To whom this may concern
In the 1940's the use of fluoride in the water systems became popular due to the belief that oral consumption of the "nutrient" was essential to maintaining oral health in the public. Recent studies have proven that it is in fact not a nutrient and that it has no effect on tooth decay. So why is it still in our water?
Moose Jaw was one of the first cities to add fluoride to it’s water. Curiously, Regina and Moose Jaw both get their water from the same source- the Buffalo Pound Water Treatment Plant- but only Moose Jaw has the chemical fluoride added to it’s water. Why? Our city says it is because studies comparing the levels of tooth decay between the cities proves that it reduces instances of it, because Moose Jaw reports lower rates of tooth decay in children. There are many reasons for this, many demographic- but we won’t get into that.
Sadly, studies proving the negative effects of consumption of fluoride through drinking water have been largely ignored by the dental field, thus being blocked from the public. Knowing the dangers, we should have a choice whether or not we consume this toxin- but this is a choice many of us do not have. Fluoride contaminated water comes from every tap in the house, and many people are not fortunate enough to be able to afford alternative drinking water.
If Health and wellness is paramount to the city, they could you please consider removing this toxic substance from our water supply.
Due to the fact I have no room for any more characters below, I must say my THANK YOU to http://cof-cof.ca for the list of the
Top 10 Arguments Against Fluoridation
1. Fluoridation is a violation of the individual’s right to informed consent to medication.
2. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No biological process in animals or in humans has been shown to depend on it. On the contrary, it is known that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes and vital cellular constituents, such as enzymes and G-proteins. This makes fluoride potentially toxic even at low doses.
3. Children in fluoridated countries are greatly over-exposed to fluoride. When fluoridation began in 1940s, 10% of children were expected to develop dental fluorosis (damage to the enamel involving discoloration and/or mottling) in its very mild form. Today, the prevalence in fluoridated countries is much higher—41% of all American children aged 12-15 are now impacted with some form of dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010), with over 10% in categories (mild, moderate and severe) that may need expensive treatment.
4. The chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies are largely hazardous by-products of the fertilizer industry. These chemicals cannot be disposed of into the sea by international law, and have never been required to undergo randomized clinical trials for safety or effectiveness by any regulatory agency in the world. The U.S. FDA classifies fluoride as an “unapproved drug.”
This petition closed about 2 years ago
5. There is mounting evidence that swallowing fluoride causes harm. Fluoride has been found to damage soft tissues (brain, kidneys, and endocrine system), as well as teeth...
5. There is mounting evidence that swallowing fluoride causes harm. Fluoride has been found to damage soft tissues (brain, kidneys, and endocrine system), as well as teeth (dental fluorosis) and bones (skeletal fluorosis). There are now 24 studies that show a relationship between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and reduced IQ in children. Two of these studies suggest that the threshold for damage may be reached at fluoride levels similar to those used in water fluoridation.
6. Swallowing fluoride provides little or no benefit to the teeth. Even promoters of fluoridation agree that fluoride works topically (on the outer surface of the teeth), and not via some internal biological mechanism (CDC, 1999). A recent U.S. study found no relationship between the amount of fluoride a child ingested and level of tooth decay (Warren et al., 2009). Topical treatment in the form of fluoridated toothpaste is universally available, so it is a mistake to swallow fluoride and expose all the tissues of the body to its harmful effects.
7. Human breast milk is very low in fluoride. Breast milk averages only 0.007 ppm F (NRC, 2006). Even in areas with high fluoride levels, nursing children receive only a small fraction of the mother's fluoride intake, ensuring that the sensitive brains and bodies of breast-fed infants are protected from the developmental effects of this toxin. In contrast, a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated area (0.7-1.2 ppm F) gets up to 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby, resulting in an increased risk of dental fluorosis and other adverse effects.
8. Once fluoride is added to water, there is no way to control who gets the drug or how much is ingested. No medical follow-up or monitoring of fluoride levels in citizens' urine or bones is being carried-out by health agencies and so no record is being kept of adverse effects or daily or accumulated exposures.
9. Certain subgroups are particularly affected by fluoridation. People vary considerably in their sensitivity to any toxic substance, including fluoride. Infants, the elderly, diabetics, those with poor nutrition (e.g. low calcium and low iodine), and those with kidney disease are especially vulnerable to specific adverse effects of fluoride. Black and Mexican-Americans have a higher prevalence of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis (see Table 23, CDC, 2005).
10. Fluoridation discriminates against those with low incomes. People on low incomes are least able to afford avoidance measures (reverse osmosis or bottled water), or treatment of dental fluorosis (see Point 3) and other fluoride-related ailments (see Point 5).