Fluoride Issue to Go to Referendum
Prince George, B.C.- The issue of fluoridation of the City of Prince George water supply is as polarized among Council members as it is in the community.
There will be a referendum on the future of the practice of adding fluoride to the City’s water supply as the Core Review indicated dumping this practice would save about $60 thousand a year. ut a referendum won’t happen until late 2014 and that’s not fast enough for at least one Councillor.
City Councillor Albert Koehler has come out strong in favour of dumping the practice of fluoridating the City’s water supply.
Councillor Koehler read off a report he has prepared, noting that the battle over fluoridation in this City has been ongoing since 1997.
Koehler says adding the substance to the water supply is no more than medicating the public without the public’s consent. He presented a motion that Staff be directed to prepare a bylaw that would cease the practice of fluoridation as soon as possible to “stop poisoning our residents.” The motion failed, as only Koehler and Councillor Everitt supported that motion.
Councillor Garth Frizzell says while it would be easy to act quickly, he stands by the Doctors and Dentists worldwide ,who support the practice of fluoridation.
Mayor Shari Green says she supports the idea of a referendum as the debate continues “ Let the community decide, does it wish to continue or not”. She says the fluoride issue is quiet in Ft. St. John following a referendum in that city which had the electorate decide to continue with the practice.
Councillor Frank Everitt says with or without a referendum, this debate will carry on.
Head of Operations for the City Bill Gaal says he wants residents to know the City’s water supply is very safe “it is not poisoning anyone.”
Council has also directed staff to approach Northern Health to see if the health authority would pick up the tab for fluoridation. That would give the City immediate cost savings as it prepares a referendum question for the next election.
Comments
Mayor Shari Green says she supports the idea of a referendum as the debate continues .
Let also have one on wasting tax payer money on trips to China.
There seems to be no verifiable relationship with the decrease in tooth decay and fluoridated water use.
The information from the World Health Organization indicates that the rate in decline of tooth decay is very similar in industrialized countries which have fluoridated water and those which do not.
Why? Who knows?
Since the literature points to the fact that ingestion of fluoride is not the most effective way to battle tooth decay. It is topical application.
With the growth in general awareness of the importance of personal hygiene, improvements in tooth paste and brushing, as well as improved access to dentists, hygienists, etc. and their emphasis on tooth care, comes improvement in the health of teeth.
Essentially, we may be fluoridating water for far below the lower quartile of our population, if even that.
So while the general population is becoming more aware of personal health, the foods we eat, and the things we do to our bodies, the government is oblivious to those trends and keeps medicating us with questionable chemicals which, unlike Mr. Gaal, our apparent newest wannabee public health officer, swears are not poison in our public water.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/who_data01.jpg
World Health Organization Data: DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled Teeth) Status for 12 Year Olds By Country
Denmark — 0.7 — 2008 — no water fluoridation
Germany — 0.7 — 2005 — no water fluoridation
England — 0.7 — 2009 — 11% water fluoridation
Netherlands — 0.8 — 2002 — no water fluoridation
Switzerland — 0.82 — 2009 — no water fluoridation
and others …. then, finally, the USA, the most fluoridated water, and a high population of people living under the poverty line
USA — 1.19 — 1999-2004 — 64% water fluoridation
Looking at the full table presented by the WHO, it is difficult to see a consistent relationship of tooth decay and water fluoridation. There are other dependent variables at play, in my opinion.
Why not stand by the dentists and doctors worldwide that oppose fluoridating the water Garth?
It makes no sense to me to pay for fluoridation when a large percentage of the water we use here in PG ends up either on our lawns or down the drain. Consider the homes that have water despensers or the number of people and businesses that purchase bottled water.And if I have heard correctly PG is one of only three communities in BC that still flouridates….Why?
“Head of Operations for the City Bill Gaal says he wants residents to know the Cityâs water supply is very safe âit is not poisoning anyone.â”
Mr. Gaal obviously does not know that thousands of scientists (and even dentists) are concerned what long term effects of fluoridation – with the industrial waste chemical hydrofluorosilicic acid fluoride – are on babies, pregnant women and the general public which includes people with kidney and thyroid problems.
He means well and he is trying to reassure the public but he has no medical proof that artificial water fluoridation is safe.
