So you ask the voting public what they want. But even if they say yes or no you don’t have to listen to them ?
Why not ? You are supposed to be representing us. You are supposed to be working for us..

I can’t believe this can happen. It’s a joke. And you wonder why the turn out to vote is so poor.

Hey Skakun. Unless you are one of the fluoride conspiracy fruitcakes you could find out on your own whether the water here should be treated. I mean seriously, this guy and the rest of city council are well aware of the benefits of fluoridation. Why don’t you tweety what your dentist told you. These city counselors are as stupid as the ones on Kitimat.

Hey contractor whether you agree with fluoride in the water or not the process is illegal! More and more health professionals are looking at new data not 1950’s data and agreeing that the process is good on your teeth not in your body. Everyone in Canada has the right to clean drinking water. Putting an industrial waste byproduct in our water violates that right.

So you treat a1,000,000 litres of water. 1or 2 litres of that may get used for drinking. ((Most kids drink store bought water, pop or energy drinks. )) The rest go’s down the drain or on the lawn. Don’t sound to cost effective to me.

Cheaper to supply all family’s with kids free fluoride toothpaste.

contractor… do you swallow your toothpaste? Why not? Oh right, because it’s not good for you to do so.

All variants of Fluoride are only topical solutions, they are not meant for ingestion. But have a good time with your fluoridated Kraft Dinner & weenies.

I don’t care about the cost, I don’t care about the health issues, either from direct treatment or ingestion. What I care about is mass medication. Do I agree to being part of mass medication simply by living in Prince George? Does paying my property taxes mean that I consent? In this day and age with good access to health care, why does the city feel that fluoridation is necessary?

I don’t think a city council or any politician should have a right to approve of medicating the water supply. Less then 5% of North America continues this barbaric practice, because its a violation of a persons right to clean water untainted by the industrial waste ideology of wackos.

I think whether this is approved or not by the voters, a responsible councilor would not have anything to do with approving of the mass medication of our water supply. Even if the voters in a referendum approve of fluoride in the water I would still vote to have it removed as a councilor and fall on my sword in the process if need be.

It is barbaric and inhumane to continue this practice in the modern era where we have definitive science to prove that ingesting fluoride meant as a topical treatment has severe side effects to the body from bone development, to hardening of the arteries, to costly fluorosis of teeth as a result of uncontrolled dosage, to the disruption of the mental development and heavy metal accumulation within the critical organs.

If one wants fluoride in the modern era then they have many options from (medicated) fluoridated salt, to (medicated) tablets that they can add to their water, to the miracle of modern toothpaste which also used medical grade fluoride.

As science will prove we do not have better teeth here in Prince George than the rest of the province that are not putting industrial waste fluoride into their water.

NoWay, the process is not illegal, that is a myth perpetuated by the anti-fluoride lobby, it is ‘illegal’ in their view.

Australia just expanded their fluoride treatment close to 100% of the country. Adding fluoride to water no more violates your rights as does chlorine, even the WHO has said access to fluoride for dental care is part of the basic right to life.

Here are Aussie reasons:
http://www.ada.org.au/oralhealth/fln/flfaqs.aspx

Kitimat stopped water fluoridation after the result of a referendum compelled the city to discontinue it.

B.C. laws require that each municipality MUST ask the citizens for permission first. Prince George never had a referendum. When fluoridation was started in P.G. in 1954 it was done by city council vote. When a referendum became necessary (1998) the city got a special legal act dispensation from the province to allow fluoridation without a referendum. Prince George never had a referendum in 60 years. Vancouver for instance never had fluoridated water, three attempts to change that failed as in each instance the voters voted against it in referendums.

http://www.fluoridefreeprincegeorge.com/

Once a community goes to the voters in a referendum on medicating tap water the result is totally binding.

Comment Posted by: Eagleone on July 17 2014 7:30 AM

“to the miracle of modern toothpaste which also used medical grade fluoride.”

False – again a myth. Toothpaste uses Calcium Fluoride “Calcium fluoride (CaF2) is used in aluminium-metallurgy, brake lining, glass manufacturing, enamel and glazing frits production, dental application, and the production of welding agents.” and not Sodium Fluoride which is ‘pharmaceutical grade fluoride’. Toothpaste also has concentrations of 1,000 ppm as opposed to a maximum of .7 ppm in fluoridated tapwater

The anti-fluoride conspiracy theorists love perpetuating myths as facts. They use misdirection, falsehoods, and outright lies to get people thinking their way.

