Join our mailing list Never miss an update Subscribe Now

Do you have 5 minutes? - TAKE ACTION You can help us ensure Calgary City Council does not restart artificial water fluoridation. Calgarians will be voting on whether or not to medicate their neighbours via plebiscite in the upcoming civic elections on October 18, 2021 . Here's how to take action to ensure that all Calgarians have access to clear running water. From Calgary, Chestermere, Airdrie, or Strathmore, AB or anywhere in the world! SIGN OUR ONLINE PETITION LIKE AND SHARE OUR FACEBOOK PAGE FOLLOW US ON TWITTER SUBSCRIBE TO OUR MAILING LIST WRITE TO CITY COUNCIL To advocate for clean safe water (addresses for Calgary, Airdrie, Chestermere, and Strathmore) PRINT & SHARE OUR FLYER WATER FLUORIDATION BASICS Safe Water Calgary is a grassroots movement and depends on everyone's help. Please share this page IT IS TIME TO STAND UP AND PROTECT THE SAFETY OF OUR WATER! "My attitude is that the world is full of problems created and maintained by humans and some are more universal and dire in effect than fluoridation. But fluoridation is one of the more easily solvable problems and when we solve it we demonstrate that people can take just power into their own hands and make the world a bit better for many if not for all. People need such demonstrations. Then on to the next.” Dr. James Beck, co-author of THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE

ETHICAL DILEMMA Water is a basic need. Chemicals added to water to treat the water's safety is one thing. Chemicals added to water to "treat" the people drinking the water is another thing. Not only is there no way to control the dose for a drug once added to public water, but this practice also denies people's right to consent. Even with toothpaste, people can choose fluoridated or non-fluoridated toothpaste. For babies, fluoridated toothpaste companies specifically offer non-fluoridated toothpaste choices that are marketed as safe to swallow. Unlike the 1960s, conventionally grown and especially processed foods and drinks now contain significant amounts of fluoride due to the common use of phosphate fertilizer, fluoride based pesticides, and the processing of foods and drinks with fluoridated water. Add the amounts of fluoride people absorb from fluoridated dental products, and this is why published research shows that children living in regions without fluoridated water are often already ingesting too much fluoride. A nd for people who truly want their children and themselves swallowing more fluoride, prescription fluoride supplements are available for $13 per year. If we truly want public health measures that reduce tooth decay among the financially disadvantaged, elderly and general population, our public health associations need to roll up their sleeves and provide effective programs such as the Scottish Child Smile program , who have been successfully lowering tooth decay — particularly in deprived communities — without adding any fluoride to their water. THE HEALTH IMPLICATIONS Dental fluorosis and skeletal weakness Children develop dental fluorosis by ingesting too much fluoride between 0 and 8 years of age. It doesn't matter if the fluoride comes from foods and drinks due to pesticides or processing, or toothpaste, or fluoridated water etc. Those with dental fluorosis have higher bone fractures as well as higher rates of learning disabilities. Thyroid issues Thyroid medication is the third most prescribed medication to Canadian women, because fluoride is displacing iodine on the cell's receptors. Study shows that adults living in Canada who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher levels of urinary fluoride may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity. Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) Paul Connett interviews Dr. A. K. Susheela from India, who discusses how ingesting fluoride irritates the stomach lining, leading to IBS. She discovered that from the moment you eliminate fluoride, the gastrointestinal mucosa and the microvilli will regenerate within 10-12 days. Canada has one of the highest prevalence of IBS in the world – estimated 18% vs. 11% globally. ( Lovell et al. 2012 ). ADHD medication in Canada is the number one prescribed medication to boys and girls 6 to 14 years of age and the second most prescribed medication to males between the ages of 15 to 24, according to a June, 2014 Statistics Canada report .

DENTAL FLUOROSIS A Dental Disaster When fluoridation first began, the proponents promised the American public that the only and worst risk from the program was that something less than 10% of children might have a few faint white spots on their ‘cavity resistant’ teeth which many would find adds an attractive sparkle. Also of note, the researchers in the early fluoridation trials treated African American children differently from the outset, writing that it was common knowledge that Negros have stronger teeth more resistant to decay. It didn’t take long for those involved to realize that something was very wrong, but their reaction per 1962 memo that noted high rates of fluorosis that was doubled in the African American children emphasized protecting the fluoridation program. As both the numbers of Americans and percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water swelled, dental fluorosis also grew, disproportionately and with worse severity in Black and Latino populations. Dental fluorosis is a defect in the tooth due to cell death during the formative stages. Those with dental fluorosis have higher bone fractures as well as higher rates of learning disabilities. Dental fluorosis is the visible evidence of similar defects due to cytotoxic effects that occur in bones and brains during critical periods of development, i.e. prenatal, infancy and early childhood. Dental fluorosis is also a leading indicator of higher dental costs as these unattractive and brittle teeth will require costly veneers and crowns in young adulthood. Per 2011-2012 NHANES figures released in 2017, one in five (23%) American teens have brown mottling and perhaps pitting on at least two fluorosed teeth due to childhood exposure. RESOURCES 2005 CDC MMWR: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm “Prevalence of enamel fluorosis has increased in cohorts born since 1980.” 2010 CDC Report: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf “(All levels of) dental fluorosis were higher among adolescents aged 12–15 in 1999–2004 than in 1986–1987.” 2015 “Agua Potable o Veneno” (part 2 of 3): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGswvGZPL-M Ethnic Breakdown: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab23 2017 Dental fluorosis is result of apoptosis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770627/ 2018 Increase: http://jdh.adha.org/content/92/1/23 Conclusion : “There was a difference of 31.6% in dental fluorosis prevalence between 2012-2011 when compared to data from 2002-2001 in adolescents aged 16 and 17 years. The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence.” May 23, 2018

