On October 5, 2010 I emailed all of the 2010 Windsor Candidates (save one who did not have

an email address posted) three questions about water fluoridation.

I asked what they understood about the topic, hoping to learn that our policy makers were
informed about this important issue. I asked if they were aware of water fluoridation debates
taking place in other cities and I asked them if they’d be willing to use their position on council
to bring the topic up for public debate or vote.

Fluoride is the only chemical added to our water that isn’t for cleaning or conditioning the
water. It is added as a medication for our teeth. The history of how this practice began and
how it spread across North America raises questions about the validity of water fluoridation.
These facts are well researched and documented in the book called Fluoride Deception by
Christopher Bryson. A short recap by the author can viewed here.
Health Canada identifies some of the uses of fluorides in addition to fluoridating the water
supply: “Fluorine is used in aluminum, steel, glass, enamel, brick, tile, pottery and cement
manufacturing; fluorinated chemical and phosphate fertilizer production; and metal casting,
welding and brazing. Sodium fluoride (NaF) is used in various pesticide formulations,
including insecticides and wood preservatives.”

In trying to understand the modern argument for water fluoridation I decided to look at the
information provided by the main organizations behind this practice – the dental associations.
The Ontario Dental Association website states that the ODA supports water fluoridation
because “The cost of adding fluoride to regional drinking water is minimal when compared to
the large costs of restorative dental surgery for children living in regions without fluoridation.”
This is referenced to a study done in 2001 about the economic evaluation of community water
fluoridation. An economical evaluation, but not a health benefit evaluation – indeed it seems
in terms of money expense adding fluoride to the water supply is cheap, after all, it is a toxic
industrial by-product that would require proper disposal if there were no ‘market’ for it. The
ODA website has useful information about water fluoridation in a document created in July
2009 called Community Water Fluoridation: Myths and Facts. Here we can learn that fluoride
used in water fluoridation is not the same pharmaceutical grade fluoride used in the dentist’s
office. Instead, the facts sheet tells us, hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride,
byproducts of the production of phosphate fertilizer, are the industrial grades of fluoride used
for fluoridation. Windsor’s Water Utilities Commission (which supplies water to Windsor,
Lasalle and Tecumseh) uses the liquid form called hydrofluorosilicic acid and requires a
special license to handle this toxic chemical. The ODA facts and myths sheet also informs us
that dental fluorosis is most often caused by the fluoride present in other things besides water –
like toothpaste. I’m unsure how they can attribute dental fluorosis to certain kinds of fluoride
exposure because “dental fluorosis is an irreversible condition caused by excessive ingestion of
fluoride during the tooth forming years. It is the first visible sign that a child has been
overexposed to fluoride.” It is interesting to see the ODA admitting that fluoride used in water
fluoridation is a toxic industrial by-product that can cause dental fluorosis and despite these
FACTS, the claim remains that because the water is only medicated with fluoride to a small
degree that it is safe. If we know fluoride can damage tooth cells how can we not logically
think that it would damage other cells when fluoride is ingested?
The Canadian Dental Association “recognizes the availability of fluoride from a variety of
sources and the increasing prevalence of dental fluorosis within communities. For this reason
CDA recommends: patients and parents of young children are encouraged to give attention to
their circumstances and to be aware of their own potential exposure to fluoride” How is one
supposed to do that? In order to ensure my children aren’t getting overexposed to fluoride the
CDA recommends I be aware of this exposure – am I to keep a journal of all the water they
drink? How about the juice made with tap water or the potatoes, pasta or rice I cook with
fluoridated water; can they get fluoride in their system through their skin when they sit in the
bath or play with the hose? And it isn’t just toothpaste and fluoridated water I need to be
aware of – the CDA mentions a variety of sources because fluoride is naturally occurring in
our environment (calcium fluoride, not the industrial by-product kind) and is also found in
baby formula, juice, soda pop, tea, wine, beer, mechanically deboned chicken, seafood, Teflon
pans and who knows what else – no wonder the CDA reports an “increasing prevalence of
dental fluorosis” – but I’m still confused as to how I’m supposed to be aware of our exposure
to prevent this disease – how do I monitor the amount of fluoride my family is being exposed
to when the only indication that exposure is too high is only after the body is toxic with
fluoride and dental fluorosis along with other negative health effects occurs? And this begs the
question: why is the municipal government able to medicate me and my family without
considering our individual needs? If a dentist were to determine we’d benefit from fluoride
supplements that would require a medical degree and a prescription! It seems to me the only
way I can be sure my children are not getting too much fluoride is to limit the amount of
fluoridated water they are exposed to. Unfortunately water filter systems (ones good enough to
remove the neuro-toxin fluoride) are very costly. It would be so much easier if the monthly
city water bill I paid meant I was delivered toxin free water through my tap.
I found this info from the Fluoride Alert website that confirms what the CDA says about
increasing cases of dental fluorosis – these studies indicate a higher increase in communities
with water fluoridation programs, which makes sense logically – put fluoride in the water and
you’ll have more people toxic with fluoride:
“"Current studies support the view that dental fluorosis has increased in both fluoridated
and non-fluoridated communities. North American studies suggest rates of 20 to 75% in
the former and 12 to 45% in the latter." - Locker, D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water
Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.”

