Canada - Right decision
Brenda Pressenger, Thunder Bay
To the editor:
I applaud Mayor Lynn Peterson and the majority of city councillors, in this case, for doing the right thing for the citizens of Thunder Bay regarding the question of water fluoridation.
They listened and respected the many emails and phone calls that were sent to them that said that they did not want their water supply to be fluoridated. The councillors did their homework on the issue and then stood up for the citizens of Thunder Bay.
It is interesting that the articles written by other dentists, following the decision not to put the question of water fluoridation on the 2010 municipal election ballot, criticized the city council for not listening to the dental experts and professionals that made presentations at the council meeting.
Dentists are true experts through their training in drilling and filling cavities, dental surgery and repairing the damage known to be caused from fluoride overexposure, such as dental fluorosis, gingivitis and periodontitis.
Dental fluorosis is what 48 per cent of 13-year-old children in the fluoridated city of Oakville have due to the overexposure of water fluoridation (HFSA). This overexposure prevents dental enamel from forming on the teeth creating visible white, yellow or brown spots and actually causing the breaking away of tooth enamel in more severe forms. Oakville’s artificial water fluoridation level is .5 to .6 ppm which is .1 ppm lower tham what the TBDHU has been recommending Thunder Bay to have.
If you look at a textbook from dental school you will see virtually nothing being taught in dental school regarding artificial water fluoridation.
It is not correct to imply that they are experts in this area. Dentists have no expertise in fluoride toxicology – the only dentist in Canada with considerable expertise in this area is Dr. Hardy Limeback, who is opposed to water fluoridation.
The majority of dentists would have little to no expertise in fluoridation systems; little to no experience in the effects of drugs outside of the mouth; little to no expertise in environmental issues; little to no expertise in ethical issues raised by using a drug (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid) in drinking water without informed consent, which means citizens are not being informed of risks and their consent is not obtained for putting this drug and hazardous waste into their drinking water.
No matter how the supporters of water fluoridation try to sugar coat it, it is what it is: an unprocessed, toxic, hazardous waste compound that is obtained from the smokestack scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer factories and the mining/aluminum manufacturing factories, which contains the heavy metals lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, barium, radium and uranium.
Fifty per cent remains in the skeletal system, pineal gland and other tissues of the body and accumulates with time. The individuals suffering from kidney disease or have babies and young children will retain as much as 85 per cent. It is not safe for humans, pets or the environment.
We, in Thunder Bay, are not alone in wanting to reject artificial water fluoridation. Ninety-six per cent of British Columbia and 96 per cnet of Quebec do not fluoridate their water supply.
The citizens of unfluoridated Vancouver have a lower rate of cavities than citizens in fluoridated Toronto. Ninety-eight per cent of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. As of May 31, 2009, approximately 6,383,557,000 people around the world are not drinking artificially fluoridated water.
Call your city councillor and voice your appreciation for their decision.
Brenda Pressenger,
Thunder Bay
To the editor:
I applaud Mayor Lynn Peterson and the majority of city councillors, in this case, for doing the right thing for the citizens of Thunder Bay regarding the question of water fluoridation.
They listened and respected the many emails and phone calls that were sent to them that said that they did not want their water supply to be fluoridated. The councillors did their homework on the issue and then stood up for the citizens of Thunder Bay.
It is interesting that the articles written by other dentists, following the decision not to put the question of water fluoridation on the 2010 municipal election ballot, criticized the city council for not listening to the dental experts and professionals that made presentations at the council meeting.
Dentists are true experts through their training in drilling and filling cavities, dental surgery and repairing the damage known to be caused from fluoride overexposure, such as dental fluorosis, gingivitis and periodontitis.
Dental fluorosis is what 48 per cent of 13-year-old children in the fluoridated city of Oakville have due to the overexposure of water fluoridation (HFSA). This overexposure prevents dental enamel from forming on the teeth creating visible white, yellow or brown spots and actually causing the breaking away of tooth enamel in more severe forms. Oakville’s artificial water fluoridation level is .5 to .6 ppm which is .1 ppm lower tham what the TBDHU has been recommending Thunder Bay to have.
If you look at a textbook from dental school you will see virtually nothing being taught in dental school regarding artificial water fluoridation.
It is not correct to imply that they are experts in this area. Dentists have no expertise in fluoride toxicology – the only dentist in Canada with considerable expertise in this area is Dr. Hardy Limeback, who is opposed to water fluoridation.
The majority of dentists would have little to no expertise in fluoridation systems; little to no experience in the effects of drugs outside of the mouth; little to no expertise in environmental issues; little to no expertise in ethical issues raised by using a drug (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid) in drinking water without informed consent, which means citizens are not being informed of risks and their consent is not obtained for putting this drug and hazardous waste into their drinking water.
No matter how the supporters of water fluoridation try to sugar coat it, it is what it is: an unprocessed, toxic, hazardous waste compound that is obtained from the smokestack scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer factories and the mining/aluminum manufacturing factories, which contains the heavy metals lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, barium, radium and uranium.
Fifty per cent remains in the skeletal system, pineal gland and other tissues of the body and accumulates with time. The individuals suffering from kidney disease or have babies and young children will retain as much as 85 per cent. It is not safe for humans, pets or the environment.
