November 23rd, 2017

Time for city to reconsider fluoride


By Letter to the Editor on August 13, 2017.

The City of Lethbridge may want to reconsider adding fluoride and aluminum to their water supply.

Recently I subscribed to a Monthly Wellness Report by Dr. Blaylock. I received the August 2017 issue, as well as some older issues.

In the August issue he warns about “environmental dangers working against us including dangers such as fluoridation of drinking water.”

In the same issue, “fluoride causes considerable aging of cells, organs and tissues and is a major reason for crippling spinal conditions and fractures.”

Dr. Blaylock also writes, “There is no evidence that fluoride added to drinking water reduces cavities. In fact, there is considerable evidence that is destroys and structural integrity of teeth.”

In the June 2004 issue titled “Save Your Brain,” ther was this: “Fluoride, when combined with even small amounts of aluminum, produces dramatic destruction of the same brain cells that are destroyed in Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, as little as 0.5 parts per million fluoride aqdded to aluminum in water was found to produce extensive brain cell loss in the hippocampus, the memory part of the brain. Most water systems add 1 and 1.5 ppm fluoried and all add aluminum.”

“Recent studies have shown that fluoride can cause severe toxicity to the developing baby in a mother’s womb, especially injury to the child’s brain.”

“This study offers mothers a way to protect their children from the toxic effects of fluoride in drinking water and foods. A prenatal vitamin containing vitamins C and E and all of the other B vitamins, as well as minerals, can go a long way in protecting your baby.”

I get my non-fluoridated drinking water by using Nestle Pure Life – the 500 ml bottles – on the labels, said to have 0 ppm of fluoride.

Peter J. Fitzpatrick

Lethbridge

Share this story:

47 Responses to “Time for city to reconsider fluoride”

  1. John P Nightingale says:

    This being the same Dr Blaylock that has suggested health advocates of Obama Care also endorse euthanasia and that the H1N1 flu vaccine is worse than Swine Flu itself. The individual is on par with Dr Andrew Wakefield – a whack job of the first order. Using him as a source of “facts” to defend a medical position is untenable, neurosurgeon notwithstanding.

    • jwillie6 says:

      Dr. Blaylock is a neurosurgeon — 25 years.
      He has been an expert in nutrition for the last 15 years.
      He is well respected. There is no good reason to lie about him.

      • Jim F says:

        Dr. Blaylock is not an expert in nutrition and he has retired from neurosurgery. He’s a quack who has rejected actual science in favour of selling sensationalist books and his own, completely unproven Brain Repair snake oil for profit. He insists on complaining that vaccines are dangerous because of ingredients that AREN’T EVEN IN THE VACCINES HE’S ARGUING AGAINST. Blaylock is a conspiracy theorist nutjob who has cynically decided to profit off of people’s misgivings. Anything he has to say about fluoride is garbage, based on zero scientific evidence.

      • sslott says:

        Jwillie

        Your lies about fluoridation are well documented all over the internet. Until you can provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your ridiculous claims, you’re doing nothing but wasting space here.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Communications Officer
        American Fluoridation Society

  2. jwillie6 says:

    Some say fluoride helps CHILDREN’S teeth as they form. That is certainly questionable, but:
    It is important to ask — exactly why should an ADULT be sentenced to take this toxic chemical, fluoride, in every glass of water every day of life?

    Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dangers.
    Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.

    So, while 74% of the U.S. is forced to drink fluoridate water, only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their water.

    • RRJ says:

      jwillie6 or whoever you really are – Dr. Blaylock is one of those who have abandoned the principles of science to indulge in their personal, unsupportable opinions. Google – Russell Blaylock skeptic’s dictionary – for a description of his disdain for scientific consensus in a number of important issues. The scientific consensus on any issue can change, but any change requires legitimate, reproducible scientific evidence and not just fear-mongering and posturing by outliers who have strong opinions but no evidence.

      You, for example, have never provided any specific citations and quotes from the authors that prove any of your claims. TCAF is simply a summary of standard, unsupportable anti-F propaganda by three outlier science-deniers. This fiction certainly does not contain 1200 legitimate, unique scientific references as anyone who skims through it can confirm, and it certainly does not contain any legitimate evidence that has been able to modify the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

      That consensus of most relevant science and health experts in the world is the reason over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their thousands of members) — as well as six Surgeons General since 1982 – continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay and associated health problems.
      ~> Search on “ada fluoridation facts compendium” and “I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say?”

      How do you explain those facts?

      How do you explain the fact that, as far as I have seen, there are no recognized science or health organizations that have accepted the anti-F opinions as valid?

      Explain why anyone should accept your unsupportable fear-mongering as valid.