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FLUORIDE What are our rights? All citizens have the right to safe, clean, and un-medicated water. Why is fluoridation unethical? It is not ethical to force a toxic substance on people without informed consent. What happens when I swallow it? Swallowing fluoride delivers it to the entire body with the potential to harm the brain, thyroid, bones, and kidneys. Can I control the strenghth? When medicine is delivered by public water, it is only possible to control the concentration, not the dose or dosage. How does it affect pregnant mothers and babies? When pregnant mothers and babies drink fluoridated water, they get a much higher dose of toxic fluoride, causing damage to brains and other body systems. Doesn't mother's milk contain fluoride? Babies get a much higher dose of toxic fluoride when formula is made from fluoridated water, which has as much as 200 times the amount of fluoride as mother’s breast milk. I thought water contained fluoride naturally. Fortunately, it is found in small amounts in our rivers. Sadly, what is used for water fluoridation is a toxic substance from the industrial waste stacks in the USA and China. What if I want fluoride for my teeth? There are better, proven, and safer ways to provide fluoride such as fluoridated toothpaste, rinses, mouthwashes, foams, varnishes, gels and inexpensive fluoride supplements. Published research shows that children living in regions without fluoridated water are already ingesting too much fluoride. Toothpaste companies specifically offer non-fluoridated toothpaste choices that are marketed as safe to swallow. How prevalent are non-fluoridated areas? 97% of Europe and 98% of British Columbia and Quebec are not fluoridated. Less than 6% of the world is fluoridated, and less than 40% of Canada. Do professionals support or reject fluoridation? Almost 5,000 professionals worldwide have had the courage to sign an open letter against this outdated public health policy. Can fluoride damage teeth? Fluorosis, the first visible sign of fluoride toxicity, is now affecting more than 50% of teens in the United States, and can cost thousands of dollars to repair.

CANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION The first i con on this page leads to an official Canadian Dental Association (CDA ) document with highlighted sections demonstrating contradictions between the CDA's claim that fluoridated water is safe & the CDA's guidelines for daily fluoride exposure limits from toothpaste, mouth rinses, oral supplements to protect against children developing dental fluorosis . The second icon link is the exact same document without any highlights confirming that the highlighted document has not been changed in any way. In the first pages, fluoridating water is endorsed as a safe way of reducing tooth decay. NOTE: Fluoridating water = chemically raising the fluoride levels in a population’s water to 0.7 ppm = 0.7 mg/l = .23mg in a regular glass of water (333ml) = a pea size amount of toothpaste Then on pages 3 and 4, guidelines to minimize exposure to fluoride from fluoridated toothpaste, mouthwash & oral supplements are incongruous with the idea that it is safe to increase everyone's, and especially children's, overall daily dose of fluoride through fluoridating water. The dosage .05 - .07 mg fluoride / kg / day is provided as a blood level of fluoride from all sources that the CDA states must not be exceeded to protect against the development of dental fluorosis . When you do the math, the following are examples of children and people whose fluoride levels would exceed the CDA’s daily limits if the water they drink & prepare food with is fluoridated to .7ppm = .7 mg/l = .23mg in a regular glass of water. Formula fed babies whose formula is mixed with fluoridated water. Children who regularly consume industrially grown & especially processed foods & drinks that now contain significant levels of fluoride due to: The common use of fluoride based pesticides that has been increasing since the '70s. The processing of foods & drinks with fluoridated water that has been increasing since the '80s. The common use of phosphate fertilizer that has increased since the '70s. Boxed cereals processed in fluoridated regions, mechanically deboned chicken, tea, especially bottled ice tea and white grape juice are examples of foods that published analysis have shown to contain 6 to 9 times the amount of fluoride found in fluoridated water. NOTE: The Canadian & American dental associations' guidelines for prescribing oral fluoride supplements is even more contradictory as it stipulates that babies 6 months & younger cannot be given any amount of fluoride & children between 6 months & 3 years of age can be given no more than 0.25 mg of a fluoride supplement per day . This level of fluoride is far below what children, especially formula fed babies, receive when their water is fluoridated to 0.7 ppm = .7 mg/l = .23mg per regular glass of water (333 ml) . Fluoride supplement prescription guidelines also emphasize that fluoride supplements are only for children living in un-fluoridated regions with naturally low levels of fluoride. Dentists must also assess the child's overall exposure to fluoride from toothpastes, foods & drinks before prescribing fluoride supplements to ensure that their prescription does not lead fluoride over exposure and, like school fluoride rinse programs, parents have a choice & the right to consent. None of these considerations are taken into account when dental and medical associations promote water fluoridation policies. CDA Official Web Documents with Highlighted Sections Same CDA Official Web Documents Without Highlights

MINERAL OR DRUG? For a list of references cited in these videos please Click here As demonstrated in the videos and supporting sources (see icon links), when a dental or public health association claim that adding a fluoridation chemical to public water is simply adding a natural mineral they are engaging in inaccurate and misleading rhetoric. FURTHER ELABORATION Even if the fluoride ion could be considered a mineral, that would not mean that it is necessarily beneficial for the body. Most minerals are not nutrients. (see Minerals By Name ). In fact many naturally occurring minerals like lead and mercury are considered toxic at all doses. It is true that in nature the fluoride ion is often part of the non-nutrient mineral Calcium Fluoride , a substance that is highly stable, safe to hold, practically insoluble and hardly digestible due to the very strong bond between fluoride and calcium. But when the dilution of a man-made fluoridation chemical or geological activity leads to dissociated fluoride ions in water ready to bond with an atom or molecule, such