[amor de cosmos]

Are people having trouble keeping their precious bodily fluids flowing in Calgary?

Calgary removing fluoride from water supply
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 | 4:27 PM MT

Calgary city council has voted 10-3 to remove fluoride from the city's drinking water.

Two members of council, Mayor Naheed Nenshi and Brian Pincott, were out of town during Tuesday's vote.

Earlier in the day, city council considered and rejected by a vote of 8-5 putting the fluoride issue to a plebiscite in the 2013 municipal election.

Council also rejected referring the matter to an expert panel.

The issue has proved a lightning rod for Calgarians, and past plebiscites have revealed public opinion is almost evenly split on the matter.

In 1989, 53 per cent of Calgarians voted in favour of adding fluoride. Two years later, it was added.

Savings will go to dental health

After a well-attended, all-day public meeting late last month, the removal of the chemical was recommended to council by a city committee.

Proponents of fluoride say it prevents tooth decay, especially in vulnerable groups such as the poor, children and the elderly.

Dr. Richard Musto, Calgary's medical officer of health, said he was disappointed with council's decision.

"On the other hand, to move forward now, part of the motion included establishing a stakeholder group to look at measures to deliver dental preventive therapy to young children, and we'll expect fully to be part of that," he said.

On Tuesday, council also supported using some of the savings from removing fluoride to examine ways of improving dental health for children living in poverty.

Dr. Russ Sawa, who treats patients at the Calgary Drop-In and Rehab Centre, said he's worried about how the decision will affect homeless people.

"I just think of the expense were going to have down the road with tooth decay," Sawa said. "And if in this present circumstance, if we still see some horrendous tooth decay, some horrendous problems, what's it going to be like without this?"

Opponents question the safety of fluoride in drinking water and suggest it should be up to individuals to decide whether to expose themselves to the additive.

Ald. Druh Farrell, who led the anti-fluoride charge, said helping families who can't afford fluoridated toothpaste is a better idea than medicating the entire population.

"It's not our responsibility, but what we've said is because we had this responsibility and because children in poverty are used as a reason to support fluoride, then let's really help those children," she said.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2011/02/08/calgary-fluoride-city-water-supply-removal.html

OcHNYenN7OY

eB5Vvs2cdqY

[trueviking]

wow, that is totally ignorant....ask your parents how many cavities they have and compare that to the current generation.

any idea what the arguments against fluorination were?...uneducated fear mongering i assume.

that poverty argument is priceless....i know calgary is an every man for himself, conservative kind of town, but this seems a bit extreme.

[vid]

In Thunder Bay, the argument city council gave last year when they almost unanimously rejected fluoridation was that less than 5% of city's water is consumed orally, so it would just be a waste of money to buy all that fluoride and have more than 95% of it end up in the lake. They suggested instead to use the money to fund dental care for low income people. The Health Unit is instead just continuing its campaign to get fluoride in the water supply.

I think if we are really serious about dental health, we'll create a "teeth brushing in the classroom" programme similar to the "breakfast in the classroom" programme. It would get kids into the routine of brushing daily which they would likely continue into adulthood, and they would be supervised by adults while doing it, so they'll have someone reminding them how to do it properly and helping them if the accidentally swallow it. Combined with free dental care to children and a dental care subsidy for low income adults (or even better, simply including basic dental care under the provincial health insurance plan), we would likely see better results in dental health than water fluoridation. Even just subsidizing toothbrushes and toothpaste or giving both to low income people for free would probably have a better effect, since poor people are more likely to drink pop than tap water, anyway, and using fluoridated tap water for something like Kool-ade kind of seems like a "Double Quarter Pounder and a Diet Coke" thing to me. Not to mention you'd then get a double hit using fluoridated toothpaste and water if you do brush regularly. For homeless people, just do the same thing as breakfast in the schools. Get them to brush after giving them a meal at the shelter, or the shelters can buy fluoride supplements for the water they use. I think you can even get an attachment for your sink or water system that will add fluoride to the water at the tap instead of at the water plant. Subsidizing those for interested families or installing them in all social housing units could be another option.

Thunder Bay has never used fluoride, and we have one of the highest rates of tooth decay among children in the country. In addition to this, our water rates have increased by almost 60% in the past two years, so people have been really touchy about doing anything that might make those increases any higher. By 2013, water rates will have doubled since 2009. There was very heavy opposition to fluoridation here, mostly focusing on the negative effects of excessive fluoride consumption, which is likely impossible through drinking water but scared people nonetheless.

[amor de cosmos]

something else just occurred to me, even if they do find a way to get people to take better care of their teeth, can it be done for less than 75 cents per person per year? ($750,000/yr/1,100,000 people) maybe my numbers are wrong but just something for the calgary tea party to think about...

