Harry Valentine on Cornwall Ontario Council Decision to Defer on Fluoride Use in Water – LTE

Harry Valentine on Cornwall Ontario Council Decision to Defer on Fluoride Use in Water – LTE
During the regular meeting of Monday December 10, Cornwall City Council voted to defer making a decision on the future of adding flouride to the city’s municipal water.
Councillor Bernadette Clement has asked for more information about hydrofluorosilic acid, the compund that is added to the municipal water. She also queried the tiny percentage of fluoridated municipal water that is actually being consumed by citizens, recognizing that some 95% of it is quite literally “going down the drain”.
Councillor Denis Carr voiced his confidence in the qualifications of the representative from Health Canada who had previously addressed Cornwall City Council on the subject of water fluoridation. He is evidently quite unaware that an equally well-qualified expert from New Zealand who had at one time supported water fluoridation, reversed his stand on fluoride and began to oppose fluoride. He made his reasons for opposing water fluoridation in a presentation that readers may view at webpage:
What say you now Councillor Carr, in the face of an equally well qualified expert who opposes water fluoridation? In Northern Ontario, the representative from Health Canada along with members of the local Health Unit met individually with members of a city council, to speak to them behind closed doors about water fluoridation. Except that a few councillors recognized the high-pressure, confrontational, intimidation tactic for what it was .  .  . a well-known psychological breakdown-through-subtle-intimidation tactic intended to render individuals defenseless   .  .  . .  the individuals were elected members of a municipal council who were to be subtly intimidated and “gently” psychologically rendered defenseless in the face of a so-called expert whose case can be challenged be an equally well-qualified expert (See the video at the link above). The tactic quite literally backfired and the municipal council voted to end water fluoridation (one of the councillors was a former military person who was aware of “subtle” psychological breakdown tactics).
So some one at Cornwall City Administration is going to invite the representative from Health Canada back to Cornwall, perhaps to address another meeting of Cornwall City Council. Perhaps the Health Canada representative may attempt to answer the claims of a equally well-qualified expert who at one time had enthusiastically supported water fluoridation .  .  .  . then changed direction and began to vehemently oppose water fluoridation.
.
Perhaps the Health Canada representative may care to comment on the Quebec situation, where fluoride opponents had to use the Freedom of Information Act to compel Health Canada to release information that pertained to the harmful effects of water fluoridation .  .  .  . information that Health Canada had suppressed. The Quebec anti-fluoride group subsequently circulated that formerly suppressed information to municipalities around Quebec, with the result that Quebec is now over 97% fluoride-FREE!!.
Perhaps Cornwall City Council needs to see this information too?
(Comments and opinions of Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and comments from readers are purely their own and don’t necessarily reflect those of the owners of this site, their staff, or sponsors.)
Milena Cardinal

20 Responses to "Harry Valentine on Cornwall Ontario Council Decision to Defer on Fluoride Use in Water – LTE"

  1. Ronald Eheman   December 11, 2012 at 6:26 AM

    the high-pressure, confrontational, intimidation tactic for what it was . . . a well-known psychological breakdown-through-subtle-intimidation tactic intended to render individuals defenseless . . . .

    Where can I learn more about intimidation tactics ?

    Who is in charge of the fluoridation medicine?
    The National Sanitation Foundation.
    The NSF requires numerous toxological studies proving it’s “safe and
    effective” (this should be the FDA’s job and systemic fluoride products are not approved ).
    The NSF does not have a single study and defers to the suppliers.
    The suppliers should have them.
    They do not.
    Carroll- Boone Water District and Crescent City have written to over
    40 suppliers of the drug for the tox studies and have not received a single reply.
    Looks like it is against the law.
    Who is responsible to check that the drug is in compliance with the
    law? The City and/or water departments attorney along with their Municipal League Risk Management Pool .
    A water operator can not substitute endorsements for due diligence.
    The water operators are the only ones that can select and ultimately be responsible for the benefits or harm from consumption of the product.
    NSF Standard 60 and the NSF web site state repeatedly that toxicological and health studies are required. However, NSF representatives have admitted that NSF does not obtain toxicological studies on fluoridation materials from the fertilizer company suppliers nor does it do its own toxicological studies on fluoridation materials – despite the fact that NSF has its own toxicologists on staff[13] and runs its own toxicological department.[14].

    NSF does not even follow its own rules. Instead of setting a.4 ppm MAL, maximum allowable level, which would be one-tenth of the EPA 4.0 ppm MCL, NSF sets a 1.2 ppm MAL.

