OUR CAMPAIGN As the March deadline for turning on the fluoride tap looms, a new petition has been launched! Sign it today and share it on all of your social media. On October 18th , 2021, the city of Calgary, Alberta is holding a plebiscite vote deciding whether to re-introduce fluoridation chemicals — in this case fluorosilicic acid — into the public water supply of over 1.3 million residents! Ad in the Calgary Herald Review References Ad in the Calgary Sun Review References T his is the seventh time the issue has been put to a vote since the 1950s; of the six previous votes, four rejected the practice and two favoured fluoridation. In 1991, the city council added the chemical to the water, but twenty years later, in 2011, they voted to remove it. They did so because of the extremely high cost combined with the government’s acknowledgement that children were being overexposed to fluoride on a massive scale, causing a lowering of the recommended fluoride level in water by 40% from 1.2ppm to 0.7ppm. The dental lobby then spent years bullying the council, as well as misleading the public about a flawed study that claimed to show an increase in dental decay in Calgarians after fluoridation cessation. Their pressure culminated in a 2019 council hearing on water fluoridation to hear public testimony and a review of the science by the O’Brien Institute for Public Health. During that presentation, Dr. William Ghali, MD described the growing science on the cognitive effects of fluoride (see additional testimony ). Since this hearing, additional high-quality studies have been published linking fluoride exposure during pregnancy and infancy to neurotoxicity (Riddell 2019 , Till 2020 , Grandjean 2020 , Grandjean 2021 , Cantoral 2021 ). This should have been the end, however, the city council was unwilling to let down the dental-lobby, so they chose to defer the decision to voters. Safe Water Calgary is leading the campaign to keep fluoridation chemicals out of Calgary’s water. We are a well-organized and all-volunteer group of local citizens including concerned parents and professionals, led by Dr. Bob Dickson, MD . We have been utilizing both traditional and modern campaign strategies, including distributing yard signs, handing out leaflets at local events, sending out mail inserts, generating earned media, and creating advertisements for various social media sites, radio, and news outlets. Follow us on Facebook to see some of our ads and memes. If you live in Calgary, please vote NO on the plebiscite, tell your friends and family to vote NO and please volunteer. We need "all hands on deck" to help with a variety of tasks, so please don't hesitate if you have any extra time between now and October 18th. Just email: safewatercalgary@gmail.com Please make a donation today, to help fund more advertising time, as well as the printing of more signs, leaflets, and door hangers. We need to educate hundreds-of-thousands of voters in such a short period of time. DONATE TODAY A Local Campaign With A Global Impact While the decision in Calgary will have a direct impact on residents within the city and surrounding communities, there is little doubt that it will also have a much broader impact, especially throughout Canada. Canada’s medical and dental establishments, and especially Health Canada, have been blatantly pro-fluoridation. In spite of that, Canada has been one of the western world's biggest success stories. Many of its cities and communities have stopped fluoridation in the past few decades, and some provinces like British Columbia and Quebec are 98% fluoridation-free. Now, fluoridationists are working aggressively to reverse our momentum. They convinced the city council in Windsor, Ontario to re-instate fluoridation last year, and weeks ago they lobbied the Regina, Saskatchewan city council behind the scenes to vote for fluoridation with almost no public notice or input. This is about far more than Calgary. If they win here, they will roll out their efforts all over Canada, making it far more difficult for citizens everywhere to keep or make their water safe for all citizens.