[MasterG]

Well, i dunno. the stats i saw during the process were that it was pretty close to statistically insignificant with or without the chemical, in terms of number of cavities.

The biggest issue for me was that its even up for debate, its not a huge health issue, nor is it a budget issue (i read that it was only 750,000 to 1mll a year for calgary, not huge considering the billion dollar annual budget). Keep it in the water or not, us calgarians will just keep on trucking ;)

[MasterG]

something else just occurred to me, even if they do find a way to get people to take better care of their teeth, can it be done for less than 75 cents per person per year? ($750,000/yr/1,100,000 people) maybe my numbers are wrong but just something for the calgary tea party to think about...

btw, the calgary tea party doesnt exist. we have nothing to do with those americans. reference a canadian event next time please.

[Doug]

wow, that is totally ignorant....ask your parents how many cavities they have and compare that to the current generation.

any idea what the arguments against fluorination were?...uneducated fear mongering i assume.

that poverty argument is priceless....i know calgary is an every man for himself, conservative kind of town, but this seems a bit extreme.

The only proven negative impact of fl are dental flourosis, a begnin discoloration of the teeth that impacts a very small percentage of the population, and kidney damage, generally only afflicting people who already have compromised kidney function. There have been some studies linking flouridation to certain forms of cancer, but nothing definitive.

Note that continential Europe does not flouridate water due to environmental converns. The Green Party and Sierra Clubs are against flouridation. I remember the debate when Calgary first started flouridation 20 years ago. It was the only large community outside of BC that hadn't already been doing it for decades. I believe most of BC still does not have flouridation. Opposition is more of a hippy thing than a conservative thing.

[Bigtime]

Proponents of fluoride say it prevents tooth decay, especially in vulnerable groups such as the poor, children and the elderly.

Dr. Richard Musto, Calgary's medical officer of health, said he was disappointed with council's decision.

Dr. Musto has been a very close family friend since I was born, if he believes in it you better believe that my wife and I will be finding out how we can continue to administer fluoride to our young daughter. We both grew up with it and have had no issues.

any idea what the arguments against fluorination were?...uneducated fear mongering i assume.

This, a hundred times this. Common sense and scientific evidence and offers (the UofC medical department offered to do a full review of the system and was turned down) lost to the tinfoil hat wearing crew.

One of our alderman, Druh Farrell tried to go after the fluoridation many years ago and it was voted on it a plebiscite by the citizens of Calgary to keep it. Obviously she kept the vendetta and when enough new bodies came onto council after this last election she did some simple math and figured she could finally get her little pet project passed.

I think one of the biggest issues I have with this is that 3 times the citizens of Calgary have voted to keep fluoride in our water. Now this time council just goes ahead and decides for us.

[freeweed]

Pretty much well addressed here, but I'll reiterate a couple of points:

1. This has nothing, zero, zilch, nada, zip to do with "conservative Calgary". This entire campaign against fluoride has been initiated and ran by the more left-leaning on council (and more globally as well).

2. Fear mongering, plain and simple. No one is "medicating" anyone. We do all sorts of things to add/remove chemicals to our water and food supplies in the interest of public health, but no one calls it "medicating".

3. Calgary already has a natural level of fluoride in the water. If the chemical is oh so bad, why aren't these people advocating for filtration to remove it entirely? How precisely have they determined a safe level, when they've pretty much ignored all of the science from the past 50 years already?

4. This reminds me oh so much of the vaccine "controversy". It's always nice to see people putting children's health at risk thanks to their own ignorance.

[BLACK STAR]

Strange this isn't in the Calgary section?

[freeweed]

Strange this isn't in the Calgary section?

It is. I don't know where the original poster is from.

[NBNYer]

Well, i dunno. the stats i saw during the process were that it was pretty close to statistically insignificant with or without the chemical, in terms of number of cavities.

The biggest issue for me was that its even up for debate, its not a huge health issue, nor is it a budget issue (i read that it was only 750,000 to 1mll a year for calgary, not huge considering the billion dollar annual budget). Keep it in the water or not, us calgarians will just keep on trucking ;)

Several studies have shown the effectiveness of water fluoridation. It is well established knowledge and is in fact a big health issue. Quality of life is definitely affected.

Water fluoridation is considered by many in the field to be one of the greatest and most effective public health acheivements of the 20th century, second only to the Salk vaccine. Few public health strategies have had such a return on investement.


The only proven negative impact of fl are dental flourosis, a begnin discoloration of the teeth that impacts a very small percentage of the population, and kidney damage, generally only afflicting people who already have compromised kidney function. There have been some studies linking flouridation to certain forms of cancer, but nothing definitive.


