FLUORIDATION What to know about fluoride, in less than 60 seconds Fights are cropping up nationwide over fluoride in drinking water and several communities have decided to stop adding it to water supplies. Here’s what to know. Michael Connett's presentation on the United States Federal Court Win Michael Connett's presentation in Wellington on Water Fluoridation and his United States Federal Court Case Win. The Court found that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter - the level presently considered "optimal" in the USA - poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. Dr. Bob's Letter to City Council After State of Utah Bans Public Water Fluoridation Those SOBs (South Of Borders) are showing the way for us again! At the very least, a pause is in order to protect Calgary’s most vulnerable. Late Thursday night, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed the bill that will go down in history as a landmark for public health in the USA, and likely for Canada too! The law will go into effect May 7. There were several factors leading to a large majority of legislators in both the Utah House and Senate supporting the bill, and the governor signing it: The National Toxicology Program study published last August 21 that cited 18 of the 19 highest-quality studies linked higher fluoride with lower IQs in children, several at levels in fluoridated water. The Federal Court decision against the Environmental Protection Agency last September 24 that ruled fluoridation “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.” The accidental fluoride overfeed in 2019 in Sandy, Utah, that sickened hundreds of people, many of them seriously (For one example, the story of a teenager from Sandy who testified in the legislature. He’s still feeling the ill effects). The high costs of equipment and dangerous chemicals required to fluoridate – many water operators were opposed The desire for people to have the power to make their own choice whether to ingest a drug or not – informed consent The governor’s public statement that children in the approximately half of Utah that didn’t fluoridate didn’t have any higher cavity rates than in the fluoridated half Note this last bullet point. The American Dental Association, which led a furious push to pressure the governor into vetoing the bill, had claimed that children in unfluoridated areas in Utah had significantly more cavities than those in fluoridated areas. What data did they have to support this claim? None. Of course, that didn’t stop most mainstream media from claiming that fluoridation was effective. Leading the charge was the New York Times, which, in essence, called Cox’s honesty into question: “That (Cox’s) claim runs counter to published research, which suggests that fluoridation does improve oral health.” As a reference, it cited a 2007 study (Griffin et al), which said fluoridation reduced cavities by 25%. What the Times didn’t say was that this review only covered low-quality studies 33 to 63 years old, when all the fluoridated water was significantly above the current levels of 0.7 mg/L, making it totally irrelevant to measuring effectiveness now. The Times also completely ignored the 2024 Cochrane Collaboration review, considered the gold standard of measuring effectiveness of medical interventions, which only found a statistically insignificant 3-4% difference, with the possibility of no difference at all. It wasn’t just the Times. The Associated Press story prominently featured Utah’s Dental Association president blasting the law, saying it showed a “wanton disregard for the oral health and well-being of their constituents” and that fluoridation “has been dismantled based on distorted pseudoscience.” But at least the AP story did have several paragraphs on the NTP Report and Federal Court decision. However, the Boston Globe headline on p. 2 the next day claimed “Over health objections, Utah becomes first state to ban fluoride from drinking water.” They had taken the AP article, featured three paragraphs from the ADA including the above quotes, and deleted every word on the IQ risks and court decision. Media cherry-picking at it’s finest! For more balanced articles, see the Deseret News at https://www.deseret.com/utah/2025/03/28/utah-bans-fluoride-in-drinking-water/ and Children’s Health Defense at https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/utah-becomes-first-state-ban-fluoride-public-drinking-water/ The battle continues. Utah now provides another example that other cities, states and countries can follow. I look forward to hearing from you about this latest confirmation that toxins in our public water are NOT a good idea! Thanks, Dr Bob Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo's News Conference NOVEMBER 22, 20 24 - Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo spoke in Winter Haven on , saying all communities statewide should stop adding fluoride to drinking water and referring to fluoridation as "medical malpractice". DR. MARK TROZZI PODCAST WITH DR. BOB Dr. Bob Dickson, is interviewed by former Ontario physician Dr. Mark Trozzi. They discuss the full scope of fluoridation issues from the beginning, to the current law suit with the Environmental Protection Agency. MAY 30 2024— Fluoride: Dental Miracle or Neurotoxic Threat? Fluoride has no role in any natural biochemical process in the human body. For decades fluoride has been used and promoted for reducing dental cavities. In addition to its presence in toothpastes and other dental products, fluoride is added to municipal drinking water in three chemical forms: sodium fluoride (NaF), fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), and sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6). Fluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production, and has various other uses including rust removal cleaning products. Critics of fluorination of municipal drinking water point to various concerns including neurotoxicity and reduced intelligence in children who ingest it routinely. Dr. Bob Dickson MD is a Canadian physician who has dedicated much of his life to important humanitarian causes. He is passionate