      An excellent start on specific refutations of anti-F claims can be found by Googling:
      – science based medicine fluoride
      – fluoridation open parachute
      – i like my teeth fluoridation

      Randy Johnson

      • jwillie6 says:

        Fortunately, we can all read the current science and not your interpretation..
        The promoters of the big money scam of fluoridation try to cover up the evidence that it is expensive, ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.

        It is immoral and unethical to force fluoride or any drug on all citizens without their consent.
        A doctor or dentist cannot force that on ANYONE. They would lose their license to practice if they did.

        It should be illegal for the government to force it on EVERYONE without consent.

        The 70 year old science of forced fluoridation is simply wrong and dangerous, but other big money schemes with the wrong science hung on for years, like tobacco, DDT, lead in paint and gasoline, Red Dye No. 40, and asbestos. We eventually learned the truth in each case. Because something has been used for years is no reason to keep using it after evidence of its potential harm to people, animals, or the environment.

        • RRJ says:

          jwillie6 or whoever you really are – Provide specific citations and author quotes in context to prove your opinions are anything more than radical, unsupportable beliefs (which they are).

          Your claim that fluoridation is adding a drug to the water without consent employs the same twisted “logic” as claiming that disinfection is adding poisons to the water and creating additional poisons in the form of disinfection byproducts. The fact is that all water treatment processes improve and protect the health of citizens and the benefits far outweigh any risks.

          You provide absolutely no proof that fluoridated water is a drug, and yet the FDA regulates bottled water that contains fluoride ions as a food for human consumption and requires no prescription or warning labels. Anyone, even a child, can purchase cases of what you absurdly consider a drug.

          You repeatedly claim that fluoridation is somehow forcing fluoride ions on everyone without consent, yet you have never described how the government is forcing you or anyone else to consume fluoride ions. Is physical force used? mind control? Everyone I am aware of is free to find other water sources or remove the offending ions if they have a self-inflicted, unwarranted fear of fluoride ions. Similarly, no one is forced to drink any other chemicals in their drinking water they may wish to avoid.

          Your attempt to link fluoridation with tobacco, DDT, lead, asbestos or red dye #40 is another demonstration that you have no understanding of the subject whatever. The 70 years of studies of the effects of fluoridation on health have consistently demonstrated a clear benefit to the health of citizens who drink optimally fluoridated water. There is no legitimate evidence of harm. That is why the scientific consensus of experts continues to support fluoridation as safe and effective. That consensus is the reason over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their many thousands of members continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay and resulting health problems.
          ~>Google, “ada fluoridation facts compendium” and “I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say?”

          A critical fact you fail to mention (because it makes your entire argument irrelevant) is that, unlike fluoridation, there was NEVER any scientific evidence (much less a consensus of experts) that clearly demonstrated tobacco use, DDT, lead, asbestos or red dye #40 were beneficial to health.

          Your comments are among the best demonstration of why the anti-F opinions should be dismissed as a fear-mongering scam

          Randy Johnson

          • jwillie6 says:

            Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dangers.

            Children are victims because fluoridation causes enamel damage (dental fluorosis) in 41% of all children (CDC data) and has also been shown to lower IQ in children with 50 research studies.

            Now it has been proven to cause ADHD. See “Journal of Environmental Health;” (Malin & Till, 2015 York University )
            Go read the ADHD study yourself.
            “Exposure to fluoridated water causes attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prevalence among children and adolescents”
            http://www(DOT)feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Malin2015.pdf

            • RRJ says:

              jwillie6 or whoever you are – Yes, indeed, go read the Malin, Till ADHD study. You can find no statement where the authors suggest their study proves fluoridation causes ADHD. Conclusions are based on what “parents reported”, instead of clinical diagnoses, there was essentially no evaluation of important potential confounding factors and scientists have had a field day describing the authors’ presumptuous, flawed conclusions.

              To review limitations of the Malin, Till study and view other possible causes Google: adhd fluoridation i like my teeth || adhd fluoridation open parachute || connection between altitude and adhd || dental watch critical review adhd || fluoridation science based medicine || adhd and diet || adhd and electronics || adhd genetics || adhd overdiagnosis

              Bottom line, this study, like all others which have proposed a correlation between drinking optimally fluoridated water and some negative health effect, has not come close to proving fluoridation causes harm or even that fluoridation is actually correlated with any harm.

              It is always a good thing when you try and provide specific studies you believe support the anti-F position. In every case it is easy to demonstrate why those studies provide no foundation for the arguments against fluoridation – and why the scientific consensus has not changed. These examples also clearly demonstrate:
              1) how easy it is to dig through the thousands of studies from over 70 years and come up with a few studies which appear to support the anti-F opinions.
              2) why the scientific consensus of science and health experts in the relevant fields is critical for evaluating the entire body of evidence for quality, applicability and repeatability and not just a random grab of studies that have already been evaluated and rejected as providing sufficient evidence to change the consensus.