Yes, dental fluorosis is a side-effect of excessive fluoride intake. However, the levels we are talking about are generally insufficient to cause it. It generally occurs in individuals who also supplement with other sources i.e. fluoride toothpaste, gels, rinces etc, etc....

I havn't read anything looking at a link between fluoridation and cancer. If you have a source to back that up, I would love to read it. There is at least no causal relationship. These kind of data is often used by ignorant law-makers to make flawed arguments and just confuse the public.

[MolsonExport]

Whoop-de-doo.

[MrOilers]

Well, the next logical step for Calgary is to:

- remove iodine from salt
- remove vitamin D from dairy
- remove vitamin A from apple juice
- remove niacin and folic acid from flour
- remove calcium from fruit juices

Then they will be fine.

[amor de cosmos]

It is. I don't know where the original poster is from.

I looked & didn't find a thread, but I just looked now & found it buried in the municipal politics thread. I didn't think it made a big difference whether it was here or in the calgary section

[Architype]

Vancouver doesn't use fluoride either, so what's the big deal?

http://yourwatermatters.com/vancouver-water/about-fluoride-and-water-in-metro-vancouver/

[MrOilers]

That page shows that Vancouver's water already contains naturally-occurring fluoride. Maybe that's why they don't add it? I dunno.

Although, theirs is around 10 times less than what is found in Edmonton's fluoridated water (0.05 mg/L for Vancouver vs 0.58 mg/L for Edmonton).

[freeweed]

Well, the next logical step for Calgary is to:

- remove iodine from salt
- remove vitamin D from dairy
- remove vitamin A from apple juice
- remove niacin and folic acid from flour
- remove calcium from fruit juices

Then they will be fine.

Damn straight. I've had it up to here with all this government medicating me against my will. When will we stand up for minority rights in this country?

Did you know that Iodine is toxic and can cause thyroid problems? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine#Precautions_and_toxicity_of_elemental_iodine)

Vitamin D can cause hypercalcemia, and the main symptoms of vitamin D overdose are those of hypercalcemia: anorexia, nausea, and vomiting can occur, frequently followed by polyuria, polydipsia, weakness, nervousness, pruritus, and, ultimately, renal failure. Proteinuria, urinary casts, azotemia, and metastatic calcification (especially in the kidneys) may develop. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_d#Overdose_by_ingestion)

Vitamin A consumption can lead to nausea, irritability, anorexia, vomiting, blurry vision, headaches, hair loss, muscle and abdominal pain and weakness, drowsiness, altered mental status, hair loss, dry skin, drying of the mucous membranes, fever, insomnia, fatigue, weight loss, bone fractures, anemia, and diarrhea. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_a#Toxicity)

Niacin can cause dermatological conditions such as skin flushing and itching, dry skin, and skin rashes including eczema exacerbation and acanthosis nigricans. Gastrointestinal complaints, such as dyspepsia (indigestion), nausea and liver toxicity fulminant hepatic failure, have also been reported. Side effects of hyperglycemia, cardiac arrhythmias and "birth defects in experimental animals" have also been reported. Niacin can also exacerbate blood sugar problems related to diabetes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niacin#Toxicity)

Calcium can cause kidney failure. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium#Hazards_and_toxicity)



It's amazing how scary the truly ignorant can be.

(In case anyone can't tell, this post is entirely sarcastic)

[Doug]

3. Calgary already has a natural level of fluoride in the water. If the chemical is oh so bad, why aren't these people advocating for filtration to remove it entirely? How precisely have they determined a safe level, when they've pretty much ignored all of the science from the past 50 years already?


FLouride is a dissolved ion. It can't be filtered. It could be removed through reverse osmosis or distillation at a massive cost.

[Doug]

I havn't read anything looking at a link between fluoridation and cancer. If you have a source to back that up, I would love to read it. There is at least no causal relationship. These kind of data is often used by ignorant law-makers to make flawed arguments and just confuse the public.


There are no good studies one way or the other. That of course does not stop the fear mongers.

[Doug]

Vancouver doesn't use fluoride either, so what's the big deal?

http://yourwatermatters.com/vancouver-water/about-fluoride-and-water-in-metro-vancouver/

Like I said, it is more or a hippie issue than anything else. Most of the Pacific NW doesn't flouridate water. There are a few towns in BC that don't chlorinate water either and many scattered throughout the Pacific NW continually fighting over stopping chlorination.

Some elements of west coast hippie culture permeate into the Rocky Mountain region (ex. Calgary).

[Gerrard]

Fluoride makes you pliant for the New World Order and the reptilian illuminati.

[freeweed]

FLouride is a dissolved ion. It can't be filtered. It could be removed through reverse osmosis or distillation at a massive cost.

"Filtration" was used in the casual sense of purification, not in the scientific definition of physical separation.

No cost is too high if it saves a single child from cancer. If fluoride truly is toxic then why aren't we removing all of it just to be safe?