about ending the fluorination of water and improving our children’s health and intelligence. This Calgary physician co-led the anti-fluoridation program in Calgary since 1999. This resulted in Calgary’s water fluoridation being halted in 2011. He is the founder of Safe Water Calgary and the Chair of Fluoride Free Canada. As we have seen with medical doctors who raise concerns about the covid-19 genetic “vaccines”; Dr. Dickson is under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta because of his public education and activism regarding fluoride. In the context of the past four years, if anything, that only adds adds credibility to Dr. Dickson’s work. There is no conflict of interest for him. Dr. Dickson states that artificial water fluoridation lacks common sense, is highly unethical, violates the precautionary principle, damages children’s brains, and is not needed for even a single natural bodily function. I hope this interview with Dr. Dickson helps all of us evaluate water fluorination and make sound decisions regarding our health, including our children’s teeth and brains. I hope you will then inquire as to whether or not fluorosilicic acid is added to your town’s drinking water, and speak with your elected officials to help all of us make the best decisions for our children and ourselves. —Dr. Mark Trozzi DR. BOB SPEAKS OUT ON ANOTHER RUMBLE PODCAST Dr. Bob Dickson, Chair of Fluoride Free Canada and Founder of Safe Water Calgary, provides an illuminating overview of the current situation with the US Court Case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He also discusses the most recent Health Canada report on fluoridation. FEBRUARY 29, 2024— I met with my Calgary doctor friend again to discuss this issue that he has been working on for 25 years. Fluoride. Dr. Bob used to be a proponent for fluoride in the water until activists had him look at a study back in 1998. I joke that after he realized his mistake, he was like an ex-smoker. Tenacious! He has been trying to expose the lies for 25 years! They were successful in turning off the taps on fluoride in Calgary in 2011. The "fluoridians" fought back and in 2021, they won a plebiscite to put fluoride back into Calgary water. The costs to bring back neurotoxins is starting at about $28 million dollars. To this Calgarian, I believe that the cost is too high for adding this known toxin to all the water of 1.3 million people. Dr. Bob and I discuss the dumbing down and damaging effects this will have on generations of children for tiny benefits. Get involved. Do your research. —Bruce Scholl, Unscrew the News Podcast IS FLUORIDE SAFE & EFFECTIVE? FEBRUARY, 2024 By Robert C Dickson MD, CCFP, FCFP In this article published by DRUTHERS , Dr. Dickson summarizes the history and challenges of water fluoridation and why fluoridation is NOT safe. "I am a medical doctor, and I strongly oppose artificial water fluoridation. It is said that if a lie or mistruth is repeated often enough, it will finally be accepted as true. Such is the case with the oft-stated mantra of the pro-fluoridationists, persisting for eight decades now—water fluoridation is ‘safe and effective’. Today, we hear that mantra repeated recklessly, across many forums, for entities and treatments that are neither." DR. BOB DICKSON, FOUNDER OF SAFEWATERCALGARY IS INTERVIEWED ON A RUMBLE.COM PODCAST History and current status of Calgary's fluoridation, containing excellent advice and tips for everyone! AUGUST, 2023—Dr. Robert C. (Bob) Dickson was born in Tofield, Alberta in 1951. He has a degree in Physical Education, an MD from the University of Calgary, and certification in Paramedics from SAIT in Calgary. Dr. Bob is past President of Change for Children , past President Tools for Peace , and past Chair of the Board of Directors of Arusha Cross Cultural Centre . He was a senior partner with Results Canada , with a mandate to end starvation, debilitating diseases and poverty globally for many years. He was instrumental with RESULTS Canada in mandating that maternal and child health be the signature initiative of the 2010 G8/G20 forum in Toronto, and in the ensuing announcements of $1.1 billion and later $3.4 billion for maternal and child health committed by the Canadian government for these programs. As well, he volunteers with Medical Mercy Canada , most recently in Thailand with the Burmese refugees and in Nepal, and is on the board of the Four Worlds Centre for International Development . Dr. Dickson co-led the anti-fluoridation program in Calgary from 1999 which resulted in water fluoridation being halted in 2011, and continues to actively volunteer with the issue of artificial water fluoridation. He is the founder of Safe Water Calgary , and launched their new website www.safewatercalgary.com in 2017. Dr. Dickson is also the chair of Fluoride Free Canada www.fluoridefreecanada.ca Dr. Bob has actively partnered with Project Ixcanaan since 2003 to rebuild and support the remote village of El Remate in the Peten province of northeastern Guatemala. He has worked on climate change issues with 4 C (Calgary Citizens on Climate Change ), meeting and interacting frequently with elected officials and senior administrators in the Calgary civic and provincial governments. 4 C hosted a successful federal Climate Change Forum, has authored White Papers on climate issues, and brought George Marshall from Climate Outreach in the UK to Calgary for a series of workshops to promote respectful communication. Dr Bob is the proud father of Luke, a resident of Calgary as well. Bob also travels extensively, has an admitted golf addiction, bikes and is an avid pickleball player and dancer. He retired from his family practice in NW Calgary in 2013 but still maintains an active medical licence as of 2023 and works minor emergency shifts when back from his travels. READ MORE...including those organizations opposing fluoridation... FLUORIDE 101: A RESPONSE TO DR. WU OUTDATED, UNNECESSARY AND DANGEROUS 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. Below are 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 acc epts 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

