The City of Saint John New Brunswick halted fluoridation in 2014.

Mayor Mel Norton stated the following:

“This is one of those choices that we’re forced to make in light of certain financial realities and priorities as a
community,” said Norton.
“We are trying to be exceptional stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars in this city with a view to also being sensitive
of providing an exceptional quality of life,” said Norton. “As so on that basis, I’ll cast my vote with the nays.”
Norton reasoned that health care is not a city responsibility and the city’s limited dollars should be spent on
recreation and roads.”

End of quote. The town of Oromocto is now the only community in NB which still adds fluoride to tap water.

“The prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community”

Taken out of the context of the remaining statements in the article, this simplistic statement makes for convincing stuff. However, if you read the rest of the study’s conclusions, you will see that there are so many confounding aspects (low rate of dental carries to begin with, affluent population, widely accessible dental services, etc.), you find that it is not possible to declare that there was no difference or even a benefit to stopping fluoridation.
As JB said, if you keep flinging opinion against the fan of research, don’t be surprised if some of it blows back on you.

Prince George’s water quality consistently tests as some of the best in the world. That’s after the fluoride and chlorine are added. The levels of toxic chemicals is consistently well below the levels that have been deemed safe for human consumption.

I notice that Emile Begin doesn’t list their scientific credentials and affiliations, something that I deem as really important when getting advice on human public health. There are mountains of evidence for the efficacy of therapeutic fluoride, but no credible evidence that I’ve seen, for a harmful correlation at the therapeutic levels that are added to municipal water.

I’ve read some of the sources that Emile refers to and I seriously question the reliance on them. In particular, I read the article on the Lancet about neurotoxicity and what Emile fails to clarify is that most of these results are anecdotal and from an area in South-East Asia where naturally occurring levels of fluoride is very high and indeed dangerous to human health. This has nothing whatever to do with the therapeutic levels that municipalities use, which are extremely safe and effective.

I actually don’t care for myself, because I have access to great dental care, but for people that don’t, this is very effective and is why I think that it has been hailed one of the ten greatest public health advancements of the 20th century by some of the biggest medical associations in North America and the world.

I have a question for you, Emile. Why aren’t you advocating to have the chlorine removed from our municipal water source as well? If you really want your water unadulterated, you can have that. Unfortunately, that is no longer safe. Make sure that the people you’re advocating for actually need your brand of help. Educate yourself about toxicity. Oxygen in too high a concentration is fatal to humans, at other levels is considered “normal”, and at other levels is considered therapeutic.

All the arguments against fluoride above site effects when ingested at far above accepted levels.

Anything (even water itself) will kill you in high enough quantity.

Don’t take my world for it… Listen to the world’s health organizations, not the conspriacy theorists.

—————-

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:
“One of water fluoridation’s biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community—at home, work, school, or play,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH. “Today’s announcement is part of our ongoing support of appropriate fluoridation for community water systems, and its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay throughout one’s lifetime.”
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110107a.html

From the CDC:
“For 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. “
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.” …
… “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

We know fluoride on the teeth helps the teeth in your body is another story. Naturally occurring fluoride isn’t the same as the chemical waste they are adding to the water. The fluoride the dentist use is medical a grade fluoride the stuff they are adding to our water isn’t.

For me the issue isn’t whether fluoride works or not. The issue is the City of Prince George treating a so called desease by medicating the masses.

Take the fluoride out and see what happens! If you start getting more cavities then look after youself better! If the City of PG wants a better way to prevent tooth decay they could ban the sale of Soft Drinks in the City a Limits!

Just to clear up any confusion: Chlorination is a method of water treatment to make it safe. Fluoridation is a optional method of treating patients, i.e. a medical procedure. Unfluoridated water is perfectly safe.

From the Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics:

14. Recommend only those diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that you consider to be beneficial to your patient or to others. If a procedure is recommended for the benefit of others, as for example in matters of public health, inform your patient of this fact and proceed only with explicit informed consent or where required by law.

15. Respect the right of a competent patient to accept or reject any medical care recommended.

33. Refuse to participate in or support practices that violate basic
human rights.

I personally have never been asked by the City or a medical professional whether I agree to be treated with fluorosilicic acid in my tap water, I have not given consent and I never will. As a Canadian citizen the above Code of Ethics requires informed consent before any medication is administered to me. Even if a physician recommends a medication to me I have a right to refuse it.