If doctors think that it is safe why are they not given the opportunity to prescribe it to patients who they believe need it?
B.C. is 98% free from tap water fluoridation. Only Terrace, Ft. St. John Prince George still do this. Why did all the others either never do this or stopped in the last twenty years?
Ask questions and get informed! Mr. Koehler is to be admired for actually having done so.
Thank you!
Health Canada statement on fluoride in drinking water (June 23, 2011):
“Health Canada continues to strongly support water fluoridation as a safe, effective and cost effective public health measure to help prevent dental cavities.”
“The safety and efficacy of water fluoridation has been frequently studied and continues to be supported by current science, and the beneficial effects of fluoride in the prevention of dental cavities have been well documented in scientific literature. “
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/ftr-ati/_2011/2011_82-eng.php
From the US Dept. of Health:
âOne of water fluoridationâs biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a communityâat home, work, school, or play,â said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH. âTodayâs announcement is part of our ongoing support of appropriate fluoridation for community water systems, and its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay throughout oneâs lifetime.â
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110107a.html
From the CDC:
âFor 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. â
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation
From the World Health Organization:
“Water fluoridation in low fluoride-containing water supplies helps to maintain optimal dental tissue development and dental enamel resistance against caries attack during the entire life span. Fluoride in drinking water acts mainly through its retention in dental plaque and saliva. Frequent consumption of drinking water and products made with fluoridated water maintain intra-oral fluoride levels. People of all ages, including the elderly, benefit from community water fluoridation.”
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/oralhealth/en/index2.html
From the Water Fluoridation Controversy Wikipedia page:
“The weight of the scientific evidence have found that at the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children’s teeth during tooth development. This effect is mildly cosmetic and is unlikely to represent any real effect on public health.[8] Despite opponents’ concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.”
“Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s.[1] During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
Another good page which debunks a lot of the claims made.
“You’ll also hear the claim that fluoridation has been banned in Europe. This is also completely untrue. In Europe it’s more common to fluoridate salt instead of water, thus bringing the same benefits via a different delivery method.” â¦
⦠“Let’s turn our eye onto one such community, Arcata, an idyllic coastal hamlet in northern California, that recently won this battle after a divisive and painful fight in the newspapers and in city hall. A principal champion of the science behind fluoridation is Kevin Hoover, editor of the Arcata Eye newspaper. In answering the flood of anti-fluoridation scare tactics, Hoover said:
There are no known victims. If there was a problem with municipal fluoridation, wouldn’t we have at least a few people who showed some signs of harm after 44 years? All the anti-fluoride people could say was that the victims are “undiagnosed,” but not why. They produced no victims, just lots of dubious statistics and horror stories with no provenance.”
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058
Canadian Cancer Society:
On the basis of current evidence, it appears unlikely that water fluoridation increases the risk of cancer, including osteosarcoma, in humans. At the same time, we know that there are many benefits to water fluoridation, especially for people who have less access to dental care.
http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20cancer/Cancer%20myths/Fluoride%20in%20water.aspx?sc_lang=EN
I’d like to see a referendum of health care professionals separate from the general public.
The same debate is ongoing in Terrace.
A very relevant link,
http://www.terracedaily.ca/go9003a/SO_MANY_WANT_TO_HAVE_A_SAY_ON_FLUORIDE
From above, I did find this interesting in the back and forth:
http://fluorideinfo.org/fluoride_claims-vs-facts.html
“Because their public water systems are both older and of smaller scale than those in the U.S., many European countries (e.g. Germany, France, Spain and Switzerland) find it more cost-effective to provide the cavity-fighting benefits of fluoridation by adding it to table salt (much the way iodine is added to salt in the U.S. to prevent goiter).”
Scientists and medical professionals on both sides of the fence, WHO data showing no discernible difference in tooth decay, and many people who don’t want to be medicated without their consent. Fear mongering and different opinions aside, why are we spending money to put this in our water?
Why are we putting this in a public water source?
You want fluoride? There are plenty of ways to get it.
I would prefer my family not have to ingest this stuff. My kids brush their teeth.
They may put fluoride in table salt in some countries – but fortunately the old style table salt without fluoride is still available as before, just like here where one can decide to purchase iodized table salt or the one without iodine.