              Randy Johnson

          • petie150513 says:

            Thank you Randy Johnson (@RRJ) for taking the time to debunk the bull cookies spouted by the letter writer and by jwillie6. Lethbridge and area is teeming with conspiracy theorists, deniers, and charlatan pseudoscientists. Perhaps Peter missed the great election debacle of 2013?

            • jwillie6 says:

              A 2015 study from England’s University of Kent found that drinking water with added fluoride can wreck your thyroid, and lead to weight gain and depression.

              Fluoridation is now reported to cause diabetes.

              The CDC reports that diabetes a growing epidemic in the United States (74% fluoridated). Incidence rates have nearly quadrupled in the past 32 years and show no signs of stopping.

              Read this recent article, “Fluoride consumption linked to diabetes,” from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, published in the “Journal of Water and Health” and also “Endocrine Today.”

              http://newswise.com/articles/fluoride-consumption-linked-to-diabetes-using-mathematical- models

              • RRJ says:

                jwillie6 or whoever you are – Again, your attempt to provide studies that are apparently supposed to prove your claims only continues to prove there are no quality studies that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any harm. The previous Malin, Till ADHD example (#3 below) should have been sufficient to demonstrate how your conclusions that studies “prove” harm from fluoridation have no basis in fact. Your newest claims are addressed in examples 4 & 5 below.

                I’ll save you the trouble of running through your repertoire of alleged studies – you have copy/pasted them countless times over the last few years. Specifically,

                You continue to make the following claims, yet you can provide no quotes from any source which prove your claims that fluoride ions at levels found in optimally fluoridated water:
                (1) “causes lowered IQ” – the 2012 Harvard IQ study by Choi et al.,
                (2) “is a neurotoxin” – the 2014 Grandjean,Landrigan – Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity paper ,
                (3) “has been proven to cause ADHD” – the 2015 Malin, Till ADHD study
                (4) “can wreck your thyroid” – the 2015 Peckham, et al. hypothyroidism study.
                (5) “is now reported to cause diabetes” – the 2016 K. Fluegge study, Community water fluoridation predicts increase in … diabetes in 22 states.
                (6) “causes enamel damage in 41% of all children” – the CDC fluorosis data,
                (7) “Fluoride is the only drug on the market not approved by the FDA because it was grandfathered in as a rat poison and roach poison.”
                (8) “Deaths occurred (3 people) in earlier days during dialysis treatment at University of Chicago Hospitals.”
                (9) “is immoral and unethical to force fluoride or any chemical or drug on all citizens without their consent.”
                (10) “Consider that 95% of the world rejects fluoridation:”

                If any of your claims were true, how do you explain the fact that over 100 major national and international science and health organizations recognize the benefits of fluoridation (and none support the anti-F opinions)?

                Since evidence that proves your claims doesn’t exist, all you can do is completely fabricate statements or quote secondary sources who happen to agree with you and who apparently are not any better at understanding or interpreting the actual evidence than you.
                If you had actually read or understood the original sources, you would realize that none of the conclusions even came close to supporting your claims. At best the authors of claims 1-4 suggest nothing more than possible correlations. I certainly have seen nothing that prove your claims.

                You can’t provide any supporting quotes for your beliefs, because any papers you reference contain absolutely no proof of your claims. The authors of #s 1-4 are smart enough not to make claims of anything in their conclusions besides possible correlations even though they are ardent fluoridation opponents, and the quality of those studies has been challenged by most experts. The authors of these studies make suggestions of possible harm and leave it to their minions to “adjust” their conclusions into “proof” of catastrophic harm.

                If you had read (or understood) the Fluegge’s diabetes paper (#5) you would realize that (a) it was a poor study with conflicting and improbable conclusions, and (b) if the study could be believed, it actually concluded that “fluorosilicic acid [used in over 70% of water treatment plants] was significantly and robustly associated with decreases in incidence and prevalence of diabetes.”

                The CDC data (#6) does not call very mild to mild fluorosis (the only levels of fluorosis associated with fluoridation) “enamel damage” – in fact, it was the reduction of cavities in teeth with noticeable fluorosis that provided the original evidence that fluoride ions strengthened enamel against decay. Claim #7 demonstrates your complete disconnect with reality.

                The dialysis deaths (#8) were caused by equipment malfunction and had nothing to do with optimally fluoridated water. Your attempt to exploit this tragedy is reprehensible.

                Your claim #9 has two flaws. Fluoridation is not a drug – Anyone (even a child) can purchase bottles of water regulated by the FDA that contain optimal fluoride levels (and no warning labels) without a prescription. No one is forcing anyone to drink fluoridated water – everyone is free to find other sources or remove it (and any other chemicals) from their drinking water. Explain exactly how the government is forcing you to drink fluoride ions? Physical force? Mind control? I have always been curious.

