YYCFL 2011-01-26 Calgary City Council – UE2011-02 Fluoride – January 26, 2011

>> GOOD MORNING, COMMITTEE.
WE'LL BEGIN OUR AGENDA.
FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE, WE HAVE ONE ITEM
BEFORE WE HIT FLUORIDE.
IT SHOULD BE A RELATIVELY QUICK ITEM.
ON THAT NOTE, WE DO HAVE A
SPEAKER'S LIST. WE'D LIKE YOU TO SIGN UP IF YOU
WISH TO SPEAK ON FLUORIDE SO WE
CAN GO FROM THE LIST. YOU DON'T ALL HAVE TO RUSH AT
ONCE.
OKAY. YOU CAN ALL RUSH AT ONCE.
OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS
THE CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA. MOVED BY ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
ARE YOU AGREED?
OPPOSED? THAT'S CARRIED.
NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS
CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES. MOVED BY ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS,
DELETIONS? ARE YOU AGREED?
OPPOSED?
THAT'S CARRIED. ITEMS OF NEW BUSINESS.
FIRST ITEM IS UE 2011-01 THE
GLENMORE BEARSPAW WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADES.
IS THERE A REQUEST FOR A
PRESENTATION? NOBODY REQUIRES A PRESENTATION?
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATION? IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC
THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO UNE
2011-01? ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS?
SEEING NONE, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING.
I WONDER IF YOU COULD JUST SPEAK TO THE RISK CATEGORY IN YOUR
REPORT.
IT SAYS THAT THE MANAGEMENT TEAM WAS SUCCESSFUL IN MANAGING RISKS
RELATED TO THE PLANT SHUTDOWNS
AND TIE-IN ACTIVITIES.

ANY LEARNINGS THAT CAME OUT OF
THAT PROCESS WOULD BE ONE
QUESTION I HAVE. ANYWAY, THAT'S WHERE USUALLY WE
LIKE TO FOCUS ON.
SO IF YOU COULD JUST COVER OFF THAT.
>> THE PROGRAM MANAGER AND
INSTRUMENTAL IN THE WHOLE PROGRAM WILL SPEAK TO THAT.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROGRAM, OVER SEVEN YEARS, WE
REQUIRED SHUTDOWNS AT BOTH
PLANTS, BOTH AT BEARSPAW AND AT GLENMORE TO TIE IN THE NEW
PROCESSES AND THE NEW PIPING.
THIS WORK WAS COORDINATED WITH OPERATIONS, AND WE DEVELOPED
PLANS TO ENSURE THAT WATER
SERVICE WAS NOT INTERRUPTED. SOME OF THE LEARNINGS THAT CAME
OUT OF THAT WAS WE DID LEARN
THAT THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES IN TRANSMITTING WATER FROM ONE
PLANT TO THE OTHER.
THERE WERE OCCASIONS WHERE THE CITY WAS BEING SUPPLIED BY ONE
PLANT ONLY.
AND WE PERFORMED SIX PLANT SHUTDOWNS, AND THEY ALL WENT
VERY WELL.
AND WE LEARNED AND GOT BETTER AT DOING THEM EACH TIME THAT WE HAD
TO DO THEM.
>> EXCELLENT. OKAY.
KEEP GOING.
ON THE REPORT, DO YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU THERE?
THE RISKS?
>> SO WE INDICATED THAT USING A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS AN
ADVANTAGE IN GOING THROUGH THESE
PLANT SHUTDOWNS.

WE HAD A PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR
ENGINEERING CONSULTANT AND THE
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. AND BECAUSE WE WERE IN A
LONG-TERM PARTNERSHIP, THE
LEARNINGS AND THE TEAM, THE CORE TEAM, WAS CONTINUOUS THROUGHOUT
THE PROGRAM.
AND IT ALLOWED THE WHOLE CONSTRUCTION TEAM TO REALLY
UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE PLANTS
WORKED. BECAUSE WE'RE OPERATING AND
CONSTRUCTING AT THE SAME TIME.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
JUST DECLARING AN INTEREST. >> I JUST TURNED SOMEBODY OFF.
WHO WAS IT?
MOVED? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOUR?
OPPOSED? IT'S CARRIED.
NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS
FLUORIDE.

UN 2011-02.
THERE IS NO PRESENTATION ON THIS
BY ADMINISTRATION FOR THE REASON BEING IT'S NOT AN ADMINISTRATION
RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S A RECOMMENDATION MADE BY COUNCIL.
AND I'D LIKE TO TELL — OR ASK
THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE DAY
THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING, WE DO
TAKE A BREAK FROM NOON UNTIL 1:15 AND WE DO TAKE A BREAK AT
3:15 TO 3:45.
IF NEED BE WE'LL TAKE A DINNER BREAK FROM 6 O'CLOCK UNTIL 7:15.
AND I'M HOPING THAT WE DON'T GET
TO THE DINNER BREAK, BUT WE MAY.

YOU'RE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES TO
SPEAK.
WHEN YOU COME FORWARD WE WOULD ASK YOU TO GIVE YOUR NAME.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE
TO MENTION, IF SOMEBODY'S ALREADY SAID WHAT YOU PLANNED TO
SAY, WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR IT
OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BECAUSE IT BECOMES LIKE A FORM
LETTER THEN.
SO IF YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING NEW TO ADD, WE APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO
SPEAK AND WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW
TO SAY.
BASED ON THAT MADAME CLERK COULD YOU GIVE ME THE FIRST PAGE OF
THE SPEAKERS' LIST SO I CAN
START? ALDERMAN FARRELL.
SO TO OPEN THIS, I'LL GO TO
ALDERMAN FARRELL SEEING AS HOW IT'S HER NOTICE OF MOTION.
ALDERMAN FARRELL.
YOU CAN REMAIN SEATED. >> THANK YOU.
WELL, I OF COURSE BROUGHT THE
MOTION FORWARD TO COUNCIL WITH NINE OF MY COLLEAGUES COSIGNING
THE MOTION.
BUT IT WAS EXPRESSED BY SOME NEW MEMBERS OF COUNCIL,
PARTICULARLY, FOR THEIR DESIRE
TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS MATTER.
SO ALTHOUGH I HAVE AN OPINION, I
WANT — FOR THE COURTESY OF MY COLLEAGUES, I THOUGHT THAT IT
WAS IMPORTANT THAT THEY HEAR
FROM THE PUBLIC.

SO MY RECOMMENDATION WAS TO
REFER THIS TO COUNCIL TO PROVIDE
THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE
TODAY.
THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THE MOTION. IT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF FLUORIDE
AND I IMAGINE THAT WILL BE THE
TOPIC OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PRESENTATIONS.
BUT ALSO THE QUESTION OF IF WE
DO REMOVE FLUORIDE FROM OUR DRINKING WATER, WHAT WOULD BE
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY
IN PROVIDING SOME ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE OR FLUORIDE
TREATMENTS FOR PEOPLE OF LOW
INCOME? AND SO THAT WOULD ALSO BE A
TOPIC OF PRESENTATION, I'M
HOPING.

WHAT WOULD THAT GO FORWARD LOOK
LIKE?
AND THE MOTION IS FAIRLY SPECIFIC THAT WE ASK FOR
ESTABLISHING A COMMITTEE TO LOOK
AT THAT FURTHER. SO I GUESS WE'LL GET STARTED
THEN.
>> MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE, ADMINISTRATION HERE IS TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.
IF YOU HAVE NO QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION, I'M GOING TO LET
THEM GO.
AND THEY'LL COME BACK LATER ON IN THE MEETING.
Mr. PRITCHARD WILL STAY HERE.
SO IF YOU — BEFORE I DO THAT, THOUGH, I SEE ALDERMAN STEVENSON
HAS A PRESENTATION?
>> THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE WITH US TODAY A GROUP
FROM THE AGAPE LANGUAGE CENTRE
AND THE TEACHER IS KAREN KAJORNEEN AND SHE HAS MAUREEN
NELSON AND CLAIRE GATES WITH
HER. IF WE COULD GET THAT GROUP TO
STAND.
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT.
[Applause]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND WE HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR TIME
HERE AT CITY HALL.
>> WELCOME TO CITY HALL.

ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> THANK YOU.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR OUR MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC AND FOR MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL TO GET AN OPINION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON THE
LEGALITIES OF MOVING FORWARD,
WHAT OUR CHOICES WOULD BE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CERTAINLY
COULD COME AFTER THE PUBLIC HAVE
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT WE'LL WANT
THAT INFORMATION.
I'VE MET WITH THEM, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
UNDERSTAND THE OPTIONS IN GOING
FORWARD. >> ARE YOU DIRECTING THAT?
>> NO, I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT
IF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WANT TO DO THAT.
THAT WOULD BE A LIKELY OUTCOME
ANYWAY. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG.
>> JUST SOME QUESTIONS FOR
CLARIFICATION FROM ADMINISTRATION WITH REGARDS TO
COSTS INVOLVED.
>> YOU DON'T NEED TO STAND.

WE'RE IN COMMITTEE.
>> SALUSKI?
[Inaudible] >> IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON?
>> HOW'S THAT?
>> THERE WE GO. >> SORRY.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> MUCH BETTER. >> OKAY.
CURRENTLY OUR OPERATING COSTS
ARE ABOUT $750.000. OF THAT 750.000, IT'S ABOUT IN
THE RANGE OF 600 TO 625 FOR THE
ACTUAL CHEMICAL ITSELF. THE REMAINDER OF THE COSTS ARE
OPERATING COSTS, AND
ADMINISTERING THE FLUORIDE AT OUR TWO TREATMENT PLANTS.
CURRENTLY, WE ALSO HAVE AN
ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, WHICH IS DOING AN ASSESSMENT OF OUR
FACILITIES AT BOTH PLANTS TO SEE
WHERE WE ARE IN THEIR LIFE CYCLE AND WHAT UPGRADE IS NECESSARY TO
BE DONE TO THE EQUIPMENT AT THE
PLANTS.