It’s about choice. Those who medicate the tap water with industrial grade fluoride have no problem with eliminating freedom of choice for a large portion of the population, namely those who want just plain non-medicated water.
P.G. also never had a democratic referendum on fluoridation like other communities.
BTW, the northern region of B.C. has the highest rate of cancers. Coincidentally, it is also the area which has had forced fluoridation of tap water for the longest number of decades.
It is proven that an aspirin a day can help heart health for a lot of people, does that mean that the city should be dissolving truckloads of ASA into out water? Of course not! Deciding what medicine an individual takes is a personal choice and the city has no business forcing it down our gullets.
BTW Finally a topic where PrinceGeorge can let it all hang out without raising the hackles of the editors;)
Great point lonesome sparrow. Totally agree.
Brian Skakun you disappointed me on this one…when you consider the percentage of city water that is actually ingested instead of flushed, washed, laundered or just dripped down the drain even you should have been able to appreciate what a waste of money fluoridation is.
The debate on whether it’s good for you or not is really a moot point.
BC is 98 percent fluoride free. Only Prince George, Terrace and Fort St. John are left.
Getting Fluoride into the drinking water is a “mass medication” and no longer a freedom of choice! We do not need forcing everyone to take that stuff, because it has been shown over and over that it is NOT benefitting or health, to the contrary: more cancer, mental illness, allergies, and I could list a full page of deseases that have popped up with increasing numbers over the past years.
We are trying to clean up the air we breath, let us clean the water we drink!
Health organisations are often behind and do not have the latest research data. Further, there are liabilities to consider when they suddenly come with a new recommendation. Forget it. Apply common sense!
If flouride is so good to digest then why do I have to spit it out after rinsing at the dentist ? Yes I know its concentrated..but over time does the amount ingested from the city water equal if not over take the amount that I would ingest if I did swallow the flouride from the dentist.
Also a very good point mentioned earlier is.. how much of the water used by the city residences is actually drank ? A very small percentage I would guess… showers, laundry, watering lawns, washing cars etc eat up quite a bit in comparison
The referendom is a nice change… but we need a big list of what needs to be on the referendom.
The PAC, council raises, hiring a assistant for the mayor, new police stations, trips to china, 2015 winter games. etc etc
I fully expect that fluoridation will be stopped after the referendum. PG residents will listen to the very vocal anti-fluoride camp rather than do any research on their own.
What is there to research? Does fluoride make your lawn grow better?
Fluoride should be no different than vitamins…if people want it they can get some. Why force feed the water supply?
“What is there to research?”
Careful Jim, you’re proving my point. That’s what the anti-fluoride camp wants everyone to think. ‘Let us do your thinking for you!’
If the product that was being added was a simple compound it might be excusable. The chemical that is being added is a byproduct of the aluminum industry and cannot be disposed of in a safe manner because of it’s characteristics. It is therefor added to municipal water and bled off accordingly.
To those of you who make the classic mistake of concluding that correlation equals causation and are convinced that flouridated water causes cancer based on the fact that we have two (count ’em, two!) communities that flouridate the water supply, please keep in mind that the rate of smoking, a known carcinogen, is also much higher in the north.
Is mental health a bigger problem in the north? Well, rates of alcoholism and substance abuse in general are higher, and since they are linked to poorer mental health outcomes . . .
As for “I could list a full page of deseases that have popped up with increasing numbers over the past years”, please do. While you’re at it, list known causes, not what your “common sense” tells you, but hard data and research; anything short of that is just idle speculation. Also, please list the diseases that medical science and treatment have actually reduced or eliminated over the years, such as tuberculosis, syphilus, cholera, and a host of other communicable diseases.
I know that those who are inately distrustful of any and all government efforts will never believe any research that I or others may put forward, but for those may still be on the fence on the flouride issue, I invite you to delve into a trustworthy database, such as Medinfo, and actually read a good cross-section of the research on the matter. Then vote.
Further to Lonesome Sparrow’s point…. a 5oz glass of red wine is also proven to be good for us with it’s anti-oxidant qualities.
I say put red wine in the city’s drinking water. :-)
Sound stupid? Then how does ingesting industrial waste placed in drinking water sound rational?