We, in Thunder Bay, are not alone in wanting to reject artificial water fluoridation. Ninety-six per cent of British Columbia and 96 per cnet of Quebec do not fluoridate their water supply.
The citizens of unfluoridated Vancouver have a lower rate of cavities than citizens in fluoridated Toronto. Ninety-eight per cent of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. As of May 31, 2009, approximately 6,383,557,000 people around the world are not drinking artificially fluoridated water.
Call your city councillor and voice your appreciation for their decision.
Brenda Pressenger,
Thunder Bay
posted by Bill at
9:44 AM
4 Comments:
I am a dentist who happens to be against water fluoridation because I feel there are other choices available. Also the biggest proper scientific review of fluoridation, certainly in the UK, and probably the World, provided no clear conclusion http://www.fluoridealert.org/york.htm
I would however caution writers such as the above against damaging the argument against by ranting . You need to be measured in your argument and you need to give references if you quote findings. Remember that those who are in favour of fluoridation have the best interests of patients at heart, and certainly do not deserve to be demonised.
You are right to say that dentists are not not toxicologists, but then again, neither are most people who prescribe medication (most of which has some degree of toxicity) so that is not an argument.
You are wrong to say that dentists do not know about the effects of drugs in the rest of the body-where is your evidence for this? In the UK a dentist is free and qualified to prescribe whatever they want (whether or not they could justify it is another matter-but the fact is they are trained effectively as doctors specialising in the mouth and they DO know perfectly well the effects of drugs).
You are also wrong that fluoridation is not taught in Dental School-again where is your evidence for this? Complex, wide-ranging, high level training such as Medicine and Dentistry is based on teaching, practice and experience, and is grounded in research, it is not based on textbooks which are only one part of the overall process. It is impossible know about what is taught without being part of that experience. Do you honestly think that general dentists are coming out of five or six years of undergraduate and a minimum of two years postgrad (vocational training) without studying fluoridation.
Finally, again remembering that I am against fluoridation myself, those who are for fluoridation might feel rightly aggrieved to be demonised, since there is absolutely no personal advantage to any dentist anywhere to advocate fluoridation-it does them out of work.
By
Mancman, at 15 August, 2009
I am pleased that you are against fluoridation, as a member of Hampshire Against Fluoridation I wouldn't demonise any dentist for claiming fluoridation as being good as they are only sent information backed by the BFS and the BDA who are committed to support it. All plans to fluoridate should have been stopped after the York report called for more research. This has not been done enough to satisfy anybody except the BFS and the BDA who have lost all credibility when they tried to make out the York report endorsed fluoridation as being safe and effective.
I would like to point out that dentists can make a lot of money through fluoridation by fitting veneers to cover the fluorosed teeth. Fluoridated areas seem to attract higher expenditure as in Birmingham and even in the United States as Bill Osmundson the dentist on the radio program pointed out if fluoridation was effective it could be shown by less money being spent on dentistry and there is no such evidence.
One other point you say that dentists are taught about fluoridation yet when the Chief Dental Officer was in Southampton during the consultation was told the fluoride used is only 98% pure and the 2% was composed of arsenic, lead and mercury he didn't seem to know.
Same as the SHA talk about topping up the fluoride when the natural calcium fluoride is entirely different from the waste product they put in.
Fluoride Action Network have a petition signed by over 2500 professionals against fluoridation I'm sure they would be pleased if you gave your support.
By
Bill, at 15 August, 2009
We are singing from the same hymn sheet, but again I would caution about proper evidence.
One thing I can tell you as an absolute fact is that areas that have fluoridated water have a far lower incidence of caries. However, that to me is not an argument for mass fluoridation any more that it is OK to put contraceptives in school dinners because it would reduce teenage pregnancy.
The argument about cost is irrelevant-people may choose to spend on other elective treatments.
There is also no doubt that fluorosis occurs, but not to the extent that huge numbers of veneers are necessary, and certainly I can assure you as a working dentist this would be a drop in the ocean compared to the reduction in caries.
The argument about the CDO and purity of the fluoride is nothing to do with what is taught. It is a problem with that particular production process.
I'm not sure what you mean about the natural calcium fluoride.
So again, I would caution against anything but measured argument. The case against is strong, but it is weakened by red herrings and weak interpretation of facts.
By
Mancman, at 15 August, 2009
If as you say as an absolute fact that areas with fluoridated water have a far lower incidence of caries why is it that at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found it it reads:
"We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth."
I like your analogy about the contraceptives
I don't think you can dismiss the cost argument if fluoridation was as successful as you believe it must surely reduce the dentists' budget yet it doesn't anywhere here or the States.
Irish dental surgeon, Donal McAuley, wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Fifty per cent of our population has dental fluorosis. I see patients daily in my surgery who are damaged by fluoride. They do not smile, they are teased at school, and they are traumatised by having 'rotten' teeth." Drinking water in Ireland is artificially fluoridated.
The 98% purity level of fluoridation is accepted by the CMO as being adequate so the 112.3 tonnes they would dump into Southampton's drinking water every year if the scheme goes ahead over 2 tonnes will consist of a mixture of heavy metals.
The trace amounts of fluoride found in rivers and wells is bonded with calcium.
I do agree with you the case against fluoridation is strong and we do try to avoid red herrings and weak interpretation of facts something the SHA do not.
By
Bill, at 15 August, 2009
Post a Comment
<< Home