Canada - Town council should look at fluoride science
Town council should look at fluoride science
Parry Sound North Star
Thankfully the interest and dedication to eliminate the pouring of hydrofluorosilicic acid into the town’s water supply has not let up (Ready for a fluoride referendum?, North Star, November 11).
If and when this matter gets to a plebiscite, the question should not use the word “fluoride” at all, but the name of the actual chemical.
One website all interested parties should read is fluoridealert.org. Rather than base a decision on assertions of the local MoH, or the US surgeon general (this is the greatest achievement of the 20th century), one has to use science and fact to make decision.
The above-noted article gives 50 reasons why adding a fluoride chemical (not a metal) to drinking water is harmful and dangerous.
It would be very informative if the MoH would address each of these 50 reasons with a scientific/medical rebuttal to prove his stand.
It should be noted there is a bibliography of more than 245 scientific papers at the end of this article.
Does the MoH have a similar compendium of opposing scientific papers?
Hopefully the town council will reconsider this whole matter before spending more than a $250,000 on changes to the fluoridation facility at the water treatment plant, which will be wasted taxpayer dollars when the plebiscite fails to show support for poisoning our drinking water.
William Este,
Parry Sound
If and when this matter gets to a plebiscite, the question should not use the word “fluoride” at all, but the name of the actual chemical.
One website all interested parties should read is fluoridealert.org. Rather than base a decision on assertions of the local MoH, or the US surgeon general (this is the greatest achievement of the 20th century), one has to use science and fact to make decision.
The above-noted article gives 50 reasons why adding a fluoride chemical (not a metal) to drinking water is harmful and dangerous.
It would be very informative if the MoH would address each of these 50 reasons with a scientific/medical rebuttal to prove his stand.
It should be noted there is a bibliography of more than 245 scientific papers at the end of this article.
Does the MoH have a similar compendium of opposing scientific papers?
Hopefully the town council will reconsider this whole matter before spending more than a $250,000 on changes to the fluoridation facility at the water treatment plant, which will be wasted taxpayer dollars when the plebiscite fails to show support for poisoning our drinking water.
William Este,
Parry Sound
Good point naming it for what it is.
posted by Bill at
9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home