When their myths are exposed and debunked, they move on to another one.

PG: “B.C. laws require that each municipality MUST ask the citizens for permission first.”

Which law are you referring to? Source please.

Don’t ever recall us having a referendum on Chlorinating our water supply.

Lots of health concerns to chlorination, however they out weigh the consequences if we do not chlorinate.

Anti fluoride people should seriously consider getting a life.

How many of the for fluoride folks have actually read a refereed journal article that conclusively proves that fluoride in the water will help your teeth? I have not found one yet. When you do please provide the link, so I can read it. I would also like to read a refereed journal article that shows no health effects from Fluoride in the water, and fluoride is not a neurotoxin.

Yes, your dentist will tell you fluoride is good for your teeth, when they put it on topically. OK, I can go with that but is it good for my kidneys, thyroid and pineal gland? There is evidence it is not. My teeth, I can go to the dentist and get help. Kidneys, thyroid and pineal gland those are much harder to get help with.

By the way thank you government of BC for protecting the “Prince George Council” from any legal action by creating a law the specifically protects them in regard to fluoride in Prince George water. Why did you need that?

Don’t take my word for any of this, do your own research, you will be surprised as I was what you find. By the way there are parts of PG that do not have fluoride in the water, not just the ones on well water either. If it is so good why does not everyone on city water get fluoride? Again, look into it yourself. Fluoride was thought to be a good idea, they were wrong. I heard they might have been wrong about the health benefits of cigarettes too. Did you hear about that? The rumour started by a bunch of fanatics, turned out they were right. Who knew?

Good luck with your research. For those who decide they don’t want to take the risk vote against the fluoride, in PG water. And for now here is a good article:
http://fluoridealert.org/content/top_ten/

I am not against fluoride, just don’t want it in my water. the risk.

Slinky, did you actually take the time and go and read the ingredients of a toothpaste box before posting? Talk about spreading a false myth

Toothpaste contains Sodium Fluoride, not Calcium Fluoride. Read the damned box. Or do I have to populate a pile of websites here that show this for you?

Yeesh.

Yes I do concede after a more thorough search that sodium fluoride is used in toothpastes and mouthwashes.

Although calcium fluoride IS used in toothpastes, supposedly the better ones. Sodium fluoride is used in pesticides and insecticides and most generic toothpastes along with chemical weapons. The basic gist is, there is no fluoride free of any byproducts, byproducts can be less in each depending on the batch and type of manufacture, collection method, etc.

Calcium fluoride is not used in water fluoridation due to its inability to bond to other materials. It remains insoluble and could ‘stack up’ in a pipe and deliver a high dose if used in water. The others bond easily and remain mixed in their intended amounts.

JB:” Which law are you referring to? Source please.”

Look JB, you are becoming somewhat boring.

Contrary to what you normally do (posting dozens of web links!) I posted only one! There is All the information you are asking for and then some! If you are too busy to open one website and get informed about the subject of forced water fluoridation done without individual informed consent that is your problem.

I did click on your link and besides being filled with lots of CAPS STATEMENTS and pretty colours, it has no scientific evidence on it whatsoever, just a bunch of links to other anti-fluoride websites.

You should be embarrassed for posting this link. I hope you’re not involved in it in any way.

Where is the evidence that shows that fluoridation at approved levels causes harm? There is none.

Your link also doesn’t answer my original question as to which law you’re referring to in your statement above.

Thank you for asking. Here is the law:
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/90061_01#section43

Slinky, which toothpastes would be these better ones?

I use the most expensive one on the shelf called PreviDent (behind the counter in most locations), which uses Sodium Fluoride at 5000 ppm.

Another falsehood in your previous statement is that Calcium Fluoride is used in aluminum manufacturing. That’s Sodium Fluoride, and it’s not used in the manufacturing process, it’s a toxic waste from the process. It’s the same toxic waste that steel plants, fertilizer plants and mining creates.

Calcium Fluoride is a natural substance.