INCONSISTENCIES & CONTRADICTIONS FLUORIDATED WATER IS: Chemically raising the fluoride levels in a population’s water to 0.7 parts per million (ppm) or 0.7 milligrams per litre (mg/l) Which is equal to .23 milligrams (mg) in a 333 milliliter (ml) glass of water Which is equal to a pea-sized amount of toothpaste Since the 1970s, US and Canadian residents have been ingesting increasing amounts of fluoride whether their water is fluoridated or not. These increasing levels of exposure are due to: The widespread availability of fluoridated toothpaste, mouthwash, and other fluoridated dental products. Increased fluoride levels in conventionally grown & especially processed foods & drinks with some products now containing as much as 9 times the amount of fluoride in fluoridated water. US and Canadian dental and public health associations acknowledge processed food and drink sources of fluoride when discussing risks of over exposure to fluoride with fluoride supplements and baby formula mixed with fluoridated water, yet completely ignore or dismiss these other sources of fluoride when promoting water fluoridation. What is even more contradictory are the guidelines for dosage monitoring, and the need to acquire consent that dentists must follow when they are advising parents about the safe use of fluoridated toothpaste, mouthwash, and oral supplements, but then pay no attention to dosage monitoring or consent when insisting that municipalities fluoridate public water. For example, a pea size amount of regular fluoridated toothpaste contains the same amount of fluoride as a regular glass of fluoridated water (0.23 mg), yet the CDA states that a child under the age of 3 must not be given any fluoridated toothpaste or at most, a rice grain amount of toothpaste. The CDA also states that children under 3 should not be given any fluoridated mouthwash rinses, and as for fluoride supplements, the CDA and ADA stipulate that babies under 6 months cannot be given any amount, and children between 6 months and 3 years can be given no more than 0.25 mg of fluoride per day and only if they are in a non fluoridated region with no access to fluoridated toothpaste. Yet somehow it's safe for babies in fluoridated regions to absorb levels of fluoride that far surpass fluoride levels in recommended amounts of toothpaste or 0.25 mg supplements when they are bottle fed with fluoridated water, and eventually through any water they drink or foods and drinks their parents prepare for them with fluoridated water. Canadian Dental Association Making Sense of the Science Baby Formula & Fluoridated Water Baby Toothpaste Regular Toothpaste Fluoride Supplements

MINERAL OR DRUG? As demonstrated in the videos and supporting sources (see icon), when a dental or public health association claim that adding a fluoridation chemical to public water is simply adding a natural mineral, they are engaging in inaccurate and misleading rhetoric. FURTHER ELABORATION Even if the fluoride ion could be considered a mineral, that would not mean that it is necessarily beneficial for the body. Most minerals are not nutrients. (see Minerals By Name ). In fact many naturally occurring minerals like lead and mercury are considered toxic at all doses. Natural Calcium Fluoride & Man-Made Industrial Fluoride It is true that in nature the fluoride ion is often part of the non-nutrient mineral Calcium Fluoride , a substance that is highly stable, safe to hold, practically insoluble and hardly digestible due to the very strong bond between fluoride and calcium. But when the dilution of a man-made fluoridation chemical or geological activity leads to dissociated fluoride ions in water ready to bond with an atom or molecule, such fluoride ions are not minerals. From a non-nutrient mineralogy perspective, dissociated fluoride ions in water could be described as trace non-nutrient mineral elements, but it is more precise to simply describe them as the ionic or salt form of the basic element (atom) fluorine which is the most reactive atom (element) in the periodic table which means that fluorine / fluoride is capable of chemically bonding with the greatest number of other atoms. The incredible reactivity of fluorine / fluoride is why so many biochemists, chemists, toxicologists, pharmacologists, physiologists, physicians and even dentists describe it as an enzyme disruptor capable of chronic adverse affects to the developing brain, thyroid gland, stomach, connective tissues, bones and kidneys. It’s hard to say with absolute certainty why the public health associations in the US, Canada and five other developed nations continue to ignore and dismiss all the published research including the most respected systematic reviews conducted on water fluoridation, whenever such research even slightly disagrees with their policies. Here’s what we can say: Many of these dental and public health agencies made mistakes in the past when, for decades, they ignored and dismissed published research demonstrating the chronic toxicity of tobacco, lead, mercury, asbestos and other substances. As for water