                Whether or not other countries fluoridate their water has nothing to do with the scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness. (claim #10)

                Your inability to provide exact quotes to support your claims proves you are intentionally posting false information, and your self-inflicted paranoia of fluoridation remains nothing but a figment of your imagination.

            • RRJ says:

              You are welcome, petie150513.

              I have spent several decades reviewing the arguments made by fluoridation opponents (FOs). When they brought their fear-mongering to Denver in an attempted to halt water fluoridation I decided to invest the time to refute their claims in Denver and wherever else they crop up (which is basically the comment sections of any article anywhere that mentions fluoride or fluoridation).

              Thankfully legitimate science prevailed over the fear-mongering and BiasScience of FOs in Denver on August 26th with the decision to continue fluoridation of the city’s drinking water.
              The resolution the Denver Water Board Commissioners adopted at its August 26, 2015 meeting stated: “Nothing has been presented to the Board or learned in our research that would justify ignoring the advice of these public health agencies and medical and community organizations, or deviating from the thoroughly researched and documented recommendation of the U.S. Public Health Service.” That statement is important considering top FO spokesperson, Paul Connett, flew to Denver to give a presentation at the July 29th information session – – – and contributed nothing new or of value to the decision making process.
              ~> denverwater (dot) org/sites/default/files/fluoride-board-resolution-august-2015.pdf

              It is unfortunate when misplaced passion trumps rational, evidence-based thinking. I collected a number of resources over the years that might provide some ammunition against anti-science activists
              ~> cyber-nook (dot) com/water/FluoridationReferences.htm
              ~> cyber-nook (dot) com/water/Fluoridation.html

              Randy Johnson

              • jwillie6 says:

                Those who will not inform themselves on the dangers of fluoridation will just have to suffer the consequences.

                Fluoride in Water Can Calcify Arteries

                “There was significant correlation between history of cardiovascular events and presence of fluoride uptake in coronary arteries. The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events.”

                http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/fluoride-water-calcify-arteries-study/

                • Jim F says:

                  jwillie6, correlation is not the same as causation. The number of Atlantic Ocean pirates has dropped steadily since the 1800s at the same rate that the earth has been warming. Does this mean a lack of pirates is causing global warming?!?!? Of course not—suggesting that this correlation is also the cause would be stupid.

                  Also, the Sleuth Journal is one of the least reliable news sources on the internet, filled with nothing but lies, half-truths, and conspiracy theories. Please try to provide scholarly sources as your evidence.

                  • jwillie6 says:

                    It is so typical of the promoters of tis industrial toxic waste fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid, try to berate any information showing the truth about the dangers of fluoridation.

                    It is estimated to be a $220 million annual industry. The big money can be counted on to try to keep this scam going. Meanwhile children suffer and those who have been forced to consume it every day in every glass of water suffer.

                    But people everywhere are discovering the truth. While the U.S. is 74% fluoridated the world is only 5%, and Europe is only 3%. Fluoridation days are numbered.

                    • RRJ says:

                      jwillie6 or whoever you are – There is a difference between “berating any information” provided by fluoridation opponents (FOs) and demonstrating it is false and requesting legitimate citations and quotes to prove any claims are legitimate (an impossible task for FOs).

                      You still have net addresses the questions of why anyone should accept the anti-F propaganda which has had absolutely no effect on the scientific consensus in over 70 years of trying. You have not answered the question of how the thousands of scientists and health professionals who are members of the over 100 organizations that recognize fluoridation as safe and effective have apparently somehow missed the “evidence” that FOs seem to believe is obvious and legitimate.

                      You have not addressed the question of why FOs have not been able to obtain support from any recognized national or international science or health organizations I am aware of.

                      You still have not provided any citations and author quotes in context which prove any of your claims of harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water.

          • biff says:

            randy johnson: it is naive to believe everything added to drinking water makes it safer or healthier. why is aluminum added? aluminum is more harmful than it is healthful.
            as for fluoride, adding it to public water is unethical. adding chlorine and other agents to make the water potable is far different than adding substances that are believed to improve the health of a person. communities have no business adding anything to water other than what is necessary to make the water safe to drink. for all other health concerns, there are more ethical ways to administer choices related to one’s right to choose their additives.

            • RRJ says:

              biff – I have yet to hear a rational explanation for why scientists, public health officials and others would condone adding chemicals to the drinking water to deliberately harm the citizens. Do you actually believe that all those who make the decisions to treat drinking water have not carefully researched all processes and made decisions in the best interest of the citizens they represent and serve?