Yes, the dentist might have told you that fluoride is good for your teeth,BUT, is it good to be putting in all your organs whih is what is happening when you drink it all the time. It goes into your brain, your bones and just everything and it is NOT good for those things. Great, you can put it on your teeth, but not for all your body parts.

British Columbia Local Government Act.

Health protection authority

523 (1) Subject to the Public Health Act, a board may, by bylaw,

(3) As a further limit on subsection (1), a board must not fluoridate the water supply unless the bylaw has received the assent of the electors.

Pylot, read here
http://www.solvaychemicals.com/EN/products/Fluor/Inorganic%20Fluorides/Calciumfluoride.aspx

The link came directly from a anti-fluoride website stating toothpaste uses calcium fluoride, my mistake for taking one thing they wrote as actual fact, although in a sense it is true as there are calcium fluoride toothpastes

The CDC and Health Canada have some balanced information on fluoridation . As for the legal arguments of informed consent or forced medication, I have been unable to find a case where the courts in Canada or in the US have found fluoride in drinking water to be harmful to an individual. I do hope that the residents of PG get out and vote on the subject so it can be put to rest for those that feel strongly one way or another. Found this an interesting article, so I thought I’d share

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/something-in-the-water/

You’ve done some selective editing, PG, but regarding the statement below you quoted:

“523 (1) Subject to the Public Health Act, a board may, by bylaw,”

Words are very important. The word ‘may’ means optional.

Also from that link:

“43 (1) The City of Prince George,

(a) despite the Municipal Act and the letters patent of the City of Prince George, is conclusively deemed to have had the authority to fluoridate any part, or all, of the water supply of the municipality as of the adoption of a resolution by its council on October 4, 1954 authorizing the fluoridation, and

(b) despite section 524 (2) of the Municipal Act, is conclusively deemed to have had and to continue to have the authority to carry out fluoridation in relation to any part, or all, of the water supply of the municipality.”

What am I missing?

Those looking for credible, factual documentation confirming fluoridation is harmful, please read this article from Dr. David Kennedy, including his international credentials valid in Canada http://www.nofluoride.com/kennedy_letter.cfm He includes many peer reviewed articles. Those who have convinced themselves Fluoridation is safe; do you know what fluoridation is? Adding a transport Canada, class 8 corrosive, toxic, hazardous waste by-product to once safe, pure and clean drinking water adding confirmed arsenic, lead, and 19 toxic chemicals is what you are calling fluoridation. Health Canada confirms they have never…researched or approved human or animal consumption of hydrofluorosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid. http://www.wedeservesafewater.com/forum/uploaded/HealthCanadaFOIPJune2014snip.pdf.
So who is the accountable, medical professional who approved poisoning all of our children, pets horses including you? Anyone checked section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms? Those who want to drink poison… go for it, knock yourself out! You can also check out http://www.fluoridefreeprincegeorge.com/ for local Prince George documented fluoridation facts courtesy of the City of Prince George and others, including the Citizen newspaper from 1933 to today… are you feeling lucky and brave enough to have a look? Or how about looking at this web page… I hear it’s local, eh! https://www.facebook.com/pages/PG-Citizens-Unite-Against-Forced-Fluoridation/780375291986647
researched or approved human or animal consumption of hydrofluorosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid for human or animal consumption.http://www.wedeservesafewater.com/forum/uploaded/HealthCanadaFOIPJune2014snip.pdf So who approved it for your use? Because no one approved it with my consent form my use or my children’s use. Anyone checked section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms that give you the right to say no and disagree with anyone? Those who want to drink poison… go for it, knock yourself out!

PG: “Look JB, you are becoming somewhat boring.”

The truth is often boring. Conspiracy theories are exciting. I will give you that one.

Some people concluded that people who want to have non-medicated tap water have become the victims of a conspiracy theory.

I come to the conclusion that those who want to condemn others to ingest a fluoride compound based medication against their explicit objections conspire to maintain an ancient practice which has become obsolete and suspect due to improved scientific peer reviewed studies, for various reasons.

I re-post the pertinent part of 523 for the benefit of JB.

523
(3) As a further limit on subsection (1), a board must not fluoridate the water supply unless the bylaw has received the assent of the electors.

The words “must not” are precise and not to be mistaken.

Gee, now that would be 1023 angels on the head of a pin or was that 1032?

