48 items found
- Them vs Us | Safe Water Calgary
THEM VERSUS US LETHBRIDGE FLUORIDATION FORUM - 2013: FLUORIDATION HEALTH SCIENCE AND LOCAL POLITICS RED DEER, ALBERTA - 2019: HOW THE PUBLIC IS MISLED AND MISINFORMED Dr. Bob Dickson, together with Dr. James Beck had an incident in Red Deer (the first Alberta city fluoridated, since 1959!). They had two sessions with City Council, morning and afternoon, and the pro-fluoride mayor set it up so they spoke first and Dr. Horne, the Minister of Health from Edmonton, spoke last in each session. In his morning session, Dr. Horne stated that Dr. Dickson and Dr. Beck were misrepresenting the Harvard metanalysis and that the the drop in IQ was only 0.4 points, so nothing to worry about...wouldn’t ever notice this in an individual or population. At the lunch break, Dr. Dickson printed off the study, highlighted the appropriate sections in yellow, and presented to Dr. Horne that the standard deviation was 0.4 and that equated to an average IQ loss of 6.9 points! He thanked him and, when asked if he was going to correct his error in the afternoon session where he again presented last, he said he would consider it. Dr. Dickson and Dr. Beck were naïve enough to believe him and had their presentation full, so they didn’t bring up his “mistake”...and neither did he! They lost that vote resoundingly in Council as the Council thought that THEY were lying and misleading them! Unfortunately , no recordings were done, and no documented proof. So sad! ALBERTA VIEWS DIALOGUE - 2021: SHOULD WE FLUORIDATE OUR WATER The Alberta Views magazine published a very fair article on fluoridation featuring Dr. Richard Musto , a public health and preventive medicine physician and clinical professor at the University of Calgary and Dr. Bob Dickson , medical doctor holding a Fellowship in the College of Family Physicians and founder of Safe Water Calgary. Each were given an opportunity to submit their position and then to rebut the other. The following makes interesting reading. DR. RICHARD MUSTO – SUBMISSION Community water fluoridation (CWF) is an essential and key element of efforts a community can make to improve the health of all its members. By adjusting the naturally occurring level of fluoride in its water supply to the recommended point, a community contributes an effective, safe and cost-saving method of reducing tooth decay in all ages, especially children. Tooth decay is common in Canada, affecting nearly 60 per cent of children and virtually all adults. Fluoride works to prevent tooth decay by strengthening the enamel coating of teeth, both by making it more resistant to the effect of acids produced by bacteria and by assisting with repair. This effect is complemented by other topical fluoride sources such as toothpaste, varnishes or other professionally applied therapies. Because CWF is available regularly through the day (with every drink of water) it doesn’t require any special action. In communities with fluoridated water, people have fewer cavities in baby and adult teeth alike and better oral health. CWF is one of several ways to prevent tooth decay and maintain good oral health and is the most cost-effective one. Others include eating healthy foods, avoiding lots of high-sugar beverages, regular brushing and flossing and going to the dentist for routine checkups and preventive care. CWF is particularly valuable for people who face challenges in accessing dental care and other preventive measures. It’s safe. CWF has been practised in Canada for 76 years, over which time the best scientific evidence shows no increase in any systemic health condition caused by fluoride. Scientific research simply doesn’t support claims of adverse health effects. The only potential adverse effect that may occur is dental fluorosis, a discoloration of tooth enamel ranging from barely visible whitish flecking of the enamel in mild cases to pitting in a rare, severe form. People with mild fluorosis are generally unaware of the condition because it’s barely noticeable to the untrained eye and doesn’t affect tooth function. CWF is highly cost-effective, saving people from missing work (to care for themselves or their children) and paying for dental treatment, as well as for insurance plans and provincial healthcare systems. For municipalities that bear the cost of implementation and maintenance, the practice must be recognized as a meaningful contribution to a healthier populace, alongside road safety, pathways for walking and cycling, and green spaces for everyone’s enjoyment. Albertans are facing huge challenges as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and seek how best to transition our economy. We have a tradition of pulling together and looking after one another in tough times. Community water fluoridation is an effective, safe and money-saving action we should support being implemented in our municipalities for the health of us all. DR. BOB DICKSON – SUBMISSION Is fluoride safe? No. The strongest scientific evidence is neurotoxicity—brain damage. Over 70 studies, several funded by the National Institutes of Health, found common fluoride levels can increase ADHD rates and lower IQ in children. The editor of JAMA Pediatrics, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, concluded “I