Canada - DDT was considered safe once too
DDT was considered safe once too
April 30, 2009 16:04
I read with interest the comments of the dentist who is president of the Ontario Dental Association.
I am also alarmed that he was challenging a New Tecumseth councillor’s right to question the use of fluoridation in a municipal water supply. That is what our representatives are elected to do. They should discuss both sides of an issue, especially a controversial issue.
The taxpayers in an area defined by bylaw pay over and above as there is a cost to a fluoride process that other areas without fluoridation do not pay, as a daily operating, monitoring and testing cost.
The doctor has also mentioned that fluoridation in the “correct” amount is safe and effective. Once again we must rely on no mechanical or human error which as we know from Walkerton can quickly change safe, effective and correct.
If one wished to have their family use fluoride to prevent tooth decay then go to your dentist and request it. It should remain a personal choice. Water is considered a food as we ingest it, that is why it is so highly regulated.
Do we really need fluoride 365 days a year? Do we need it in eight glasses of water a day, also used to wash our fruit and vegetables, make daily beverages, bathe in it, wash our hands, our hair, and yes, brush our teeth, flush it through our entire body as well as through our plumbing systems back to the treatment plant and on into our ecosystems to come back purified as drinking water, only to add fluoride once more.
A study has been done by professionals that states that only 47 per cent of Canadians drink municipal tap water, and most systems do not fluoridate their water supply. Why?
There will always by a study and an expert to refute anything until the unimaginable happens, then they are suddenly not available for comment. DDT, Capton, Malathion, Parathion, and Atrizine were all used on food crops but can no longer be used! Why?
Perhaps the Dental Association could pay for a study on the people of Tottenham to see if they have any fewer cavities than the rest of the residents of Simcoe County on non-fluoridated water systems operated by municipalities.
Remember “experts” built the Titanic!
You decide what your family will injest on a daily basis, it’s called freedom of choice. To provide only one area of a municipal water supply system with fluoride is at best discriminatory. So if it’s advantageous, why not do it to all the systems?
I attended 144 days of Environmental Assessment Board hearings and upon being questioned about a guarantee of continued water quality subjected to chemicals, the chemical engineer expert said, “In life there are no absolutes and the same applies to water quality.”
Fran Sainsbury,
Tottenham
April 30, 2009 16:04
I read with interest the comments of the dentist who is president of the Ontario Dental Association.
I am also alarmed that he was challenging a New Tecumseth councillor’s right to question the use of fluoridation in a municipal water supply. That is what our representatives are elected to do. They should discuss both sides of an issue, especially a controversial issue.
The taxpayers in an area defined by bylaw pay over and above as there is a cost to a fluoride process that other areas without fluoridation do not pay, as a daily operating, monitoring and testing cost.
The doctor has also mentioned that fluoridation in the “correct” amount is safe and effective. Once again we must rely on no mechanical or human error which as we know from Walkerton can quickly change safe, effective and correct.
If one wished to have their family use fluoride to prevent tooth decay then go to your dentist and request it. It should remain a personal choice. Water is considered a food as we ingest it, that is why it is so highly regulated.
Do we really need fluoride 365 days a year? Do we need it in eight glasses of water a day, also used to wash our fruit and vegetables, make daily beverages, bathe in it, wash our hands, our hair, and yes, brush our teeth, flush it through our entire body as well as through our plumbing systems back to the treatment plant and on into our ecosystems to come back purified as drinking water, only to add fluoride once more.
A study has been done by professionals that states that only 47 per cent of Canadians drink municipal tap water, and most systems do not fluoridate their water supply. Why?
There will always by a study and an expert to refute anything until the unimaginable happens, then they are suddenly not available for comment. DDT, Capton, Malathion, Parathion, and Atrizine were all used on food crops but can no longer be used! Why?
Perhaps the Dental Association could pay for a study on the people of Tottenham to see if they have any fewer cavities than the rest of the residents of Simcoe County on non-fluoridated water systems operated by municipalities.
Remember “experts” built the Titanic!
You decide what your family will injest on a daily basis, it’s called freedom of choice. To provide only one area of a municipal water supply system with fluoride is at best discriminatory. So if it’s advantageous, why not do it to all the systems?
I attended 144 days of Environmental Assessment Board hearings and upon being questioned about a guarantee of continued water quality subjected to chemicals, the chemical engineer expert said, “In life there are no absolutes and the same applies to water quality.”
Fran Sainsbury,
Tottenham
posted by Bill at
9:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home