The entire problem with this referendom is it isnt binding… So even though the concerned citizens vote for or against it the “mayor” and council can still do what ever they want… not the most democratic system is it ?????

We have an election coming up, put it too a vote and put it too rest.

No Flouride means Chorine.

PG: “523
(3) As a further limit on subsection (1), a board must not fluoridate the water supply unless the bylaw has received the assent of the electors.

The words “must not” are precise and not to be mistaken. “

Sure they are if you’ve edited and clipped this out of the broader context, which you have done.

I have not altered (3) in any way, W.O.!
You already have the link to the whole Act so your accusations are false and you know it!

In the meantime, W.O., 97% of the population of B.C. is enjoying tap water free from fluoride medication!

I have quoted this fact numerous times and you have yet to take notice of it!

Until you do, it is pointless to respond to your attack comments.

Here you go JB, the full context…

Division 4 — Health
Health Protection Authority
523 (1) Subject to the Public Health Act, a board may, by bylaw, (a) regulate and prohibit for the purposes of maintaining, promoting or preserving public health or maintaining sanitary conditions, and (b) undertake any other measures it considers necessary for those purposes.
(2) Section 9 [spheres of concurrent authority] of the Community Charter applies to a bylaw under subsection (1).
(3) As a further limit on subsection (1), a board must not fluoridate the water supply unless the bylaw has received the assent of the electors.

This has not been sanitized for your protection. Please enlighten us all where PG took it out of context?

Chances are, all these people whining about the fluoride, drinks bottled water. So what is the big deal. If you don’t want the fluoride in the tap water, and they remove the fluoride, are you going to drink the tap water. No your still going to be drinking the bottled water, so stop being a hypocrite.

Read it again Pylot. I already pointed out the word ‘may’ means optional.

Once again, the anti-fluoriders have decided to make this about what I think.

Their quarrel is with the majority of the world’s health organizations and professionals (medical and dental) who support the practice and have done so for 50+ years.

There is no conspiracy between these independant organziations and their findings, much as the anti-fluoride contingent would like you to believe.

Yes, I will drink fluoride free tap water! I will also – finally- be able to take a shower with fluoride free water (!), something which 97% of the fluoride free tap water population of B.C. take for granted.

This matter has zero to do with being hypocritical, but everything with healthy living and individual human rights, something we tout as part of our Canadian democratic society.

PG: “Until you do, it is pointless to respond to your attack comments. “

Which time did I attack you?

anniemartin; regarding your statement: “As for the legal arguments of informed consent or forced medication, I have been unable to find a case where the courts in Canada or in the US have found fluoride in drinking water to be harmful to an individual.” There are several credible US Court Cases confirming fluoridation is harmful…for example: Fluoridation Questions – Highlights of Congressional Testimony on Fluoride (US).
[url]http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/brochure.pdf[url] “Judge John P. Flaherty, former Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in his review of a case never overturned on the merits, came to this conclusion about fluoridation: “In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary…”. Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man…” Congressional testimony by J. William Hirzy, Ph.D, June 29, 2000” Plus the CDC has confirmed fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin included with lead, arsenic and fluoride here is the article; “Building a Database of developmental Neurotoxicants from Human and Animal Studies [url]http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48P%20Mundy%20TDAS.pdf[url]. Fluoridation is bad, artificial fluoridation using hydrofluorosilicic acid, is worse! Sources OK with You?