DENTAL FLUOROSIS A Dental Disaster When fluoridation first began, the proponents promised the American public that the only and worst risk from the program was that something less than 10% of children might have a few faint white spots on their ‘cavity resistant’ teeth which many would find adds an attractive sparkle. Also of note, the researchers in the early fluoridation trials treated African American children differently from the outset, writing that it was common knowledge that Negros have stronger teeth more resistant to decay. It didn’t take long for those involved to realize that something was very wrong, but their reaction per 1962 memo that noted high rates of fluorosis that was doubled in the African American children emphasized protecting the fluoridation program. As both the numbers of Americans and percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water swelled, dental fluorosis also grew, disproportionately and with worse severity in Black and Latino populations. Dental fluorosis is a defect in the tooth due to cell death during the formative stages. Those with dental fluorosis have higher bone fractures as well as higher rates of learning disabilities. Dental fluorosis is the visible evidence of similar defects due to cytotoxic effects that occur in bones and brains during critical periods of development, i.e. prenatal, infancy and early childhood. Dental fluorosis is also a leading indicator of higher dental costs as these unattractive and brittle teeth will require costly veneers and crowns in young adulthood. Per 2011-2012 NHANES figures released in 2017, one in five (23%) American teens have brown mottling and perhaps pitting on at least two fluorosed teeth due to childhood exposure. RESOURCES 2005 CDC MMWR: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm “Prevalence of enamel fluorosis has increased in cohorts born since 1980.” 2010 CDC Report: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf “(All levels of) dental fluorosis were higher among adolescents aged 12–15 in 1999–2004 than in 1986–1987.” 2015 “Agua Potable o Veneno” (part 2 of 3): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGswvGZPL-M Ethnic Breakdown: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab23 2017 Dental fluorosis is result of apoptosis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770627/ 2018 Increase: http://jdh.adha.org/content/92/1/23 Conclusion : “There was a difference of 31.6% in dental fluorosis prevalence between 2012-2011 when compared to data from 2002-2001 in adolescents aged 16 and 17 years. The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence.” May 23, 2018