fluoride ions are not minerals. From a non-nutrient mineralogy perspective, dissociated fluoride ions in water could be described as trace non-nutrient mineral elements, but it is more precise to simply describe them as the ionic or salt form of the basic element (atom) fluorine which is the most reactive atom (element) in the periodic table which means that fluorine / fluoride is capable of chemically bonding with the greatest number of other atoms. ( Ref 1 , Ref 2 ) The incredible reactivity of fluorine / fluoride is why so many biochemists, chemists, toxicologists, pharmacologists, physiologists, physicians and even dentists describe it as an enzyme disruptor capable of chronic adverse affects to the developing brain, thyroid gland, stomach, connective tissues, bones and kidneys. Definition of a drug The FDA: Is Fluoride a Drug Definition: Chronic Toxicity Natural Calcium Fluoride & Man-Made Industrial Fluoride It’s hard to say with absolute certainty why the public health associations in the US, Canada and five other developed nations continue to ignore and dismiss all the published research including the most respected systematic reviews conducted on water fluoridation whenever, such research even slightly disagrees with their policies. Here’s what we can say: Many of these dental & public health agencies made mistakes in the past when, for decades, they ignored and dismissed published research demonstrating the chronic toxicity of tobacco, lead, mercury, asbestos and other substances. As for water fluoridation, the public health agencies that continue to promote this practice consistently dismiss and ignore any data that disagrees with their policies including the fact that even without any fluoride added to drinking water, most people are already ingesting more fluoride on a daily basis than these agencies deem safe due to: The amounts of fluoride in conventionally grown and especially processed foods and drinks due to: The widespread use of phosphate fertilizer since the '70s The widespread use of fluoride-based pesticide since the '70s The processing of foods and drinks with fluoridated water since the '80s And the widespread availability of fluoridated toothpastes, mouthwashes, dental gels, foams, varnishes, and oral fluoride supplements. Until the 1970s, none of these other sources of fluoride were widely available. Educated critics of water fluoridation point out that due to the widespread use of fluoride pesticides, the processing of foods and drinks with fluoridated water, and the use of fluoridated toothpastes, even without fluoride added to water, many children are already receiving too much fluoride when all sources of fluoride are taken into consideration . If you’ve read this far , and are taking the time to verify the validity and credibility of the data presented in this website, you may be starting to understand why the majority of developed nations do not fluoridate water and why, since the year 2000, over 350 municipal regions in North America have chosen to disagree with their public health services and stopped fluoridating the water their citizens rely on for drinking, cooking and bathing .

THE NEW SCIENCE SHOWS FLUORIDE IS NOT SAFE There are strong Canadian connections with most of the following studies. Christine Till, who was the lead author of both the Green and Till studies, teaches at York University; Bruce Lanphear (co-author of the Green and Till studies), an American citizen who teaches at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver; and Howard Hu, the lead author of the Bashash studies, who did his research at the University of Toronto for many years. November 2024 - Community Water Fluoridation a Cost–Benefit–Risk Consideration : The authors compared the economic value of dental caries averted by community water fluoridation to the costs of treating the harms of fluoridation. They determined that fluoridation is not cost-effective when the cost of harm (the cost of treating cosmetic dental fluorosis and lower wages due to developmental neurotoxicity) is included. They concluded that all streams of evidence should be considered for policy evaluation, including: lack of individual choice, risks, desired dosage, total exposure, jurisdiction, research quality, environmental justice, ethics, alternatives, and lack of a cost–benefit. October 2024 - Does adding fluoride to water supplies prevent tooth decay?: Researchers from the international Cochrane Network reviewed the scientific literature to evaluate the effects of initiation or cessation of community water fluoridation (CWF) on dental caries and they concluded that CWF may lead to a slightly greater reduction in decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) and a slightly greater increase in the proportion of caries‐free children, but with smaller effect sizes than pre‐1975 studies. They found insufficient evidence to determine the effect of cessation of CWF on caries and whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries according to socioeconomic status. July 2024: PKC-θ is an important driver of fluoride-induced immune imbalance of regulatory T cells/effector T cells – This Chinese study explored the mechanism of fluoride interference in the immune system and the key indicators of fluoride-induced immune damage. It represents the first evidence suggesting that Protein Kinase C-θ (PKC-θ) may be the key to immune imbalance in the body under fluoride exposure. May 2024: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months – This study published in JAMA Network Open found that prenatal fluoride exposure may increase the risk of neurobehavioral problems among children living in an optimally fluoridated area in the United States. A 0.68 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy was associated with nearly double the odds of borderline clinical or clinical neurobehavioral problems. February 2024: Grandjean, Hu, Till et al . Dose dependence of prenatal fluoride exposure associations with cognitive performance at school age in three prospective studies - This study merged data from a prospective Odense Child Cohort (OCC) with results from two previous birth cohort studies from Mexico and Canada to characterize fluoride’s dose-effect relationship, and found a statistically significant association between urine-fluoride and IQ. The study concluded that pregnant women and children may need protection against fluoride toxicity. January, 2024, The LOTUS Study – With 6.4 million study subjects, this is the largest fluoride study ever conducted . Its aim was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation for adults and adolescents. Over 10 years, people receiving optimally fluoridated water experienced only a 2% reduction in the number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth, compared to those whose water was not fluoridated. The study found NO meaningful benefit to water fluoridation , nor any compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. [ WATCH VIDEO -1:37 minutes ] January 2024: Fluoride exposure and thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy – This is the first study to investigate sex differences in the association between fluoride exposure and maternal thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy. It found that 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride was associated with a 35% increase in thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) among women pregnant with girls . Urinary fluoride concentration is an objective biomarker of short-term fluoride exposure. It allows for more precise estimates of fluoride intake from multiple sources. *The MIREC Study, which started in 2007, is an ongoing study to examine the effects of prenatal exposure to environmental chemicals on the health of pregnant women and their infants. November 2023: Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water – This Canadian study identifies both dental fluorosis and reduction in children's IQ scores as key endpoints for establishing a health-based value (HBV) for fluoride in drinking water. The authors state that neurodevelopmental cognitive effects may warrant special consideration in determining HBV. They suggest a “point of departure” of 1.56 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water for establishing a reference dose and public health safety guidelines, based only on the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) for moderate and severe dental fluorosis. They do not address the potential impact on IQ scores. September, 2023 – A study by University of Calgary researchers found “poorer inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility” in preschool children whose mothers were pregnant during times when the water was fluoridated in Calgary, Canada. The authors said their tests measured “executive function deficits [that have been] consistently associated with behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and specific learning disorders” . Executive dysfunction disrupts the ability to manage thoughts, emotions, and actions, including the ability to pay attention, solve problems, listen, and multitask. June 2023: Expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water – Health Canada engaged six experts to consider scientific evidence on fluoride exposure, dental fluorosis, and potential effects on neurocognitive development in children. They were also tasked with providing scientific recommendations for Health Canada to consider in deriving a health-based value for fluoride in drinking water. A supporting statement in the summary report notes that several studies have raised concerns regarding the potential neurocognitive effects of fluoride at community exposure levels and that some of these studies suggest adverse effects at lower exposure levels than those that cause dental fluorosis. The experts stated that the science concerning neurocognitive effects and fluoride is rapidly evolving, and consideration should be given to new studies as they become available. Till et al., April 2023 – Professor Christine Till and PhD student Meaghan Hall found an association between fluoride exposure from tap water and hypothyroidism in pregnancy. They say this latest study may explain an earlier study looking at maternal fluoride exposure in pregnancy and lower IQ in boys. “The findings are concerning because hypothyroidism is a known cause of brain-based disorders in children,” says Till. Hall and Till say they hope that policy makers will consider this new research when evaluating the safety of community water fluoridation November 2022 – Evaluation of water fluoridation in Cumbria UK: the CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study : The aim of the CATFISH (Cumbrian Assessment of Teeth a Fluoride Intervention Study for Health) study was to address the question of whether or not the addition of fluoride to community drinking water, in a contemporary population, led to a reduction in the number of children with caries and, if so, is this reduction cost-effective. It concluded that the prevalence of caries and the impact of water fluoridation was much smaller than previous studies have reported. June, 2021 – Well-designed prospective cohort studies funded by both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the USA as well as Health Canada, have shown a loss of IQ and increased symptoms of ADHD in offspring when pregnant women are exposed to fluoride at doses commonly experienced in fluoridated communities in Canada (Bashash, 2017, 2018 and Green, 2019). The consequences are shocking! According to Dr. Philippe Grandjean, from Harvard University, “Fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury” , as detailed in this risk analysis . February, 2021 – Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample: This study examined associations between fluoride exposure and sleep outcomes among older adolescents and adults in Canada. It found that fluoride exposure may contribute to sleeping less than the recommended duration. Fluoride from dietary and environmental sources may concentrate in calcium-containing regions of the body such as the pineal gland. The pineal gland synthesizes melatonin, a hormone that regulates the sleep-wake cycle. Till et al., 2020 have shown a large reduction in IQ when children were bottle-fed as babies in communities which were fluoridated, compared with babies who were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. According to Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., former Director of the U.S. NIEHS (2009-2019) and two leading public health researchers (Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, and Christine Till, PhD) who authored two key fluoride-IQ studies (Green, 2019 and Till, 2020), ingestion of fluoride during pregnancy confers no dental benefit to the fetus, so this is a situation where risks are being taken for no proven benefit ( see their editorial published in Environmental Health News, Oct 7 2020 ). An important well-conducted study from Sweden has shown an increased prevalence of hip fracture in post-menopausal women associated with long term exposure to natural fluoride at levels in water in the same range as Canada fluoridates its water [ Helte et. al., 2021 ] . This is very serious because, as you probably know, hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence and often shortens the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health over a whole lifetime of exposure. OTHER WELL-RESPECTED SCIENCE These icons will reveal the following scientific studies from the years 2000 and 2015: A letter from the chair of the advisory panel for the year 2000 British York Review followed by the complete review which at the time was considered the most rigorous and respected scientific review on the effects of water fluoridation. A summary of the year 2015 Cochrane review on the effects of water fluoridation. NOTE: The Cochrane Review, the 2000 York Review, and the 2006 US National Academies of Sciences National Research Council's 3.5 year review are the only independent systematic reviews ever done on the scientific research looking at the effects of fluoride in drinking water. This makes these reviews the most rigorous & least biased. Further descriptions about systematic reviews are offered on the Making Sense of the Science page. Chair of Advisory Panel for York Review Summary Cochrane Review (2015) Making Sense of the Science From 2015 to current: Brenda Staudenmaier is a Plaintiff in the US lawsuit against water fluoridation and maintains on her website fluoridelawsuit.com a “sampling” of the scientific studies and reports relevant to water fluoridation published since the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) 2015 recommendation to lower the fluoridation target to 0.7 ppm. fluoridelawsuit.com