would not want my wife to drink fluoridated water” if she were pregnant. The science is so robust that it’s the focus of an historic lawsuit in US federal court against the Environmental Protection Agency for allowing fluoridation. The judge stated “there is serious evidence” of fluoridation’s neurotoxicity. But it’s not just brain damage. The National Research Council’s “Fluoride in Drinking Water” is considered the most comprehensive review on fluoride’s toxicity. NRC concluded that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, increasing risk of dental fluorosis, hypothyroidism, diabetes, kidney disease and other diseases. NRC’s identification of the known risks and need for further research emphatically contradicts proponents’ insistence that fluoridation has been proven safe. Is fluoride effective? Minimally, if at all. Globally, there’s little correlation between fluoridation and cavities. Income is the major factor linked to dental health. Proponents cite a 25 per cent cavity reduction, but peer-reviewed science shows this amounts to less than one cavity per child. And World Health Organization data shows fluoridated nations have similar cavity rates as non-fluoridated ones. Dr. Lindsay McLaren’s highly publicized 2016 study in Calgary found cavity rates rose after council voted to stop fluoridating in 2011. But a follow-up study showed cavity rates increased just as much before 2011 as after. Stopping fluoridation made no difference. Is fluoridation cost-effective? In fact, it’s challenging to find a less efficient use of taxpayer money. Some 99 per cent of fluoride (toxic hydrofluosilicic acid waste from the fertilizer industry) added to water isn’t ingested, instead going down the drain with toilets, showers, lawns and industrial use. A report in Calgary estimated the cost of the infrastructure, chemicals and operations totalling over $30-million for 20 years. Proponents tout studies showing that every $1 a municipality spends on fluoridation saves individuals $30 on dental bills. This figure is dubious, and none of these studies consider costs from fluoridation’s health risks, which can be huge. Every one-point decrease in IQ equates to over $20,000 less in lifetime earnings. Dozens of scientific studies show fluoridation corresponds to an average IQ loss of 3–9 points. Most tragic is the impairment of kids’ potential. We can get fluoride in toothpaste, mouthwash, gels and rinses. Nobody should be forced to ingest a drug they don’t want, especially through their drinking water. Once water is fluoridated, the only alternatives are expensive filters or bottled water. This is especially unjust for low-income populations. We must say no to this obsolete and harmful practice. DR. RICHARD MUSTO – REBUTAL OF DR. DICKSON It will be abundantly clear to the reader that Dr. Dickson and I are representing the scientific literature very differently, so I’ll begin my response with a short commentary on this. Research on a community-level intervention such as water fluoridation (CWF) examines the impacts upon the whole population as well as subgroups, including, for example, children. To assist with the assessment of research studies and their potential relevance to public policy decisions, criteria and techniques have been developed and ideally are applied to all available reports. In this way guidance can be based on the collective evidence rather than isolated studies. Such criteria help dispense with the question Dr. Dickson once asked me—Why is “your” science always good and “ours” is bad? The answer is that neither “side” can claim to always have “good science.” Rather, the limitations in most studies need to be recognized, and proponents of a position must avoid seizing upon any single study that suits them. Decisions should be based on careful and comprehensive review of the research. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) was created in 1989 to independently conduct such reviews, and it has done several on CWF. In the US the National Research Council, although not created for this specific purpose, does conduct detailed reviews, including the one in 2006 referred to by Dr. Dickson. This review, however, was focused on potential adverse effects of fluoride concentrations at 2 to 4 mg/L, which is three to six times higher than the 0.7 mg/L fluoride concentration standard for CWF in Canada. The NRC review pointed out that their conclusions (including that the maximum permissible level—4 mg/L—should be lowered to protect against severe dental fluorosis and some possible effects on bone) “do not address the lower exposures commonly experienced by most US citizens.” In other words, the review highlighted by Dr. Dickson is not about the fluoride concentration used in CWF. In any case, a subsequent review by the US Food and Drug Administration, which agency is responsible for setting the guidelines, determined that any change to the level was of low priority or represented negligible benefit, and so it remains the same today. CADTH, the Canadian agency, assessed CWF in 2019 and published several reports (available at https://bit.ly/3E6cLBh). These found: Consistent scientific evidence that CWF at current Canadian levels (0.7 mg/L) is associated with fewer dental caries (i.e., cavities) in children