AND WE'RE HOPING THAT ASSESSMENT
WILL BE DONE PROBABLY IN THE
FIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR. >> OKAY.
I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE ARE
LOOKING AT NEEDING TO UPGRADE THESE FACILITIES AND WE DON'T
HAVE AN ESTIMATE AS TO WHAT
THOSE COSTS MAY WELL BE YET? >> WE HAVE A ROUGH IDEA RIGHT
NOW.
WE WILL BE RELYING ON OUR CONSULTANT TO COME BACK WITH A
MORE ACCURATE COST ESTIMATE.
CURRENTLY WE'RE ESTIMATING IT COULD BE IN THE ORDER OF 3 TO
$4 MILLION FOR THE TWO PLANTS.
>> IS THERE A PRIORITY IN HAVING THESE DONE?
LIKE, WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME
THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TO DO WITH THIS — WITH THESE
UPGRADES?
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL BE
COMING THROUGH THE CONSULTANT'S
REPORT AS TO THE TIMING OF THE UPGRADE, AND THAT'S BASED ON HIS
CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF WHAT'S
REQUIRED TO BE UPGRADED.

THESE WERE INSTALLED A NUMBER OF
YEARS AGO AND HAVE THERE BEEN
ANY INSTALLATIONS AT OTHER EXTREME PLANTS.
>> IN THE SAME WAY YOU GAVE US A
ROUGH ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE COSTS ARE EXPECTING TO BE, IS THERE
ANY WAY YOU CAN GIVE US A ROUGH
ESTIMATE AS TO A TIME FRAME REQUIRED OR WHERE THESE REPAIRS
MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE DONE?
WHEN, RATHER? >> NOT RIGHT AT THIS TIME.
I'D BE ESTIMATING WE'D PROBABLY
BE LOOKING AT SOMETHING NEXT YEAR OR IN A TIME FRAME SHORTLY
THEREAFTER.
PROBABLY IN THE 2012-14 BUSINESS CYCLE.
>> THANK YOU.
NO MORE QUESTIONS. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> JUST FOLLOWING UP ON ALDERMAN
DEMONG'S QUESTIONS, ARE THERE RESERVE FUNDS IN PLACE TO COVER
THOSE COSTS, OR WHERE WOULD THE
COSTS OF THE UPGRADE COME FROM? >> THE COSTS WOULD BE COVERED
THROUGH OUR CURRENT CAPITAL
PROGRAM.

SO WE DO HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS
IN OUR CAPITAL PROGRAM TO COVER
THAT. >> SO THESE ARE ANTICIPATED
COSTS?
>> I BEG YOUR PARDON? >> THESE ARE ANTICIPATED COSTS.
>> THESE ARE ANTICIPATED COSTS
RIGHT NOW. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, OUR
CONSULTANT WILL BE COMING BACK
WITH A MORE ACCURATE ESTIMATE, AND THEN WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT
WHERE IT FALLS WITH THE
PRIORITIES OF OTHER CAPITAL INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS MORE
IN RELATION TO — I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG WE'VE HAD THE EQUIPMENT
BUT WE ANTICIPATED THIS
EQUIPMENT WOULD EVENTUALLY NEED TO BE REPLACED OR ENHANCED SO
THERE'S RESERVE FUNDS FOR THAT
AND THAT'S BUILT IN THE BUDGET AND THE CAPITAL COST.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, YOU'RE FREE TO STEP DOWN.
YOU CAN STAY IF YOU WANT.
[Inaudible] >> NO, YOU CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS
FROM THERE.
WE'LL CALL PEOPLE UP.

FIRST ON MY LIST IS DAN MEADS.
>> IT'S ON NOW.
IT'S ON. >> HELLO?
IS THAT BETTER?
HI THERE, MY NAME IS DAN MEADS, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF VIBRANT
COMMUNITIES CALGARY.
IT'S A NONPROFIT THAT WORKS ACROSS SECTORS TO TRY TO ADDRESS
THE ROOT CAUSES OF POVERTY IN
OUR COMMUNITY. I KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT
FLUORIDE.
I KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT'S GOOD OR BAD FOR MY TEETH,
AND I KNOW IF I STAYED FOR THE
DAY, I WOULD BE MO CONFUSED AFTERWARDS THAN I AM NOW KNOWING
NOTHING AT THE BEGINNING.
AND SO IT'S NOT MY PLACE TO RECOMMEND WHETHER FLUORIDE IS A
GOOD IDEA OR A BAD IDEA IN
DRINKING WATER FROM A MEDICAL POINT OF VIEW.
I TEND TO TRUST DOCTORS AS MUCH
AS I CAN. AND IF WE COULD GET THEM TO
AGREE, I'D ADVISE THAT.
WHAT I DO KNOW, THOUGH, IS ABOUT POVERTY IN OUR CITY.
IT MIGHT BE THE ONLY THING I
KNOW ABOUT. AND IT'S BECAUSE I SPEND MY TIME
TALKING TO PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN
POVERTY IN CALGARY AND ASKING THEM WHAT THEY NEED.
ASKING THEM WHAT OUR CITY CAN DO
TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES STRONGER, TO MAKE THEIR LIVES
EASIER, TO EASE THE PRESSURES ON
THEIR FAMILIES.

AND YOU KNOW THE ANSWER I'VE
NEVER HEARD?
GOSH, THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT FLUORIDE.
THE ANSWER I'VE NEVER HEARD IS,
I'M SO GLAD WE HAVE FLUORIDE IN OUR DRINKING WATER.
AND SO IF IT IS TRULY AN ISSUE
OF HEALTH, AND WE CAN GET THE DOCTORS AND THE DENTISTS IN THE
ROOM TO SUGGEST THAT FLUORIDE IS
ABSOLUTELY THE BEST WAY TO PREVENT — OR TO MAINTAIN DENTAL
AND ORAL HEALTH FOR PEOPLE
LIVING IN POVERTY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T SAY THAT.
AND THE REASON I KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE EVEN WITH FLUORIDE IN
THE WATER, THEY TELL US ALL TO
GO TO THE DENTIST. AND SO IF FLUORIDE WAS DOING
THIS PREVENTIVE HEALTH WORK, I
WOULDN'T NEED TO GO TO THE DENTIST.
AND I ASSURE YOU IF THERE'S ONE
PERSON IN THIS ROOM THAT WOULD GET OUT OF GOING TO THE DENTIST
IF WE COULD, IT'S ME.
HERE'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IF WE WANT TO CARE FOR THE ORAL
HEALTH OF LOW INCOME CALGARIANS,
LET'S DO THAT.

I MEAN, LET'S REALLY DO THAT.
AND MYSELF AND THE OTHER MEMBERS
OF VIBRANT COMMUNITIES CALGARY WOULD BE HAPPY, EAGER TO HELP DO
THAT.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND
THREE OR FOUR MILLION DOLLARS TO
UPGRADE FACILITIES, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE SOME AMAZING
USES FOR THAT MONEY.
WE COULD CHANGE THE NATURE OF THIS CITY FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN
POVERTY WITH THAT AMOUNT OF
MONEY. WE COULD FUNDAMENTALLY IMPROVE
PEOPLE'S LIVES WITH THAT AMOUNT
OF MONEY. AND I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT
FLUORIDE IS DOING THAT AS IT IS
TODAY. AND SO THE MOTION BEFORE US IS
AN INTERESTING ONE.
THE AMENDMENT, THE SECOND BIT OF THAT MOTION FROM ALDERMAN
FARRELL AND HER COLLEAGUES IS
THE BIT I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO. AND THAT'S THAT IF WE REALLY DO
THINK THAT THIS — IT'S THE WILL
OF THIS COUNCIL TO LOOK AFTER THE ORAL HEALTH OF PEOPLE LIVING
IN POVERTY, THERE ARE MANY, MANY
WAYS TO DO THAT.

AND SOME OF THOSE WAYS DON'T
INVOLVE FLUSHING MONEY OR
ANYTHING ELSE DOWN TOILETS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
IF I'M TO SUMMARIZE THE ASPECT OF WHAT YOU SAID, IT MAY BE MORE
DIRECTLY BENEFICIAL IF WE
ACTUALLY HAD A PROGRAM THAT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED FUNDS TO
THOSE THAT NEED THE FLUORIDE IN
DENTAL OR HYGIENE THROUGH OTHER METHODS RATHER THAN WATER?
>> SURE.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, ALDERMAN, IT'S A GOOD ONE.
I'M NOT CERTAIN IF FLUORIDE IS
THE BEST WAY TO PROVIDE DENTAL CARE TO PEOPLE LIVING IN
POVERTY.
I WOULD BE REMISS TO TRY TO COMMENT ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS
OF THAT QUESTION.
HAWHAT I DO KNOW IS IF FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER
WAS DOING THE JOB, NONE OF US
WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE DENTIST.

AND THAT IF WE REALLY WANT TO
CARE FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN
POVERTY, ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY
TELL US ARE VERY, VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT TO THEM, FLUORIDE'S NOT ON THAT LIST.
AND SO I THINK IF ORAL HEALTH
FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY IS SOMETHING THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO
DO, LET'S DO THAT.
BUT LET'S DO THAT IN THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF OUR TIME AND
MONEY.
I'M NOT SAYING I KNOW WHAT THAT ANSWER IS, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO
WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
EXPLORING IT WITH THIS COUNCIL.

>> ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY Mr. MEADS AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON POVERTY
ISSUES.
THAT'S OFTEN THE REASON THAT WE — THE PROPONENTS OF
FLUORIDE, THE REASON BEHIND
THEIR SUPPORT OF THE SUBSTANCE IS IT HELPS PEOPLE IN POVERTY
SITUATIONS.
SPECIFICALLY CHILDREN. AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF
BRINGING FORWARD THE AMENDMENT
ALONG WITH Mr. KEATING. ALDERMAN KEATING.
BUT WHAT — I DON'T PROPOSE TO
KNOW WHAT THE BEST USE OF THAT FUND WOULD BE.
AND WHO WOULD SIT AT THE TABLE?
I TALK ABOUT ESTABLISHING A COMMITTEE.
WHO WOULD BE THE BEST — I MEAN,
IT'S ABOUT DENTAL HEALTH.