fluoridation, the public health agencies that continue to promote this practice consistently dismiss and ignore any data that disagrees with their policies, including the fact that even without any fluoride added to drinking water, most people are already ingesting more fluoride on a daily basis than these agencies deem safe due to: The amounts of fluoride in conventionally grown and especially processed foods and drinks due to: The widespread use of phosphate fertilizer since the '70s The widespread use of fluoride-based pesticide since the '70s The processing of foods and drinks with fluoridated water since the '80s And the widespread availability of fluoridated toothpastes, mouthwashes, dental gels, foams, varnishes, and oral fluoride supplements. Until the 1970s, none of these other sources of fluoride were widely available. Educated critics of water fluoridation point out that due to the widespread use of fluoride pesticides, the processing of foods and drinks with fluoridated water, and the use of fluoridated toothpastes, even without fluoride added to water, many children are already receiving too much fluoride when all sources of fluoride are taken into consideration. If you’ve read this far , and are taking the time to verify the validity and credibility of the data presented in this website, you may be starting to understand why the majority of developed nations do not fluoridate water and why, since the year 2000, over 350 municipal regions in North America have chosen to disagree with their public health services and stopped fluoridating the water their citizens rely on for drinking, cooking and bathing.

Do you have 5 minutes? - TAKE ACTION You can help us ensure Calgary City Council does not restart artificial water fluoridation. Here's how to take action to ensure that all Calgarians have access to clear running water. From Calgary, Chestermere, Airdrie, or Strathmore, AB or anywhere in the world! SIGN OUR PETITION! WRITE TO and CALL CITY COUNCIL To request a moratorium on fluoride being added to Calgary's water (addresses for Calgary, Airdrie, Chestermere, and Strathmore) Most phone numbers included. 311 is logging calls. Speak to City councilors in person Call for a 10 minute appointment to speak to your councilor, Attend town halls to speak to any councilor and tell them why this is important to you. WRITE TO ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT To Revoke EPEA Approval of Water Fluoridation in Calgary WRITE TO ALBERTA HEALTH To Revoke Alberta Health and AHS Endorsement of Community Water Fluoridation SOCIAL MEDIA share our posts and direct message your friends LIKE AND SHARE OUR FACEBOOK PAGE LIKE AND SHARE ON INSTAGRAM FOLLOW US ON TWITTER SUBSCRIBE TO OUR MAILING LIST PRINT & SHARE OUR FLYER WATER FLUORIDATION BASICS PRINT FLYER: Invitation to sign the petition 6 per sheet - use on car windows, mailboxes, conversation starters Safe Water Calgary is a grassroots movement and depends on everyone's help. Please share this page IT IS TIME TO STAND UP AND PROTECT THE SAFETY OF OUR WATER! Bonus Steps Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Bonus Step UPDATED 03-25 "My attitude is that the world is full of problems created and maintained by humans and some are more universal and dire in effect than fluoridation. But fluoridation is one of the more easily solvable problems and when we solve it we demonstrate that people can take just power into their own hands and make the world a bit better for many if not for all. People need such demonstrations. Then on to the next.” Dr. James Beck, co-author of THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE

DONATIONS GLADLY ACCEPTED! 100% of all proceeds are used to fund the efforts of Safe Water Calgary to protect Calgary's pristine drinking water from the harmful health effects of fluoridation chemicals. Our organization is run by our founder, Dr. Robert Dickson, MD along with an executive committee composed of other leading Calgary citizens, both lay and professional. These are the community leaders fighting to protect your right to choose whether you ingest fluoride. Since we are all volunteers, we are unable to issue tax receipts. However, we are happy to acknowledge all donations. WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS PREFERRED METHOD Use your online banking to send an e-transfer to SWC.Treasurer@protonmail.com PAYPAL You don't have to have a PayPal account to use this option. Select the Donate button below and you will be presented with the following two buttons: (a) Donate with PayPal (requires a PayPal account) (b) Donate with a Card (credit or visa debit card) SEND A PERSONAL CHEQUE TO: Safe Water Calgary c/o Ivor Green, Treasurer 428 37th Ave. NW Calgary, Alberta T2K 0C5