    The conclusion then is that “the buck stops” at the water district office. It is the municipalities which assume the liability of requiring fluoridation. The water district makes its decision based on the false assurances of a sham regulatory agency that fluoridation materials are safe. law requires that they rely on this sham regulatory agency; it does not require that the water district make any further inquiry.

  2. Jimmy Olsen   December 11, 2012 at 9:07 AM

    I always loved playing with magnets as a kid and was especially intrigued how forces could either repel or attract.

    Seems to me this whole issue is one of repel. On one hand you have the force of scientific argumentation and on the other, social argumentation with its attendant emotional input, fear and denial.

    It’s an interesting intersection.

    I expect the politicians will settle on the side of the social.

    Fascinating!

  3. Harry Valentine   December 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM

    Hi Ronald,

    Thanks for responding. The intimidation tactic I mentioned was developed by sales organizations during the mid-1960’s . . . to deal with “tough customers”. It originates in the natural world when a wolf pack separates an intended target from a herd. Then they go to work on the lone individual and render it defenceless. Street gangs use the technique as well, usually for economic gain.

    On a psychological level, the technique can work with most people, that is, a gang against a lone individual. Only a rare individual who has had training in the unarmed physical martial arts or psychological martial arts could “hold their own” in such a situation. The technique is almost guaranteed to work. Some religious organizations use the technique when they go “door-to-door” and its usually a housewife (rather than an ogre) that answers the door.

  4. Hailey Brown   December 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    Harry
    Considering the ruling by the SUpreme COurt of Canada where in it states people have the right not to be medicated if they so choose,

    How can they legally justify medicating people not wanting them to stop?

  5. Harry Valentine   December 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

    Hailey,

    You’ve hit the nail on the head. Water fluoridation began at a time when paternalistic behaviour prevailed . . . . when medical ethics was virtually non-existent.

    Modern medical ethics prohibits doctors from forcibly medicating mentally competent people, against their will. The Supreme Court of Canada upholds this standard.

    As a result, no medical officer health that includes the head of the EOHU has neither the legal authority or an ethical basis to forcibly medicate an entire community by means of the municipal water supply. Neither does the City Council of the City of Cornwall have the legal authority to forcibly medicate the city’s population.

    In Calgary AB and in Kirkland Lake ON, city councillors voted to end water fluoridation as they did not believe that they had the legal authority to forcibly medicate their fellow citizens. In both cases, the representative from Health Canada who spoke before Cornwall City Council also spoke before the city councils of other municipalities that subsequently ended water fluoridation.

    We have a court case about to get under way in Ontario where dentists and taking a medical/dental association to court as a result of harassment tactics being used against dentists who speak out against water fluoridation. Many dentists are seeing evidence of fluorosis in the mouths of patients . . . one of the leading dentists in this field is Dr Paul Connett in New York State, who is well know to the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne as a result of their fight against fluoridation of their soil, vegetation and water by the aluminium companies at Massena.

    If the head of the EOHU tries to tell Cornwall City Council that fluoride is NOT a medication, then why is the council consulting the EOHU and Health Canada on water fluoridation in the first place?

  6. Hailey Brown   December 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM

    Harry

    Do you think the citizens have the grounds for legal action against the EOHU and Cornwall city council? Deferring is merely delaying or ignoring the health and welfare of the citizens.

  7. Jimmy Olsen   December 11, 2012 at 5:55 PM

    this is hilarious

  8. Harry Valentine   December 11, 2012 at 9:08 PM

    Jimmy,

    You’re correct. It is hilarious. A previous Cornwall Mayor supported the aims of the St Lawrence River Institute “to clean up the river”, in co-operation with the Mohawk community. Cornwall’s present mayor states that “we want to be good stewards of the river”. The fluoride content in the river already exceeds the maximum set by Environment Canada (EC) . . . and Cornwall is dumping fluoridated water into the river at a concentration that is far in excess of the level set by EC.

    It costs Cornwall some $50,000 per year to add fluoride to the water at the filtration plant . . . . people only drink about 5% of the water, meaning that 95% of the fluoride is being wasted. If the City wants to show respect to the Mohawk community, then the City will have to filter out the fluoride at the sewage treatment plant . . . at a cast of about $500,000.

    The City plans to hear the head of the EOHU talk about hydrofluorosilicic acid . . . the manufacturer’s package had a skull-and-cross-bones printed on it along with a warning . . . “not tested for human consumption”. The manufacturer has absolved themselves of all liability . . . so the city os going to depend on the head of the EOHU to assure them of the safety of a product that the manufacturer refuses to certify as safe.