IT'S ABOUT NUTRITION, HYGIENE,
ALL THOSE THINGS.
SO HOW WOULD YOU SEE US GOING FORWARD IF THE MOTION PASSES
TODAY AS I'VE PRESENTED IT?
>> CERTAINLY. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
WHEN WE THINK ABOUT POVERTY, THE
FIRST WORD THAT NEEDS TO COME TO OUR MIND IS "COMPLEXITY."
IF THAT'S NOT THE FIRST WORD WE
THINK OF WHEN WE THINK ABOUT HOW WE ADDRESS POVERTY IN CALGARY,
WE'RE GOING TO GET IT WRONG
EVERY TIME. AND SO HOW DO I SUGGEST THAT WE
THINK THROUGH PEOPLE LIVING IN
POVERTY AND HELPING THEIR LIVES? I THINK WE DO SO BY HONOURING
THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SITUATION
AND RECOGNIZING THAT HEALTH CARE IS A MAJOR PIECE OF THAT PUZZLE.
BUT SO IS EDUCATION.
SO IS TRANSIT. AND SO IS INCOME.
AND IF WE JUST SPEND OUR TIME
THINKING ABOUT ONE OF THEM, AND NOT THE REST OF THEM, WE'RE
GOING TO GET IT WRONG EVERY TIME
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY.
AND SO DO I THINK THERE'S ROOM
FOR THIS CONVERSATION IN A BROADER MUNICIPAL POVERTY
REDUCTION STRATEGY OR POVERTY
PLAN? ABSOLUTELY.
I THINK THE MUNICIPALITY HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT AS DOES THE PROVINCE AS DOES THE
COUNTRY.
AND SO I DO THINK THAT THERE'S A PIECE OF THIS CONVERSATION THAT
CAN START HERE.
AND I THINK THIS BIT OF MONEY THAT MAY BE SAVED BY A DECISION
THAT'S MADE HERE IS A WONDERFUL
BIT OF MONEY TO START THAT PROCESS.
OF THINKING THROUGH WHAT IT
MEANS TO BE POOR IN CALGARY AND WHAT IT MEANS TO HELP PEOPLE
LIVING IN POVERTY IN CALGARY.
>> THANK YOU.

SO YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH
US ON THAT.
>> OH, MY GOODNESS, OF COURSE. EAGER TO, NOT JUST WILLING.
>> THAT'S VERY CLEAR.
THANK YOU. >> AL MacLEOD.
ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, I APPRECIATE IT.
SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU
CORRECTLY, PART OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THE MONEY COULD
BE REDIRECTED AND PERHAPS BETTER
SPENT ON DENTAL CARE FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, CERTAINLY.
>> SO DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OR A
VISION OF HOW — WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE?
ARE YOU THINKING DENTAL
PROGRAMS? FREE DENTAL CLINICS?
HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO —
>> CERTAINLY.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION,
ALDERMAN.
I'M AS YOU KNOW A FAIRLY SIMPLE GUY AND I TRY TO MAKE ANSWERS AS
SIMPLE AS I CAN.
AND SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN PROVIDE DENTAL CARE TO
PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY, I
WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE BRING THEM TO THE DENTIST.
I MEAN, IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.
AND SO WE HAVE FREE DENTAL CLINICS IN LOW INCOME
NEIGHBOURHOODS IN CALGARY AND WE
MAKE SURE THAT EVERY CLIENT OF THE DROP-IN CENTRE AND THE
SALVATION ARMY CENTRE OF HOPE
AND THE MUSTARD SEED, EVERY CLIENT OF CALGARY HOUSING HAS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE
DENTIST.

BUT NOT JUST THE DENTIST.
TO THE DOCTOR.
AND TO SCHOOL. AND IDEALLY TO A PLACE WHERE
THEY CAN WORK FOR A CIVILIZED
LIVING. AND SO WHEN WE THINK DIRECTLY
JUST ABOUT DENTAL CARE, YES, THE
ANSWER IS FREE DENTAL CARE TO PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY.
NO QUESTION.
IF THERE WAS A REPLACEMENT FOR FREE DENTAL CARE, WE WOULDN'T
HAVE AS MANY DENTISTS IN THE
ROOM AS WE HAVE BECAUSE THEY'D ALL BE OUT OF BUSINESS.
AND YOU THINK A MILLION DOLLARS
A YEAR OR WHATEVER THE COST WOULD COVER —
>> OH, I'D BE REMISS TO NOT
RECOGNIZE THE COMPLEXITY OF THAT PROBLEM.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH A MILLION
DOLLARS IS GOING TO COVER IN DENTAL CARE.
I HAVE NO IDEA.
I DO KNOW IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL PLACE TO START.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. MEADS.
>> THANK YOU ALL.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GARY JOHNSON.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'LL START OFF WITH CONGRATULATIONS TO THE
COUNCILLOR, THE MAYOR AND OUR
NEW PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING OUR CITY HERE.
I RAN FOR THE MAYOR'S JOB LAST
TIME, AND I APPRECIATE WHO WE HAVE IN PLACE, AND I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE AUDIENCE FOR BEING
HERE ALSO.

SHOWS INTEREST.
AND I'M GOING TO START OFF WITH
SAYING TO YOU PEOPLE DID I MY OWN SURVEY.
I CALLED FOUR CITIES IN THIS
FINE CANADA OF OURS — >> CAN I INTERRUPT YOU JUST FOR
ONE SECOND.
EVEN THOUGH I'VE SAID YOUR NAME, YOU HAVE TO —
>> I CAN'T HEAR JE.
>> COULD YOU PLACE STATE WHO YOU ARE?
>> MY NAME'S GARY JOHNSON.
AND I PHONED FOUR CITIES. ONE OF THE FOUR, I DIDN'T GET
ALL BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME, ONE
OUT OF FOUR, VANCOUVER, DOES NOT USE FLUORIDE BECAUSE WE HAVE A
DIFFERENT TYPE OF WATER, FOLKS.
I PHONED THE DENTIST ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO.
THEY TOLD ME THEY'RE IN FAVOUR
OF FLUORIDE BECAUSE IT PREVENTS CAVITIES AND ALL THE SUGARS OUR
CHILDREN ARE GETTING FROM
PARENTS NOT GUARDING WHAT THEY'RE EATING.
WHICH YOU CAN'T DO ALL THE TIME.
HAVE I GRANDCHILDREN, I'M PROUD OF THEM.
IF THEY COME TO LIVE IN THIS
CITY, I WANT EVERYTHING TO GIVE THEM GOOD HEALTH.
LIKE YOU ALL DO.
MY CHILDREN ARE MY PRIDE.

AND I FEEL Mrs. FARRELL HAS
STEPPED OUT OF HER BOUNDS
BECAUSE SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO HAVE — I DON'T THINK SHE HAS A
HEALTH CERTIFICATE, HAS A
DENTIST BACKGROUND, HAS NOTHING —
>> WE DON'T TAKE PERSONAL
ATTACKS. >> VERY APOLOGETIC.
BUT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS
ISSUE, AND WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT SOON.
OKAY?
IT'S IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY. IF IT'S GOT TO GO TO A
REFERENDUM, SO BE IT.
THIS IS PEOPLE'S HEALTH WE'RE DEALING WITH.
I'VE BEEN ON FLUORIDE ALL MY
LIFE. MY TEETH ARE EXCEPTIONALLY WELL.
I'M 64 YEARS OLD.
THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING, THEY SAY.
IF ONE ROTTEN APPLE SPOILS THE
BARREL, LET'S GET THE ROTTEN APPLE OUT OF THERE.
BUT I'M IN FAVOUR OF FLUORIDE.
FOR MY GENERATIONS TO COME BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS A
PREVENTIVE WAY TO SAVE PEOPLE'S
TEETH WHICH — WE DON'T HAVE TEETH, WE'RE ALL IN TROUBLE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> SEE NOTHING QUESTIONS, THANK YOU, Mr.

JOHNSON.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS — I BELIEVE
IT'S PATRICIA BROWNLY. >> DO YOU WANT ANY COPIES OF
THIS FOR FILING?
>> SURE. MADAME CLERK?
>> THANK YOU.
I'M ALREADY ON TIME HERE. MY NAME IS PATRICIA BROWNLY AND
I WISH TO PRESENT TO THE
COMMITTEE MY PERSONAL OPINION ON THE ISSUE OF FLUORIDATION OF
PUBLIC DRINKING WATER.
I'M ORIGINALLY FROM ONTARIO, AND ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES OF
BRANTFORD WAS PART OF THE
ORIGINAL TESTING BACK IN 1945. CITY COUNCIL IN TORONTO HAS
PROVED ANOTHER ADDITION IN '55.
VIGOROUS PROTESTS DELAYED THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION FOR
SEVERAL YEARS.
A STRONG OPPONENT TO FLUORIDATION WAS A RADIO AND
PERSONALITY NAMED GORDIAN
SINCLAIR — GORDON SINCLAIR. MAYBE YOU'RE ALL TO REMEMBER
HIM.
I DOUBT IT. HE OBJECTED TO BEING FORCED TO
TAKE MEDICATION HE DIDN'T WANT,
AND OFFERED HIM NO BENEFIT. Mr. SINCLAIR VIEWED THIS ISSUE
AS ONE OF GOVERNMENT INFRINGING
ON HIS BASIC RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN.
I TOO TAKE THAT POSITION.
THE ISSUE BECAME ENTANGLED IN YEARS OF LEGAL WRANGLING.
UNTIL THE CITY FINALLY ORDERED
THAT A PLEBISCITE BE HELD IN 1962.
THE FINAL RESULT WAS A
PAPER-THIN VICTORY OF FLUORIDATION OF 50.1% IN FAVOUR
AND 49.9% OPPOSED.
AND HERE WE ARE 50 YEARS LATER WITH PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THIS
PROCEDURE IN CALGARY.
WHERE FLUORIDATION HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED IN COMMUNITIES FROM
CANADA, THE FORMER EAST GERMANY,
CUBA AND FINLAND, DENTAL DECAY HAS NOT INCREASED BUT ACTUALLY
DECREASED.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENS.

