Fluoride approved by city council following debate

Tyler
Tyler Clarke
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Despite an impassioned plea from a Prince Albert resident backed by a Canadian medical scholar, the city is cleared to resume the fluoridation of its drinking water.

 

College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan executive director Jerod Orb speaks in favour of fluoridation during Monday’s city council meeting. 

Despite an impassioned plea from a Prince Albert resident backed by a Canadian medical scholar, the city is cleared to resume the fluoridation of its drinking water.

Local health advocate Maureen Logue first brought the issue to city council about a year ago, around the same time the city stopped injecting fluoride into its drinking water due to ongoing renovations.

With fluoridation set to re-commence in about a week’s time, Logue made one final plea for city council to reconsider their fluoridation policy during Monday’s city council meeting.

“It’s unethical to enforce a drug, because fluoride is not a nutrient,” she said. “If people, through their own choice, want to fluoridate, we have so many sources of fluoridation.”

By international law, it’s illegal to dump fluoride in oceans, she said -- “and we’re drinking it!”

Logue backed her argument with a number of points University of Calgary medical biophysics Prof. James Beck provided her.

Beck co-authored the book, “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There.”

Although fluoride may be beneficial when applied topically, fluoride in drinking water is ingested  -- something Beck notes in his research as carrying potentially harmful side effects such as dental fluorosis.

Even its alleged positive effects were questioned by Logue, who noted, citing literature by Beck, that “dental cavities for various reasons have gone down all over the world … In non-fluoridated communities, it has gone down just as much or (more) than fluoridated.”

In a letter to city council, Beck listed various adverse health effects linked to fluoride, including lower IQs in children, early onset of menstruation, low sperm counts and adversely affecting the kidneys, among other things.

Providing a pro-fluoride stance, College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan executive director Jerod Orb also spoke during Monday’s meeting.

In Canada, about 45 per cent of communities have fluoridated water -- its benefits obvious to citizens that have it, he asserted.

“It reduces tooth decay anywhere from 18 to 40 per cent,” he said. “That is why we see our long-term care facilities more and more full of seniors with their natural teeth.”

Saskatoon fluoridates its water and Regina doesn’t, he said, noting that a 2009 study cited twice as many cavities in Regina kids.

(Fluoride) reduces tooth decay anywhere from 18 to 40 per cent ... That is why we see our long-term care facilities more and more full of seniors with their natural teeth. College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan executive director Jerod Orb

“It’s proven to be safe,” he concluded. “At the recommended levels it’s safe -- excessive, it isn’t.”

In Prince Albert, the naturally occurring fluoride is topped up to 0.7 parts per million, which is shy of the country’s maximum acceptable concentration of 1.5.

Backing Orb’s pro-fluoride stance, Prince Albert Parkland Health Region dental health educator Dwight Krauss said that fluoridation is free because “it benefits the entire spectrum of the population.”

“It’s a huge benefit. The costs of getting restorations done -- I think everyone’s aware of that.”

When it comes to dental fluorosis, Krauss handed a chart to the city’s elected officials highlighting its prevalence. Although 40.3 per cent of the population has questionable to mild levels of dental fluorosis, it may actually make the tooth more resistant to decay, his handout reads.

Only 0.3 per cent of the population has severe dental fluorosis, which is likely caused by additional outside factors, he said after his presentation.

After hearing both sides of the debate and considering correspondence from a few additional sources that outlined numerous additional arguments, Mayor Greg Dionne told council that now is the time to make a decision.

“It’s a no-win situation,” he said. “The yeas have all their facts in line, the nays have all their facts in line.”

With the only dissenting comment from council coming from Coun. Ted Zurakowski, who noted that the city would save money by not injecting fluoride, council voted in favour of fluoridation.

City public works director Colin Innes confirmed that after more than a year of being offline, the city’s new fluoridation equipment is almost good to go.

“It’s either very close to us being able to feed, already, or that we’re within a week or so of being able to do it.”

Questioning much of what was presented to the city’s elected officials, Logue said after the meeting that she’s not done addressing the fluoridation issue, and plans on remaining in contact with Beck to plan the next course of action.