(Again, sarcastic post just in case anyone takes me seriously)

[vid]

The amount of chlorine we use in Thunder Bay seems to vary, which results in the water sometimes tasting like chlorine, and sometimes not having any taste but having a (sometimes very strong) fish smell. Does this happen anywhere else? There have been times where the fish smell gets so bad you can't stand to be near the sink, while sometimes when the water is chlorinated you can't stand to drink it. It isn't too big a problem, 95% of the time it is basically tasteless and odourless, but it gets annoying when it happens.

Apparently the stuff they use for the flocculation process is also harmful, but that is out of the water that reaches your home.

[kw5150]

Good lord, if it is a mistake to remove it, we will put it back in. Not every one in Calgary needs advice on how to keep teeth clean and healthy either. Personnally I dont want any more "ides" in my drinking water. The Chloride is enough as it is.

On a side note, I met someone from thunder bay once and they honestly believed that Calgary had so much chlorine in the water that it turns it blue green.........lol. It really is that clear!

Doesn't the city of chillawack have water straight from the source with no major filtration?

[stamps]

Hydrofluorosilicic acid.... this is what the city uses to add fluoride to Calgary drinking water.... it's an industrial waste product..... Calgary started fluoridating our water in 1989.... native Calgarian born and raised, lived here all my life, born long before we added this industrial waste product to our drinking water to protect my teeth, have had 2 cavities in my lifetime and those have been in the last 5 years, I look after my teeth a lot better today than when I was younger..... would fluoride have prevented these 2 cavaties if I was exposed to fluoradated water when I was a child, I doubt it..... we are exposed to all kinds of toxins every day, I would rather not have the city add more to our drinking water... until we know more I would rather err on the side of caution...... just my opinion....

[Habanero]

wow, that is totally ignorant....ask your parents how many cavities they have and compare that to the current generation.

any idea what the arguments against fluorination were?...uneducated fear mongering i assume.

that poverty argument is priceless....i know calgary is an every man for himself, conservative kind of town, but this seems a bit extreme.

Actually, your comment is what is totally ignorant.

I've seen the various arguments to this over the last while. There are some good arguments against it, and studies that show it isn't making a difference. I'll try to fig some up for you, as you obviously haven't been following this. It was put in originally because the it was believed people below the poverty line were not be getting good enough dental treatment, which may have been the case. A recent study showed that those same people below the poverty line are still having dental issues, not much different than before. There are a number of reasons why cavities are down.

[LFRENCH]

maybe my numbers are wrong but just something for the calgary tea party to think about...

Can people in Victoria realize that Calgary is not north carolina? yes we have conservatives but Oak Bay has more than a few too

[NBNYer]

Actually, your comment is what is totally ignorant.

I've seen the various arguments to this over the last while. There are some good arguments against it, and studies that show it isn't making a difference. I'll try to fig some up for you, as you obviously haven't been following this. It was put in originally because the it was believed people below the poverty line were not be getting good enough dental treatment, which may have been the case. A recent study showed that those same people below the poverty line are still having dental issues, not much different than before. There are a number of reasons why cavities are down.

Anecdotal evidence, personal opinion and recollection are not admissible in a scientific discussion. "I will find the data later for you" is also not an argument. The fact that some people who were exposed to fluoride when they were younger are currently having dental problems does not tell us anything about the effectiveness of water fluoridation, for that you need a control group.

Absolutely, you are right in that there are other factors in play to explain lower caries rates, such as better awareness and education. One other important factor is that many juice and food production plants are located in areas where there is water fluoridation, so it is used in the production process. So a totally unexposed population today is virtually impossible to find. New or recent studies are therefore difficult to design properly. Yes, there are confounders, that's why a lot of data is required to isolate fluoridation as a factor in oral health and in fact many studies did look at it's effectiveness.

This is a systematic review of 214 studies published over 40 years on the topic. With a clear trend towards favoring fluoridation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27492/?tool=pubmed

trueviking is right about the fear mongering :yuck:

[Stephen Ave]

....i know calgary is an every man for himself, conservative kind of town, but this seems a bit extreme.

.....I know Winnipeg is a poverty stricken town, full of murderers that hasn't grown in 100 years, but your comment is a bit extreme....

Fluoridation argument aside, everyone knows you have a hate on for Calgary, but you don't need to be posting stupid comments like that.

Just for your own education, Calgary has the title of 'Volunteer capital of Canada'. That's right, the very same city where you proclaim 'every man is in for himself'.
An Ipsos-Reid poll found that 71% of Calgarians participate in some sort of volunteer activity donating an average of 15 hours per month. The most of any major city in Canada.
http://www.volunteercalgary.ab.ca/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=105

Personally I don't even know the arguments for or against Fluoride, but pulling it has nothing to with Calgary being conservatives where 'every man is for himself'. You may have forgotten that this same city also implemented fluoride at a time when it truly was more conservative.