              You make the standard anti-F argument of fabricating selective-definitions when all water treatment processes, regardless of their method of action, are public health measures implemented to protect and improve the health of citizens. If fluoridation is halted (or not implemented) over 70 years of evidence clearly demonstrates that decay rates and related health issues will increase relative to similar fluoridated communities. That is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of relevant science and health experts.

              • jwillie6 says:

                Many useless words from promoters of this toxic chemical.

                Tooth decay in fluoridated countries is no different from non-fluoridated countries.
                Why waste money on fluoride and destroy your health?

                The fluoride issue is very simple.
                Remove the fluoride from drinking water and put as much as you wish in your own glass of water.
                The rest of us then won’t be forced to consume it. Everyone will be happy with freedom of choice.

                AND think of the saving of tax money.

              • petie150513 says:

                Randy Johnson, meet biff a shining example of why I wrote my earlier comment to you. I think that most thinking citizens are way too tired to get on the crazy-go-round again. The anti-F folks drew up hit lists on local scientists, average citizens, and pulled the Nazi card on candidates in our 2013 election. The viciousness of the anti-F crowd was legendary. Our election is in October 2017 so these folks are a little late for re-starting this dance this time around. And here we thought that it was the crazy anti-curbside recycling folks.

                • Montreal13 says:

                  They weren’t anti curbside, petie150513.. They think it is the crazy people who can’t read or think for themselves beyond what the powers that be tell them to think . The crazies that don’t attend council meetings or watch so they can be exposed to more than one side of the story. Just like in Brooks, is the waste and recycling department here going to just bundle plastic and take to the dump? Do you think they plan on telling you if they do? I think you may not want to know?

                  • petie150513 says:

                    Perhaps I need to make it more specific for you. I meant that most thinking folks thought that this election would be disrupted by folks like you. Thank you for making my point. It’s moot – I won’t vote for a candidate in the municipal election that does not support full curb-side recycling. Were you here in 2013 when persons lives were threatened over fluoridation?

            • sslott says:

              Biff

              There is no aluminum added to water during fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those fluoride ions already existing in water. These ions are added via the vehicle hydrofluorosilic acid. Once HFA releases its fluoride ions into water, it no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. The only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS
              Communications Officer
              American Fluoridation Society

    • lodger1 says:

      …yawn..another round of drivel from the anti-flo tinfoliers.
      No concept of science and how it works. Pathetic.
      While ‘Patrick’ offers a free ad for Nestle.

    • sslott says:

      Jwillie

      Until you can provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your ridiculous claims, you are doing nothing more than wasting space here.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

  3. biff says:

    public water must be used only as a way to deliver safe water, and i feel we all are pretty much in agreement that cleansing agents are required (unless we choose another method of making dirty water potable). however, it is foolish and unethical to add any additive extras – despite whether they are presently believed to be healthy. as we know too well, things we feel are safe at a given point in time, even with scientific support, may well prove to be harmful at a later reckoning. we have many, many examples of such turnabouts.
    simply put, whatever health additives people choose to ingest must be left to personal choice. this goes not only for fluoride and minerals, but also for vitamins. if one feels society will decay without dosing public water with fluoride, then issue a measured recommended daily dose of fluoride for those that want it…easily supplied via pharmacies, which are now omnipresent. moreover, given there are numerous fluoride rich toothpastes available for cheap, there is already more than enough prevention available, again, for people that want fluoride in their daily routine.
    why do people feel they need to force medicate others? surely, we all have a right to public water that is as unaltered and universally acceptable as possible. the option to easily ingest fluoride exists without adding it to public water – let the individual choose their poisons.

    • sslott says:

      Biff

      1. Please provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water is unsafe, in any manner attributable to that fluoride.

      2. Fluoride has always existed in water, and always will, fluoridated or not. Humans have been ingesting fluoride in water since the beginning of time. Fluoridation simply adjusts the concentration of that existing fluoride to a level where maximum benefit will be obtained from this ion, with no adverse effects.

      That which is “foolish and unethical” is to deprive an entire community of the benefits of this ion, based on nothing but false statements, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented science, and misinformation from those too lazy to properly research this issue from reliable, respected sources of accurate information.

      3. Fluoridation has been in effect for the past 72 years, hundreds of millions having chronically ingested optimally fluoridated water during that time, with no proven adverse effects. This is in spite of the fact that antifluoridationists have tried desperately to find anything, anything at all, they could claim to be an adverse effect, Zero. You will not find any clearer demonstration of the safety of a public health initiative than that.

      4. Increasing the existing fluoride in water up to the optimal concentration, generally costs less than $1 per person, per year. Issuing a “daily dose of fluoride for those who want it” would cost more like $1 per person, per day. Hopefully you are not in charge of anyone’s finanes but your own. With logic like yours, they would be bankrupt in short order.