THERE'S SOME REFERENCE IN MY
MATERIAL THERE.
THE CENTRES FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION FROM 1999 TO
'01 HAS NOW ACKNOWLEDGED THE
FINDINGS OF MANY LEADING DENTAL RESEARCH.
THE MECHANISM OF FLUORIDE'S
BENEFITS ARE MAINLY TOPICAL AND SYSTEMIC, THUS WE DON'T HAVE TO
SWALLOW FLUORIDE TO PROTECT
TEETH. AND A PIECE OF HISTORY WHICH
REALLY DISTURBS ME IS THAT
DESPITE BEING PRESCRIBED BY DOCTORS FOR OVER 50 YEARS, U.S.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION HAS
NEVER APPROVED ANY FLUORIDE PRODUCT DESIGNED FOR INGESTION
AS SAFE OR EFFECTIVE.
RECENTLY, AS I HAVE LOOKED AROUND ON TOOTHPASTE WARNINGS, I
HAVE FOUND ONES THAT STATE FOR
CHILDREN UNDER 6 YEARS, KEEP ONLY.
SOME ARE FOR ONLY UNDER 12.
AND DEFINITE WARNING, IF MORE THAN USED BY BRUSHING, WHICH IS
A SMALL PEA-SIZED AMOUNT
RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN, HAS BEEN SWALLOWED, TO GET MEDICAL
HELP OR CONTACT POISON CONTROL
CENTRE IMMEDIATELY. THATHAT KIND OF MAKES ME WONDER
WHERE WE'RE AT.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT DECLARATION GIVES THEM SOME
PROTECTION AGAINST LEGAL
LIABILITY. FLUORIDE IS A CUMULATIVE POISON.
ON AVERAGE ONLY 50% OF FLUORIDE
WE INGEST EACH DAY IS EXCRETED.

THE REMAINDER IS IN OUR BONES,
PINNIAL DAMAGE AND KIDNEYS.
THERE WAS ISSUES ABOUT THE PLUROSIS WHICH I FIRST BECAME
AWARE OF BACK IN EARLY 1960s.
MY CHILDREN HAD IT, TOOK THEM TO DENTISTS AND DOCTORS, THERE WAS
NO ANSWER OTHER THAN IT WAS A
TRAUMA AND THE TEETH WOULD FALL OUT ANYWAY SO DON'T WORRY.
I'VE SINCE LEARNED THAT THERE'S
MUCH MORE TO IT THAN THAT. MY CURRENT ISSUE THAT CONCERNS
ME IS ABOUT SKELETAL FLUORISIS.
IT WAS A FLUORIDE INDUCED BONE AND JOINT DISEASE THAT IMPACTS
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN INDIA,
CHINA AND AFRICA. I WOULD IMAGINE IT'S HERE AS
WELL.
IT MILLICS THE SYMPTOMS OF — MILLICS THE SYMPTOMS OF
ARTHRITIS.
ACCORDING TO A REVIEW ON FLUORIDATION BY CHEMICAL AND
ENGINEERING NEWS, BECAUSE SOME
OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO
CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL
FLUORISIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED.
THAT'S MY CONCERN.
ONE IN THREE AMERICANS NOW HAVE SOME FORM OF ARTHRITIS.
IT COULD BE RELATED TO THE
GROWING FLUORIDE EXPOSURE WHICH IS PLAUSIBLE.
THE CAUSE OF MOST FORMS OF
ARTHRITIS IS UNKNOWN, EXAMPLE IS THE OSTEOARTHRITIS.
IN SUMMATION I WOULD LIKE YOU TO
CONSIDER THAT AS WE LIVE AND LEARN AND GROW AS AN INDIVIDUAL
OR A COUNCIL OR SOCIETY, WE CAN
ADMIT OUR MISTAKES.

I ACCEPT THAT FLUORIDE TOPICAL
APPLICATION IS BENEFICIAL FOR
TEETH. HOWEVER, THIS SEEMS TO BE TOO
MANY POSSIBLE HEALTH SIDE
EFFECTS TO CONTINUE PUTTING FLUORIDATION IN OUR DRINKING
WATER.
WHEN WE KNOW MORE, WE CAN MAKE WISE, INFORMED DECISIONS AND I'M
SURE YOU'LL LEARN A LOT TODAY
AND PERHAPS TOMORROW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
[Applause]
NOT SUPPOSED TO APPLAUD. >> TO THE AUDIENCE, WE DON'T
ALLOW OUTBURSTS LIKE THAT OR WE
HAVE TO CLEAR THE ROOM. DON'T DO IT AGAIN.
ANY QUESTIONS?
ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
COMING DOWN TODAY. I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU
TOOK TO INFORM ME AS WELL. WE HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING.
JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
THE INFORMATION THAT YOU PRESENTED TODAY WAS BASED ON THE
READING THAT YOU'VE DONE OR —
>> MANY, MANY YEARS OF RESEARCH. IT'S SO MUCH EASIER NOW WITH
INTERNET.
>> BUT YOUR BACKGROUND IS — LIKE, YOU'RE NOT A DENTIST OR
HEALTH PROFESSIONAL.
>> NO.

JUST VERY INTERESTED CONSUMER OF
MEDICAL ATTENTION.
>> I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING
DOWN TODAY. APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU, MISS BROWNLY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER I BELIEVE IT'S JOHN CHEN?
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCILLORS.
MY NAME IS JOHN CHEN. I AM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OFFICER, ALTHOUGH I'M HERE AS A
PRIVATE CITIZEN. THE BRIEF I'M BRING TO PRESENT
HERE COMES FROM MY OWN PERSONAL
RESEARCH AND IT DOES NOT REPRESENT MY OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AT ALL.
THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT FLUORIDE IS AN
INDUSTRIAL…
[Indiscernible] PRODUCT FROM THE ALUMINUM
INDUSTRY.
FLUORIDE IS ALSO KNOWN TO BE ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE ELEMENTS
KNOWN TO MAN.
AND TOXIC LIKE MERCURY.

IN THE LAST TWO DEBATES IN THE
CITY OF CALGARY ABOUT
FLUORIDATION, I HAVE TO POINT OUT, WITHOUT BEING TOO
INCHARITABLE, THE OFFICIAL OF
THE CALGARY HEALTH HAVE FAILED TO KEEP UP ON THE LATEST
LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ON THE
UNACCEPTABLE HEALTH RISKS CAUSED BY ANOTHER ADDITIONS OF POTABLE
WATER.
AND ALSO HAVE DISSEMINATE MISLEADING INFORMATION DURING
THIS FLUORIDE DEBATE — THE PAST
FLUORIDE DEBATE. THIS LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE AND
SUBSEQUENT MISINFORMATION
CONSTITUTE OFFICIAL-INDUCED ERROR.
AND IS FLIRTING WITH MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE. THE LATEST STUDY HAVE CLEARLY
DEMONSTRATED THAT WATER
FLUORIDATION IS UNSAFE FOR INGESTION.
THAT MEANS BY SWALLOWING.
WHILE FLUORIDE AS DENTAL TREATMENT, TOPICALLY, HAVE SOME
LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS.
ONLY WHEN IT'S ONLY APPLIED TO THE TEETH.
SO WHY ARE WE SWALLOWING IT?
WHY ARE WE INGESTING IT? BECAUSE THE CITY IS IMPOSING
MASS MEDICATION ON FLUORIDE ON
THE DRINKING WATER.

WHERE MOST PEOPLE JUST SIMPLY
CANNOT AFFORD BOTTLED WATER ON
THE DAILY USE. FLUORIDE, THE PROPONENTS OF
FLUORIDE INCLUDING
Dr. HAROLD… [Indiscernible]
AND Dr. COX, THOSE ARE THE
FIRST PROPONENTS AND LEADING DEFENDANTS FOR FLUORIDE —
CLAIMING FLUORIDATION IS SAFE.
THOSE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN INJECTING
JOURNAL WITTING PATIENTS WITH
PLUTONIUM WITH Dr. HODGE WAS INVOLVED WITH THIS HUMAN
RADIATION EXPERIMENT.
THESE ARE ALSO THE SAME PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH THE MULLIN
INSTITUTE THAT WAS HIRED BY THE
ALUMINUM INDUSTRY. BUT BEFORE IT WAS FOUND
SUBSEQUENTLY TO BE PROFOUNDLY
TOXIC TO HUMAN, Dr. PHYLLIS… [Indiscernible]
IS A PHARMCOLOGIST AND A
TOXICOLOGIST BY TRAIN, AND IN THE 1980s THE DOCTOR WAS HEAD
OF THE TOXICOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF
THE… [Indiscernible]
DENTAL CENTRE, A WORLD RENOWNED
RESEARCH INSTITUTION AFFILIATED WITH THE HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL.
SHE WAS INVITED TO START THE…
[Indiscernible] TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT BECAUSE OF
HER EXPERTISE.
SHE IS PRESENTLY IN THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTRE IN BOSTON.
THE DOCTOR, ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT, PROFESSIONAL
PHYSICIAN HEALTH, TEACHING
EXPERIENCE, AWARD HONOUR AND MANY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARTICLE
TO HER NAME ARE NUMEROUS, AND
THOSE ARE ALL READABLE FOR US TO LOOK AT.
THE TESTS BY THE DOCTOR WAS
ASKED TO PERFORM AT THE FORSYTHE DENTAL CENTRE WAS RELATED TO
THE…
[Indiscernible] OF FLUORIDE.
AND BY DOING RESEARCH ON HEALTH
IMPACT ON FLUORIDE IN HUMANS, WHEN SHE COMPLETED HER REPORT
SHE WAS PROMPTLY FIRED WHEN SHE
REFUSED TO CANCEL HER PUBLICATION OF HER REPORT THAT
FOUND NEUROTOXICITY OF FLUORIDE
THAT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE AMONG MANY
OTHER HEALTH ISSUES.
WHILE WE WILL SEE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE THEY HAVE CLAIMED
THAT FLUORIDE IS SAFE, IF WE
TRACE BACK TO THE SOURCE, FLUORIDE IS INDUSTRIAL WASTE
PRODUCED FROM THE ALUMINUM
INDUSTRY.