FLUORIDE IN PROCESSED FOOD & DRINK THREE MAIN REASONS Conventionally Grown and Especially Processed Food & Drink Now Contain so much Fluoride Published Data: Children Overexposed: Unfluoridated Regions Fluoride based pesticides such as cryolite (sodium hexafluoroaluminate) and fumigation products such as sulfuryl fluoride are commonly used in industrial farming. The more the fruit, vegetable, grain, dried fruit, seed or nut are sprayed with fluoride pesticides and/or fumigation products, the more the food will contain fluoride ions which cannot be washed off and will enter your body when you eat these foods or anything made with these foods. The processing of foods, drinks, soups etc. with fluoridated water in fluoridated regions such as Ontario, Alberta and many US states results in these items containing significant amounts of fluoride. The levels of fluoride in these products vary depending upon a number of factors such as how much fluoridated water is used, the degree to which the volume of the product is diminished from cooking, dehydration etc., the amount of fluoride the foods originally contained from any treatment with fluoride pesticides and/or if they were grown in phosphate fertilizer. The widespread use of phosphate fertilizer is another way fluoride levels have increased in conventionally grown foods. Compared to traditional and modern organic soils, phosphate fertilizer, which is made from phosphate rock, contains much higher levels of fluoride which can be absorbed into the foods growing in this fertilizer. Unlike pesticides and fumigation products which are sprayed directly on the foods, absorption of fluoride from phosphate fertilizer varies depending upon the plant. Tea plants, for example, are known for absorbing the highest amounts of fluoride from their soil. Tea plants deposit the absorbed fluoride in their leaves which is why teas are exceptionally high in fluoride. A cup of your average black tea will contain up to 5-times the amount of fluoride found in fluoridated water. The older the tea leaf, the higher the amount of fluoride, which is why bottled Ice Teas commonly contain up to 9-times the amount fluoride found in fluoridated water. As demonstrated in the section Inconsistencies and Contradictions , US & Canadian dental and public health associations acknowledge these other sources of fluoride when providing guidelines for safe daily fluoride exposure from toothpaste, mouthwash, prescription fluoride supplements , and baby formula which all result in lower daily fluoride exposure than fluoridated water.

PRIVAC Y POLICY This privacy policy sets out how Safe Water Calgary uses and protects any information that you give them when you use this website. Safe Water Calgary is committed to ensuring that your privacy is protected. Should we ask you to provide certain information by which you can be identified when using this website, then you can be assured that it will only be used in accordance with this privacy statement. Safe Water Calgary may change this policy occasionally by updating this page. You should check this page from time-to-time to ensure that you are happy with any changes. This policy is effective from September, 2021. This privacy policy sets out how Safe Water Calgary uses and protects any information that you give them when you use this website. Safe Water Calgary is committed to ensuring that your privacy is protected. Should we ask you to provide certain information by which you can be identified when using this website, then you can be assured that it will only be used in accordance with this privacy statement. Safe Water Calgary may change this policy occasionally by updating this page. You should check this page from time-to-time to ensure that you are happy with any changes. This policy is effective from August, 2021. WHAT WE COLLECT We may collect the following information: Name Email Address Other information we may collect relevant to customer surveys WHAT WE DO WITH THE INFORMATION WE GATHER By providing your name and email, you are giving Safe Water Calgary express permission to add your information to a distribution list, so that we may send you updates on our activity, as well as any fund-raising that may be required, in order to support this Canadian effort. SECURITY We are committed to ensuring that your information is secure. In order to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure, we have put in place suitable physical, electronic and managerial procedures to safeguard and secure the information we collect online. LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES Our website may contain links to other websites of interest. However, once you have used these links to leave our site, you should note that we do not have any control over other websites. Therefore, we cannot be responsible for the protection and privacy of any information which you provide while visiting such sites and such sites are not governed by this privacy statement. You should exercise caution and look at the privacy statement applicable to the website in question. CONTROLLING PERSONAL INFORMATION We will not sell, distribute or lease your personal information to third parties unless we have your permission or are required by law to do so. If you believe that any information we are holding on you is incorrect or incomplete, please write to or email us as soon as possible. We will promptly make any corrections.

