Canada - Don't fluoridate drinking water
Don't fluoridate drinking water
By Donna Mayne, The Windsor Star March 16, 2012 Re: WUC urges moratorium on fluoridation, by Beatrice Fantoni, March 1.
Consuming and bathing in water artificially fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid - a classified, persistent, bioaccumulative toxin - goes beyond ridiculous. But thanks to a majority of members of the Windsor Utilities Commission, especially city councillors Drew Dilkens and Bill Marra, logic trumped the status quo.
Thank you for recommending Windsor City Council review its artificial water fluoridation (AWF) policy.
Coun. Ed Sleiman dissented, saying he is not a doctor and therefore relies on advice provided by AWF proponent and Medical Officer of Health Dr. Allen Heimann. Perhaps Coun. Sleiman is listening to the wrong doctor.
What doctor prescribes without first assessing a patient, let alone failing to get his patient's consent? That, unfortunately, is the endgame of artificial water fluoridation.
We are being forced to ingest a substance intended for topical use.
Meanwhile a dozen doctors with the United States National Research Council spent more than three years reviewing adverse health effects associated with fluoride in drinking water and published a 508-page report in 2006.
More recently, the American Dental Association and the Center for Disease Control, have both issued advisories for parents not to administer fluoridated water to infants or use it to mix formula.
And just last year, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ruled that health benefits claimed by a manufacturer of artificially fluoridated water for infants (nursery water) are illegal.
Against this backdrop, the fluoride level of Windsor's raw water currently is 0.15 ppm. This exceeds the 0.12 ppm level set out in the federal Species at Risk Act.
Clearly, WUC's average AWF level of 0.65 ppm is adversely affecting our area's richest natural resource.
WUC's own report states the National Sanitation Foundation's regulatory statute "Standard 60," to which it adheres, establishes minimum requirements to ensure fluoride-delivery agents are safe. And compliance demands "a toxicology review" of such agents.
The problem? There are no toxicological studies of hydrofluorosilicic acid. So, in addition to growing evidence that AWF causes harm, the WUC's AWF protocols do not comply with critical regulations.
DONNA MAYNE, Windsor
By Donna Mayne, The Windsor Star March 16, 2012 Re: WUC urges moratorium on fluoridation, by Beatrice Fantoni, March 1.
Consuming and bathing in water artificially fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid - a classified, persistent, bioaccumulative toxin - goes beyond ridiculous. But thanks to a majority of members of the Windsor Utilities Commission, especially city councillors Drew Dilkens and Bill Marra, logic trumped the status quo.
Thank you for recommending Windsor City Council review its artificial water fluoridation (AWF) policy.
Coun. Ed Sleiman dissented, saying he is not a doctor and therefore relies on advice provided by AWF proponent and Medical Officer of Health Dr. Allen Heimann. Perhaps Coun. Sleiman is listening to the wrong doctor.
What doctor prescribes without first assessing a patient, let alone failing to get his patient's consent? That, unfortunately, is the endgame of artificial water fluoridation.
We are being forced to ingest a substance intended for topical use.
Meanwhile a dozen doctors with the United States National Research Council spent more than three years reviewing adverse health effects associated with fluoride in drinking water and published a 508-page report in 2006.
More recently, the American Dental Association and the Center for Disease Control, have both issued advisories for parents not to administer fluoridated water to infants or use it to mix formula.
And just last year, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ruled that health benefits claimed by a manufacturer of artificially fluoridated water for infants (nursery water) are illegal.
Against this backdrop, the fluoride level of Windsor's raw water currently is 0.15 ppm. This exceeds the 0.12 ppm level set out in the federal Species at Risk Act.
Clearly, WUC's average AWF level of 0.65 ppm is adversely affecting our area's richest natural resource.
WUC's own report states the National Sanitation Foundation's regulatory statute "Standard 60," to which it adheres, establishes minimum requirements to ensure fluoride-delivery agents are safe. And compliance demands "a toxicology review" of such agents.
The problem? There are no toxicological studies of hydrofluorosilicic acid. So, in addition to growing evidence that AWF causes harm, the WUC's AWF protocols do not comply with critical regulations.
DONNA MAYNE, Windsor
posted by Bill at
10:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home