Health Canada or Sickness Canada? - Fluoridation At Any Cost!
"...possible higher exposure in the first year would be mitigated by lower exposures in the subsequent two years of life when not on infant formula," Health Canada said.
Extracted from Martin Mittel's excellent article: "Health Canada downplays fluoride fears for infants" embellished and attached below.
Talk about incompetence? Pray tell how continuous toxic exposures mitigate exposure in later years? These guys should be called "Sickness Canada" rather than "Health? Canada". Imagine exposing children to toxins whose blood brain barrier is still not fully developed??? Further this agency continues to pretend and act oblivious to the fact that somehow putting fluorosilicic acid (silcofluorides) a very toxic waste product which contains arsenic, lead and other radio active heavy metal products, is pharmaceutical grade fluoride.
"While the quantities of these contaminants may look low they are cumulative and are a violation of the Safe Water Act. There are two published studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000)* of considerable importance. Masters and Coplan found a significant increase in children's blood lead (2 times for whites and 6 times for blacks) in both Massachusetts and New York associated with the use of this chemical used to fluoridate our water."
*Masters RD, Coplan M. 1999 Water treatment with silcofluorides and lead toxicity. International Journal of Environmental Science 56: 435-449.
Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JF. 2000 Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology 21(6): 1091-1100.
Listen to what Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of the Canadian Association of Dental Research and current Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, says about this issue:
This, must see, half hour comprehensive interview is a real eye opener.
Yet Water director Pat McNally's (London, Ont. Canada) solution to add Sodium hydroxide (LFP October 20, 2007) to reduce lead levels conveniently overlooks this contributing major factor.
Sodium hydroxide will do nothing to remove lead contributed from silcofluorides which has the ability to exasperate the problem of lead even from other sources. Should he and others not be removing this contaminant first before adding more chemicals to the water?
Lets see now first they acidify the water with toxic chemical fluorosilicic acid (silcofluorides) then they use more chemicals to neutralize the water - ring a ding - what's wrong with this picture?
Also Health Canada is making no effort to inform the public in areas of very high levels of Fluoride which clearly exceed it's own upper levels of Maximum Allowable Contaminant (MAC) of 1.5mg/L - not to mention the levels of all the other toxins they are inadvertently but purposely adding to the water. Following are some examples:
Stratford 2007 Fluoride levels: 1.4 to 2.1ppm
St. Pauls 2006 Fluoride levels 1.59ppm
Mitchell 2006 Fluoride levels: 1.93ppm
Sebringville 2006 Fluoride levels: 2.76ppm
Chepstow Fluoride levels: February 24, 2004 – 1.89ppm January 11, 2006 – 1.73ppm
So much for tight controls and all the other platitudes under the pretense of science that are spewed out by the authorities - wonder how many accidents they have hid from us - not to mention all those areas that far exceed even the above numbers?
It is truly staggeringly to hear such illiterate statements from these so called experts... Imagine as industry stooges these ignoramuses will go to any length even at the stake of their own professional reputations!
Surely, "Sickness Canada" has a different agenda and like many government agencies* only exist to do the dirty bidding for the industry under the pretence of health. With friends like these who needs enemies?
*"Here among many is a perfect example, another is Mercury, that is the raison d'Ăªtre for the existence of most regulatory bodies. They are primarily created as industry shields under the pretense of protecting the constituents. Essentially these pseudo bodies are next to useless other than providing token lip service while they are essentially created and needed to protect the industry... The industry love's bureaucracy while providing lip service against it, essentially conning the masses to clamour for more and more government - A perfect scam!Extracted from: ADA Caves In - FDA Under Fire For Protecting Mercury Fillings
They abuse the system simply because they can!
It seems negotiating is a lost cause, given their occult agendas. My only hope is to educate more so we can exert pressure and/or litigate these rogue bodies to do their purported job.
Chris Gupta
------------------
Health Canada downplays fluoride fears for infants
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
November 28, 2007 at 9:54 AM EST
For the past year, the American Dental Association has warned parents that if their tap water is fluoridated, they shouldn't use it to make infant formula. The worry: It could cause children to develop mottled teeth.
Canadian health authorities haven't made a similar call, even though the amounts of fluoride that prompted the U.S. recommendation are also found in many Canadian municipal water supplies.
Now, some health experts contend that Health Canada and the Canadian Dental Association have made a mistake in failing to tell parents their children are at greater risk of the mottling - a condition known as dental fluorosis - if they used fluoridated water for reconstituting baby formula. But both the federal agency and the CDA reject these assertions.