MAKING SENSE OF THE SCIENCE Systematic reviews are when a panel of highly qualified scientists are convened to evaluate the most relevant published scientific research on a particular topic following specific guidelines set forth by the panel and the institution that commissions the review. Such reviews can take considerable time to organize and even more time to conduct. For example, in 2006 the US National Academies of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) published the results of their 3.5 year review of just about every published study that existed at the time on the effects of fluoride in drinking water. The National Academies of Sciences is one of the world's most prestigious scientific institutions; often referred to as a Supreme Court of Science. In addition to the 2006 NRC review, there are 2 other independent systematic reviews that have been conducted on the effects of fluoridated water. The first was published in the year 2000 by the UK's University of York's National Health Services (NHS) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination which at the time was considered the most rigorous and thorough review on fluoridation. The second was published in 2015 and was carried out by the Cochrane Collaboration , an institution often described as providing the Gold Standard in medical scientific evaluations. The main differences between these three reviews is that the York and Cochrane reviews established very strict inclusion criteria which resulted in many studies not being included because they ranked as too biased and / or lacked sufficient controls and rigours. This means that of the three, the NRC review, looked at even more research which explains why it took 3.5 years to complete. Also, in addition to it's high standards for inclusion criteria, the Cochrane Institute only reviewed research dealing with the following questions: Is fluoridated water cost effective? Does it affect social economic status (i.e. does it help the financially disadvantaged)? Does fluoridated water reduce tooth decay? To what degree does fluoridated water cause dental fluorosis? The icon links allow you to see for yourself what the most rigorous scientific and least biased reviews concluded about the effects of fluoridated water. NRC Review Fluoride in Drinking Water Newsweek Article Referencing Cochrane & York Reviews NRC Co-Author Comments on Health Canada 2015 Cochrane Review York Review & letter from Chair of Advisory Committee Referenced Letter from Erin Brokovich & Associates

FLUORIDE 101 CITATIONS “Fluoride, when used in the...prevention of disease in man or animal, is a drug that is subject to Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.” Sources: FDA letter to Congress, Dec 21 2000 [ FDA-1963 ] FDA Dec 2001 [ FDA-2000a ] “Fluoride is no longer considered an essential factor for human growth and development.” “The FDA does not list Fluoride as an essential Nutrient.” Sources: National Research Council [1989] Letter from the Food & Drug Administration, October 1990 [ FDA-1990 ] “The emerging picture from all risk assessments conducted on fluoride is that there exists a narrow margin between the recommended intakes for the prevention of dental caries and the upper limits of exposure.” Source: Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks Critical Review of Any New Evidence on the Hazard Profile, Health Effects, and Human Exposure to Fluoride and the Fluoridating Agents of Drinking Water. [accessed on 22 February 2016]. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf “It is important to recognize that a relatively narrow margin of safety may exist for the development of dental fluorosis among children consuming fluoridated drinking water or consuming fluoride supplements.” Sources: American Academy of Family Physicians Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks Critical Review of Any New Evidence on the Hazard Profile, Health Effects, and Human Exposure to Fluoride and the Fluoridating Agents of Drinking Water. [accessed on 22 February 2016]. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf “In light of the collective evidence on various health end-points and total exposure to fluoride, the committee concludes that EPA’s MCLG of 4mg/L should be lowered.” Source: National Research Council; Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards [2006] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards “Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion.” Sou rces: Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. [1999]. Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23. [ Abstract on pubmed ] D.G. Pendrys, J.W. Stamm [February 1, 1990]; Relationship of Total Fluoride Intake to Beneficial Effects and Enamel Fluorosis Journal of Dental Research 69(Spec 155):529-538 [ JDentRes69-1990 ] Examples of mild dental fluorosis – BMC Public Health Study Sou rces: Peered review Study: BMC Public Health 201212:366 “Quantitative light fluorescence (QLF) and Polarized White Light (PWL) assessments of dental fluorosis in an epidemiological setting.” http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-12-366 [From the study above] “These changes can result in dental fluorosis, which in its mildest forms presents as areas of white striations following the developmental lines of enamel.” Ref: 5. Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O: Clinical appearance of dental fluorosis in permanent teeth in relation to histologic changes. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1978, 6 (6): 315-328. “41 % of American teenagers have some form of fluorosis.” Sou rce: NCHS Data Brief No 53 Nov 2010 Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the US, 1999-2004 (data) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db53.htm “Fluoride’s predominant effect is posteruptive and topical.” Sou rce : Center for Disease Control (CDC) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm “We are unaware of data… about the additional protection from tooth decay that could result [from consumption of fluoridated drinking water].” So u rce : In a May 15, 2012 letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, the CDC wrote: “We are unaware of data . . . about the additional protection from tooth decay that could result from [intakes greater than 10 micrograms/day of fluoride].” See: www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/cdc-2012.pdf “The optimum fluoride intake for babies under 6 months of age is just 0.1 mg PER DAY.” So u rces : The National Research Council Most recent reviews on fluoride dosage seem to indicate that “nil” is the consensus on proper dose for infants; http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/Infant-Warning-Overview.pdf Fluoride Supplement Dosage Schedule [2010], Approved by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs For infants 0-6 months, the schedule indicates “none” as the recommend dosage of fluoride supplements regardless of levels of fluoride in the drinking water, see image below; “Significant IQ loss at just 0.9 ppm among children with iodine deficiency.” Source: Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang, and Philippe Grandjean Environmental Health Perspectives on July 20, 2012, The Harvard Study can be found here . “To which extent this risk applies to fluoridation in Wichita or Portland or elsewhere is uncertain, but definitely deserves concern.” Source: Dr. Philippe Grandjean, the senior scientist who authored the Harvard review; “Chemical brain drain should not be disregarded. The average IQ deficit in children exposed to increased levels of fluoride in drinking water was found to correspond to about 7 points — a sizable difference. To which extent this risk applies to fluoridation in Wichita or Portland or elsewhere is uncertain, but definitely deserves concern.” Ref: Dr. Grandjean’s website: www.braindrain.dk/2013/02/fluoridated-water-and-brains/ “97% of Western Europe Do Not drink fluoridated water” Source: Wikipedia: “Out of a population of about three-quarters of a billion, under 14 million people (approximately a mere 2%) in Europe receive artificially-fluoridated water.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country#Europe Wikipedia’s source: http://www.bfsweb.org/one-in-a-million

MEDIA BIAS SAFE WATER CALGARY MEDIA RELEASE October 13, 2021 POSTMEDIA CENSORS SAFE WATER CALGARY ADS IN HERALD, SUN Postmedia, the media company operating the Calgary Herald and Sun, has banned half-page ads Safe Water Calgary had been running opposing water fluoridation in the upcoming plebiscite. The ads had already run in the Sun on Wednesday and the Herald Thursday and Friday. They were scheduled to run Saturday in the Herald and Sunday in the Sun. Safe Water Calgary had already been guaranteed the ads would be run by Postmedia and had already paid for them in full. It is currently looking into legal options. On Friday, Safe Water Calgary was asked by Postmedia to either reduce their ad to merely saying people should vote No and reference their website or provide a citation or direct URL for numerous statements in the ad. Safe Water Calgary responded within an hour by providing both citations and URL’s for all the statements Postmedia had highlighted. Safe Water Calgary also pointed out that these references were freely available to the public on its website at www.safewatercalgary.com . Less than two hours later, Dean Jager, Director of Media Sales, e-mailed Safe Water Calgary saying “I am writing to inform you that we cannot accept your advertisement at this time.” Jager has not responded to multiple requests from Safe Water Calgary for an explanation why they are now banning the ads. “This is an outrage,” Dr. Robert Dickson, MD, Safe Water Calgary director, asserted. “This is censorship – pure and simple. Are we still in Canada? Do we still have freedom of speech? Postmedia is favoring one side in this debate, restricting the rights of the other side to be heard – an egregious violation of journalism ethics.” Contact: Robert Dickson, MD, Founder and Director, Safe Water Calgary 403-560-4574 drbob_is@me.com Newspaper ads and references, with URL’s, to statements made in them are at www.safewatercalgary.com .