and adults alike; Dental fluorosis increases with the level of fluoride exposure. In Canada, 12 per cent of children in areas with controlled water fluoridation experience fluorosis at a level termed “aesthetic concern”; it is generally not noticeable to the naked or untrained eye and does not affect tooth function; For 22 non-dental health conditions examined in this review, consistent evidence showed either no association with CWF or a mixture of limited evidence of no association and insufficient evidence to determine an association. In other words, dental fluorosis is the only side effect associated with fluoride at the concentration with CWF; Insufficient evidence (only a few studies that showed mixed results) to determine the impact of CWF discontinuation on caries in children; CWF is ethically justified because of its health benefits, safety and equitable approach; From a societal perspective, and considering costs incurred by different levels of government, municipalities, private insurance and out-of-pocket costs for individuals, it costs a municipality less to introduce CWF than it does to not fluoridate (with the costs of implementation generally recovered within the first year). Similarly, it is more costly for a municipality to cease CWF than to maintain it, even if the current system requires upgrades. Following publication of the JAMA Pediatrics article referred to by Dr. Dickson, CADTH did a rapid review of the evidence on any potential association between fluoride exposure and neurological development in children. Its assessment was that, because of the studies’ multiple limitations, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to fluoride at Canada’s CWF levels affects neurological development in children and adolescents. The science around CWF will continue to evolve and it remains important for us to thoughtfully assess new reports and communicate the findings accurately and in a manner that is relevant to our local context. In the meantime, we as a community are faced with a rising rate of dental caries and the pain, disruption and costs that come with them. Community water fluoridation makes a safe, effective and cost-saving contribution to our health and quality of life, which, along with the individual actions we can each take, can be uniquely available to every citizen simply by turning on the tap. DR. BOB DICKSON – REBUTAL OF DR. MUSTO I’ve known Dr. Musto for many years, and I respect his career and accomplishments. However, I’m afraid he hasn’t kept up on the most important recent studies, many conducted by Canadian scientists. As a Calgary physician who’s been studying the effects of fluoridation for decades, I have no doubt that the practice is obsolete and causes serious risks to human health. Fluoridation violates one of the most sacred tenets of medicine—that no one should be forced to ingest a drug through drinking water, taking away their right of informed consent. No wonder it’s been rejected by 95 per cent of the world’s people. Some 97 per cent of Europeans drink unfluoridated water, and many countries, including Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands, have banned fluoridation. Many cite the fact that putting a drug in drinking water is unethical, taking away people’s right to choose whether they want to ingest fluoride or not. Dr. Musto claims “Scientific research simply doesn’t support claims of adverse health effects.” The facts say just the opposite. The chemical used to fluoridate most water is fluorosilicic acid, a hazardous waste by-product from the phosphate fertilizer industry often tainted with lead and arsenic. Although the amounts included are legal, it’s widely acknowledged that there is no safe level of lead and arsenic. The Fluoride Action Network (fluoridealert.org) thoroughly reviewed the 77 studies that have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence. Of these, 69 link elevated fluoride exposure with reduced IQs. The US National Toxicology Program documented studies of fluoride’s neurotoxicity (brain damage), finding overwhelming evidence linking fluoride to IQ loss in children, including from pregnant women consuming fluoride or infants being fed formula mixed with fluoridated water. Their numbers tell the story: 25 of 27 of the highest-quality studies linked higher fluoride levels to lower IQs 11 of 11 studies detected this IQ loss at levels found in fluoridated water! How can anyone look at this data and conclude that fluoridation is safe? But it’s more than the sheer number of studies—it’s their quality. Fluoridation promoters rarely mention the historic lawsuit in US federal court against the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for allowing fluoridation. The EPA admitted in court that the four strongest neurotoxicity studies ever conducted all showed substantial IQ loss from fluoride or increase in ADHD rates—all at levels in fluoridated water. Following the June 2020 trial, the case is moving forward. The judge should rule in the next 6–12 months whether fluoridation is an unreasonable risk to human health. Nobody can say which way he’ll rule, but he’s already said the EPA should “take a second look.” This case may very well mark the final chapter of fluoridation. Three of the four studies cited in the trial were sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health, which only funds the most methodologically rigorous investigations. One was co-authored by scientists Dr. Christine Till from York University and Dr. Bruce Lanphear from Simon Fraser University, and published by the American Medical Association’s prestigious journal JAMA Pediatrics. Of the over 170 research studies accepted by JAMA Pediatrics in 2019, it ranked #1 on the Altmetric scale of quality and media interest. Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of both the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, asserted in a 2020 article in Environmental Health News co-authored by Drs. Till and Lanphear that “New evidence questions existing policies about the safety of fluoride for babies’ developing brains. Given that safe alternatives are available and that there is no benefit of fluoride to babies’ teeth before they erupt or appear, it is time to protect those who are most vulnerable.” Regarding effectiveness, Dr. Musto claimed that “In communities with fluoridated water, people have fewer cavities in baby and adult teeth alike and better oral health.” This simply isn’t supported by the data. The Cochrane network, a group of thousands of scientists worldwide, is considered the gold standard for evaluating effectiveness of medical interventions. It couldn’t find any evidence of fluoridation’s effectiveness in adults and said there was insufficient evidence that the practice helps narrow the cavity gap between lower- and higher-income families (see https://bit.ly/3xcoJ7V). As mentioned, World Health Organization statistics show that fluoridated nations have essentially the same cavity rates as unfluoridated ones. Even fluoridation promoters acknowledge that fluoride’s main preventive action is topical, not from swallowing. Fluoridation isn’t fair to anyone, but it’s especially unjust for low-income families who can’t afford expensive filter systems or bottled water to avoid it. They must put themselves in harm’s way—they have no choice. This isn’t right. As a doctor, I subscribe to our physician’s creed: First do no harm. I ask Dr. Musto to do the same.
- Home | Safe Water Calgary
1/14 FLUORIDATION FACTS TO KNOW View EYE OPENING NEW SCIENCE View ETHICAL DILEMMA View THEM VERSUS US View Christine Till Presents to the Rotary Club of Calagary Christine Till is one of Canada's leading scientists. She is a tenured Associate Professor in the Clinical Developmental Area in the Department of Psychology and Faculty of Health at York University , Toronto, Ontario. She is also appointed as an Adjunct Scientist of the Neurosciences and Mental Health Research Program at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Below she gives an in-depth look at the detail of her studies on fluoride. She says: "How much more information is needed before we raise concerns...?" TAKE ACTION A STATEMENT FROM SAFE WATER CALGARY Who We Are and What We Beli ev e Artificial water fluoridation is a serious public health threat to many Calgarians. And to citizens in Edmonton, Toronto, and Regina. It’s not just Alberta, and it’s not just Canada’s problem. Fluoridation’s well-documented health risks are not confined by provincial or national borders. The best studies published in the world’s leading journals, provide solid scientific evidence that it can significantly lower IQ in children . Many of these studies have been led by Canadian scientists. Fluoride is a known neurotoxin and an endocrine disruptor that can exacerbate diabetes, kidney disease, hypothyroidism, bone fractures and many other harmful conditions, whether in Calgary, New York, or Sydney. Most nations and cities have long rejected or not even considered fluoridation. 95% of the world’s people drink unfluoridated water, 97% in Europe , where numerous countries prohibit it, including France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. In Canada, both British Columbia and Quebec are 98% fluoridation-free , and there is no evidence they have higher cavity rates than provinces with higher fluoridation rates. We’re proud to work with other advocates across Canada and all over the world. We’re helping to protect health, wherever you live, whatever political party you belong to and whatever you believe about other controversial topics. We're an all-volunteer grassroots organization where people who may not agree on other issues have come together. We unite people. We don’t divide them. We recognize fluoridation’s health risks and the simple truth that it’s totally misguided to put ANY drug into drinking water . It is also highly unethical, hurting those who are least able to protect themselves. It’s minimally effective if at all, and low-income families cannot afford expensive filters or bottled water to avoid it. They have no choice but to expose themselves and their children to this hazardous chemical. Artificial water fluoridation is Safe Water Calgary's only issue. We won't be distracted by others. We unapologetically accept support from people everywhere to help protect Calgarians from this egregious practice, just as we will support people in other communities around the world. We're all in this great cause together. We believe most people who support artificial water