    The ethics of the medical profession plus a supreme court ruling prohibit the head of the EOHU from forcibly medicating people (the population of Cornwall) and the City of Cornwall has zero legal authority to forcibly medicate the citizens. The City of Calgary refused to hear submissions from medical and dental personnel on these grounds, when they voted almost unanimously to stop fluoridation.

    So Cornwall is going to hear a submission from the head of the EOHU re the alleged safety of hydrofluorosilicic acid (even though the manufacturer refuses to guarantee its safety) . . . then the City Council is going to decide as to whether or not to continue to fluoridate the city water (even though they have no legal authority to forcibly medicate the citizens), then they’re going to dump the excess fluoridated water into the St Lawrence River via the sewage treatment plant (“speak with forked tongue to the Mohawks”).

    JIMMY, the situation is NOT hilarious . . . its hysteriical.

  9. Diane Marshall   December 11, 2012 at 10:14 PM

    Great article Harry (remember me?). I see some people here refuse to want to research on this subject. Sad! Might be about time we all get together for the sake of the children I see every day in Cornwall with dental fluorosis Why do our children have to go for the rest of their lives with dis-colorization of their teeth because of a lie told to us in the 50’s by Dr. Robert Kehoe of the Kettering Laboratory who was paid by the Aluminum companies, dental associations and tobacco companies (THAT’S RIGHT) TOBACCO COMPANIES to come up with studies to say fluoride is good for you and lead gas is safe and tobacco smoking is safe. I tell all people who think fluoride is safe to do some reseach. If the same man who said smoking is good for you says fluoride is safe then something is wrong here.

  10. Harry Valentine   December 11, 2012 at 11:06 PM

    Hailey,

    The pro-fluoride lobby has had an ongoing fight with the anti-fluoride lobby for several years. There’s $$$$ involved in adding fluoride to municipal water . . . Calgary stands to save some $750,000 per year by ending their water fluoridation program. Other larger cities spend up to $3-million per year buying hydrofluorosilicic acid . . . . and the suppliers and their supporters are not about to give up without a fight.

    Some in the pro-fluoride camp claim that hydrofluorosilicic acid is not a medication . . . while others in the same camp tout its alleged benefits. There are non-fluoridating communities that have identical and lower cavity rates than fluoridating communities.

    By claiming that it is not a medication, they nullify any efforts of anyone taking legal action on the basis of forced medication.

    The safest fluoride compound is calcium fluoride (CaF2) also known as fluorospar . . . highly prized for its superior optical properties. Lenses of high-end optical equipment is made from fused fluorospar. If Cornwall were to add powdered fluorospar to the drinking water, the cost could escalate from $50,000 per year to some $500,000 per year. Sodium fluoride is mainly a by-product of the aluminium smelting industry and is added to toothpastes . . . there is a caution on toothpaste tubes NOT TO SWALLOW.

    The elevated fluoride levels in the St Lawrence River are of no concern to Health Canada . . . it is outside of their mandate and area of responsibility. Perhaps the Mohawk Council may ask Cornwall City Council to reduce the amount of fluoride that Cornwall’s sewage treatment plant releases into the St Lawrence River . . . . then we’ll find out to what extent the EOHU and Health Canada care about the environment in this region.

  11. Jimmy Olsen   December 12, 2012 at 8:28 AM

    I am not pro-fluoride nor am I anti. But I do respect a clean argument. In this case, the anti group should simply argue that while there was merit to fluoridating water 50/60 years ago, today, tooth pastes (that contain fluoride), combined with life-long dental care should be sufficient to help prevent dental carries. In addition, municipal governments could save money.

    …50 years from now, the scientists can take a retrospective review on the impact of having removed fluoride from municipal water supplies.

    Also, chlorine in water kills bacteria. Would your group argue that it’s an anti-biotic-like medication?

    And what about adding folic acid to breads and cereals. It helps prevent neural tube defects in the unborn. Is it a medication?

  12. Hailey Brown   December 12, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    Harry
    If we review the clarification for the addition of fluoride to the water, it does state for “health benefits. “. Even Raul Roumeliotis stated in so many words it is the best thing for dental health in many years we would be remiss in our responsibility too good dental health if we removed it.

    So if it is beneficial for our health and does not not occur naturally in nature how could it be anything else other then medication? Even something as simple as vitamins are a supplement and still a form of medication.

    So how can they continue?