FLUORIDE IN PROCESSED FOOD & DRINK THREE MAIN REASONS Conventionally Grown and Especially Processed Food & Drink Now Contain so much Fluoride Fluoride based pesticides such as Cryolite (Sodium hexafluoroaluminate) and fumigation products such as sulfuryl fluoride are commonly used in industrial farming. The more the fruit, vegetable, grain, dried fruit, seed or nut are sprayed with fluoride pesticides and/or fumigation products, the more the food will contain fluoride ions which cannot be washed off and will enter your body when you eat these foods or anything made with these foods. The processing of foods, drinks, soups etc. with fluoridated water in fluoridated regions such as Ontario, Alberta and many US states results in these items containing significant amounts of fluoride. The levels of fluoride in these products vary depending on a number of factors such as how much fluoridated water is used, the degree to which the volume of the product is diminished from cooking, dehydration etc., the amount of fluoride the foods originally contained from any treatment with fluoride pesticides and/or if they were grown in phosphate fertilizer. The widespread use of phosphate fertilizer is another way fluoride levels have increased in conventionally grown foods. Compared to traditional and modern organic soils, phosphate fertilizer, which is made from phosphate rock, contains much higher levels of fluoride which can be absorbed into the foods growing in this fertilizer. Unlike pesticides and fumigation products which are sprayed directly on the foods, absorption of fluoride from phosphate fertilizer varies depending on the plant. p. 37: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bxn3S08EN6OiVEtlQjlFQ1Niemc Tea plants, for example, are known for absorbing the highest amounts of fluoride from their soil. Tea plants deposit the absorbed fluoride in their leaves which is why teas are exceptionally high in fluoride. A cup of your average black tea will contain up to 5-times the amount of fluoride found in fluoridated water. The older the tea leaf, the higher the amount of fluoride, which is why bottled Ice Teas commonly contain up to 9-times the amount fluoride found in fluoridated water. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bxn3S08EN6OicmRobWt5VDlZZ28 [Page3] & http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jws/jsfa/2003/00000083/00000013/art00012 As demonstrated in the section Inconsistencies and Contradictions , US & CND dental and public health associations acknowledge these other sources of fluoride when providing guidelines for safe daily fluoride exposure from toothpaste, mouthwash, prescription fluoride supplements , and baby formula which all result in lower daily fluoride exposure than fluoridated water. USDA (US Dept. of Agriculture) Published Research: Foods with High Levels of Fluoride Published Data: Children Overexposed: Unfluoridated Regions Managing Exposure Definition: Chronic Toxicity

THEM VERSUS US CALGARY WATER FLUORIDATION — THE ISSUE THAT JUST WON'T GO AWAY November 10, 2023 MEDIA BIAS IN CALGARY We're not taking this lying down! READ MORE... AHS ENDORSES WATER FLUORIDATION IN CALGARY October 13, 2021 CALGARY (CityNews) — Alberta Health Services (AHS) is picking a side when it comes to water fluoridation in the city. The question will be on municipal ballots come Monday, and in a release, AHS says to vote yes. Dr. Rafael Figueiredo, the Provincial Dental Public Health Officer and Dr. Nick Etches, the Acting Zone Lead Medical Officer of Health for the Calgary Zone put out a release indicating AHS’ support. “AHS endorses community water fluoridation as a foundational public health measure to prevent tooth decay, improve oral health and reduce inequities within communities”, AHS said. AHS also points to data collected since 2011, when Calgary stopped water fluoridation for the first time since 1991. Looking at data from Edmonton, where fluoridation continued, compared to that of Calgary, more cavities were found in the baby teeth of children in Calgary within three years, confirming that stopping the fluoridation of water has had a negative impact on children’s dental health. Dr. Bruce Yaholnitsky is the former president of the Alberta Dental Association and College (ADA&C) and a practising periodontist, he says the evidence is clear; water fluoridation will help protect Calgarians. “Studies have shown that it decreases the rate of tooth decay by up to 25 per cent in children and in adults,” Yaholnitsky said. “Comparing just Edmonton and Calgary, you can see there is a significant difference in the decay rate”. Calgarians should know that there is already some fluoride in our water supply at levels of 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million (ppm). Health Canada recommends an optimal level of fluoride at 0.7 ppm, which is what the city will do should enough people vote for it. According to the ADA&C, that 0.7 ppm figure takes into account fluoride that people get from other sources like toothpaste or mouthwash. Over 90 professional health organizations including Health Canada, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the World Health Organization all recommend water fluoridation because it is scientifically proven to strengthen tooth enamel, prevent tooth decay, and generally make teeth healthier. Aside from health benefits, AHS and the ADA&C also say fluoridation comes with social and economic benefits. AHS says water fluoridation will help protect the most vulnerable because tap water is accessible to 100 per cent of people connected to the municipal water supply, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, education, income, race or ethnicity. Cost-wise, Yaholnitsky says it’s relatively cheap when you think about how much the city would be spending per person. “Thirty-million dollars over 20 years, $10 million initially, then about $1 million