fluoridation are well-intended, including those in authority positions. Unfortunately, they are underinformed or misinformed about its serious health risks and ineffectiveness. We at Safe Water Calgary will take the high road and not resort to personal attacks. However, we will challenge anyone when misinformation is disseminated. We will continue to speak truth to power until this outdated and dangerous practice is ended . Review References for this Mailer Review References for this Mailer OUR CAMPAIGN SAFE WATER CALGARY’S TOP 10 REASONS NOT TO FLUORIDATE Fluoride is a proven neurotoxin and is one of the most toxic substances on the planet, more toxic than lead and almost as toxic as arsenic! NOT what we want to add to our pristine public water! Fluoride and fluoridation are most harmful to babies, children, the disadvantaged, the poor and people of colour. Fluoride is NOT a vitamin or nutrient, and is NOT needed for a single body function. 99% of fluoridated water is used to water lawns, flush toilets, shower and bath, and also by industry; then flushed into our ecosystems mostly unchecked. This is NOT green. Water fluoridation does NOT make economic sense in good economic times and most certainly not in tough, tight economies. 98% of British Columbia, 98% of Quebec, 97% of Europe and 95% of our world do NOT fluoridate. Non-fluoridated areas are in the vast majority! Skyrocketing fluorosis is the first visible sign of overdosing and toxicity. It is highly unethical to mass medicate, especially without informed consent, monitoring or follow up. Politicians should NOT mass medicate, nor should citizens vote by plebiscite on who should be medicated. Choice is of utmost importance!! A major court case is underway in the USA Federal courts since 2016 against the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for adding a toxic substance to public water. Confirmed under oath—fluoride is a medication! DONATE JOIN OUR MAILING LIST Content on this website has been vetted by PhDs in Biochemistry & Chemistry, a former dean of Science, pharmacists, and PhDs in Toxicology, Biochemistry, Chemistry and other related fields from across Canada and the United States. Two of these researchers took part in the National Academies of Sciences' National Research Council's (NRC) 3.5 year Systematic Review on the effects of fluoride in drinking water. The NRC review along with the year 2000 York Review and year 2015 Cochrane Review are the only independent comprehensive systematic reviews ever conducted on the effects of fluoride in drinking water.
- Our Campaign | Safe Water Calgary
OUR CAMPAIGN On October 18th , 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: firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
- Take Action | Safe Water Calgary
Do you have 5 minutes? - TAKE ACTION You can help us ensure Calgary City Council does not restart artificial water fluoridation. Calgarians will be voting on whether or not to medicate their neighbours via plebiscite in the upcoming civic elections on October 18, 2021 . 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 ONLINE PETITION LIKE AND SHARE OUR FACEBOOK PAGE FOLLOW US ON TWITTER SUBSCRIBE TO OUR MAILING LIST WRITE TO CITY COUNCIL To advocate for clean safe water (addresses for Calgary, Airdrie, Chestermere, and Strathmore) PRINT & SHARE OUR FLYER WATER FLUORIDATION BASICS 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! "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
- New Science | Safe Water Calgary
THE NEW SCIENCE SHOWS FLUORIDE IS NOT SAFE T here are strong Canadian connections with all these studies, Christine Till, who was the lead author of both the Green and Till studies, teaches at York University; Bruce Lanphear (co-author of the Green and Till studies) is an American citizen but teaches at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver and Howard Hu, the lead author of the Bashash studies did his research at the University of Toronto for many years. Well-designed prospective cohort studies funded by both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the USA as well as Health Canada, have shown a loss of IQ and increased symptoms of ADHD in offspring when pregnant women are exposed to fluoride at doses commonly experienced in fluoridated communities in Canada (Bashash, 2017, 2018 and Green, 2019). The consequences are shocking! According to Dr. Philippe Grandjean, from Harvard University, “Fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury” , as detailed in this risk analysis . Till et al., 2020 have shown a large reduction in IQ when children were bottle-fed as babies in communities which were fluoridated, compared with babies who were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. According to Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., former Director of the U.S. NIEHS (2009-2019) and two leading public health researchers (Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, and Christine Till, PhD) who authored two key fluoride-IQ studies (Green, 2019 and Till, 2020), ingestion of fluoride during pregnancy confers no dental benefit to the fetus, so this is a situation where risks are being taken for no proven benefit ( see their editorial published in Environmental Health News, Oct 7 2020 ). An important