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.

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.

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 .

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

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

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

THEM VERSUS US Protesters gather at Calgary courthouse after fluoride reintroduced to city water supply Critics say the move undermines personal choice and raises health concerns over daily fluoride consumption. Angelica Toy | July 17, 2025 CLICK TO WATCH Protesters gathered on the steps of the Calgary courthouse on July 9, where they voiced their opposition to the reintroduction of fluoride into the city’s drinking water. Fluoride was officially added back into Calgary’s water supply on June 30, following more than a decade without it after it was removed in 2011. The decision stemmed from the 2021 municipal election, when Calgarians were asked to vote in a plebiscite on the issue. Approximately 62% voted in favour of reintroducing fluoride as a “public dental health measure.” City council then acted on the results, allocating millions of dollars to upgrade Calgary’s water treatment facilities in order to reintroduce the chemical compound. However, clearly not all residents are on board with the decision. Demonstrators at the courthouse argued that adding fluoride to the water supply strips individuals of personal choice and forces them to be medicated without their consent. Some questioned the inconsistency in public messaging, noting that while dentists will warn against swallowing fluoridated toothpaste, residents are now expected to consume fluoridated tap water daily. In this report, we speak to the protesters to highlight the ongoing public concern around health autonomy, transparency and trust in municipal decisions. CALGARY WATER FLUORIDATION — THE ISSUE THAT JUST WON'T GO AWAY November 10, 2023 MEDIA BIAS IN CALGARY We're not taking this lying down! READ MORE... AHS ENDORSES WATER FLUORIDATION IN CALGARY October 13, 2021 CALGARY (CityNews) — Alberta Health Services (AHS) is picking a side when it comes to water fluoridation in the city. The question will be on municipal ballots come Monday, and in a release, AHS says to vote yes. Dr. Rafael Figueiredo, the Provincial Dental Public Health Officer and Dr. Nick Etches, the Acting Zone Lead Medical Officer of Health for the Calgary Zone put out a release indicating AHS’ support. “AHS endorses community water fluoridation as a foundational public health measure to prevent tooth decay, improve oral health and reduce inequities within communities”, AHS said. AHS also points to data collected since 2011, when Calgary stopped water fluoridation for the first time since 1991. Looking at data from Edmonton, where fluoridation continued, compared to that of Calgary, more cavities were found in the baby teeth of children in Calgary within three years, confirming that stopping the fluoridation of water has had a negative impact on children’s dental health. Dr. Bruce Yaholnitsky is the former president of the Alberta Dental Association and College (ADA&C) and a practising periodontist, he says the evidence is clear; water fluoridation will help protect Calgarians. “Studies have shown that it decreases the rate of tooth decay by up to 25 per cent in children and in adults,” Yaholnitsky said. “Comparing just Edmonton and Calgary, you can see there is a significant difference in the decay rate”. Calgarians should know that there is already some fluoride in our water supply at levels of 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million (ppm). Health Canada recommends an optimal level of fluoride at 0.7 ppm, which is what the city will do should enough people vote for it. According to the ADA&C, that 0.7 ppm figure takes into account fluoride that people get from other sources like toothpaste or mouthwash. Over 90 professional health organizations including Health Canada, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the World Health Organization all recommend water fluoridation because it is scientifically proven to strengthen tooth enamel, prevent tooth decay, and generally make teeth healthier. Aside from health benefits, AHS and the ADA&C also say fluoridation comes with social and economic benefits. AHS says water fluoridation will help protect the most vulnerable because tap water is accessible to 100 per cent of people connected to the municipal water supply, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, education, income, race or ethnicity. Cost-wise, Yaholnitsky says it’s relatively cheap when you think about how much the city would be spending per person. “Thirty-million dollars over 20 years, $10 million initially, then about $1 million a year,” Yaholnitsky said. “If you take that $1 million a year, into our population of 1.6 million people, it’s between 60 and 70 cents per person, per year. You can’t get a coffee for that.” Both AHS and the ADA&C agree that there is no evidence to say water fluoridation will cause any harmful side-effects, it’s environmentally friendly, and implementing it would mean communities that receive city water, including Strathmore, Chestermere, parts of the Tsuut’ina Nation, Airdrie and Spruce Meadows would gain the health benefits as well. RELATED: Calgarians largely in favour of adding fluoride back into water: poll AHS launches public education campaign on fluoride benefits 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.

As the March deadline came and went and the city announced they would provide 30 days notice to turn on the fluoride taps. became June for turning on the fluoride tap looms, making that date June 30, 2025. A Calgarian had decided to sue for an injunction. Safe Water Calgary held a rally in support of prior to court hearing his application on July 9, 2025. Here is the recording of the rally. 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