Hello Donna,
Thank you for the information and for letting us know about your involvement in getting rid of the useless and perhaps harmful Artificial Water Fluoridation program in Cresent City, California.
I appreciate the information and I would like you to know that many of us Councillors in Peel Region have taken the time to research and inform ourselves about adding Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, [HFSA] which is a toxic chemical to our drinking water.
It is unfortunate that Municipal Councillors who have no expertise in the field of Science and medicine have been led to believe that adding this Toxic Chemical to our water supply is safe and effective.
For instance, Council has been told by our advisors that adding HFSA to our water supply is like adding Chlorine to the drinking water. We have also been told that adding HFSA to our water is like adding vitamin D to milk. We have also been told that adding HFSA to our water is like adding a Nutrient to our food supply.
After researching the issue, I have found out that Chlorine is regulated by the Ministry of the Environment and that no one regulates HFSA.
I have also found out that Vitamins added to Milk and food are regulated by Health Canada but no one regulates HFSA.
I have also found out that Nutrients are regulated by Health Canada but no one regulates HFSA.
I have also found out that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1957 that Artificial Water Fluoridation is Mass Medication. Health Canada regulates Medicines but does not regulate HFSA.
In other words, Everything that is added to our water supply and food supply is regulated by some government agency except HFSA. So I have asked the question many times, why is that? No one of our advisors have offered an answer but it is simple to figure out.
No one regulates HFSA because it is a Toxic substance and does not meet the stringent requirements that all the other substances added to our food and water must meet.
So conveniently, Health Canada and the Provincial Minister of Health have given the responsibility of adding the Toxic Chemical to un-informed and un-qualified Municipal Councillor.
The irony of this whole affair is that according to the Safe Water Act and the Food and Drug Act, Municipal Councillors are violating both acts and can be held accountable and Liable in a court challenge.
So, Peel Region and the Council find ourselves being challenged by the residents in the court of law for adding not a pharmaceutical grade Fluoride but a Toxic Chemical [HFSA] to the Drinking water supply. I should point out that a pharmaceutical grade Fluoride is added to the toothpaste and is regulated by Health Canada.
The Good news is that many of our Councillors in Peel Region are educating ourselves about HFSA and questioning if the chemical is both safe and effective. Hopefully the majority of our Council will do the necessary research required to make an informed decision and put an end to the practice of adding a Toxic Chemical to the water supply before we are all called before the Judge to justify, why Councillors have been approving adding a Toxic Chemical to their residents water supply.
Thank you again and I hope we all become wise to this issue as the Europeans, 70% of Canada and 30% of the U.S. have.
Regards,
John Sprovieri,
Councillor
Peel Region,
Canada
I am impressed with Councillor Sprovieri’s response to Former City Council member Donna Westfall’s letter. It shows he has done his due diligence and figured out the murky truth behind artificial water fluoridation.
In June 2014, under the Freedom of Information Act, Health Canada disclosed that it has NO scientific evidence supporting the supposed safety or efficacy of water fluoridation.
The fluoridation house of cards is falling.
It’s a relief to find someone who can explain things so well
Core Public Health Functions for BC: Evidence Paper
Dental Public Health
Remember, if the arguments against fluoride were so good , you would think they would stand up to public scrutiny on their own merit, without legal help. Or threats of. If they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are not.
And also if the arguments against fluoride were so good,The illnesses and associated medical problems that fluoride is supposed to cause, at .7PPM, would have well and truly been investigated in the 70 years of its use, And what do we find as real evidence that will sway the authorities. Nothing
Research strongly supports the appropriate use of fluoride for dental caries prevention as it
remineralizes and strengthens the tooth structure. Fluoride has been added to water, salt, milk
and toothpaste with highly effective results for caries control (Kay and Locker 1998; Petersen
2003; HHS and NICDR 2000). In Canada, fluoride is added to water and to toothpaste. The
Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Fluoride
Recommendations Work Group (2001) state “water fluoridation and use of fluoride dentifrice are
the most efficient and cost-effective ways to prevent dental caries; other modalities should be
targeted toward high-risk individuals.”
Watt (2005) summarizes the Cochrane systematic reviews and estimates a 14 per cent reduction
in caries through fluoridation of water, with the effect tending to be greater in primary teeth
(Appendix 5). In regions of high caries rates, the impact of water fluoridation may be greater. A
CDC study in 2001 on the cost effectiveness of fluoridation assessed “the local cost savings
resulting from community water fluoridation, given current exposure levels to other fluoride …
(and) compared the annual per person cost of fluoridation with the cost of averted disease and
productivity losses.” They report “the annual per person cost savings resulting from fluoridation
ranged from $15.95 in very small communities (20,000)” (Griffin, Jones, and Tomar 2001).