It seems there is no argument as to fluoride being toxic and here we can see a fluoride health
effects database including damage to our teeth, bones, brain, kidneys and pineal gland. The
case for water fluoridation hinges on the claim that the benefits to our teeth are worth any other
risks that may occur and this is only the case if the fluoride is administered in small enough
doses – everyone agrees that too much fluoride is toxic and it seems the standard of ‘acceptable
levels’ has been modified over the years to reduce the amount of fluoride that is considered
safe. Odd how something that claims to be good for our teeth can also destroy them. And I
doubt the dental associations are much concerned about the other parts of our bodies that
fluoride effects because they are teeth doctors, not brain, kidney and bone doctors. And let’s
not forget these dental associations are the same organizations that ensure us that mercury and
bisphenol A are safe to use in our mouths.
And so, before we leave the professionals, let’s look at two more associations concerned about
our teeth: The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology holds a completely
different view of fluoride than the government dental agencies. “In IAOMT’s ongoing
examination of the toxicological data on fluoride, the Academy has made several preliminary
determinations over the last 18 years, each concluding that fluoride added to the public water
supply, or prescribed as controlled-dose supplements, delivers no discernible health benefit,
and causes a higher incidence of adverse health effects. The current policy position by IAOMT
confirms those earlier assessments and asserts that there is no discernible health benefit derived
from ingested fluoride and that the preponderance of evidence shows that ingested fluoride in
dosages now prevalent in public exposures aggravates existing illnesses, and causes a greater
incidence of adverse health effects. Ingested fluoride is hereby recognized as unsafe and
ineffective for the purposes of reducing tooth decay.” Here you can view Brantford ON council
being addressed by Dr. Ronald Scott, a member of the International Academy of Oral
Medicine and Toxicology, on the practice of water fluoridation.
Also, the Weston Price Foundation which continues the work of Weston Price, a renowned
Canadian dentist and researcher in the early 1900’s who founded the Research Institute of the
National Dental Association, has a plethora of research and information about water
fluoridation. Here is a link to a letter sent to Paul Martin Sr. in 1956, then the Canadian
Minister of Health from Russell Pogue of the American Nutrition Society urging the minister
to read Price’s research before starting the dangerous practice of medicating the country’s
water supply. It seems citizens have been speaking out against water fluoridation from the
beginning and it is a mystery how these independent dental associations can have such
staggering different views and findings regarding fluoride than the government dental
agencies.

Now – back to Windsor and my questions for the candidates. Following are the candidates’
unedited responses in order by ward, an asterisk indicates the incumbent and in red are my
comments. The three questions were: What is your understanding about water fluoridation; are
you familiar with any water fluoridation debates taking place in other municipalities; and
lastly, would you be willing to bring this issue up for discussion/debate amongst council
members or to citizens for a vote?

Mayoral Candidate Responses:

Anthony Brothers – no response
Eddie Francis * – no response
Micheal Mosgrove – no response
Sam Sinjari – no response
Robert Vinson – no response
Rick Limoges:
What is your stance or understanding about water fluoridation practices?
The vast majority, if not all, dentists are in support of flouridation. In Windsor, Enwin follows
flouridation guidelines set out by the Ontario Ministry of Environmnet, and the amount of
flouride in the water has been modified over the years in response to recommendations from
the Ontarion Dental Association. As the practice has already been established in Windsor with
the support of the provincial government, dentists and citizens, I support continuing what we
are doing.

Are you familiar with any current water fluoridation debates taking place in other
municipalities?
No.

Would you be willing to bring this issue up for discussion/debate amongst council
members or to the citizens for vote?
I believe that current flouridation practices are supported by the provincial government,
dentists and citizens, so further discussion is not required. Further discussion would be required
if the citizens ask for a review, or if new medical information is discovered that would affect
current practices or support.
While I appreciate Mr. Limoges for being the only mayoral candidate to respond I would like
to highlight that there is plenty of existing medical information available that seems to have
been ignored by governing agencies. The Waterloo Watch group website has several links to
current research and information that has not caught the attention of the government dental
associations – the only new medical info that could come out is the continued increase of
dental fluorosis prevalence and negative fluoride health effects. In answer to your comment
“further discussion would be required if the citizens ask for a review” I have started this online
petition, perhaps I’ll be able to get enough signatures to warrant our council’s attention.