With fluoride injection set to recommence within the next week, she wants to warn the public -- particularly the most vulnerable, such as people with babies -- that not all professionals agree that it’s safe.

Organizations: College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan, University of Calgary

Geographic location: Regina, Canada, Saskatoon

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Cindy
    March 11, 2013 - 22:24

    I don't understand how people can keep thinking that fluoride is safe. There is a lot of information out there that proves that is it not. I would much rather have a cavity than damage to my endocrine system, I don't think I will die from a cavity. Even a little bit of poison is still poison. Fluoride was used as an anti-thyroid medication many years ago for those that were hyperthyroid because it lowers thyroid hormones, what do you think it does to to people that have normal or already low thyroid hormones?

  • Robert Jasmer
    March 06, 2013 - 16:40

    The fluoride put in our drinking water is industrial waste from the aluminum industry.. instead of them paying $$$ to properly dispose of this enviro waste, tax payers pay them to drink it. There are many cities around the world who don't poison their population with this toxin. There are plenty of cities who do fluoridate the water and their poor people still have bad teeth. Fluoride is the main ingredient in rat poison. If we fallow the logic of drinking fluoride to help our teeth then we should be drinking sun screen to save our skin.

  • Richard Hudon
    March 01, 2013 - 02:04

    "The studies that site fluoride as dangerous" is not what fluoridation "cessationists" are claiming. 1. Our claim is that chronic ingestion causes adverse health effects that are now proven. 2. Our claim is that fluoridation produces more than just dental fluorosis. 3. Our claim is that dental fluorosis is more than just a cosmetic effect while dental fluorosis is incontestable and ADA/CDC officially reported effect of chronic (long term) fluoride exposure. 4. Our claim is that Fluoride in the water supply is a known protoplasmic poison and that it causes harm to the health of everyone at lower doses than has ever been acknowledged or recognized. 5. Our claim is that it is a drug because promoters and supporters say that it is so by virtue of the fact that it is put in the water supply to treat tooth decay and not to treaty the water. 6. Our claim is that everyone gets treated for a condition for which no benefit can be derived as represented by its very promoters and supporters 7. Our claim is that everyone gets medicated without their explicit consent and often without their knowledge and without any medical supervision or follow up 8. Our claim is that knowledge of adverse effects and non performance have been suppressed for ulterior motives unrelated to tooth decay 9. 7. Our claim is that mass medication of this nature is unethical, immoral and unlawful. 10. Our claim is that fluoridation is still experimental because there are still no clinical trials or animal studies for ingestion of fluoridated water using a toxic fluoride industrial waste chemical. 11. Our claim is that this continuing experimenting on people is against the Nuremberg code signed by Canada after WW2. 12. Our claim is that illnesses and deaths are needlessly aggravated and caused by artificial water fluoridation It's high time more truth comes out about this ill advised health practice. Here's one more item to add to the suppressed knowledge that has come to light over the years. The Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943, editorial, said: “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons.” This concurs with an earlier declaration contained in another professional Journal. The Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 23, page 568, April, 1936, titled "Fluorine in relation to bone and tooth development" by Floyd DeEds, Phd, - where that previous statement corroborated this research. So, what happened since then? Fluoride hasn't changed. Social engineering of our perceptions is what's changed. Social engineering has made us accept it as if it was NOT harmful when it really IS harmful... in 1951, H.T. Dean, then Director of the National Institute of health confirmed before a U.S.Congressional Hearing, that fluoridation was experimental: We set up a hypothesis, a dental caries fluorine hypothesis, and obviously the next step in scientific procedure would be to subject this hypothesis to *experimental* verification by adding fluoride to a fluoride-free water, and it is purely experimental verification of the hypothesis. This experimentation was done on people after the U.S. was a know signatory to the prohibition on human experimentation at Nuremberg!

