Resident of un-fluoridated Windsor, ON, schools pro-fluoridation Peel Councillor Jim Tovey on why Windsor ended fluoridation and their latest statistics
Email of Feb. 10, 2017:
Dear Jim Tovey,
I heard your comments re: artificial fluoridation. You claimed that other communities who decided to stop fluoridation, did so for political reasons.
The question that is asked very commonly is whether this claim generic cialis tabs is true or not. If cialis viagra for women midwayfire.com you cannot give your partner the kind of intimacy relationships falter. Visit our product section now and place an order and enjoy the discounted levitra 40 mg prices. This can even affect the ability to levitra for sale midwayfire.com father a child.
Should you consult our former Windsor Mayor Francis who is not just a lawyer, but holds a degree in bio-chemistry, he will tell you our council’s decision was not politically motivated. It was based on sound legal advice, sound science and recommendations from both our local Environmental Committee and the Windsor Utilities Commission who admitted required NSF toxicological studies did not exist and that raw fluoride levels in the Detroit River are exceeding levels of concern set by the Species at Risk Act.
If you ask councillors in Thunder Bay where their water engineers conducted their own research, you will see their decision to not begin fluoridation was based on their results that silicofluorides increase lead leaching in pipes.
We stopped fluoridation in 2013. We heard several anecdotal claims from one political contact person representing the Ontario Dental Association. The same dentist who complained to Delaney about increased tooth decay following cessation. You can see for yourself the attached graphs provided by the Ministry that claims of rampant tooth decay and surgeries are simply that – claims. They are not based on reality.
Sound public policy does not assume a community is somehow fluoride deficient and it should not consider the injection of a chemical that has not even been regulated as a food-grade additive into drinking water. Sound public policy follows the precautionary principle by ensuring the public has the safest water possible.
Regards,
Donna Jean Mayne
Windsor, ON
[Click on an image to enlarge it.]
Another email to Council, Feb. 10, 2017:
I wanted to congratulate you all (well all but one of you) for recognizing that:
1) The supposed toxicological safety studies, that fluoridation proponents claim are done by NSF, for the chemical used as ’tooth medicine’ and prescribed en masse, dosed by thirst, simply do not exist. There are NO studies to show hfsa and its contaminants are safe for our children to ingest every day.
2) That health issues are a provincial responsibility, while the liability of water quality and safety resides with municipal councillors. Off-loading the liability of medicating your constituents with an untested chemical via the Fluoridation Act is irresponsible and a great example of ‘passing the buck’.
3) That even though less than 30% of Canadians are forced to ingest untested ‘tooth medicine’ chemicals, stats Canada shows nearly no difference in oral health outcomes between f’d and non-f’d communities.
4) That there is no safety margin nor warning provided to parents that using fluoridated water to mix baby formula is exposing their babies to many many times higher the level of F than nature intended (as compared to breastmilk).
The important thing you failed to act upon yesterday was an opportunity to be progressive and protective of your constituents and the environment by calling for a moratorium on adding untested fluoridation chemicals unless and until the province steps up and provides the legally required toxicological safety studies.
In a time with ever more toxins in our air, water, soil and food we need brave and bold members of council willing to challenge status quo and protect our most vulnerable in correcting this outdated, unnecessary, unsafe and unethical public health experiment.
Sincerely,
Kim DeYong