ANOTHER PERSON CONDUCT EARLY
SCIENTIFIC SITES ON FLUORIDATION
IS GERALD COX — >> Mr. CHEN?
HAVE YOU GOT A CONCLUDING
STATEMENT? YOUR FIVE MINUTES IS UP.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THEN LET ME SKIP TO CONCLUSION THEN, Mr. JONES.
BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT HERE IS MASS MEDICATION WITHOUT CONSENT, AND BY ANY…
(AUDIO DIFFICULTIES)
I'M SORRY. AND AS FAR AS THE CONCERN ABOUT
LOW INCOME CHILDREN THAT HAVE TO
HAVE DENTAL CARE AND THEREFORE FLUORIDATION, THE ARGUMENT IS
JUST NOT THERE.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF FLUORIDE AND MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES.
TOOTHPASTE ITSELF HAVE MORE THAN
ENOUGH FLUORIDE CONTACT AS RECOMMENDED BY DENTISTS.
SO THIS MASSIVE EXPENDITURE IS
NOT ONLY UNNECESSARY, BUT IS UNSAFE AND IT'S EXTREMELY
EXPENSIVE.
AND IF WE WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF LOW INCOME CHILDREN,
THE FRACTION OF WHAT WE SPEND ON
FLUORIDATION COULD EASILY ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES BY JUST
IMPROVING THE NUTRIENT OF THE
CHILDREN, AND BY IMPROVING NUTRIENT THE IMPROVEMENT OF
HEALTH — DENTAL HEALTH ARE JUST
AS GOOD AS USING FLUORIDE.

SO IN CONCLUSION, I STRONGLY
URGE ALL THE COUNCILLORS TO MAKE
JUDICIOUS DECISIONS WHEN YOU COME TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION TO
DISCONTINUE FLUORIDATION OF OUR
POTABLE WATER. SO THANK YOU.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.
IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, YOU HAVE A BACKGROUND IN
SCIENCE?
>> I DO. >> AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT
FLUORIDE IS UNSAFE TO INGEST.
AT WHAT LEVELS IS IT UNSAFE? >> THERE IS NO LEVEL THAT
IMPROVEMENT IS CONCLUSIVELY BY
ANY SCIENCE STUDY TO SHOW THAT IT'S SAFE.
WHAT IT SHOWS IS THE LOW DOSE
THAT WE COMMONLY APPLY THROUGHOUT MUNICIPALITY IN NORTH
AMERICA IS SHOWN THAT IT CAN
CAUSE HEALTH ISSUE. BUT THERE IS NO SCIENCE OUT
THERE TO PROVE THAT LOW DOSAGE
AT A PROLONGED EXPOSURE IS SAFE. >> SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE
SHOULD TAKE THE NATURALLY
OCCURRING FLUORIDE OUT OF THE WATER AS WELL?
>> I'M NOT AWARE THE NATURAL
FLUORIDE CONTENT IN THE WATER.

WHAWHAT I AM SAY IS THIS THE
SCIENCE IN THE PAST THAT CLAIM
AND DEFENDED THE FLUORIDATION IS SAFE, IF CORPORATE SCIENCE, IF
TOBACCO SCIENCE, IF ASBESTOS
SCIENCE, THEY ARE FRAUDULENT SCIENCE, THEY'VE BEEN ROUNDLY
PROVEN BY PEER REVIEW, AND ALL
THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE SITE AND I HAVE SENT THAT
INFORMATION TO ALL ALDERMENS BY
E-MAIL. SO YOU CAN EASILY USE THAT AS A
REFERENCE.
>> OKAY, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO MY
QUESTION.
SHOULD WE BE TAKING NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE OUT OF THE
WATER?
>> I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY THAT.
I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT NATURAL
FLUORIDE. BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT A
CHEMICAL FLUORIDE THAT IS
ACTUALLY INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCT THAT IS CURRENTLY
INTRODUCED TO OUR POTABLE WATER.
BUT I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE ABOUT NATURAL FLUORIDE, AND I DON'T
BELIEVE THE NATURAL FLUORIDE
CONTENT IS ACTUALLY OF ANY CONCERN.
>> SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THEN IS
THAT THE NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE
FLUORIDE THAT'S BEING ADDED?
>> NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT.

I'M SAYING HAVE I NO CONCERN
ABOUT IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW
ABOUT THE NATURAL CONTENT LEVEL OF FLUORIDE.
BUT I DO KNOW ABOUT THE CHEMICAL
FLUORIDE THAT HIS CURRENTLY BEING INTRODUCED IN THE WATER.
>> I GUESS I'M STILL CONFUSED
ABOUT THAT. YOU MADE SOME VERY STRONG
STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH OFFICERS ARE MISLEADING THE PUBLIC WITH INFORMATION AND
INTENTIONALLY DOING SO.
CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT, PLEASE? >> WELL, THEY HAVEN'T USED THE
LATEST RESEARCH, SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH, MATERIAL THAT'S AVAILABLE.
THERE IS AMPLE BODY OF
SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AVAILABLE, INCLUDING THOSE THAT
CAN BE SENT BY Dr. JIM BECK
WHO IS IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TODAY.
>> SO IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT
THERE'S NOT A DIVERSITY OF OPINION ON THE RESEARCH, IT'S
THAT THEY'RE INTENTIONALLY
IGNORING CURRENT RESEARCH. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> I'M SAYING THEY HAVE NOT KEPT
UP WITH THE MOST RECENT SCIENTIFIC STUDY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, Mr. CHEN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I BELIEVE OUR NEXT SPEAKER… [Applause]
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS WILL
BE THE SECOND TIME I'LL WARN YOU, YOU CANNOT APPLAUD IN HERE.
SORRY.
I'M GOING TO APOLOGIZE FOR SOMEBODY IF I CAN PRONOUNCE YOUR
NAMES OR NOT BECAUSE YOUR
WRITING IS ABOUT AS BAD AS MINE. ALDERMAN STEVENSON?
>> THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE AND WELCOME SOMEONE THAT WE HAVE
IN OUR AUDIENCE HERE TODAY, AND
THAT IS HIS WORSHIP PETER BROWN, THE MAYOR OF AIRDRIE.
STAND UP, PETER.
WELCOME. THANK YOU.
WE'RE ALLOWED TO CLAP FOR THAT.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER I BELIEVE…

OKAY, WELL, I THINK IT'S COLLEEN
CHAN.
>> HI, I'M COLLEEN CRAN, SORRY FOR THE CHICKEN SCRATCH.
THIS MORNING IN THE CALGARY
HERALD, Dr. BRYCE ADAMSON IS QUOTED AS SAYING CHILDHOOD DECAY
IS ONLY INCREASING SINCE I'VE
BECOME A DENTIST. IT HASN'T DECREASED.
SO DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE LAST
20 YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ADDING FLUORIDE TO OUR DRINKING
WATER THAT IT HAS HAD ZERO EFFECT IN REDUCING TOOTH DECAY
IN THIS CITY?
WHEN I WAS AT SAIT DOING THE DENTAL ASSISTING PROGRAM, THEY
TAUGHT US ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ABOUT FLUORIDE EXCEPT THAT TOO MUCH CAUSES DENTAL FLUROSIS.
WHEN I GRADUATED NOT ONLY DID I
NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FLUORIDE BUT I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT
DENTAL FLUROSIS WAS.
IN 1989 ALL THAT CHANGED. I FOUND OUT WHAT WAS WRONG WITH
MY ADULT SON'S TEETH, PERMANENT
DENTAL FLUROSIS FROM TOO MUCH FLUORIDE.
TEETH THAT CANNOT BE REPAIRED,
ONLY COVERED UP TO HIDE THE DAMAGE.
POOR CHILDREN CAN'T AFFORD
COSMETIC DENTISTRY. I HAD TO LEARN ABOUT FLUORIDE
THE HARD WAY.
IF I'D HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE ASPECTS OF FLUORIDE, THIS NEVER
WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO MY SON.
I WILL NEVER FORGIVE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PROMOTING THE USE
OF THIS CHEMICAL, THE VERY
PEOPLE WE RELY ON FOR INFORMATION ON GOOD DENTAL
HEALTH, ESPECIALLY TO OUR
CHILDREN.

AFTER MY SON WAS BORN, I
IMMEDIATELY STARTED HIM ON
VITAMIN DROPS WITH FLUORIDE. WHEN HE WAS OLD ENOUGH I
SWITCHED HIM OVER TO FLUORIDE
SUPPLEMENTS DISPENSED THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.
FOR SIX YEARS I ONLY MISSED
GIVING HIM FLUORIDE FOR FIVE DACE.
THIS INVOLVED WITH FLUORIDE
TOOTHPASTE, HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE IN HIS PABLUM AND BABY
FORMULA AND OTHER FOOD AND
BEVERAGES. HE DRANK MORE WATER IN A DAY
THAN MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF
COMBINED AND THIS WATER NATURALLY FLOUR DATED AT 3 PARTS
PER MILLION, HE NEVER HAD A
CHANCE.

WHEN I PULLED UP THE WEB SITE
THIS WEEK AND DISCOVERED THEY NO
LONGER ENDORSE FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS FOR CHILDREN BEFORE
THEY GET THEIR PERSONAL TEETH, I
WAS OUTRAGED. THIS POSITION BY THE CDA IS 25
YEARS TOO LATE FOR MY SON.
AND OTHER CHILDREN. THOSE PROMOTING FLUORIDE MADE
ABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT TO
DETERMINE HOW MUCH FLUORIDE WE ARE ALL INGESTING, ESPECIALLY
CHILDREN, BECAUSE I THINK THIS
WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. NOW THE CDA IS RECOMMENDING THE
AVAILABILITY OF FLUORIDE FROM A
VARIETY OF SOURCES MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE EMBARKING ON
A SPECIFIC COURSE OF FLUORIDE
DELIVERY. AGAIN, 25 YEARS TOO LATE FOR MY
SON.
HOW COULD SUCH A TOXIC CHEMICAL LIKE THE FLUORIDE THEY'RE
PUTTING IN OUR DRINKING WATER
HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH REDUCING TOOTH DECAY?
THIS CHEMICAL IS SLOWLY
ACCUMULATING IN ALL OF OUR BODIES.
IF YOU WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT
FLUORIDE IN OUR DRINKING WATER, DON'T BOTHER WITH THE CITY OF
CALGARY WEB SITE.
IT PROVIDES MISLEADING INFORMATION AND AVOIDS ALL
ASPECTS THAT MAKE WATER
FLUORIDATION CONTROVERSIAL.