      5. Fluoride toothpaste provides a one shot exposure to a very high concentration of fluoride. This fluoride peaks within an hour or so and then quickly abates. Water fluoridation keeps the teeth bathed in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Comparing fluoridated water to fluoridated toothpaste is apples to oranges. Both are beneficial, and both are needed in order to combat the overwhelming problem of untreated dental decay.

      6. In order to have “forced medication”, one must have force and medication. Neither are involved in water fluoridation. No court of last resort has ever upheld the “forced medication” nonsense of antifluoridationists.

      7. No one has a right to public water with a content customized to his personal preferences. Any who do not like the content of the public water system from which their own water is sourced is entirely free to obtain his water from another source with a content more in keeping with his personal preferences.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

      • petie150513 says:

        Thank you Steven Slott (@slott) for your willingness to take the time to debunk the pseudoscientists in our area. I see you’ve also engaged with biff. Good on you for having the fortitude to respond to this contributor and to allow him/her/them to have a platform to show their stuff.

  4. sslott says:

    So, instead of heeding the recommendations of those such as the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health, the past 6 US Surgeons General, the US CDC, the US EPA, the US Institute of Medicine, Health Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Dental Association, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world……Mr. Fitzpatrick recommends according credence to nonsense published in a “monthly wellness report” by some dubious character who claims to have a practice in nutrition??

    Wonder whom Mr. Fitzpatrick would consult were he curious about space exploration…..an astrologer?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  5. biff says:

    again, public water should only be used to deliver safe drinking water. to add anything for so called health benefits is unethical. public water is not the way to deliver medicine, healthy or otherwise. for those tha want fluoride, there are other ways that do not impose substances not necessary for cleaning water on to those that do not wish to ingest a certain product. what is it with you control freaks? the issue is not about how great a panacea fluoride may be. it is about one.s freedom to choose what substances they ingest, given that public water is used by most people in a given community, it is ridiculous to add fluoride or any other elements or drugs to it. take in as much fluoride as you wish dds, that is your choice. but to force it in everyone paying for their water is pathetic. is this too difficult to understand?

    • sslott says:

      Biff

      Evidently you can’t read. Try reading my previous comment again, this time real slow. Perhaps it will sink in this time.

      There are no “freedom to choose” issues involved in fluoridation. Most intelligent people learn in infancy how not to ingest a substance we choose not to ingest. If this skill somehow eluded you, I suggest you watch a one year old at mealtime. You’ll quickly gain the hang of it.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  6. biff says:

    slott dds, because you are so blinded by your hubris and self righteous superiority, you do not choose to accept that using public water to medicate is indeed most about forced medication, just as it would be if we used public water to provide vaccines or any other medical treatment. i get the impression you are a paid lobbyist for the dumping of the toxic bilge that is now colloquially called fluoride and medicine. get everyone all scared and anxious that society will collapse if we do not ensure that all get their dose of fluoride, even though there are many many peoples the world over doing quite well without adding the toxic fallout from phosphate stacks and such. and all that is beyond the point. public water is universal – therefore, it needs to be kept free of any additives that are not essential for making it potable.
    if people want or feel they need fluoride, then they can access it just like those that feel they need added vitamins and added minerals, carbs, protein, and fat – all necessaries, but are not added to public water. administering anything via public water that is not strictly necessary to cleanse it is insidious, heavy handed, and not the place of government.
    please note, dds, i have read your drivel…all so scientific and astonishing for simple folk like me. but whether or not adding fluoride to public water is the great saving panacea of the planet is not the issue. the issue, which you fail to acknowledge, is that administering medicine or treatments to public water other than that which is necessary to make it potable forces everyone dependent on the public water they pay for to ingest the medicine and unnecessary additives. in this case, rather than force fluoride on all through public water, let those wanting fluoride access it the way we each choose to access health and food products – by shopping for it.
    finally, slott dds, your american approach to living is not what canadians want, nor most people around the world. you may appreciate big brother gov’t, and relish force feeding societies your pathetic excesses and violence, and greed and poverty, and believe that more gov’t control of peoples’ choices and affairs is the good society. stupidly, you would support that and then try and say you want less gov’t. stay out of our affairs – you have more than issues in your own country.

    • sslott says:

      Biff

      Oh, so predictable. Every time antifluoridationists get backed into a corner by facts and evidence they inevitably lash out in frustrated personal attacks and, of course, outright lies. If you really want to get to the source of your frustration and lack of respect, you have only to look in the mirror. Intelligent people understand that credibility depends on respect for truth and accuracy, such respect which, unfortunately, neither you, nor most other antifluoridationists have, or ever will have.

