| |
| |
|
Fluoridation Victory in Niagara District, Ontario
|
|
| |
Fluoride Action Network
January 24, 2008
Fluoridation Victory in Niagara District, Ontario
By Carole Clinch
In a marathon council session lasting 5 hours, the Council for the Region of Niagara, including Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, St. Catharines, Welland, Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Grimsby, Lincoln, Pelham, West Lincoln, Wainfleet with a total population of 428,000 according to 2006 Canadian Census figures, voted 15 to 9 in opposition of the motion to implement water fluoridation for the entire region.
Background
The Region of Niagara operated a predominantly non-fluoridated water supply system. St. Catharines and Niagara Falls rejected water fluoridation with previous plebiscites. 10% of this integrated system (Welland parts of Thorold and Pelham) fluoridated until 1999 and 2002 respectively, when water managers turned off water fluoridation due to breakdown and corrosion of fluoridation equipment.
Water staff have asked that fluoridation be discontinued in the entire region. The Public Health Department recommended that fluoridation be re-introduced in Welland, Thorold, Pelham and as well as the rest of the region. (population 1⁄2 million) The staff report estimated that water fluoridation would cost Niagara Region (based on $3 per person per year from Chief Dental Officer for Health Canada 2004) about $1.3million per year in maintenance costs and $3- $17million in capital costs to install and upgrade existing infrastructure.
Presenting for water fluoridation were: Dr. Ravi Kumar D.D.S.President, Niagara Peninsula Dental Association, Ursula Pelissero, RDH Niagara College Dental Programs Preventive Dentistry and Community Health, Dr. Jim Jeffs D.D.S. (Dr. Hrabowsky, D.D.S. will be speaking on his behalf) Chair, Fluoride Committee, Niagara Peninsula Dental Association, Dr. Hrabowsky, D.D.S., Dr. Peter Fritz D.D.S., President, Welland and District Dental Society, Dr. Terrance Wade PhD Sociology, Canadian Research Chair in Youth and Wellness.
They had a large and noisy cohort of dental hygienists in attendance, wearing large signs "support fluoridation for oral health". Their presentation comprised the usual attempts at character assassination of our group (People for Safe Drinking Water). They also spoke derisively about the FAN website.
Presenting for topical fluoride use and against water fluoridation were: Aliss Terpstra, RNCP, Research Coordinator, Fluoride Toxicity Research Collaborative (personal case study of hypersensitivity), Cindy Mayor (evidence of fluoride overdose), Peter Van Caulart, President of the Environmental Training Institute who has taught 30,000 water managers in Canada (What are we putting into our drinking water), Diane Sprules BSc, MSc, (water fluoridation ineffective), Chris Maingot, Carole Clinch BA(Health), BPHE, (Bill Osmunson AV + Costs of Water Fluoridation), Rob Fleming BA(Psychology, Business, Law) (Hydrofluorosilicic acid and the Safe Drinking Water Act).
PFSDW presented thematically diverse power point shows. We also used to great effect the audio-video called "Professional Perspectives", featuring Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH, provided by FAN. Our hearty thanks to the Connett family for providing such high quality material and our thanks to Bill Osmunson.
Concerns
Current government policy permits fluoride to be used at 100 times higher doses than lead even though they have similar toxicities. A recent paper by 3 authors of the prestigious National Research Council 2006 Report on Fluorides in drinking water and a senior EPA chemist2 recommend lowering fluoride concentration levels in drinking water to 0.3mg/L. They note that health harm occurs in various organs and tissues of the body with fluoride concentrations as low as 0.05mg/L (endocrine effects).Health Canada recommends fluoridating at 0.8-1.0mg/L. The Ministry of Environment in Ontario currently fluoridates at 0.5-0.8ppm – fluoride concentration levels which are 10 times higher (an order of magnitude higher) than concentration levels where health effects are known to occur with some individuals.
The NRC 2006 report and the Canadian NRC Report from 1977 noted that several susceptible populations were at high risk for fluoride toxicity;
- High water consumers (if you ingest more water, you ingest more fluoride): e.g. athletes, labourers, soldiers, lactating mothers, diabetics
- Kidney damaged patients are unable to adequately filter/remove fluoride from their bodies. Young children are also vulnerable. Whereas a healthy adult can eliminate 50% of ingested fluoride, young children are only able to eliminate about 15% of fluoride consumed. The remaining 85% stays in the body (bones and teeth) where it accumulates.
- Hypersensitive: Like peanut allergies, 1-4% of population are very sensitive to fluoride exposure, developing a variety of symptoms, as discussed in the Physicians' Desk Reference.
- Inadequate Nutrition (e.g., iodine, calcium, magnesium) to protect against fluoride toxicity is a problem for many.
Comments
One councilor stated that in all of his years as councilor he had never voted against a staff report provided by the region's Medical Office of Health, but stated that this was an historic moment; he was going to vote against the advice of the MOH and that he was comfortable doing so.
One councillor declared that she has been drinking fluoridated water all of her life and she has never been harmed by fluoride. This individual has just recently recovered from breast cancer. The research demonstrating how fluoride interferes with iodine uptake in various tissues in the body is extensive. According to about 800 peer-reviewed studies that I have read (Carole Clinch) regarding iodine epidemiology, histology, molecular biology, etc. iodine is essential to breast health.
According to Dr. Bernard Eskin, who has researched iodine and breast health for more than 50 years: "It thus appears that maintenance of the optimum structure and function of the breast requires the presence of continuous and specific amounts of iodine."
A lawyer for the region was in attendance at the meeting. It is notable that when our legal arguments were presented (violation of National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Standard 60; violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (sections 20, 166)), the lawyer did not disagree. If this water additive does not meet Standard 60 requirements, it is indeed a toxic substance. Our thanks to Jeff Green for his invaluable assistance in this regard.
The City of Hamilton in October 2007
The City of Hamilton in October 2007 also rejected their own staff report from the Public Health Office and asked them to prepare financial and logistical alternatives to assist those in need of dental care. This report will be presented in a few months.
See also
|
|
 |