City councillors have no medical license which allows them to make decisions about distributing medicine by means of the city water supply.

“There is no confusion on toxicity and harm caused from fluorides.”

The propbolem is this letter completely ignores any facts related to actual dose and exposure.

If you want to make an argument based purely on the “chemical” then you should ban water too.

almost 500 people DIE per year from extreme exposure to water

http://www.lifesavingsociety.com/media/157475/2013-cdndrowningreport.pdf

If you want fluoride in your drinking water, purchase an injection system and supply of the chemical, install the system in your home and pay for it yourself.

When I was born, over half a century ago, my life expectancy was 69. Now, where I sit today they tell me I’m going to make it to 82. When I was born, vaccinations, fluoridation, where not common, and life expediencies were based on prior mortality experience.

So, I guess big Pharma is raking in a fortune with all these advances, but we are living longer, in spite of our sedentary life style.

I wont’ say the world is a better place, but we certainly are getting to spend more time here than our foremothers/fathers. Whose fault is that?

Should ban cars and spoons too hey Jimmi?

Why would anyone want to be taxed for fluoride if you have false teeth?We get enough fluoride in toothpaste etc without puting it in the drinking water.Put it to a vote on Op.250 and see what the results are.

Things change. Water was first medicated with the addition of fluoride in the 1940s in a small community in Michigan, Grand Rapids, based on research that was then probably about 20 years or older.
One of the chapters in the book is entitled “The clash of absolutes”.

I was thinking to myself, what an apt description not only of the fluoride issue, but also the nature of the posters on 250NEWS. 

Medical research has changed over the 3/4 century. Some medical researchers call it a paradigm shift in the change in methodology used.

For us non-medical credentialed posters on here who like to provide an opinion to counter Emile’s, please do not ask him for his credentials unless you provide yours. His is an opinion piece only, albeit much better researched than most of us on here.

I highly recommend reading a book available from our public library if you want to have at least an inkling of understanding about fluoridated water and the politics of it. It is called “The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama”.

http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470448334.html

The final chapter concludes with the need for CIVIL discourse. As we can see, this discourse needs to tone down a bit and rather than continuing to follow in the footsteps of the discourse of absolutes which has been the legacy, it would be nice if we could be part of the change towards that end.

Maybe that is setting the bar too high.

Hi Gus, that is the correct cool way to look at this many decades old struggle!

Out of conversations (rather than confrontations) can come worthwhile ideas!

In Europe water fluoridation has been banned for many decades! Fluoridated table salt can be found on the grocery shelves, together with the usual plain non-fluoridated kind! The consumer actually has a choice! It is like that also with iodized salt and that without iodine! Great! Ethics and the freedom to choose have been met with a wonderful compromise!

If the City could persuade salt manufacturers to provide salt with fluoride in the stores – for those who feel the need to opt for it – it could get immediately out of the tap water fluoridation medical business!

For me and many others it would be the best compromise as we finally would have exceptionally clean Prince George tap water coming to my house, safe for drinking, bathing and cooking!

Final comment for me on this thread!

I just wanted to thank both Gus and JohnnyBelt for their posts. Thank you for trying to move beyond the traditional fear tactics and rhetoric. Hopefully when can have a respectful discussion about the pros and cons of fluoridation prior to a decision this November. It would be nice to be an informed voter when going to the polls.

Unfortunately when their is a void of information that space gets filled quickly with garbage and it is up to us to try and weed through it.

Seeing the City isn’t giving us any info on this we can only assume mayor and council must be opposed to fluoridation and want it to stop. Perhaps UNBC has a role to play in providing some credible public information on this?

The author of this article is misinformed. Hydrofluorosilicic acid does not contain any lead or arsenic. It contains silicon, fluoride and some hydrogen atoms.

I have trouble with the scare tactics that the anti-fluoride group is using. If it really bothers them, then they can put in their own well or drink bottled water.

Oh wait, a lot of bottled water contains natural fluoride… Look at that, the ‘natural’ water in Prince George wells contains fluoride. ;-).