FLUORIDE HAS INVADED ALL ASPECTS
OF OUR LIVES FROM TOOTHPASTE TO
DENTAL FLOSS, TEETH WHITENING PRODUCTS, MOUTHWASH, DENTAL
OFFICE PRODUCTS, ALUMINUM TEFLON
COOKWARE, FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS, PESTICIDES SPRAYED ON OUR FOOD,
GENERAL ANESTHETICS, WATER
FLUORIDATION, PHARMACEUTICALS AND MANY OF OUR FOODS AND
BEVERAGES BECAUSE THEY DO NOT
REMOVE THE FLUORIDE BEFORE PROCESSING.
AND THE LIST GOES ON.
THE INTERNATIONAL FIGHT AGAINST FLUORIDATION IS GROWING.
FROM NEW YORK CITY TO AUSTIN,
TEXAS, CORNWALL, ONTARIO AND MANY OTHER COMMUNITIES IN NORTH
AMERICA AND THE WORLD, AND WHY
MIGHT THAT BE? PEOPLE ARE GETTING EDUCATED ON
THIS ISSUE.
AND REALIZING THAT WATER FLUORIDATION IS NOT WHAT IT
APPEARS TO BE.
EDUCATION IS THE REAL ENEMY TO THE SURVIVAL OF WATER
FLUORIDATION.
HOW MANY PRO-FLUORIDE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SPENT TIME IN THE
LAST THREE WEEKS READING UP ON
FLUORIDATION. IF THE ANSWER IS ZERO, HOW COULD
YOU POSSIBLY MAKE AN INFORMED
DECISION ON THIS ISSUE? THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
DEMOCRATIC ABOUT HOLDING ANOTHER
PLEBISCITE ON WATER FLUORIDATION WHEN IT GIVES UNINFORMED PEOPLE
THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR
NOT WE SHOULD CONTINUE DISPOSING THIS TOXIC CHEMICAL INTO OUR
DRINKING WATER.
IT IS TIME TO STOP PASSING THE BUCK ON THIS ISSUE AND END WATER
FLUORIDATION NOW LIKE MANY OTHER
COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE.

ONE DAY WATER FLUORIDATION WILL
BE BANNED AND I HOPE THAT ALL
THOSE INVOLVED IN THE PROMOTION OF THE USE OF THIS CHEMICAL WILL
BE HELD LIABLE FOR ALL THE HARM
THEY HAVE DONE TO OUR ENVIRONMENT, OUR HEALTH AND OUR
TEETH.
>> THANK YOU, MISS CRAN. ALDERMAN DEMONG.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
[Inaudible] >> THANKS FOR COMING OUT TODAY.
YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE A DENTAL
ASSISTANT. >> I WAS.
>> HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO WHAT
IT'S GOING TO COST TO HAVE THIS FLUROSIS CAPPED OR COVERED.
>> I THINK THE DAMAGE TO MY
SON'S TEETH IS TOO SEVERE ANDS COULANDCOSMETIC DENTISTRY IS ONN
YEARS.
SO YOU CAN GET VENEERS PUT ON BUT YOU WILL BE REPLACING THEM
EVENTUALLY AND THE COST IS JUDGE
HUGE.

AND IT IS NOT A SOLUTION.
>> YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU — IF
YOU'D KNOWN ABOUT THIS YOU WOULD HAVE TAKEN OTHER METHODS TO
AVOID USING THE ANOTHER DATED
WATER OR AT LEAST — FLOUR DATED WATER OR AT THE VERY LEAST STOP
USING THE DROPS.
IS THERE SOME METHOD YOU WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY USING TO TAKE
THE FLUORIDE OUT OF THE WATER
THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DRINKING?
>> I'VE BEEN BUYING BOTTLED
WATER SINCE THE WATER BECAME FLUORIDATED.
MY DAUGHTER WAS 3 YEARS OLD WHEN
I FOUND OUT ABOUT FLUROSIS, SHE'S NOT USED FLUORIDATED
WATER.
I DO NOT HAVE DENTAL FLUORISIS. I REALLY HAVE WORKED HARD TO TRY
AND AVOID THOSE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY, MA'AM. HOW MUCH DOES TO COST YOU TO
PURCHASE BOTTLED WATER?
>> WELL, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AT HOME THAT WEEK, I
SPEND $4 FOR A FIVE GALLON
BOTTLE. >> $4 A WEEK.
>> $4 A WEEK.
PLUS CARRYING IN A HEAVY BOTTLE BUT I PERSEVERE.
>> NOW, I'VE RECEIVED PROBABLY
OVER A THOUSAND E-MAILS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
AND I WOULD SAY THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THEM ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT FLUORIDE OUT OF THE WATER
SYSTEM.
MANY OF THEM ARE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, AND I DON'T INCLUDE
THOSE IN MY STATISTICS.
BUT IT'S INTERESTING THIS REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL AROUND THE
WORLD.
BUT I'VE RECEIVED QUITE A FEW E-MAILS FROM DENTAL HYGIENISTS,
AND I'M WONDERING, WERE YOU A
HYGIENIST? >> I WAS AN ASSISTANT.
>> THERE MAY BE HYGIENIST THAT
COMES FORWARD.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THEY'VE
LEARNED ABOUT FLUORIDE AND ABOUT
BODY SYSTEMS. BUT —
>> MY GUESS IS THEY'VE LEARNED
NOTHING, BECAUSE IF THEY HAD, THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE USE
OF FLUORIDE IN OUR DRINKING
WATER. >> I CAN'T PREDETERMINE THAT.
BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID
KEEGAN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. CHAIR, ALDERMEN AND FELLOW
CITIZENS.
I'M A FAMILY DOCTOR HERE IN THE CITY OF CALGARY AND AN ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OF
MEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY ALTHOUGH I'M HERE
SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL NOT ON
BEHALF OF THE FACULTY. I'M MARRIED AND WE HAVE THREE
KIDS AND I'M HERE SPEAKING IN
FAVOUR OF FLUORIDATION. MY TAKE OF THE SITUATION OVER
THE LAST MONTH OR SO WHENEVER
THIS FIRST CAME OUT WAS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE TWO ISSUES:
ONE A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGH NOT
IN THE AMENDMENT BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE COUNCILLORS AND OTHERS
TALKING TO MEDIA AND IN
COMMUNICATION WITH MYSELF AND COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID THAT MAYBE
THERE'S NOT EVEN A ROLE FOR A
CITY TO BE INVOLVED IN PUTTING FLUORIDE IN THE WATER IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
MAYBE THIS IS AN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES ROLE OR SOMEBODY ELSE'S
ROLE.
NUMBER ONE SOMEBODY THIS A CITY ROLE.
NUMBER TWO IS THIS A GOOD THING
ON BALANCE.

I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE FIRST
THING.
I THINK CALGARY IS AN ABSOLUTELY GREAT CITY.
IT'S WHY WE MOVED HERE.
BUT I WON'T GIVE YOU MY IMPRESSION OF WHY CALGARY IS A
GREAT CITY.
I'LL QUOTE ALDERMAN DREW FARRELL FROM HER WEB SITE, LETTER VISION
OF A GREAT CITY OF CALGARY.
"A GREAT CITY IS ABOUT ADVANCING THE HEALTH, QUALITY OF LIFE AND
DIGNITY OF ITS CITIZENS WHILE
ALWAYS KEEPING AN EYE ON THE BOTTOM LINE."
I COULD NOT AGREE MORE.
ONE OF THE REFERENCES SHE QUOTES IN HER AMENDMENT — HER PROPOSAL
IS THE CENTRE OF DISEASE CONTROL
AND PREVENTION, AND THEY SAY QUITE CLEARLY WATER FLUORIDATION
IN THEIR EVIDENCE, IN THEIR TAKE
AND CONTINUAL EXPLORATION OF THE LITERATURE, ONE OF THE TEN BEST
ADVANCES IN PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE
WORLD.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY
SOURCES THAT SHE QUOTES.
AND I AGREE WITH DRUH FARRELL. I AGREE WITH HER ABOUT WHAT A
GOOD CITY IS.
EARLY YEARS AGO THE CITY AND ITS PARTNERED ENGAGED IN IMAGINE
CALGARY.
THIS WAS A WORLD-LEADING CITIZEN INVOLVED VISIONING EXERCISE ON
THE FUTURE OF A GREAT CITY.
WHAT'S CALGARY SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING LIKE 100 YEARS FROM NOW?
AND THEY SET UP TARGETS.
UNDER HEALTH AND WELLNESS, THE CITY AND ITS COLLEAGUES AND
COLLABORATING GROUPS FELT THAT
HEALTH AND WELLNESS WAS A KEY THING FOR A CITY TO BE INVOLVED
IN.
IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.
IT WAS FOR THE CITY.
ONE OF THEIR KEY TARGETS, T 5, BY 2036 THE INCIDENCE OF
PREVENTIBLE DISEASE, INJURY AND
DEATH IS REDUCED. THE CITY HAS SINCE EMBRACED THE
IMAGINE CALGARY PLAN AND HAS
CREATED AN OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY TO SUPPORT
REACHING THIS VISION.
I WOULD ARGUE CLEARLY THE CITY AND THE ALDERMEN AND THE
CITIZENRY FEEL THAT A CITY
GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE IN HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION
FOR ITS CITIZENS.
AND I'M GLAD. BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT MAKES HA MAKES A CITY GREAD
THAT'S ONE OF THEIR ROLES.