And for those that argue that it helps those that don’t have access to dental care…… who doesn’t have access to dental care in PG?
If you are a low or moderate-income family, your child (under 19) can have basic dental care covered by the BC Medical System through BC Healthy Kids.
If you’re an adult…. here’s a crazy thought…. brush your teeth. If your teeth are that far gone, no amount of fluoride in water is going to help you.
Harvard study links lower IQ to flouride.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
I filter my water to remove it.
Of course if you have been drinking the water(or consuming High fructose corn syrup) this all might be lost on you:)
Regardless it should be an individuals choice.
Of all the BS spewed above Pylot Projects last point is the closest to whats actually happening.
The problem is having younger kids brush their teeth. It seems interior cities have a big problem in that area. Maybe not as bad now, as it was in the late 40’s and early fifties, however not everyone can afford toothpaste.
There are one hell of a lot of children that go to school hungry every day. If you don’t believe me ask a few teachers.
If they cant afford to feed the kids, then how can they buy them toothpaste.
Another point made above, that all those who are against fluoride always dodge, is.
SHOW US THE VICTIMS. /Fact of the matter is there are no victims.
Surely we have better things to do, than rail away on such a silly issue.
If you want to avoid chemicals, then I suggest you stop eating, stop driving, and in some places stop drinking the water, avoid canned goods, cigarettes, and liquor.
Chemical make up of Alcohol C2 H5 OH.
People live longer to-day than ever before, so what’s the problem.??l Sit back and have a drink of water, and enjoy the day.
Palopu… I understand where you are coming from with regards to poorer families and caring for children’s teeth. In my experience, those same kids are not drinking water either
It’s usually a bottle of soda, which is actually more horrific than the water issue. That’s a major reason why there is such an obesity and diabetes problem in children from lower income families.
If they can afford to buy them soda, they can afford toothpaste (which a dentist will likely give them for free if they asked).
Py Proj. Good point. Seems we are heading to hell in a hand basket.
Folic acid is a great benefit to early fetal development and will help prevent things a lot more serious than a tooth cavity. The city should start adding this to our water immediately!
PP- I want my red wine undiluted:)
I vote no to contaminated water supplies and forced medication. I vote yes for personal choice in what my family puts in our water.
I say if some people want the flouride then they have a choose to get the tablets and have their flouride. I do not want flouride in my drinking water…I like it natural! We should ALL have a choice but by the city putting it in the water, that choice is taken away…. NOT FAIR AT ALL!!!
I know people who buy their water so that they don’t have to drink the water with the flouride in it…somehow that doesn’t seem fair. Also if this stuff makes enamel hard on teeth, what is it doing in our bodies…hardening of the arteries I was told!
What? Referendum for this? And AAP for the dike?
Consider they say we spend upwards of 90k to have a referendum to maybe save 60k a year? Yet we have a AAP for spending millions of bucks? These people we have in city hall are nuts
The referendum will more than likely be part of the next ballot, so it shouldn’t cost 90k. You can now count on 3 things in life…death, taxes and JB disagreeing with the majority. Isn’t it funny how the same people who say “do research” simply cut and paste other peoples research as proof to thier position? I am sure for every institution that is for flouridation, you can find one that is against it as well. The bottom line is, why add anything to water that is perfectly fine just by itself, especially since it costs a lot of money to do so? A lot of people don’t even make 60k a year.
But: “Isn’t it funny how the same people who say “do research” simply cut and paste other peoples research as proof to thier position?”
How is that different from people who constantly paste the link to that one Harvard study?
As Palopu mentioned, we’ve been fluoridating water for 50+ years in different jurisdictions and there are no victims of the practice.
Pretty much every major Health Authority supports the use, including Health Canada.
As I said, I expect that the people of PG will listen to the alarmists and vote out fluoridation. It’s not about what’s right, it’s about who’s the most vocal.
To me its more an issue of whether or not it is needed. I don’t think it is, so why should we have to pay 60k/yr to put something in our water we don’t need. I don’t necessarily believe all the talk about whether it’s bad for you or not, but I do believe it is a waste of money and that alone will get my vote to get rid of it.
You believe Health Canada? the big guys with big pharma are on health canada board you know!! Makes you wonder ay?
Comments for this article are closed.