  • Kelley Joyce-Floyd
    February 27, 2013 - 09:30

    Fluoride does not improve tooth decay . It prevents it. Once a tooth is decayed, the only thing to be done is to remove the diseased tissue. The studies that site fluoride as dangerous are talking about ingesting amounts many many many times the amount you would ever ingest by drinking fluoridated water. Our city adopted fluoridation in the early 90s. I have never seen any evidence of increases in any of the conditions or diseases you have mentioned. I have however, seen a greatly reduced rate of dental caries (cavities) in children. Don't you think doctors would be freaking out if they saw the increases in disease occurance you are claiming? Anti fluoride people love to say that we in the dental community are biased because we make money from fluoride, we're in cahoots with the manufacturers. Well I'm here to tell you different. Fluoride treatments are one of the cheapest services if not the cheapest service, we provide. A dentist will make a heck of a lot more money from filling cavities. Dentists actually reduce their potential income by promoting fluoride. Yes, there are medical/dental professionals out there that are anti water fluoridation. Let me assure you, they are few and far between! There are also professionals out there that believe in chemtrails and that wearing magnets in your shoes will cure your shellfish allergies. Get informed, and don't be fooled by pseudo-science!

    • Richard Hudon
      March 01, 2013 - 02:03

      "The studies that site fluoride as dangerous" is not what fluoridation "cessationists" are claiming. 1. Our claim is that chronic ingestion causes adverse health effects that are now proven. 2. Our claim is that fluoridation produces more than just dental fluorosis. 3. Our claim is that dental fluorosis is more than just a cosmetic effect while dental fluorosis is incontestable and ADA/CDC officially reported effect of chronic (long term) fluoride exposure. 4. Our claim is that Fluoride in the water supply is a known protoplasmic poison and that it causes harm to the health of everyone at lower doses than has ever been acknowledged or recognized. 5. Our claim is that it is a drug because promoters and supporters say that it is so by virtue of the fact that it is put in the water supply to treat tooth decay and not to treaty the water. 6. Our claim is that everyone gets treated for a condition for which no benefit can be derived as represented by its very promoters and supporters 7. Our claim is that everyone gets medicated without their explicit consent and often without their knowledge and without any medical supervision or follow up 8. Our claim is that knowledge of adverse effects and non performance have been suppressed for ulterior motives unrelated to tooth decay 9. 7. Our claim is that mass medication of this nature is unethical, immoral and unlawful. 10. Our claim is that fluoridation is still experimental because there are still no clinical trials or animal studies for ingestion of fluoridated water using a toxic fluoride industrial waste chemical. 11. Our claim is that this continuing experimenting on people is against the Nuremberg code signed by Canada after WW2. 12. Our claim is that illnesses and deaths are needlessly aggravated and caused by artificial water fluoridation It's high time more truth comes out about this ill advised health practice. Here's one more item to add to the suppressed knowledge that has come to light over the years. The Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943, editorial, said: “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons.” This concurs with an earlier declaration contained in another professional Journal. The Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 23, page 568, April, 1936, titled "Fluorine in relation to bone and tooth development" by Floyd DeEds, Phd, - where that previous statement corroborated this research. So, what happened since then? Fluoride hasn't changed. Social engineering of our perceptions is what's changed. Social engineering has made us accept it as if it was NOT harmful when it really IS harmful... in 1951, H.T. Dean, then Director of the National Institute of health confirmed before a U.S.Congressional Hearing, that fluoridation was experimental: We set up a hypothesis, a dental caries fluorine hypothesis, and obviously the next step in scientific procedure would be to subject this hypothesis to *experimental* verification by adding fluoride to a fluoride-free water, and it is purely experimental verification of the hypothesis. This experimentation was done on people after the U.S. was a know signatory to the prohibition on human experimentation at Nuremberg!

  • James Reeves
    February 26, 2013 - 21:17

    Only 5% of the world and only 2% of Europe uses fluoridation because many large studies show fluoridation is totally ineffective in improving tooth decay and is dangerous to health (See fluoridealert.org). The citizens of the few countries which fluoridate also have the distinction of having the highest rates of arthritis and thyroid disease, both side effects of excessive ingestion of fluoride. Enlightened countries have rejected forced fluoridation — Belgium, all of the Scandinavian countries, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland and so forth. Ninety-eight percent of Western Europe has rejected it on principle or for scientific reasons. In 2006, Israel suspended fluoridation based on studies that showed it does more harm than good. Also rejecting it is Japan, China, and India. The reason most of the world rejects fluoridation is that they have learned it is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health, including cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.