IS WATER FLUORIDATION A GOOD
THING?
I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND PROMOTION BUT I HAVE
LOOKED AT A GAZILLION — ABOUT
EIGHT TO TEN SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS WHICH ARE REVIEWS THAT BRING
TOGETHER USING FORMAL METHODS TO
LOOK AT WHAT DOES ALL THE RESEARCH SAY AND BRING IT
TOGETHER.
AND BRINGING TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION.
VERY CLEARLY THE ANSWER IS THAT
WATER FLUORIDATION IS BETTER THAN EVERY OTHER METHOD OF
FLUORIDATION AVAILABLE TO
PEOPLE. IT'S BETTER THAN TOOTHPASTE
ALONE, IT'S BETTER THAN
FLUORIDATION DROPS AND SO ON. THE ANSWER IS WHY?
BECAUSE YOU CAN CONTROL IT.
IT'S A NATURALLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCE, AS ALDERMAN MacLEOD
HAS SAID, THE BOW RIVER WATER
SUPPLIES A .1 TO .2 PART PER MILLION.
THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS THAT
MOST EXPERTS AGREE IS 7 PARTS PER MILLION.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SUPPLEMENTING, NOT MEDICATING THE WATER, TO A LEVEL THAT GETS
SOME BENEFIT FOR DENTAL DISEASE
PREVENTION WHILE NOT GETTING INTO THE RANGE OF CAUSING
SIGNIFICANT RISK AND INJURY.
AND THIS IS NOT JUST ME SAYING IT, THIS IS SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS.
THIS IS THE AUSTRALIAN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONED A MAJOR STUDY AND LOOKING AT ALL THE
RESEARCH THAT WAS UP TO DATE AND
BRINGING IT TOGETHER WITH A FINAL CONCLUSION.
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT WATER
FLUORIDATION IS THAT IT'S CHEAP, FAR CHEAPER THAN FAMILIES TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT HOW IN THE WORLD
DO I PUT FLUORIDE IN MY CHILD'S WATER IF THE CITY'S NOT GOING TO
DO IT.
AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, WATER FLUORIDATION IS A GREAT WAY OF
LEVELING SOCIAL INEQUITIES.
IF YOU TAKE WATER FLUORIDATION OUT, IN BRITAIN IT WAS SHOWN
DENTAL HEALTH DECLINED.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR ANY OF THIS.
YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THE
PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW THIS, THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE HAS OFFERED
TO DEVOTE ITS EXPERTS IN PUBLIC
HEALTH TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE ON BEHALF OF CITY.
YOU RECEIVED THIS OFFER ON
MONDAY.

I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT COMING
OUT OF TODAY'S MEETING YOU AS A
COMMITTEE DECIDE TO DEFER THIS MOTION, TAKE THE MEDICAL SCHOOL
UP ON ITS OFFER AND HAVE ITS
EXPERTS, AND I WON'T BE ON IT BECAUSE I'M CLEARLY IN FAVOUR OF
FLUORIDATION, HAVE ITS EXPERTS
LOOK AT THE ISSUE AND COME BACK TO YOU WITHIS ANSWERS OF WHAT
THE SUM KNOWLEDGE SAYS TODAY.
THANK YOU. >> A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FOR
YOU.
THE FIRST ONE IS ALDERMAN KEATING.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR PERFORM I
APPRECIATE YOU COMING BECAUSE PART OF THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF
THIS IS TRYING TO GET A TRUE AND
MEDICALLY AND ETHICAL STANCE ON WHERE WE ARE.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE —
BECAUSE ONE OF THE ISSUES IS WHETHER THEY'RE DRINKING WATER
OR DRINKING OTHER SUBSTANCES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER OR NOT FLUORIDE IS IN
THE POPS, JUICES FROM
CONCENTRATE WHERE WE ADD WATER AND ALL OF THOSE SORTS OF
THINGS, IS IT STILL THERE OR
ALTEREDDOR DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN SOFT DRINKS.
AS A FAMILY DOCTOR I ADVISE ALL
MY PATIENTS NOT TO HAVE SOFT DRINKS SO I WOULD NOT BE LOOKING
AT THAT AS A FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENT
ROUTE.

IF THERE'S FLUORIDE IN THE
WATER, IT WOULD ASSUME WHERE
ARTIFICIAL DRINKS WERE MADE SO IF THERE WAS FLUORIDE IN THE
WATER WHEREVER IT WAS MADE, I
ASSUME IT WOULD BE IN THERE BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW.
WE WOULD NOT ADVISE GATORADE —
OR SOFT DRINKS OR WHATEVER NOW AGAIN ARE PROBABLY OKAY AS A
RARE THING BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE
USED AS A REGULAR SOURCE OF HYDRATION.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
AND I AGREE WITH YOU A HUNDRED PERCENT.
THE ISSUE IS WHERE ARE THEY
GETTING THE FLUORIDE AND HOW AND AT WHAT CONCENTRATE AND WHAT
DOSE.
PART OF IT IS IF WE'RE NOT GIVING IT IN THE WATER, THE
ISSUE IS THEY'RE GETTING IT
EVERYWHERE ELSE SO MAYBE IT'S TOO MUCH.
BUT WE LOOK AT SLURPEES AND THE
BIG GLUPS AND ALL OF THESE THINGS AND THAT'S WHERE I'M
COMING FROM.
WHERE IS THE DOSE? DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF
THE — AND WE HEAR MANY COMMENTS
ABOUT MEDICAL EFFECTS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ON
WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE CERTAIN
INDICATIONS MEDICALLY WHERE THEY SHOULD NOT BE INGESTING FLUORIDE
SPECIFICALLY I'VE HEARD KIDNEY
DIFFICULTIES, ANTIREJECTION DRUGS FROM TRANSPLANTS AND
INFANTS.
>> I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON PUBLIC POLICY OR WATER FLUORIDATION.
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, A
FAMILY DOCTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A WHOLE LOT OF MONTH BUT I HAVE
DEVOTING TEEM TO THIS ISSUE
WHENEVER I — TIME TO THIS ISSUE WHENEVER I COULD.
IN THE AUSTRALIAN STUDY WHICH IS
THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF WATER FLUORIDATION, I DID NOT
SEE THAT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED.
AGAIN, THOUGH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS COMMITTEE POSE THAT AS
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS TO AN
EXPERT PANEL THAT THE MEDICAL SCHOOL CAN CREATE FOR YOU.
>> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THAT,
THERE ARE NO MEDICAL CASES WHERE THEY SHOULD NOT INGEST FLUORIDE,
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE.
>> I DIDN'T FIND THEM.

THERE'S BEEN SOME RECENT
QUESTIONS OVER SHOULD WE BE
USING FLOURIDATED WATER TO MIX INFANT FORMULA.
WE RECOMMEND ALL BABIES ARE
BREAST-FED FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF LIFE AND CONTINUE FOR
THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR LIFE.
FOR THOSE WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY HAVE TO HAVE FORMULA
THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTION ABOUT
SHOULD YOU USE FLOURIDATED WATER FOR THAT.
I DON'T THINK THE JURY IS IN FOR
THAT. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP
TODAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR.
I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL HAS AN
OFFER OF EXPERTISE TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS.
AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A
HELPFUL THING FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU.
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE AS A DOCTOR,
THERE ANY OTHER MEDICAL BENEFIT TO FLUORIDE OTHER THAN
TEETH, ORAL HEALTH OR IS IT
STRICTLY FOR TEETH? >> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
THERE'S MAYBE SOME BENEFIT IN
PREVENTING FRACTURES, BUT NOT HIP FRACTURES LATER IN LIFE,
WHICH IS TOO BAD.
HIP FRACTURES WOULD BE A GREAT THING TO PREVENT.
BUT FOR OTHER FRACTURES LATER IN
LIFE THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THIS.
DENTAL AND ORAL HEALTH IS THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING.

THE REASON WHY IS IF YOU PREVENT
CHILDREN FROM GETTING A LOT OF
CAVITIES IN THEIR MOUTH, YOU IMPROVE THEIR LIVES AND PREVENT
THEM FROM HAVING ISSUES RELATED
TO PAIN. YOU IMPROVE THE IMPACT ON THEIR
FAMILY, THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO
TAKE TIME OFF TO BRING THEIR CHILD TO MULTIPLE DENTAL
SURGERIES AND SO ON.
YOU IMPROVE THEIR ABILITY TO SPEAK.
AND YOU IMPROVE THEIR ABILITY
FOR GOOD DICTION AND INTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY.
GOOD ORAL HEALTH MEANS OTHER
THINGS TOO. IT HELPS A POPULATION'S CHILDREN
THRIVE BY HAVING NOT TO BE
EMBARRASSED ABOUT BAD TEETH, BY BEING ABLE TO HAVE GOOD DICTION
IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THEY'RE
NOT MISSING TEETH AND LESS IMPACT ON THE FAMILY THAT POOR
ORAL HEALTH BRING.
>> AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THERE'S FLUORIDE IN OUR BONES
THAT WILL HELP STRENGTHEN IT?
>> YES.

BONES TURN OVER AND, YES, THERE
IS FLUORIDE IN BONES.
THE GREATEST IMPACT OF WATER FLUORIDATION IS ON TEETH.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURALLY
OCCURRING FLUORIDE AND THE
ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDE? >> I HADN'T HEARD THAT CONCERN
UNTIL TODAY BUT FLUORIDE IS AN
ELEMENT AND IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER ELEMENT THAT IF IT'S IN A PURE
FORM WHETHER IT'S THROUGH
INDUSTRIAL MEANS OR NATURAL MEANS, IT'S FLUORIDE.
I THINK THOUGH THAT IT WOULD
BEHOOVE YOUR COMMITTEE TO ASK YOUR CITY ADMINISTRATION TO
CLARIFY THE QUALITY PROCESSES
THAT GO IN TO CHOOSING THE SOURCE OF FLUORIDE THAT GOES
INTO THE WATER AND I'M SURE
THERE'S VERY GOOD EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THAT IT'S A PURE FORM OF
FLUORIDE.
IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT BECAUSE FLUORIDE IS AN ELEMENT, A
NATURAL SUBSTANCE.
>> THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> THANK YOU, Mr.