a year,” Yaholnitsky said. “If you take that $1 million a year, into our population of 1.6 million people, it’s between 60 and 70 cents per person, per year. You can’t get a coffee for that.” Both AHS and the ADA&C agree that there is no evidence to say water fluoridation will cause any harmful side-effects, it’s environmentally friendly, and implementing it would mean communities that receive city water, including Strathmore, Chestermere, parts of the Tsuut’ina Nation, Airdrie and Spruce Meadows would gain the health benefits as well. RELATED: Calgarians largely in favour of adding fluoride back into water: poll AHS launches public education campaign on fluoride benefits LETHBRIDGE FLUORIDATION FORUM - 2013: FLUORIDATION HEALTH SCIENCE AND LOCAL POLITICS RED DEER, ALBERTA - 2019: HOW THE PUBLIC IS MISLED AND MISINFORMED Dr. Bob Dickson, together with Dr. James Beck had an incident in Red Deer (the first Alberta city fluoridated, since 1959!). They had two sessions with City Council, morning and afternoon, and the pro-fluoride mayor set it up so they spoke first and Dr. Horne, the Minister of Health from Edmonton, spoke last in each session. In his morning session, Dr. Horne stated that Dr. Dickson and Dr. Beck were misrepresenting the Harvard metanalysis and that the the drop in IQ was only 0.4 points, so nothing to worry about...wouldn’t ever notice this in an individual or population. At the lunch break, Dr. Dickson printed off the study, highlighted the appropriate sections in yellow, and presented to Dr. Horne that the standard deviation was 0.4 and that equated to an average IQ loss of 6.9 points! He thanked him and, when asked if he was going to correct his error in the afternoon session where he again presented last, he said he would consider it. Dr. Dickson and Dr. Beck were naïve enough to believe him and had their presentation full, so they didn’t bring up his “mistake”...and neither did he! They lost that vote resoundingly in Council as the Council thought that THEY were lying and misleading them! Unfortunately , no recordings were done, and no documented proof. So sad! ALBERTA VIEWS DIALOGUE - 2021: SHOULD WE FLUORIDATE OUR WATER The Alberta Views magazine published a very fair article on fluoridation featuring Dr. Richard Musto , a public health and preventive medicine physician and clinical professor at the University of Calgary and Dr. Bob Dickson , medical doctor holding a Fellowship in the College of Family Physicians and founder of Safe Water Calgary. Each were given an opportunity to submit their position and then to rebut the other. The following makes interesting reading. DR. RICHARD MUSTO – SUBMISSION Community water fluoridation (CWF) is an essential and key element of efforts a community can make to improve the health of all its members. By adjusting the naturally occurring level of fluoride in its water supply to the recommended point, a community contributes an effective, safe and cost-saving method of reducing tooth decay in all ages, especially children. Tooth decay is common in Canada, affecting nearly 60 per cent of children and virtually all adults. Fluoride works to prevent tooth decay by strengthening the enamel coating of teeth, both by making it more resistant to the effect of acids produced by bacteria and by assisting with repair. This effect is complemented by other topical fluoride sources such as toothpaste, varnishes or other professionally applied therapies. Because CWF is available regularly through the day (with every drink of water) it doesn’t require any special action. In communities with fluoridated water, people have fewer cavities in baby and adult teeth alike and better oral health. CWF is one of several ways to prevent tooth decay and maintain good oral health and is the most cost-effective one. Others include eating healthy foods, avoiding lots of high-sugar beverages, regular brushing and flossing and going to the dentist for routine checkups and preventive care. CWF is particularly valuable for people who face challenges in accessing dental care and other preventive measures. It’s safe. CWF has been practised in Canada for 76 years, over which time the best scientific evidence shows no increase in any systemic health condition caused by fluoride. Scientific research simply doesn’t support claims of adverse health effects. The only potential adverse effect that may occur is dental fluorosis, a discoloration of tooth enamel ranging from barely visible whitish flecking of the enamel in mild cases to pitting in a rare, severe form. People with mild fluorosis are generally unaware of the condition because it’s barely noticeable to the untrained eye and doesn’t affect tooth function. CWF is highly cost-effective, saving people from missing work (to care for themselves or their children) and paying for dental treatment, as well as for insurance plans and provincial healthcare systems. For municipalities that bear the cost of implementation and maintenance, the practice must be recognized as a meaningful contribution to a healthier populace, alongside road safety, pathways for walking and cycling, and green spaces for everyone’s enjoyment. Albertans are facing huge challenges as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and seek how best to transition our economy. We have a tradition of pulling together and looking after one another in tough times. Community water fluoridation is an effective, safe and money-saving action we should support being implemented in our municipalities for the health of us all. DR. BOB DICKSON – SUBMISSION Is fluoride safe? No. The strongest scientific evidence is neurotoxicity—brain damage. Over 70 studies, several funded by the National Institutes of Health, found common fluoride levels can increase ADHD rates and lower IQ in children. The editor of JAMA Pediatrics, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, concluded “I would not want my wife to drink fluoridated water” if she were pregnant. The science is so robust that it’s the focus of an historic lawsuit in US federal court against the Environmental Protection Agency for allowing fluoridation. The judge stated “there is serious evidence” of fluoridation’s neurotoxicity. But it’s not just brain damage. The National Research Council’s “Fluoride in Drinking Water” is considered the most comprehensive review on fluoride’s toxicity. NRC concluded that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, increasing risk of dental fluorosis, hypothyroidism, diabetes, kidney disease and other diseases. NRC’s identification of the known risks and need for further research emphatically contradicts proponents’ insistence that fluoridation has been proven safe. Is fluoride effective? Minimally, if at all. Globally, there’s little correlation between fluoridation and cavities. Income is the major factor linked to dental health. Proponents cite a 25 per cent cavity reduction, but peer-reviewed