dentists say it is safe. In fact, truthfully, it is not effective. see: www.fluoridealert.org and/or www.cof-cof-ca What about the dentists moras and ethics if they have not done their due diligence to look for fluoride dangers and the toxicology studies yet they recommend it as safe and effective .