  13. Harry Valentine   December 12, 2012 at 11:48 AM

    To the above, thanks for posting:

    Hailey,

    The head of the EOHU knows his ethical standards of his profession . . . . he cannot forcibly medicate any competent adult. So he tells the so-called benefits of fluoride . . . and the onus is on someone else to forcibly medicate. The so-called benefits are based on statistical studies . . . . I have some knowledge of the subject and know how “to cook the numbers”.

    If a city were to consider water fluoridation, I would conduct a study on children’s cavities in the poorer part of town, where home dental hygiene would likely be lacking. After the city begins to add fluoride, I do a similar study in a wealthier part of the same town, where home dental care would be of a higher standard. I will record fewer children’s cavities. Except nobody knows that I purposely “cooked” the study to please the people who pay me . . . so I use a cooked statistical study to make fluoride look good.

    I could do a similar statistical study to prove that some 90% of the girls who attend Jumping Jesus High School, are virgins. An earlier study involved a sample of 100-girls who were assured of total confidentiality and resulted in a virginity rate of 50%. My study will involve all the girls at the school. All the girls from each class will be marched down to the principal’s office, where a committee of adults with disapproving looks on their faces, is seated.

    Some of the men will be wearing ecclesiastical collars and some of the women will be dressed as nuns. Girls will enter the office one-at-a-time and be asked, “Tell me young lady, are you a virgin?” All the virgins will answer “YES” and according to the 80-20-rule of statistics, some 80% of the non-virgins will also answer “YES” to the question. 50% x 80% = 40% added to the other 50% = 90%. I may even get a 95% virginity rate. Even if the actual ratio of virgins to non virgins is 60/40, 40% x 80% = 32% added to 60% = 92% . . . a number that will attest the value of the value of the family education courses being offered at the high school.

    To some one who has some basic understanding of statistics, its easy to produce “cooked” results that will attest the effectiveness and value of water fluoridation, or the value of a family education course to promote virginity. And some elected officials will literally buy these numbers hook, line and sinker.

  14. Jimmy Olsen   December 12, 2012 at 1:34 PM

    When you start accusing world recognized scientific authorities (such as the World Health Organization) of “cooking” the numbers, you will only find yourself being accused of being a kook. Somewhat like those who deny the value of vaccinating against polio, measles or rabies. Why would you knowingly bring that upon yourselves?

    You have a right to suggest that fluoridation may have outlived its original purpose. That, to me, seems like a valid argument.

    Remember, the medication claim can be disputed. Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in water supplies. Fluoridation is the adjustment of the natural fluoride concentration to about one part of fluoride to one MILLION parts of water to prevent carries.

  15. Harry Valentine   December 12, 2012 at 5:49 PM

    Jimmy,

    Hydrofluorosilicic acid does NOT occur naturally in drinking water. The most common fluoride that occurs naturally in drinking water in some regions of the world, is calcium fluoride (CaF2). The aluminium smelting industry’s waste product is sodium fluoride (NaF) that is an ingredient in many brands of toothpaste.

    Calcium fluoride (fluorospar) has industrial uses . . . . it is way too valuable and way too expensive to use an additive in municipal drinking water. Highly purified sodium fluoride has numerous uses, including in anti-depressants and in pain killers. The reason behind water fluoridation was the low rate of dental cavities in regions where water had high levels of calcium fluoride.

    Somewhere along the line and to save money, calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride were discontinued and replaced by hydrofluorosilicic acid. However, the manufacturer of the product has a skull-and-cross-bones printed on the package and the spec sheet has a warning advising that the product has not been tested for humans.

    The claim that Cornwall’s municipal water treatment plant is merely restoring the natural fluoride content of water is false. Fluoride levels in the St Lawrence River are already at the maximum levels suggested by Environment Canada. There is no way to define a “natural level of fluoride” in drinking water . . . fluoride levels differ between locations.

    Much of the fruit and vegetables on supermarket shelves, especially hothouse vegetables such as tomatoes, were cultivated using fluoridated water. Tea leaves naturally contain fluoride.

    With regard to phony statistics, one pro-fluoride personality concocted some data to suggest an increased percentage in dental caries in a suburb of Montreal, following the end of water fluoridation. Some anti-fluoride people scrutinized the data and proved that the numbers were misleading . . . that the sample was too small to be of any relevance.

    One question that pertains to water fluoridation is, “Who has the legal authority to forcibly medicate a population, when the ethical standards of the medical profession strictly forbid such practice?”