Ward 1
Joel Bentley – no response
Drew Dilkens * - no response to this or other correspondence sent to council regarding water
fluoridation
Matt Ford – no response
Ward 2
John Elliott:
1. I believe I understand that tap water that is fluoridated is actually better than bottled
water. This i understand is healthy for you teeth long term.
2. No. The only water debates that I am familiar with were the WUC town hall meetings in
regards to water rates increasing.
3. Yes I would be willing to bring this issue to council. Also could you please forward me
some current information regarding water flouridation and or websites.

George Grant – no response

Ron Jones * - no response to this or other correspondence sent to council regarding water
fluoridation
Gary Langill – no response
Grant Martin – no response

Ward 3
Cameron Adamson – no response
Rino Bortolin – no response
Tirstan Fehrenbach – no response
Shan Hasan – no response
John Liedtke – no response
Don Merrifield – no response
Shannon Porcellini:
My mother was a strong advocate against dental fluoridation. I am aware of the debates
occurring in other municipalities and that some have opted out of fluoridating municipal tap
water. My husband and I distill our tap water for health reasons, and my children don't often
drink tap water at home (at restaurants - it's what's used to mix juices, so I'm out of luck there,
but I send them to school with distilled water). I've been on tours of the Bert Weeks Water
Treatment Centre and salute the work of the people there - they actually care about what we're
drinking. However, I have grave concerns about the quality of the water coming downriver
from Chemical Valley. It concerns me that heavy metals and some gases aren't removed from
the water. We've spent so much time looking at the air quality in our community, which is a
big concern, but I haven't heard anyone looking at our water. I'm also concerned about using
ozone as a treatment product. County-wide, I think we also need to look at what's leaching
into our groundwater & wells. There are wells located just outside the ESWA landfill site -
that service local farms as potable water. I think that's pretty scary. I'd like to see the
Walkerton Inquiry recommendations fully implemented. As far as fluoridation of our water -
I'd be willing to have the discussion. I think that the ODA would have something to say about
it also, but truly, what's the point of fluoridating our drinking water if it contains gases like
benzene and heavy metals like chromium?
Fulvio Valentinis * - no response to this or other correspondence sent to council regarding
water fluoridation

Ward 4
Tony Blak:
I'm always open to hear views that would make our water better, and if it can save us money
even the better.
Mike Burton:
I must admit I know very little about this issue but am willing to learn the details.
Thanks for your questions.
Adriano Ciotoli – no response
Alan Halberstadt * - no response and previously suggested I call the WUC offices and request
to appeal before the commission board as a delegation. I don’t know what this even means, I’m
a citizen, a tax payer and a voter not a politician – I vote for council to make wise decisions for
the benefit of my community – what do I need gov’t representation for if I have to appeal to a
commission myself?
Colin McMahon – no response
Robert Papp – no response
Jody Percy – no response

Ward 5
Liz Atkinson – no response
Dean Lawrence – no response
Ken Lewenza * - no response but has verbally said he’s against water fluoridation, that the
province is considering increasing water fluoridation efforts and generally seems unoptimistic
that the practice could ever be stopped.
Upon hearing that the province is considering regulating water fluoridation, taking it out of the
hands of the municipalities, it seems all the more urgent that we get moving on this issue and
have it removed at our choice before the province decides what is best for us.
John Middleton – no response
Ed Sleiman – no response

Ward 6
Frank Batal:
Thank you for your question and I will admit I don't have enough knowledge about the subject
but I do understand that the level of fluoride in our water in Windsor is 0.60 m/g/gallon
which is lower than the level prescribed by the health Canada and even lower than the level
prescribed by the canadian Dental association
which is prescribing 0.8 to 1.0 mg/gallon. As for your last question Yes it will be brought for a
debate and an independent study by local dentist to get to the best level of fluoridation in our
water.
Jo-Anne Gignac*:
Thanks for you e mail. I have, on several occasions, forwarded information on the flouride
issue to WUC. It is their jurisdictional decision as to how to proceed. You may wish to
contact Ken Lewenze Jr. for clarification on how they plan to proceed.
I’m not certain why Ms. Gignac believes it is the WUC’s decision – everything I’ve
determined is that this is council’s decision unless they’ve decided to give up this control to the
WUC – the councilors could vote and choose to remove fluoride or choose to bring the issue
for a referendum. And for the record, I’ve contacted Mr. Lewenza Jr. on several occasions; he
does not seem interested in pursing this issue.