[freeweed]

have had 2 cavities in my lifetime and those have been in the last 5 years, I look after my teeth a lot better today than when I was younger..... would fluoride have prevented these 2 cavaties if I was exposed to fluoradated water when I was a child, I doubt it.....

Repeat after me, kids: the plural of anecdote is not data. I've never been murdered, so clearly we have a zero murder rate in Calgary by this sort of logic.

until we know more I would rather err on the side of caution......

We do know more. We've had decades of study and research on this. Besides, Calgary's drinking water naturally contains this supposed "toxin", so if you're really concerned, you best be lobbying Council NOW to remove it from our water.

Science: it built your melonfarming computer. Think about it sometime.

[kw5150]

"Calgary's drinking water naturally contains this supposed "toxin", "

So are you saying that therea are no studies about its effects on living things?

[freeweed]

So are you saying that therea are no studies about its effects on living things?

There are plenty.

Oddly enough, like every single other chemical compound known to humankind it is toxic in large enough quantities.

Seriously, I cannot believe how many people are not aware of this. (http://dhmo.org/)

[MrOilers]

Hydrofluorosilicic acid.... this is what the city uses to add fluoride to Calgary drinking water.... it's an industrial waste product.....

So what? So are a million other chemicals, including water itself.

The only difference between a "toxic" or "nontoxic" substance is the dose. And the dose of hydrofluorosilicic acid that you get from tap water is negligible. Plus, it has a short half-life in the body and does not bioaccumulate.

In fact, you'll die of water intoxication (overhydration) from consuming tap water before you can ingest enough of any other tap water chemicals to notice any mild effects of the fluoride (or even chlorine, for that matter).

[Yume-sama]

Druh Farrell will be happy to know she's no longer a pinko commie and instead a raving right winger according to people here who know so little of Calgary :P

Personally I don't think it should be added to water, as most of Europe and Asia (China, Japan included) does not allow it for possible "health complications" with how it bio-accumulates. There are many ways to get fluoride if you so choose, including by eating vegetables since it is used as a fertilizer and does bio-accumulate in the cells of the fruit or vegetable... but the US is re-evaluating its usage there (recommending it be removed), AND in the water, recommending that it is lowered to 0.07PPM due to possible health complications. This, of course, led by that raving right winger Barack Obama. I don't know who to believe, but if you brush your teeth with any toothpaste it has enough fluoride in it that they recommend you call poison control if you swallow so much as a pea sized amount.

Of course, if we banned everything that was banned in Japan or Europe (GMO, Flouride, Aspartame, etc.) we might just be one of them crazy healthy societies who live a long time. And what's the fun in that.

[MrOilers]

Of course, if we banned everything that was banned in Japan or Europe (GMO, Flouride, Aspartame, etc.) we might just be one of them crazy healthy societies who live a long time.

We should also allow people to smoke in our hospital waiting rooms and public gyms, like they do in Japan.

After all, if Japan does it, it must be healthy for us.

:tup:

[Yume-sama]

Yeah, well, I dare you to try and get between ojiisan and his cigarettes.

Japan will let you poison yourself but generally avoids letting big pharm or Agra do it to you.

[Bassic Lab]

Druh Farrell will be happy to know she's no longer a pinko commie and instead a raving right winger according to people here who know so little of Calgary :P

Personally I don't think it should be added to water, as most of Europe and Asia (China, Japan included) does not allow it for possible "health complications" with how it bio-accumulates. There are many ways to get fluoride if you so choose, including by eating vegetables since it is used as a fertilizer and does bio-accumulate in the cells of the fruit or vegetable... but the US is re-evaluating its usage there (recommending it be removed), AND in the water, recommending that it is lowered to 0.07PPM due to possible health complications. This, of course, led by that raving right winger Barack Obama. I don't know who to believe, but if you brush your teeth with any toothpaste it has enough fluoride in it that they recommend you call poison control if you swallow so much as a pea sized amount.

Of course, if we banned everything that was banned in Japan or Europe (GMO, Flouride, Aspartame, etc.) we might just be one of them crazy healthy societies who live a long time. And what's the fun in that.

We are "one of them crazy healthy societies who live a long time."

Druh Farrell is only a pinkp commie in the minds of people who comment on Herald and Sun articles. She is very much a liberal of the Marin County variety.

[Yume-sama]

Well, we're not "healthy" in the true sense of the word, but we could be worse *glares South*. CBC had some article about the obesity rate in Canada going up quite a bit~

And yes, I was using both extremes :P

[rousseau]

Numerous European countries tried fluoridation for a few decades, but virtually all of them have given it up for the past thirty years or so (save for the UK, I think).