Write to Minister of Environment to Revoke EPEA Approval of Water Fluoridation in Calgary A personalized letter is best to send to Rebecca Schulz, Minister of Environment, cc the Premier & Minister of Justice, or a version of the letter below. (Email addresses and distribution lists provided below) The Hon. Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta The Hon. Rebecca Schulz, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas The Hon. Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice Subject: Request to Revoke Alberta EPEA Approval for Water Fluoridation in Calgary Dear Premier Smith, Minister Schulz, and Minister Amery, I sincerely thank you for amending the Alberta Bill of Rights to enshrine the right of individuals not to be subjected to or coerced into receiving medical care or treatment without their consent . As you are aware, the Bill of Rights applies to the Legislature and Government of Alberta in all matters within their authority. Calgary is scheduled to resume water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L in Q1 2025 under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval, which was amended in Q4 2023 to reinstate fluoride into the city’s drinking water. Since EPEA approval is required for municipal fluoridation , it follows that water fluoridation falls within the authority of the Legislature of Alberta and that the right not to be subjected to medical treatment without consent must apply. On September 24, 2024 , the U.S. District Court in Food & Water Watch v. U.S. EPA ruled, based on a preponderance of evidence , that water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L poses an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." As a concerned citizen of Calgary who does not consent to this medical treatment, I formally request that the Alberta EPEA approval, amended in Q4 2023 to reinstate fluoridation, be revoked. The court’s Findings of Fact provide compelling evidence that water fluoridation: Reduces IQ in children Contributes to brittle bones in seniors The ruling explicitly states: “Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.” The only claimed benefit of fluoridation is a reduction in childhood cavities. However, unlike cavities—which can be prevented and treated through alternative means, such as the Federal Dental Program—reduced IQ is irreversible, impacting a child’s future prospects and quality of life. The Alberta Bill of Rights states that the right not to be subjected to medical treatment without consent is subject only to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably and proportionately justified, based on evidence in a free and democratic Alberta.” Given the latest scientific evidence and the U.S. District Court’s ruling , a proper risk/benefit analysis does not justify overriding this fundamental right. Additionally, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law —binding on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency —further confirm that Calgary’s proposed water fluoridation poses an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." This evidence alone should warrant the immediate suspension of the Alberta EPEA approval for Calgary’s fluoridation program. Time is of the essence, as Calgary is set to begin fluoridation in early 2025 . I urge you to act swiftly to protect the health, rights, and future of all Calgarians by revoking the Alberta EPEA approval for municipal water fluoridation. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, [Your Full Name] Call for an immediate moratorium on water fluoridation in Calgary Ministers of Environment, Justice and Premier Email Distribution List – for environment email Premier Smith , 780 427-2251 Rebecca Schulz, Minister of Environment , 780 427-2391 Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice , 780 427-233 9 CC your MLA BCC: safewatercalgary@gmail.com

Petition for a moratorium on the addition of fluoride to Calgary's public water.