Ward 7
Percy Hatfield * - no response to this or other correspondence sent to council regarding water
fluoridation
Angelo Marignani – no response
Rick Particelli:
1. My understanding of the water flouridation was for health reasons which was published
years ago.
2. I am not familiar with other municipalities debates that have taken place.
3. I would agree that this debate should be brought to council for discussion, but should also be
voted on by the citizens as well. Our citizens need to be told all that facts so they can vote what
they feel is in the best interest for them and their families.
I hope my answers to your questions are exceptable, thank you for this opportunity.

Ward 8
Stephane Beaudin:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. The question you pose is a good one. and one I
find difficult to answer, in most part to be honest because I am uneducated on the matter. (it
hurts me to say that) I know that certain chemicals are added to our water to make it drinkable,
that is about all the knowledge I have. My father in law worked for the water treatment plant
up until recently, and he didn't like to talk shop much. as for the debate, I did not even know
about it until you mentioned it. I could tell you how I feel about chemical additives, in our food
and water supply. I am not into it. I sometimes wonder if we would be safer drinking untreated
water, we put so much bad stuff into our systems on a daily basis. I mean we pump
our livestock with steriods to get larger yields, same goes with crops, and we ingest all of that.
is nothing truly natural anymore?

Maybe putting neurotoxins in the water is the only way our current council can keep the voters
interested in them... in any case, i believe that if it isn't an absolute necessity, don't do it. saves
lives and money. but thats just my view. I hope this helps a little.

again thank you for your time.

Ernie Lamont – no response

Bill Marra *:
Hi Kim. I am not at all familiar with water fluoridation practices and this is the first time that I
have been contacted about this issue. I did see a news report regarding this issue in
the Kitchener-Waterloo region but other than that, I have no direct or specific knowledge on
the practice or any issues/concerns associated with it.
I emailed Bill and all the councilors in October 2009 and again a couple of months ago – so
yes, all current councilors have been contacted on this issue before.

Ward 9 – my ward and not a single response!

Cecile Paquette Crouchman – no response
Hilary Payne – no response
Antun Peakovic – no response
Rob Sassine – no response
Hank VanAspert – no response

Ward 10
Paul Borrelli – no response
Jeff Gaudette – no response
Al Maghnieh – no response
Sanja Maric – no response
Richard Tarte – no response

The water fluoridation debate is not new to Windsor. I was able to find two references to
previous times our council has been approached about this important topic.
In 2006 the council was provided with a copy of a document called Fluoride: The Fraud of the
Century based on a document called The Fluoride Debate, it seems a review of the book was
made by the chief water engineer and no action was taken. A copy of this book and the
response from the WUC engineer can be obtained from Council Services (or contact me, I can
forward you a copy). And again here I was able to find reference to the City of Windsor
Council being approached about water fluoridation in 2003. This link details some of the
arguments made but I could not find a reference to this in the City Council Meeting Minutes.
So perhaps this is why so few councilors respond to my questions – they’ve heard this all
before – and yet citizens keep bringing up the concern and keep getting ignored by policy
makers.

Lastly, I wanted to provide information about the water fluoridation debates taking place in
other municipalities around the province, the country and the world. People are ever
increasingly awakening to the dangers chemicals pose and are giving more consideration to the
health effects of these chemicals’ presence and the effects of accumulated exposures. Further,
people want to manage their health not have their government medicate the water the same for
everyone as if we represent one single health concern.

Waterloo citizens are voting on water fluoridation this 2010 election

All mayoral candidates in Waterloo have spoken against water fluoridation, except the
incumbent.
Brantford Council heard from several citizens speaking out against Water Fluoridation
Hamilton Council barely votes to continue water fluoridation with a vote of 9-7 in 2008
and then voted instead to reduce the amount of fluoride added to the water supply.

“Quebec City, Thunder Bay and Niagara region recently decided to stop fluoridation, says anti-
fluoride advocate Carole Clinch, who is to make a presentation today at the board of health meeting.
She says only 4 per cent of British Columbia and Quebec use fluoridation.

South of the border, 53 cities rejected fluoridation in referendums held in four states on the same day
as they cast their votes for a new president earlier this month.”

Gatineau Quebec council votes 16-2 against fluoridating the water in May 2010.
Thunder Bay Ontario council votes against fluoridating the water in 2009
Norfolk Ontario council votes 6-2 to stop fluoridating the water supply in 2009
This link shows a list of some of the communities that have rejected fluoridation since 1990
The internet is full of information and research about water fluoridation. Check it out for
yourself and see all the news coverage and activity surrounding this debate in different parts of
the planet.
Thank you to all the candidates that took the time to consider the water fluoridation questions.
I hope anyone and everyone reading this will get educated about fluoride and communicate
with their city representatives to take action and end this experiment.

In peace and good health,

Kim DeYong
k_deyong@hotmail.com