The result? Tooth decay rates the same as ours. Perhaps fluoridation was plausible when people couldn't afford toothbrushes in the 1930s, but it makes no sense nowadays, especially because fluoride is best employed when applied directly to the teeth as when brushing, not when streaming by the teeth in a rush of water and then ingested.

[Yume-sama]

Numerous European countries tried fluoridation for a few decades, but virtually all of them have given it up for the past thirty years or so (save for the UK, I think).

The result? Tooth decay rates the same as ours. Perhaps fluoridation was plausible when people couldn't afford toothbrushes in the 1930s, but it makes no sense nowadays, especially because fluoride is best employed when applied directly to the teeth as when brushing, not when streaming by the teeth in a rush of water and then ingested.

Hehe the analogy I've heard is that it would be like drinking sun screen in hopes of avoiding a sunburn.

It is something best applied topically, which the Japanese cite as a reason (aside from personal choice) that it is not in the water supply.

[vid]

it's an industrial waste product.....

Many of the chemicals in processed foods are industrial waste products, and you should learn about what they spray onto crops or inject into livestock. Screw PETA's slaughterhouse photos; once you do some research one what is in your food, what it does to you and where it comes from, grocery shopping becomes a terrifying experience. Those generic brands are cheap for a reason.

There are plenty.

Oddly enough, like every single other chemical compound known to humankind it is toxic in large enough quantities.

Seriously, I cannot believe how many people are not aware of this. (http://dhmo.org/)

Water itself is toxic in certain amounts, and 78% of our bodies is made up of it.

[Yume-sama]

Many of the chemicals in processed foods are industrial waste products, and you should learn about what they spray onto crops or inject into livestock. Screw PETA's slaughterhouse photos; once you do some research one what is in your food, what it does to you and where it comes from, grocery shopping becomes a terrifying experience. Those generic brands are cheap for a reason.

Those are banned in a lot of places, too lol

We've fallen in to the American trap of wanting your food to be as CHEAP and PLENTIFUL as possible. Most other places in the World spend as much as 30% of their income on "food", USA and Canada spends about 13%. With not wanting to pay for the products we consume, the companies (and government through regulation) are more than willing to oblige by making them as fake as possible.

If there's one thing you shouldn't be cheap with, it's the one that affects your mind and body the most.

This is something the majority of the World understands well, anyways.

[Duke-Of-Waterloo]

They removed the fluoride here in Waterloo back in October 2010. It was actually decided through a referendum during the municipal election. Surprisingly, results were nearly 50/50. [Keep Fluoride in Water - No: 13363 (50.3%) Yes: 13216 (49.7%) stats from: Waterloo Fluoridation Forum (http://bit.ly/c0v5oZ)]

The "YES" side for continuing fluoridating the water didn't even develop a platform. Local dentists refused to step up. Surprising. I wonder how they would've done if they put out a pro-fluoridation campaign?

http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/937e599a941a6ea61dd8fadaf0d9116f?s=80&d=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalpost.com%2Fimages%2Ficons%2Ffavicon-80x80.gif&r=G


Water fluoridation meets its Waterloo (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Water+fluoridation+meets+Waterloo/3839306/story.html)

A group trying to remove fluoride from Canada’s water supply said an Ontario municipality’s decision on Tuesday to stop using the chemical additive was “ground zero” for its national movement.

But the incoming head of the Ontario Dental Association warned the decision sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a small minority of people, using questionable science downloaded off the Internet, to effect dramatic change on public-health policy.

“My greatest fear here is with the advent of the Internet, and with the advent of social media, that a small vocal minority of individuals who are perhaps misinformed are able to reach a great number of people,” said Dr. Harry Hoediono, the association’s incoming president and a dentist in Waterloo, Ont.

The municipality of 500,000 an hour west of Toronto voted on Tuesday to stop using fluoride, which has been in the local water supply since the 1960s.

Public-health officials and dentists have urged municipalities to keep fluoride in the water, saying it prevents tooth decay, saves millions in public-health costs and protects children, the elderly and the impoverished, who might not have access to regular dental care.

Opponents of fluoride, citing dozens of studies, have called the chemical an illegal and unnecessary drug that is responsible for cancer, thyroid disease and a rash of improper arthristis diagnoses.

“People are starting to realize that there’s no science supporting drinking fluoridated water and there’s no science supporting that it’s safe,” said Robert Fleming, of the group Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation that launched the anti-fluoride campaign in Waterloo and is trying to court other municipalities across the country. “And people are getting angry.”

The group launched a two-year battle to oust fluoride after two residents complained they had serious health complications from fluoride sensitivity, culminating in a public referendum last month that narrowly supported getting rid of the additive.