well-conducted study from Sweden has shown an increased prevalence of hip fracture in post-menopausal women associated with long term exposure to natural fluoride at levels in water in the same range as Canada fluoridates its water [ Helte et. al., 2021 ] . This is very serious because, as you probably know, hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence and often shortens the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health over a whole lifetime of exposure. OTHER WELL-RESPECTED SCIENCE These icons will reveal the following scientific studies from the years 2000 and 2015: A letter from the chair of the advisory panel for the year 2000 British York Review followed by the complete review which at the time was considered the most rigorous and respected scientific review on the effects of water fluoridation. A summary of the year 2015 Cochrane review on the effects of water fluoridation. NOTE: The Cochrane Review, the 2000 York Review, and the 2006 US National Academies of Sciences National Research Council's 3.5 year review are the only independent systematic reviews ever done on the scientific research looking at the effects of fluoride in drinking water. This makes these reviews the most rigorous & least biased. Further descriptions about systematic reviews are offered on the Making Sense of the Science page. Chair of Advisory Panel for York Review Summary Cochrane Review (2015) Making Sense of the Science
- Scientific Reviews | Safe Water Calgary
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 the Supreme Court of Science. In addition to the 2006 NRC review, there are two 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. NRC Review Fluoride in Drinking Water York Review & letter from Chair of Advisory Committee 2015 Cochrane Review 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.
- Fluoridation | Safe Water Calgary
FLUORIDATION Water fluoridation is the practice of adding industrial-grade fluoride chemicals to water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. One of the little known facts about this practice is that the United States, which fluoridates over 70% of its water supplies, has more people drinking fluoridated water than the rest of the world combined. Most developed nations , including all of Japan and 97% of western Europe , do not fluoridate their water. In the United States, the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) hails fluoridation as one of the “top ten public health achievements of the 20th century.” However, comprehensive data from the World Health Organization reveals that there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between the minority of western nations that fluoridate water, and the majority that do not. In fact, the tooth decay rates in many non-fluoridated countries are now lower than the tooth decay rates in fluoridated ones. As is becoming increasingly clear, fluoridating water supplies is an outdated, unnecessary, and dangerous relic from a 1950s public health culture that viewed mass distribution of chemicals much differently than scientists do today. The few nations that still fluoridate their water should end the practice. Here’s three reasons why: THREE REASONS TO END WATER FLUORIDATION REASON #1: Fluoridation Is an Outdated Form of Mass Medication Unlike all other water treatment processes, fluoridation does not treat the water itself, but the person consuming it. The Food & Drug Administration accepts that fluoride is a drug , not a nutrient, when used to prevent disease. By definition therefore, fluoridating water is a form of medication . This is why most western European nations have rejected the practice — because in their view, the public water supply is not an appropriate place to be adding drugs , particularly when fluoride is readily available for individual use in the form of toothpaste. REASON #2: Fluoridation Is Unnecessary and Ineffective The most obvious reason to end fluoridation is that it is now known that fluoride’s main benefit comes from topical contact with the teeth, not from ingestion . Even the CDC’s Oral Health Division now acknowledges this. There is simply no need therefore, to swallow fluoride, whether in the water, toothpaste, or any other form. Further, despite early claims that fluoridated water would reduce cavities by 65%, modern large-scale studies show no consistent or meaningful difference in the cavity rates of fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. REASON #3: Fluoridation Is Not a Safe Practice The most important reason to end fluoridation is that it is simply not a safe practice, particularly for those who have health conditions that render them vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects. First, there is no dispute that fluoridation is causing millions of children to develop dental fluorosis , a discoloration of the teeth that is caused by excessive fluoride intake. Scientists from the Centers for Disease Control have even acknowledged that fluoridation is causing “cosmetically objectionable” fluorosis on children’s front teeth — an effect that can cause children embarrassment and anxiety at an age when physical appearance is the single most important predictor of self-esteem. Second, it is known that fluoridated water caused severe