The only way to get away from it is to install a reverse osmosis filter under your sink. It will cost about $800 and you’ll never have fluoride. If you ask me it’s a waste of money. A little bit of fluoride is very good for you.

I think we need to add sunscreen to the water. What are dental carriers in deciduous teeth compared to skin cancer? I mean really. Priorities people. Think of the children.

Icicle wrote: “The author of this article is misinformed. Hydrofluorosilicic acid does not contain any lead or arsenic.”

If we are going to have a reasonably informed discussion about water fluoridation, I think it is incumbent on us all to begin by being equally well informed.

It appears that neither the City nor Northern Health provides us with anything more than dumbed down information at best so it is no wonder that some of us are making some ill-informed statements.

We have to remember that we are talking about the form of Hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) which is used in the fluoridation process of PG water. That form is an industrial form which comes with impurities such as lead, mercury, arsenic, and possibly others.

There is also a pharmaceutical version, Sodium Fluoride (NaF), which is used in fluoridated toothpaste and the products used by dentists and hygienists for topical application.

So, in an effort to bring the level of discussion to a bit of a higher level, and to give consideration to those who do not like to go to linked articles, I will cut and paste the abstract of a May 2013 scientific article published in “Environmental Science & Policy”. Of course, that will give those who do not like me cutting and pasting and would rather have me spend 5 more minutes to type, some additional fodder. ;-)

——— from the article —————-

Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as fluoridating agents—A cost–benefit analysis

Water fluoridation programs in the United States and other countries which have them use either sodium fluoride (NaF), hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) or the sodium salt of that acid (NaSF), all technical grade chemicals to adjust the fluoride level in drinking water to about 0.7–1 mg/L.

In this paper we estimate the comparative overall cost for U.S. society between using cheaper industrial grade HFSA as the principal fluoridating agent versus using more costly pharmaceutical grade (U.S. Pharmacopeia – USP) NaF. USP NaF is used in toothpaste.

HFSA, a liquid, contains significant amounts of arsenic (As). HFSA and NaSF have been shown to leach lead (Pb) from water delivery plumbing, while NaF has been shown not to do so.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) health-based drinking water standards for As and Pb are zero.

Our focus was on comparing the social costs associated with the difference in numbers of cancer cases arising from As during use of HFSA as fluoridating agent versus substitution of USP grade NaF.

We calculated the amount of As delivered to fluoridated water systems using each agent, and used EPA Unit Risk values for As to estimate the number of lung and bladder cancer cases associated with each.

We used cost of cancer cases published by EPA to estimate cost of treating lung and bladder cancer cases. Commercial prices of HFSA and USP NaF were used to compare costs of using each to fluoridate. We then compared the total cost to our society for the use of HFSA versus USP NaF as fluoridating agent.

The U.S. could save $1 billion to more than $5 billion/year by using USP NaF in place of HFSA while simultaneously mitigating the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical grade fluoridating agents.

Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realize similar benefits by making this change.

Policy makers would have to confront the uneven distribution of costs and benefits across societies if this change were made.

———- end of article ———-

In my view, we find ourselves in 2014 using a practice that commenced 70 years ago in order to help mitigate caries in a portion of our population that did not have access to dental health care. For the time in our history, that may have been an understandable approach.

Those were the days when people smoked without realizing the potential consequences, the days when they lived close to air polluting industrial plants, when we used lead in gasoline.

You get the drift. We have grown much more knowledgeable since then in what happens to our bodies from external agents and we have grown much more conscious of personal rights and freedoms, especially those which have to do with the right to control of our own body and its well-being.

For some reason or other, the water fluoridation debate seems to have been stuck in a time bubble.

Perhaps we have a guilt complex about those in our society who are less well off than some of us, so we justify the medication a whole population via publicly distributed water while forgetting the little matter of those who might live outside the city water distribution system and outside the city. In addition, we are forgetting about those who may be negatively affected for other physiological reasons, no matter what socioeconomic circumstances they find themselves in.

That is totally unprecedented. All other public health controlled medical actions such as vaccination allow for individuals to opt out for a number of reasons.

We are not machines which react identically to external stimuli. We all react differently. So it is with fluoride medication of public water systems.

Sorry for the additional post. I forget to include the link to the article for those who like to see the source.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901113000087