Although “virtually” every Waterloo councillor supports fluoridation, they voted unanimously to remove it because they wanted to respect the results of the referendum, said regional chairman Ken Seiling.

He blamed fluoride supporters, including the area’s dentists, for not mounting a more effective public awareness campaign.

“I think this is really most unfortunate and, quite frankly, I don’t accept a lot of the information put forward by the anti-fluoridation group,” Mr. Seiling said. “But I have to live with the results.”

The battle over fluoride, which was first introduced into the water supply in Canada in the 1940s, has given rise to a growing movement across North America. In the early 2000s several communities in British Columbia voted to get rid of fluoride, as did Whitehorse in 1998, while in 2007 a group of 200 dentists unsuccessfully lobbied U.S. Congress to remove the chemical additive from the water supply.

There has been a recent series of municipal votes or public referendums on fluoride across Ontario — where policies on fluoridation are left up to municipalities — including in Halton, Niagara and Thunder Bay. However, Waterloo appears to be the first in the province to actually remove fluoride.

But while Ontario’s chief medical officer of health called fluoridation “one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century,” the provincial government has no plans to change the legislation to wrest control over the issue from municipalities and force province-wide fluoridation.

“No, we are not considering making fluoride mandatory across the province,” said Ivan Langrish, a spokesman for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Health Canada convened a panel of experts in 2007 that found that fluoride was safe in the drinking water at current recommended levels and was an effective tool in the fight against tooth decay.

[MichaelS]

If I was a dentist, I would refuse to step up too. Then I would go to the local Porsche dealership and pick my my new 911, because I would have a feeling that business is going to be pretty good.

[vid]

Dentists aren't very vocal in support of it here, it is mostly the Health Unit's agenda.

[freeweed]

But the incoming head of the Ontario Dental Association warned the decision sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a small minority of people, using questionable science downloaded off the Internet, to effect dramatic change on public-health policy.

And this is exactly what's laughable about this. But hey, maybe we should ask Jenny McCarthy about whether or not she'd give her kids fluoridated water. :rolleyes:

[Doug]

Hydrofluorosilicic acid.... this is what the city uses to add fluoride to Calgary drinking water.... it's an industrial waste product..... Calgary started fluoridating our water in 1989.... native Calgarian born and raised, lived here all my life, born long before we added this industrial waste product to our drinking water to protect my teeth, have had 2 cavities in my lifetime and those have been in the last 5 years, I look after my teeth a lot better today than when I was younger..... would fluoride have prevented these 2 cavaties if I was exposed to fluoradated water when I was a child, I doubt it..... we are exposed to all kinds of toxins every day, I would rather not have the city add more to our drinking water... until we know more I would rather err on the side of caution...... just my opinion....

I also grew up in places without fluoridated water (Seattle and Calgary), never saw a dentist until I was in my mid 20's and have zero cavities. Curiously, my dad who grew up on a farm with well water also has zero cavities. There are many factors that influence dental health (ex. genetics).

[freeweed]

Can I take everything that's happened in your life and assume it will apply exactly to 6.5 billion other souls?

Science: it works, bitches.

[drto]

I also grew up in places without fluoridated water (Seattle and Calgary), never saw a dentist until I was in my mid 20's and have zero cavities. Curiously, my dad who grew up on a farm with well water also has zero cavities. There are many factors that influence dental health (ex. genetics).

I wanted to put my two cents in on this argument seeing as how I am a practicing dentist here in Calgary. I was, and still am, very disappointed, by city council's decision to remove fluoride from our water. Dentistry, as a health profession, has worked for the better part of the last 100 years or so in Canada at seriously reducing caries rates across Canada and have done a great job at doing so through education, improved homecare and water fluoridation. Caries rates where naturally-occuring fluoride is low and it has not been added to the public water supply, can be as much as 30% higher. As has been stated by others on this thread, fluoride can be harmful, if ingested in high quantities, no differently than other vitamins/supplements/etc. but it is in no way going to be more harmful than beneficial to the average human being. Certainly, there are those whose bodies are going to be more sensitive but OVER-consumption is the most likely cause of fluorosis. For those people that advocate for its removal because of fluorosis, I would tell them to stop letting their kids swallow the damn toothpaste!! For those that advocate its removal due to it being unethical for "mass-medicating", I would remind them that that's what governments are for. Sorry! Mass-managing by enacting laws for wearing seatbelts, not texting while driving, kids in car seats with five-point harnessess, not smoking indoors or in places like airplanes, etc. All for the greater good, right! Sure, dentists will be busier with more decay and we will likely make more $$ but by removing fluoride from public water, you are only hurting those who can least afford it...those that cannot afford to go to the dentist or buy toothpaste. Sure, there are programs that provide dental services for the less fortunate but they are by no way comprehensive nor satisfactory, and they cannot access those that are home-bound or have a difficult time getting to a dental office. You don't have to be a tap water drinker to benefit from added fluoride either. When you boil water and cook your pasta in it, you are receiving those benefits. In cities that add fluoride and have Coke or Pepsi bottling plants, they are using fluoridated water. The childrens' tooth-brushing program in schools that was mentioned above is a great idea! Anyways, it is too bad and I do hope that city council reconsiders their decision as it is so poorly thought out, it makes we want to puke!