      1. Fluoride has existed in water since the beginning of time. To suddenly proclaim this mineral to be medication is obviously ludicrous. No court of last resort has ever upheld the “forced medication” nonsense of antifluoridationists.

      2. Once again, if you are so utterly helpless that you don’t know how to not drink a glass of water when you choose not to do so, it’s amazing that you can even get of bed in the morning by yourself. Even more amazing is that you admit to such helplessness in a public forum.

      3. If you have any valid, documented evidence that I am paid anything, whatsoever, to correct the mounds of misinformation piled high and deep all over the internet by unscrupulous antifluoridationists such as you, then feel free to present it any time. A safer bet would be that you are paid by little antifluoridationist groups to spread your misinformation. Really…..who would make such a fool of himself otherwise?

      4. If you know of anyone who is dumping “toxic bilge” into public water supplies, you had better notify the proper authorities immediately. Otherwise you could very well be charged with abetting a federal crime.

      5. As anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge understands, there is nothing “colloquial” about fluoride. Fluoride is the anion of the naturally occurring element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. An atom of fluorine is not “collquial”.

      6. The devastating lifetime effects of untreated dental decay are very real, and very well documented. That you don’t understand this is yet further evidence of your ignorance on this issue.

      The ones who “get everyone all scared and anxious” are unscrupulous antifluoridationists who whine about their “right to choose” and ridiculously proclaim fluoridated water to be the cause of laundry lists of disorders, having not one, single scrap of valid evidence to support their claims.

      7. “Toxic fallout from phosphate stacks and such” has no relevance to fluoridated water. Even the most illiterate antifluoridationists are ceasing to attempt that nonsensical argument.

      8. Your personal opinion as to what the contents of public water supplies should be is meaningless and irrelevant.

      9. Your personal opinion of how best to provide dental decay prevention to entire populations is meaningless and irrelevant.

      10. Your personal opinion of what is, or is not, the “place of government” is meaningless and irrelevant”.

      11. Yes, antifluoridationists do consider facts, evidence, and peer-reviewed science to be “drivel”. You are no different from any other illiterate antifluoridationist in that regard.

      12. You certainly are free to trot your “forced medication” nonsense into court as so many other antifluoridationists have done through the decades. Given the zero success rate of that ploy, however, I don’t much like your chances with that.

      13. Newsflash! You do not speak for what the citizens of Canada or any other country want. I personally find Canadians to be far more intelligent than to accord credence to such ridiculous nonsense as what you have posted on this page.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  7. gs172 says:

    I’ll just say any candidate in the municipal election who wants to open this up has lost my vote. nuff said

    • petie150513 says:

      @gs172 Mine too.

    • George McCrea says:

      The anti fluoride crew reminds me somewhat of the current procedures of city councils. Don’t like a result, keep coming back and re-voting until you get what you want/will get you votes from a minority pressure group in the next cycle. Curbside recycling comes to mind. Two no votes over several years then suddenly an 8-1 vote in favour. Hmmmm

      • petie150513 says:

        Nice try @George McCrea. You folks are really quite something. You’ll hijack any thread to advance your cause. Nope, not taking the bait. You are precisely the person I would vote against in a heartbeat. No curb-side recycling, no vote. End of discussion.

        • Montreal13 says:

          Petie- you brought curbside issue here in your Aug. 14 comments. You hijacked the thread then- remember or read YOUR comments above.
          Plus Lethbridge has curbside now and has for at least 12 years . If you want “full curbside recycling” as you claim to, hire a private who takes far more different items than the city run curbside ever will. Do you think the city waste department didn’t discuss not wanting to take plastics and a couple of other categories? They knew they may be faced with the same action as Brooks. They are willing to take your money and pretend though. Again read above- you ignored my questions to you about Brooks. We know why- don’t bother trying.

        • George McCrea says:

          Yep, sheep. Refute the fact that council voted no twice before voting yes. As to the anti fluoride crowd the last time the major pushers were selling fluoride removal systems. Seems no body did research. I would vote for you either. Don’t suppose we’ll see your real name on the ballot this fall. If you do please put your SJW moniker in brackets. Thx.

  8. biff says:

    “Once again, if you are so utterly helpless that you don’t know how to not drink a glass of water when you choose not to do so, it’s amazing that you can even get of bed in the morning by yourself. Even more amazing is that you admit to such helplessness in a public forum.”
    to utter this shows how backward and sad you are, you lobbyist for hydrofluorosilicic acid. i pay to have public water run into my house and out of my taps. i have to shower in the stuff and use it to cook. the fall out when i run the tap and flush the toilet poisons the the water system. it is not just about the odd glass of water, you simple fool.
    rather than add the stuff to all water, let people add in their own managed doses, as is the case with all other meds. surely there is a scientific healthy daily dose fabricated by now for the stuff?
    you completely fail to comprehend that public water is not for delivering meds, nor anything else but clean water. but that is the american way: ram it down the throats of people because big brother knows what is best. you are a paid quack, and have no respect for freedom. i am not denying anyone their precious fluoride, why force it on the many that do not want it. i keep repeating this, but you keep coming back with your drivel about how this study supports this that and the other thing. NOT THE POINT. if fluoride cured all that ails, public water is still not the place to deliver the stuff.
    anyway, stay to the affairs of your own pathetic country, and butt out of ours.