bone disease in dialysis patients up until the late 1970s (prior to dialysis units filtering fluoride). While dialysis units now filter out the fluoride, research shows that current fluoride exposures are still resulting in dangerously high bone fluoride levels in dialysis patients and patients with other advanced forms of kidney disease . It is unethical to compromise the health of some members in a population to obtain a purported benefit for another — particularly in the absence of these vulnerable members’ knowing consent. And, finally, a growing body of evidence reasonably indicates that fluoridated water, in addition to other sources of daily fluoride exposure, can cause or contribute to a range of serious effects, including arthritis , damage to the developing brain , reduced thyroid function, and possibly osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in adolescent males. STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION BY SAFE WATER CALGARY — JULY, 2019 Safe Water Calgary , in collaboration with scientists, researchers, physicians, toxicologists, and dentists across North America, Australia, Ireland, and the UK released a Statement in Opposition to Artificial Water Fluoridation in July 2019 to refute the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) report “Community Water Fluoridation Programs: A Health Technology Assessment” , published earlier that year. Available also is the Executive Summary : Statement in Opposition to Artificial Water Fluoridation - Executive Summary . This statement was released in response to the Community Water Fluoridation - A Report for City Council in July, 2019 by the O’Brien Institute for Public Health (OIPH) regarding the potential benefits and risks of artificial water fluoridation, and as directed by a Notice of Motion brought forward to City Council by Councillor Colley-Urquhart in February, 2019. WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T Access Fluoride Free Canada to find out... Canadian Communities that have Rejected Fluoridation Canadian Communities that Still Fluoridate Unfluoridated Countries Fluoridated Countries
- Inconsistencies-Contradictions | Safe Water Calgary
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
- Ethical Dilemma | Safe Water Calgary
ETHICAL DILEMMA Water is a basic need. Chemicals added to water to treat the water's safety is one thing. Chemicals added to water to "treat" the people drinking the water is another thing. Not only is there no way to control the dose for a drug once added to public water, but this practice also denies people's right to consent. Even with toothpaste, people can choose fluoridated or non-fluoridated toothpaste. For babies, fluoridated toothpaste companies specifically offer non-fluoridated toothpaste choices that are marketed as safe to swallow. Unlike the 1960s, conventionally grown and especially processed foods and drinks now contain significant amounts of fluoride due to the common use of phosphate fertilizer, fluoride based pesticides, and the processing of foods and drinks with fluoridated water. Add the amounts of fluoride people absorb from fluoridated dental products, and this is why published research shows that children living in regions without fluoridated water are often already ingesting too much fluoride. A nd for people who truly want their children and themselves swallowing more fluoride, prescription fluoride supplements are available for $13 per year. If we truly want public health measures that reduce tooth decay among the financially disadvantaged, elderly and general population, our public health associations need to roll up their sleeves and provide effective programs such as the Scottish Child Smile program , who have been successfully lowering tooth decay — particularly in deprived communities — without adding any fluoride to their water. THE HEALTH IMPLICATIONS Dental fluorosis and skeletal weakness Children develop dental fluorosis by ingesting too much fluoride between 0 and 8 years of age. It doesn't matter if the fluoride comes from foods and drinks due to pesticides or processing, or toothpaste, or fluoridated water etc. Those with dental fluorosis have higher bone fractures as well as higher rates of learning disabilities. Thyroid issues Thyroid medication is the third most prescribed medication to Canadian women, because fluoride is displacing iodine on the cell's receptors. Study shows that adults living in Canada who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher levels of urinary fluoride may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity. Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) Paul Connett interviews Dr. A. K. Susheela from India, who discusses how ingesting fluoride irritates the stomach lining, leading to IBS. She discovered that from the moment you eliminate fluoride, the gastrointestinal mucosa and the microvilli will regenerate within 10-12 days. Canada has one of the highest prevalence of IBS in the world – estimated 18% vs. 11% globally. ( Lovell et al. 2012 ). ADHD medication in Canada is the number one prescribed medication to boys and girls 6 to 14 years of age and the second most prescribed medication to males between the ages of 15 to 24, according to a June, 2014 Statistics Canada report .