[kool maudit]

i don't see how anyone can be at all passionate about this issue.

[freeweed]

i don't see how anyone can be at all passionate about this issue.

I don't see how anyone can not be passionate about public health.

[Reesonov]

i don't see how anyone can be at all passionate about this issue.

Dentists have to be passionate about something, no? Its either this or gingivitus.

[Boris2k7]

i don't see how anyone can be at all passionate about this issue.

I'll admit that I have a hard time feeling much on this issue/non-issue. As far as I can tell, the science part of the discussion is more ambiguous than it's made out to be, and there doesn't seem to have been enough of an effort to put the effects of fluoridation in historical context that would actually make any results useful for public policy. My only concern is whether or not removing fluoridation places an unfair burden on individuals who may not be able to afford equal access to oral hygiene, and how much alternatives to solve problems therein would cost the public. As such, the decision seems to be incomplete to me.

[kool maudit]

I don't see how anyone can not be passionate about public health.




you've done an interesting rhetorical thing here which i'll attempt to unravel. you've included this marginal issue, which you appear as weird for championing so vociferously, in a larger category which does actually include some pressing issues which it would not be strange to champion.

it's a strategy, and a very distinct one. it's used when defending petty causes or small instances of self-righteousness.

my favorite is when the larger issue is particularly taboo ("well, i guess i just care more about NAZISM than you do...") and the connective tissue between said larger issue and the actual thing at hand is particularly weak.

it's also good when it's delivered with closed eyes.

[freeweed]

If you don't consider it an important public health issue, you could just say that. Because what you're saying comes out as random nonsense.

No matter how much some would like to trivialize this, the motivations for this decision are exactly the same as the motivations for the anti-vax crowd: ignoring the scientific process, and basing our decisions on hunches, anecdotes, and scare tactics. So while you may want to treat this is as a marginal issue, it reflects a much broader problem with public health and how we're making decisions today.

Like I said, I don't know how anyone couldn't be passionate about this. Decisions like this (and more importantly, the reasoning for them) are going to affect an entire generation if we just let it slide.

But hey, keep up with the ad hominem. :shrug: It does give me a good chuckle when you do it.

[kool maudit]

my post did not contain an ad hominem.

[Doug]

My only concern is whether or not removing fluoridation places an unfair burden on individuals who may not be able to afford equal access to oral hygiene, and how much alternatives to solve problems therein would cost the public. As such, the decision seems to be incomplete to me.

Back in the 80's before Calgary had floridated water, you could get free flouride pills from schools, doctors and dentists. They still do the same thing down here in Seattle.

[vid]

i don't see how anyone can be at all passionate about this issue.

A lot of suburban moms (in my city, these are the people fighting fluoridation the most, it seems) need a hobby, so they choose things like fighting fluoride, wind turbines, of the fact that chocolate milk has modified milk ingredients in it, among other crazy things (à la Jenny McCarthy). Aside from feeling like they're "protecting" their kids and families (and therefore more useful than simple minded husband-serving flesh lumps), and feel intelligent and mavericky while doing it (thanks, Google University!).

I'm not kidding about the last one, by the way; there was a big debate over the ingredients of chocolate milk in our local paper's letters section in December, and I've seen quite a few people arguing about it at the grocery store. Apparently, they use powdered milk to make the large quantities (1L or more) of chocolate milk here, so federal law prevents them from labelling that "milk"; it is called "Chocolate Dairy Beverage" on the package. The quarter and half litre cartons still use liquid skim milk, and there is a taste difference (the powdered base drink is sweeter), but it isn't like the powdered milk is dangerous.

Some of these arguments are like the pasteurized milk thing. It's "the best thing in the world" when you learn about how "healthy" it is, but that love affair ends fast when your child almost dies of food poisoning from the unpasteurized milk, and you learn the hard way why that law exists. I think we should just recognize their "rebellious cow-sharing".

Personally, I think it is fantastic that our quality of life is so good that we can bitch about whether or not we're making chocolate milk properly. Most people on this planet are too busy starving to death to care about what is in an essentially luxury product.

[kool maudit]

i don't see how anyone can not be passionate about THE THINGS THEY ARE FEEDING OUR CHILDREN WHO ARE THE FUTURE.