  16. Hailey Brown   December 13, 2012 at 8:04 AM

    Check the MSDS sheets from various manufacturers,

    The Canadian Environmental Protection Act classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as “persistent,” “bio-accumulative” and “toxic.”

    Environment Canada classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as a “hazardous substance.”

    Transport Canada classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as a “dangerous goods.”

    Considering hydrofluorosilicic acid’s inorganic silicofluoride, lead, arsenic, mercury and radionuclides do pose a threat when diluted in the environment, how do they not pose a threat when diluted in our drinking water?

    Having experience in Uranium extraction and yellow cake production, uranium is co-produced with phosphate production, radioactive cross-contamination of hydrofluorosilicic acid occurs.

    I woulder what EOHU would say to that, or would they point fingers?

  17. Jimmy Olsen   December 13, 2012 at 9:09 AM

    I didn’t say Hydrofluorosilicic acid occurs naturally, i said it raises naturally occurring levels…

    As I have also said, you have the right to argue that fluoride may have outgrown its usefulness. (possibly a scientific argument) But to call medical professionals unethical or of having questionable ethics is a social argument, and one which I personally resent. I have also said that politicians will likely cave to the social argument. Just look at the reporting in today’s news about questioning the safety of workers.

    You could win on these and other loosely connected social concerns, including throwing around words that create fear…words like by product and industrial waste. That’s how public policies often work. Activists throw enough stuff at the wall and something eventually sticks. But it isn’t necessarily science.

    Again, time will tell when the retrospective analyses are done. Then, your lobby will go down in the history books as either heroes or misguided activists…such as those who claimed fluoridation was a communist plot. LOL

  18. Harry Valentine   December 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM

    Hailey,

    Thanks for doing research on the hazardous nature of hydrofluorosilicic acid and also about the Supreme Court of Canada ruling prohibiting doctors from forcibly medicating people.

    Jimmy,

    The ethical standards of the medical profession have changed over the years. Modern physicians are required to observe standards and practices that their predecessors knew nothing of many decades ago. When fluoride compounds were first added to drinking water, nobody even considered the concept of forcible medication. That standard is now observed in many nations.

    Several members of Cornwall City Council uphold that “doctor knows best”. Except that doctor does not have the legal authority to forcibly medicate the population.

  19. Jimmy Olsen   December 13, 2012 at 1:50 PM

    the EOHU might argue it’s a matter of quantity (1:1million parts).

    many a substance – naturally occurring or otherwise – could be increased to toxic levels.

    But don’t take my word for it…call and ask.

  20. Harry Valentine   December 13, 2012 at 5:51 PM

    There are many people living in Cornwall today, who were children when Cornwall began to add fluoride to the municipal water back during 1962 (some 50-years ago). At the time, the aluminium smelters were releasing massive volumes of airborne fluoride from their smokestacks and also through their water systems. One of the smelter is located upstream of the power dam . . . not too far from the water intake for the City of Cornwall.

    Heaven only knows how much fluoride actually got into Cornwall’s water supply over a 20-year period, until the aluminium smelters started to the reduce their fluoride emissions. The Mohawk Council successfully initiated a lawsuit against the aluminium companies, while at the same time, Health Canada was nowhere to be seen.

    During that period, health officials regularly went into city schools to administer a fluoride mouth rinse . . . low frequency at the Catholic Board schools, much higher frequency at the Public Board schools (based on numbers supplied to me by former students, some of whom attended Central Public and Sydney Street Public where the fluoride mouth rinse frequency seemed quite high).

    Today, we have people between their late 30’s into their early 60’s who have health problems related to excess fluoride intake. Fluoride concentrates in the pineal gland at the back of the brain, located very close to the thyroid. Health Canada’s own numbers identifies higher than normal incidences of several diseases and maladies in Cornwall than in other Canadian centres.

    In Quebec, the anti-fluoride lobby used the Freedom of Information Act to compel Health Canada to release information on the harmful effects of fluoridation, then circulated that information amongst municipalities in Quebec (fewer than 3% of Quebec municipalities fluoridate and the numbers are dropping).

    Cornwall supposedly pays $50,000 annually for hydrofluorosilicic acid . . . the city employees advise that the stuff is corrosive to pipes and related equipment at the filtration plant. This means that the city is spending additional money on repairs, maintenance and upkeep at the filtration plant. Does city council know that monetary figure?.

    Several health units and Health Canada have argued that minimal amounts of fluoride are added to municipal drinking water . . . and over 40-municipalities across Canada discontinued the practice. I expect that Richmond QUE and Trois Rivieres QUE will be the next municipalities to end water fluoridation..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.