"The American Dental Association now recognizes that problem and has sent out their warning. I, for the life of me, don't understand why the Canadians don't follow that lead," said Hardy Limeback, the head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto's faculty of dentistry.
Tap water shouldn't cause infant fluorosis, the Canadian Dental Association says.
"The days of wholesale deliberate fluoridation ... are numbered," said Warren Bell, a former head of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, who also is concerned that Canadian health authorities haven't issued the same advice as U.S. dentists.
The ADA recommendation applies to infants under one year of age who consume a lot of formula, typically a litre or more a day. These children "are at risk for developing some level of dental fluorosis," says Howard Pollick, professor at the school of dentistry of the University of California, San Francisco, and an ADA spokesman.
Fluorosis, in mild forms, causes faint white streaking in teeth and is considered a cosmetic problem, but in severe cases causes disfiguring staining of teeth.
Dr. Pollick said the risks occur at the level of fluoride recommended for U.S. water systems of 0.7 parts per million in warmer areas (where people tend to drink more water) to 1.2 ppm of fluoride in cooler areas. Health Canada recommends fluoridation at 0.8 ppm to 1 ppm, and about 43 per cent of Canadians drink from municipal systems that use the chemical. Fluoride is added in trace amounts to water because it makes teeth more resistant to decay.
At typical U.S. water fluoridation levels, about 10 per cent of infants who drink a high volume of reconstituted formula would exceed the maximum exposure limit for the chemical, according to Dr. Pollick.
For children at risk, the ADA recommends parents make formula with either distilled water or water treated by reverse osmosis. The procedures remove fluoride.
In a statement made in response to e-mailed questions by The Globe and Mail about why Canada isn't matching the ADA, Health Canada played down the U.S. action.
It said the biggest risk factor for fluorosis is the cumulative amount of fluoride ingested over a child's first three years of life, so any overexposure while on formula may be offset later, although the government agency doesn't do much to publicize to parents that they can use this approach to minimize the risk of infants getting too much of the chemical.
"In other words, possible higher exposure in the first year would be mitigated by lower exposures in the subsequent two years of life when not on infant formula," Health Canada said.
Both Health Canada and the Canadian Dental Association say an additional safety factor is that the amount of fluoride considered dangerous by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is 4 ppm, far above the similar safety figure of 1.5 ppm in Canada.
"We don't expect to see fluorosis as a problem by using our tap water to make baby formula," said Darryl Smith, president of the Canadian Dental Association.
However, Dr. Pollick said the EPA safety level didn't figure into its recommendation, which was based on the far lower levels of fluoride found at municipal water systems. "We're not talking about the EPA's upper limit here," he said.
The ADA recommends that rather than using formula, mothers breastfeed infants. Human breast milk contains about 1/100th of the fluoride that is in treated municipal water.
The recommendation to avoid fluoridated water applies only to infants. For the rest of the population, the ADA continues to recommend fluoridated water to prevent tooth decay.
See also: Critics raise red flag over fluoride in tap water
posted by Chris Gupta on Thursday November 29 2007
updated on Wednesday January 2 2008URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2007/11/29/health_canada_or_sickness_canada_fluoridation_at_any_cost.htm
Related ArticlesArtificial Water Fluoridation: Off To A Poor Start / Fluoride Injures The Newborn
Please watch this short 5 minute video: Little Things Matter: The Impact of Toxins on the Developing Brain Toxins such as Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Aluminum and other known and unknown chemicals, that are often above the legal limits, are deliberately added to our water to manage the disposal of toxic industrial waste chemicals under the pretense of "safe and effective" for water fluoridation mantra.Knowing and acting on the above should... [read more]
December 30, 2014 - Chris GuptaDrinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic
This paper by Prof. Joe Cummins is a very important 5 minute delegation made to London Ontario Canada "Civic Works Committee" public participation meeting on January 25, 2012 on fluoride*. While a bit technical it is short and easy to grasp. A must read as it goes to the heart of the matter regarding the well established toxicity of fluoride which is well in all scientific circles even before water... [read more]
February 06, 2012 - Chris GuptaDemocracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride
Here is a commentary on the recent (Jan, 25th, 2011) Public Participation Meeting (PPM) on Fluoride in the City of London, Ontario. The meeting started with a strong pro fluoride stance form the City engineer. His lack of knowledge on chemistry of the toxic wastes used to fluoridate water could embarrass even a high school student never mind his own profession. He blatantly violated his "duty to public welfare" as... [read more]
January 29, 2012 - Chris Gupta