Bonus information for those who still support fluoridation and think anyone cares if you have a choice. Ever heard of Hansard Documentation? The Province of BC uses these official, public records to record political discussions around legislation. If you want to believe you ever had a choice to say yes or no to fluoridation as required under Legislation…Section 523, protecting your right to say no to being poisoned by the City of Prince George. Your assumed rights were removed in 1998, courtesy of Mayor, Council and NDP in power at the time. Here is the Hansard link: [url]http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/36th3rd/H0729pm.htm[url] couple quotes for you to digest by some famous people! “Hon. J. Kwan: In 1954, Prince George, by resolution, began fluoridation of the city’s water supply. The Municipal Act of the day required measures for the preservation of public health to be undertaken by bylaw. This is to address that issue dating back to 1954. G. Plant: The citizens and the voters of Prince George have had an opportunity, as elections have arisen in that city, to reconsider the wisdom of fluoridation. But in fact the original resolution, the original decision in 1954, has stood the political tests of time — that is, it’s still there; it’s still in force. It could be said, in some political sense, to still represent the will of the people of Prince George. Hon. J. Kwan: As far as I know, there has never been an electors’ assent since that time on that issue. However, in discussion with the mayor of Prince George, he advised me that that is indeed the opinion of the electorate in that city. Hon. J. Kwan: We’re enabling the city of Prince George the authority to not go to referendum on this issue if they so choose
G. Wilson: What this bill does is eliminate the legal challenge that may have been made against the city as a result of the city not adhering to law when they expanded the water service after 1957 and the law required that they go to referendum. That’s what the law said they had to do, and they didn’t do it. Hon. J. Kwan: It does not eliminate a person’s right to challenge any law, and in this instance it does not eliminate their right to challenge the law. But in all probability it would diminish their probability of winning, and that’s what this legislation will do. G. Wilson: So what it says is that you can still go ahead and try to win your case, but good luck, because we’ve just closed every loophole possible and you might as well give up. But never be daunted. Just go right ahead, and if there is a loophole that the government has missed by miscellaneous statute, next year they’ll grab that one too. My guess is that this is what this bill is doing.
The Bill, the Enabling and Validating Act No 2., Section 43 was approved as the Prince George Water Fluoridation Bylaw… [URL]http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/90061_01#section43[url]. If fluoridation was good for everyone why would mayor and Council need forgiveness and protection for poisoning us?

Chlorine (chlorination) is for making water safe to drink as chlorine destroys harmful organisms.

Fluoridation is an optional (not necessary) method of treating patients who are thought of as having a need for a medical treatment without diagnosis, dosage control and regular follow up as required by the Ethical Code of the Canadian Medical Association. The prime assertion is that every patient has to give informed consent and no harm must be inflicted.

Nine of the above is followed by tap water fluoridation: No consent, no diagnosis, no follow up as to possible harm.

And it is highly unethical. Let’s do what the other 97% of B.C. citizens have already done, being free from industrial hydrofluorosilic acid water contamination!

Nine should be none, of course.

Wow JB, and you blame PG of convenient editing and clipping?

You seem focused on the word “may” but are totally disregarding the words “by bylaw”.

Is there a bylaw that states the residents have given assent for drinking water fluoridation? Or was it just rammed down their throat? (pun intended)

JB: “PG: “Until you do, it is pointless to respond to your attack comments. “

Which time did I attack you?”

Here it goes:

JB: “You should be embarrassed for posting this link.”

I think You should be embarrassed for saying that! I suffer from neurological auditory nerve damage caused in all likelihood by the neurotoxin fluorosilicic acid and I am a recovering cancer patient.

I am standing up for clean air, cleaner food and clean water! What about you? You shouldn’t stand in the way of my efforts to achieve that. How do you profit from doing that? Why not start by being in favour of clean non-toxic water and allowing people to make a choice as to supplementing with fluoridated tooth paste and dental applications of the stuff?

You attack without realizing it, apparently. It could be the decades of ingesting fluoridated tap water. It is making a lot of people ill without them knowing that it can cause long term neurological damage. The Lancet added it to its list of developmental neurotoxins after peer reviewed lengthy studies.

Period.

Sorry, PG. I have been drinking PG’s tap water and showering in it my whole life and I am a very healthy person.

There is no boogeyman in fluoride, although you desperately want one to be there and to explain you other health issues.

And in terms of my terrible ‘attack’ on you, I think you’re being a bit sensitive. The link and the information in it were outright awful and horribly biased. But I suppose you’ll see that comment as an ‘attack’ as well.

PG: “How do you profit from doing that?”

You once claimed that I must be a fluoride salesman because I disagreed with your stance. Is there such a thing as a fluoride salesman? In any case, I will say it again, I do not profit in any way from fluoridation. I just would rather trust our world’s health professional organizations over you and your claims.

“NoWay, the process is not illegal, that is a myth perpetuated by the anti-fluoride lobby, it is ‘illegal’ in their view. “

MSDS of such industrial waste says it could contain arsenic! Arsenic is poison and putting poison in the water supply is illegal!