    • sslott says:

      Biff

      1. It is “Sad and backward” to point out the fact that you have admitted in a public forum that you do not possess the skill to not drink a glass of water when you choose not to do so? Hmmmm, seems the “sad and backward” one is obviously you.

      2. Why would anyone lobby for hydrofluorosilic acid? That you believe there to be such a lobby somewhere is yet another example of how truly uninformed you are.

      3. Yes, you pay to have water piped into your house from a public water supply. This payment does not entitle you to personally dictate the content of that public supply. If you do not like the content of that water supply, you are entirely free to obtain your water from another source with a content more to your personal preference. No one will force you to use either one.

      4. You seem not to understand the simple fact that you do not “have to shower in the stuff and use it to cook.”. That you obviously believe you are somehow being forced to do so is clear evidence that the “simple fool” here is you. Intelligent people understand choices.

      5. Optimal level fluoride does not poison anything. If you care to belabor the point then provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claim.

      6. Optimal level fluoride is colorless, tasteless, odorless, and causes no adverse effects. It has existed in water since the beginning of time. Water fluoridation is not about “doses”. It is about adjusting the concentration of this existing fluoride to that level at which a very valuable benefit will be obtained by entire populations, while causing no adverse effects. In advocating against fluoridation, you fail to understand that you are arguing against obtaining maximum benefit from an existing mineral in your water, which you will continue to ingest regardless of whether the water is fluoridated or not. There is obviously no logic in your argument.

      7. Public water supplies contain a myriad of routine additives along with a myriad of existing minerals. As fluoride has always existed in water, if your skewed definition of “clean water” is being fluoride-free water, your water is not clean now.

      8. There are no “meds” involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and always will, fluoridated or not.

      9. If anyone is ramming anything down your throat then you should contact your local authorities immediately.

      10. Childish name calling and ridiculous claims of people being “paid” are typical of uninformed antifluoridationists completely frustrated by the facts and evidence exposing the fallacies of their claims.

      11. You seek to impose your skewed ideology against fluoridation unto your entire community, based on nothing but false, ridiculous claims.. Obviously you are the one with no respect fror freedom.

      12. Yes, uninformed antifluoridationists consider the peer-reviewed science to be “drivel”. That’s a large part of their problem, and exactly why they are so grossly uninformed on this issue.

      13. I’m not in “in the affairs” of your country. I simply provide facts and evidence to correct the mounds of misinformation plastered all over the internet by unscrupulous antifluoridationists such as you.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

  9. biff says:

    lsiten up stotts dds, paid lobbyist for hydrofluorosilicic acid: you are too simple and self concerned to get that you are using the public commons to medicate. and it is medication, otehrwise you would not hinge everything on health benefits and how society will decay without getting your precious toxin added to public water.
    are you too dumb to get your toxin by swallowing a little toothpaste, so you get your slow release method as well as your topical? i ask again, how about a measured dose: surely there must be an established recommended daily amount and limit as there is for all health vitamins and minerals? no one wants to deny you and others that want fluoride, but why force it on entire communities that include many that do not want fluoride added to their water? how do you not accept that this is unethical? just because you want to use something, it does not give you the right to force feed it to everyone else. find another way, just as people find ways to get their vitamins and minerals.
    meanwhile, you can continue to lie about not being a pro lobbyist for the dumping of toxic waste into public water – a real mary poopins you are, showering us all with your glorious fluoride petals, one ion at a time.

    • sslott says:

      Ohh, poor biff. Just like all antifluoridationists you go in short order from smug know-it-all comments, to lashing out with outright lies, and frustrated illiterate personal attacks of which any 6 year old would be so proud, once you get backed into a corner with facts and evidence.

      You could not be any more predictable. Funny!

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

  10. phlushie says:

    @sslot dds, You have never addressed the points that biff brought up but insistently put your viewpoint forward. the question is” Should we put some drug in the water that will stop people smoking”? It is for the public good, but eliminates freedom of choice. The job is to deliver clean water not medicate the population. Accept the fact, I do not wish to argue the pros and cons of fluoride as you are well versed in that. It is the pros and cons as whether you should universally medicate everyone in the world. Boy we could sure do population control in the third world nations by administering birth control medication, and it would be for the public good.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.