science shows this amounts to less than one cavity per child. And World Health Organization data shows fluoridated nations have similar cavity rates as non-fluoridated ones. Dr. Lindsay McLaren’s highly publicized 2016 study in Calgary found cavity rates rose after council voted to stop fluoridating in 2011. But a follow-up study showed cavity rates increased just as much before 2011 as after. Stopping fluoridation made no difference. Is fluoridation cost-effective? In fact, it’s challenging to find a less efficient use of taxpayer money. Some 99 per cent of fluoride (toxic hydrofluosilicic acid waste from the fertilizer industry) added to water isn’t ingested, instead going down the drain with toilets, showers, lawns and industrial use. A report in Calgary estimated the cost of the infrastructure, chemicals and operations totalling over $30-million for 20 years. Proponents tout studies showing that every $1 a municipality spends on fluoridation saves individuals $30 on dental bills. This figure is dubious, and none of these studies consider costs from fluoridation’s health risks, which can be huge. Every one-point decrease in IQ equates to over $20,000 less in lifetime earnings. Dozens of scientific studies show fluoridation corresponds to an average IQ loss of 3–9 points. Most tragic is the impairment of kids’ potential. We can get fluoride in toothpaste, mouthwash, gels and rinses. Nobody should be forced to ingest a drug they don’t want, especially through their drinking water. Once water is fluoridated, the only alternatives are expensive filters or bottled water. This is especially unjust for low-income populations. We must say no to this obsolete and harmful practice. DR. RICHARD MUSTO – REBUTAL OF DR. DICKSON It will be abundantly clear to the reader that Dr. Dickson and I are representing the scientific literature very differently, so I’ll begin my response with a short commentary on this. Research on a community-level intervention such as water fluoridation (CWF) examines the impacts upon the whole population as well as subgroups, including, for example, children. To assist with the assessment of research studies and their potential relevance to public policy decisions, criteria and techniques have been developed and ideally are applied to all available reports. In this way guidance can be based on the collective evidence rather than isolated studies. Such criteria help dispense with the question Dr. Dickson once asked me—Why is “your” science always good and “ours” is bad? The answer is that neither “side” can claim to always have “good science.” Rather, the limitations in most studies need to be recognized, and proponents of a position must avoid seizing upon any single study that suits them. Decisions should be based on careful and comprehensive review of the research. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) was created in 1989 to independently conduct such reviews, and it has done several on CWF. In the US the National Research Council, although not created for this specific purpose, does conduct detailed reviews, including the one in 2006 referred to by Dr. Dickson. This review, however, was focused on potential adverse effects of fluoride concentrations at 2 to 4 mg/L, which is three to six times higher than the 0.7 mg/L fluoride concentration standard for CWF in Canada. The NRC review pointed out that their conclusions (including that the maximum permissible level—4 mg/L—should be lowered to protect against severe dental fluorosis and some possible effects on bone) “do not address the lower exposures commonly experienced by most US citizens.” In other words, the review highlighted by Dr. Dickson is not about the fluoride concentration used in CWF. In any case, a subsequent review by the US Food and Drug Administration, which agency is responsible for setting the guidelines, determined that any change to the level was of low priority or represented negligible benefit, and so it remains the same today. CADTH, the Canadian agency, assessed CWF in 2019 and published several reports (available at https://bit.ly/3E6cLBh). These found: Consistent scientific evidence that CWF at current Canadian levels (0.7 mg/L) is associated with fewer dental caries (i.e., cavities) in children and adults alike; Dental fluorosis increases with the level of fluoride exposure. In Canada, 12 per cent of children in areas with controlled water fluoridation experience fluorosis at a level termed “aesthetic concern”; it is generally not noticeable to the naked or untrained eye and does not affect tooth function; For 22 non-dental health conditions examined in this review, consistent evidence showed either no association with CWF or a mixture of limited evidence of no association and insufficient evidence to determine an association. In other words, dental fluorosis is the only side effect associated with fluoride at the concentration with CWF; Insufficient evidence (only a few studies that showed mixed results) to determine the impact of CWF discontinuation on caries in children; CWF is ethically justified because of its health benefits, safety and equitable approach; From a societal perspective, and considering costs incurred by different levels of government, municipalities, private insurance and out-of-pocket costs for individuals, it costs a municipality less to introduce CWF than it does to not fluoridate (with the costs of implementation generally recovered within the first year). Similarly, it is more costly for a municipality to cease CWF than to maintain it, even if the current system requires upgrades. Following publication of the JAMA Pediatrics article referred to by Dr. Dickson, CADTH did a rapid review of the evidence on any potential association between fluoride exposure and neurological development in children. Its assessment was that, because of the studies’ multiple limitations, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to fluoride at Canada’s CWF levels affects neurological development in children and adolescents. The science around CWF will continue to evolve and it remains important for us to thoughtfully assess new reports and communicate the findings accurately and in a manner that is relevant to our local context. In the meantime, we as a community are faced with a rising rate of dental caries and the pain, disruption and costs that come with them. Community water fluoridation makes a safe, effective and cost-saving contribution to our health and quality of life, which, along with the individual actions we can each take, can be uniquely available to every citizen simply by turning on the tap. DR. BOB DICKSON – REBUTAL OF DR. MUSTO I’ve known Dr. Musto for many years, and I respect his career and accomplishments. However, I’m afraid he hasn’t kept up on the most important recent studies, many conducted by Canadian scientists. As a Calgary physician who’s been studying the effects of fluoridation for decades, I have no doubt that the practice is obsolete and causes serious risks to human health. Fluoridation violates one of the most sacred tenets of medicine—that no one should be forced to ingest a drug through drinking water, taking away their right of informed consent. No wonder it’s been rejected by 95 per cent of the world’s people. Some 97 per cent of Europeans drink unfluoridated water, and many countries, including Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands, have banned fluoridation. Many cite the fact that putting a drug in drinking water is unethical, taking away people’s right to choose whether they want to ingest fluoride or not. Dr. Musto claims “Scientific research simply doesn’t support claims of adverse health effects.” The facts say just the opposite. The chemical used to fluoridate most water is fluorosilicic acid, a hazardous waste by-product from the phosphate fertilizer industry often tainted with lead and arsenic. Although the amounts included are legal, it’s widely acknowledged that there is no safe level of lead and arsenic. The Fluoride Action Network (fluoridealert.org) thoroughly reviewed the 77 studies that have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence. Of these, 69 link elevated fluoride exposure with reduced IQs. The US National Toxicology Program documented studies of fluoride’s neurotoxicity (brain damage), finding overwhelming evidence linking fluoride to IQ loss in children, including from pregnant women consuming fluoride or infants being fed formula mixed with fluoridated water. Their numbers tell the story: 25 of 27 of the highest-quality studies linked higher fluoride levels to lower IQs 11 of 11 studies detected this IQ loss at levels found in fluoridated water! How can anyone look at this data and conclude that fluoridation is safe? But it’s more than the sheer number of studies—it’s their quality. Fluoridation promoters rarely mention the historic lawsuit in US federal court against the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for allowing fluoridation. The EPA admitted in court that the four strongest neurotoxicity studies ever conducted all showed substantial IQ loss from fluoride or increase in ADHD rates—all at levels in fluoridated water. Following the June 2020 trial, the case is moving forward. The judge should rule in the next 6–12 months whether fluoridation is an unreasonable risk to human health. Nobody can say which way he’ll rule, but he’s already said the EPA should “take a second look.” This case may very well mark the final chapter of fluoridation. Three of the four studies cited in the trial were sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health, which only funds the most methodologically rigorous investigations. One was co-authored by scientists Dr. Christine Till from York University and Dr. Bruce Lanphear from Simon Fraser University, and published by the American Medical Association’s prestigious journal JAMA Pediatrics. Of the over 170 research studies accepted by JAMA Pediatrics in 2019, it ranked #1 on the Altmetric scale of quality and media interest. Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of both the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, asserted in a 2020 article in Environmental Health News co-authored by Drs. Till and Lanphear that “New evidence questions existing policies about the safety of fluoride for babies’ developing brains. Given that safe alternatives are available and that there is no benefit of fluoride to babies’ teeth before they erupt or appear, it is time to protect those who are most vulnerable.” Regarding effectiveness, Dr. Musto claimed that “In communities with fluoridated water, people have fewer cavities in baby and adult teeth alike and better oral health.” This simply isn’t supported by the data. The Cochrane network, a group of thousands of scientists worldwide, is considered the gold standard for evaluating effectiveness of medical interventions. It couldn’t find any evidence of fluoridation’s effectiveness in adults and said there was insufficient evidence that the practice helps narrow the cavity gap between lower- and higher-income families (see https://bit.ly/3xcoJ7V). As mentioned, World Health Organization statistics show that fluoridated nations have essentially the same cavity rates as unfluoridated ones. Even fluoridation promoters acknowledge that fluoride’s main preventive action is topical, not from swallowing. Fluoridation isn’t fair to anyone, but it’s especially unjust for low-income families who can’t afford expensive filter systems or bottled water to avoid it. They must put themselves in harm’s way—they have no choice. This isn’t right. As a doctor, I subscribe to our physician’s creed: First do no harm. I ask Dr. Musto to do the same.

REGULAR TOOTHPASTE 5 minute video: Dentist Bill Osmunson Promoted fluoridation for 25 years until he studied the research. What to Swallow? Select to view larger image

ABOUT US OUR MISSION OUR VISION Safe Water Calgary is dedicated to working with city officials and qualified experts to ensure that our water is the safest possible given our available resources. Our goal is to provide the most relevant, verifiable, and least biased data on the long term effects of fluoride. FOUNDER – SAFE WATER CALGARY Dr. Bob Dickson , Founder of Safe Water Calgary is interviewed on his involvement in Human Rights Various individuals and groups on occasion attempt to influence City Council to re-introduce fluoridation chemicals to Calgary's water system. Note: Airdrie, Chestermere, and Strathmore residents receive their water from Calgary. Calgarians will be voting via plebiscite, in the upcoming civic elections on October 18, 2021 , on whether to medicate their neighbours. The Calgary water system WILL BE refluoridated UNLESS WE RALLY SUPPORT ! TAKE ACTION Safe Water Calgary has created an informational flyer to educate its citizens. Dr. Bob Dickson in the Media Featuring SWC founder Dr. Dickson The Truth About Water Fluoridation March 19, 2021 / Calgary, AB VIdeo Interview https://youtu.be/0TMBGUXmsA8 Interview by Malcom Saunders. For more visit Light Cellar Superfood, Elixir, Ferment, and Craft Chocolate shop Featuring SWC founder Dr. Dickson The Dark Side of Fluoride with Dr. Bob 2020 / Calgary, AB Podcast https://soundcloud.com/nomorelonelypeople/37-the-dark-side-of-fluoride-with-dr-bob Interview by Jade Stevens. For more visit https://www.jadestevens.net/ Featuring SWC founder Dr. Dickson Fluoride Debate Back in Calgary December 3, 2020 Podcast Fluoride debate back in Calgary (castbox.fm) Interview by Danielle Smith. For more visit Danielle Smith (castbox.fm) The following documents our struggles in 2019 #WhatTheFluoride Calgary! - PART 3 - Nov 18, 2019 AMA Ignores Request to Consider New Science Regarding Fluoride IMPORTANT NEW SCIENCE: Why the Alberta Medical Association Should Not Ignore Anti-fluoride Research