CHAIRMAN.
TELL ME WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS THE — OR WHAT DO YOU HAVE AS
PROOF THAT THERE'S BENEFIT TO
CALGARIANS SINCE WE'VE ADDED THE FLUORIDE?
WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE OF ANY
BENEFIT? >> SO, I DON'T HAVE A STUDY TO
POINT TO.
THERE MAY BE ONE DONE, BUT I'M NOT AWARE AFTER STUDY THAT WAS
DONE LOOKING AT CALGARY AS
PREFLUORIDE VERSUS POST FLUORIDE.
THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY POST
FLUORIDE MAY HAVE GOTTEN WORSE IS BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY MORE
PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
WHERE VARYING DEGREES OF DENTAL HEALTH.
THEY MOVED TO CALGARY AND
BROUGHT WITH THEM LESS GOOD ORAL HEALTH AS A STARTING POINT.
I DON'T THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER
HAS CALGARY BENEFITED.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THERE ARE
NUMBERS OF NOT JUST STUDIES BUT
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS WHERE ALL THE RESEARCH IS PUT TOGETHER USING
FORMAL METHODS TO LOOK AT WHAT
THE OVERALL BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION.
THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION IS
EVEN TODAY WATER FLUORIDATION IS A GOOD THING, NOT A BAD THING.
I HEAR THE SORT OF SCENARIO THAT
OUR PREVIOUS SPEAKER HAD AND THAT SOUNDS VERY DIFFICULT, AND
SHE'S NOT HERE AT THIS MOMENT,
BUT IT MAY HAVE BEEN AT THOSE TIMES THERE WERE TOO MANY
SOURCES OF FLUORIDE.
LIKE ANY SUPPLEMENT, YOU CAN HAVE TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING.
BUT IN THE PROPER DOSE, THE
PROPER TINY DOSE WELL CONTROLLED, THE SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS IN THE WORLD TODAY SHOW
THAT CLEARLY STILL TODAY WATER FLUORIDATION IS A GOOD THING,
NOT A BAD THING.
>> WELL, THERE'S BEEN A DEFINITE DECLINE, A SIGNIFICANT DECLINE,
IN TOOTH DECAY IN THE LAST 30
YEARS.

THE DATA SHOWS THAT FROM 1975 TO
2005, OVER THAT 30-YEAR PERIOD,
THAT WHEN THEY DO THE DATA AND THE STUDY ON 12-YEAR-OLDS AND
THEIR TOOTH DECAY, THERE'S A
HUGE DECLINE. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE UNITED
STATES AND AUSTRALIA AND NEW
ZEALAND, THERE'S NO MORE IMPROVEMENT THERE THAN THERE IS
IN BELGIUM AND FINLAND AND ITALY
WHICH DO NOT FLOURIDATE. TELL ME HOW WE KNOW THE
FLUORIDATION IS PLAYING A
SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THIS DECLINE.
>> WHEN YOU SET UP A PROPER
STUDY, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE COMPARING APPEARINGS TO
APPLES.
WHAT WE EAT IN CANADA THE U.S. AND AUSTRALIA MIGHT BE MORE SOFT
DRINKS, MORE CANDY BARS THAN
MAYBE WHAT THEY EAT IN ITALY.

WE DON KNOW.
WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU SET UP A
STUDY LIKE THIS IS COMPARE AREAS THAT HAVE FLUORIDATION VERSUS
NOT AND YOU ENSURE THEY'RE
MATCHED SO YOU'RE COMPARING COMS TO APPLES AND YOU CHANGE ONE
VARIABLE AND THEN YOU SEE THE
OUTCOME. MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN THEY'RE
WELL DONE, CONTROLLED
EXPERIMENTS WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY KEY VARIABLE THAT CHANGES,
THERE ARE LESS CAVITIES IN THE
POPULATION. IN ALL SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS BUT
PARTICULARLY THE LOWER
SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS. >> SOME OF THE MAJOR STUDIES IN
THE STATES TODAY, THERE'S REALLY
A DENTAL CRISIS IN DETROIT, NEW YORK, AND YET THEY'VE BEEN
FLORIDATED FOR YEARS.
>> IF THEY PULL OUT WATER FLUORIDATION IT WILL GET ONLY
WORSE BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER
THINGS THAT ARE CAUSING IT.

>> YOU'RE SAYING IT'S DIET FOR
THE FLUORIDE.
>> A COMBINATION OF THINGS. I'M IN CHARGE OF BRUSHING MY
KIDS' TEETH AT HOME.
IT'S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. ONCE IT'S BECOME CLEAR TO ME, I
ASK MY PATIENTS, PARENTS,
REGULARLY WHO'S IN CHARGE OF BRUSHING THEIR TEETH, IT'S
USUALLY THE CHILD.
AND I THINK WOW IF I AS AN ADULT, A DOCTOR WHO KNOWS HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS, I HAVE TROUBLE
AND THE DENTAL HYGENIST SAYS THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD JOB YOU'VE
BEEN DOING, JOHN'S DAD, BUT YOU
COULD BE DOING A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
IF I HAVE TROUBLE, THEN HOW CAN
A 6-YEAR-OLD CHILD BE DOING GREAT DENTAL CARE TO THEMSELVES.
THAT'S WHAT FLUORIDATION GIVES
YOU.

IT'S AN EXTRA SAFETY BUFFER AND
AS LONG AS IT'S DIALED DOWN TO
THE PROPER LEVEL SO THAT IT GIVES GOOD VALUE AT A VERY LOW
RISK OF COSMETIC PROBLEMS, IT'S
A VALUABLE SECOND BUFFER BECAUSE THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF REASONS.
FLOSSING, BRUSHING AND A DIET
PEOPLE CONSUME, HOW FREQUENTLY THEY BRUSH, GRAZING OF FOOD.
ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT
CONTRIBUTE TO POOR ORAL HEALTH. >> YOU DON'T CONSIDER IT
MEDICATION.
>> NO. I CONSIDER THIS TO BE A
SUPPLEMENT.
SORT OF LIKE IODINE SALTS. SORT OF LIKE IRON IN BABY
CEREAL, PABLUM, ONE OF THE
GREATEST CANADIAN INVENTIONS OF ALL TIME.
>> I TAKE INVIT TAKE VITAMIN C Y
BUT WOULDN'T FORCE IT ON EVERYBODY ELSE IN CALGARY.
>> I WOULDN'T EITHER BECAUSE THE
RESEARCH ON VITAMIN C IS A BIT TRICKY.
>> WE'LL DISCUSS THAT SOME OTHER
DAY. THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> THANK YOU.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD IS THERE'S ALTERNATIVE
WAYS OF GETTING FLUORIDE.
HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT? >> MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ARE CLEARLY
THEY'RE GOOD BUT NOT AS GOOD AS WATER FLUORIDATION.
AND SO THE VALUE OF HAVING IT IN
THE WATER IS THAT IT DOES GET INTO YOUR BLOOD AND SO YOU'RE
CONTINUALLY BATHING YOUR TEETH
IN TOPICAL FLUORIDE BY YOUR SALIVA.
THAT'S WHY WATER FLUORIDATION
WORKS WHEREAS BRUSHING YOUR TEETH TWICE A DAY WHILE A GOOD
THING IS NOT ENOUGH.
YOU SPIT OUT THE FLUORIDE BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO INGEST
A BIG LUMP OF FLUORIDE AT ONCE.
THAT'S ONLY A TWICE A DAY APPROACH.
BY HAVING IN THE WATER THROUGH
THE SYSTEM YOU'RE CONSTANTLY BATHING AND THAT'S WHY IT'S A
BETTER ROUTE — OR IT'S SUPERIOR
ABOVE ALL THESE OTHER SYSTEMS. >> THANK YOU.
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THE
SYSTEMATIC STUDY IN AUSTRALIA. SO I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, I
GUESS.
ONE IS WHEN WAS THAT DONE. BUT THE OTHER IS CAN YOU EXPLAIN
TO ME — LIKE, IF I'M
UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW IS YOU TAKE
ALL THE RESEARCH OUT THERE AND
GO THROUGH IT ALL? AM I ANYWHERE — YOU GO THROUGH
IT ALL AND COME UP WITH AN
ON-BALANCE WHAT'S THE RISK AND WHAT'S THE BENEFIT.
>> YES.
I'M NOT A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EXPERT.
HAVE I HAD MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE
EXPERTS LOOK AT THE ONES THAT I COULD FIND AND THEY SAID THEY
ARE WELL DONE.
YOU FIRST ESTABLISH CRITERIA.

WHAT WOULD A GOOD STUDY LOOKS
LIKE.
A STUDY THAT RANDOMLY REPORTS THE DENTAL HEALTH IN DETROIT
WOULD IN THE BE INCLUDED BECAUSE
THERE'S NO COMPARISON. A STUDY IN BRITAIN THAT COMPARES
TWO TOWNS SIDE BY SIDE ONE THAT
HAS FLUORIDATION ONE THAT DOESN'T SIMILAR DEMOGRAPHICSIZE
WOULD BE INCLUDED.
YOU FIGURE OUT WHICH STUDIES DO YOU INCLUDE, WHICH DO YOU NOT.
YOU SET UP OTHER QUALITY CONTROL
MEASURES. AND YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT THEIR
CONCLUSION WATT AND LINE THEM UP
AND THERE'S SOME STATISTICS THAT GOES WITH THIS AND FIGURE OUT
THE POWER OF THE FINDINGS.
AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A STUDY HERE OR A STUDY THERE THAT'S OUT
OF KEEPING.
BUT WHEN THE VAST MAJORITY LINE UP IN ONE SORT OF AREA, ONE SIDE
OF THE BAR THAT SAYS IT'S A GOOD
THING AND ONLY ONE OR TWO TO LINE UP TO SAY IT'S A BAD THING,
THE OVERALL CONCLUSION WOULD BE
IT'S A GOOD THING.

IF THE REVIEW SHOWED THE IMPACT
WAS IN A DIFFERENT SKEW AND YOU
SET UP STATISTICS TO MEASURE ALL THESE THINGS, THEN THE
CONCLUSION WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
NOW THERE'S NOT JUST BEEN ONE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, THERE'S BEEN
MANY.
THE DATE OF AUSTRALIAN WAS TUITIOTUITIO2006OR 2007.
IT WAS A MEGA REVIEW.
SINCE THEN SOMEONE DID AN UPDATE AND I FORWARDED THAT PAPER TO
MISS FARRELL'S OFFICE.
THE ANSWER IS NOTHING REAL REALLY CHANGED, THE SCIENCE SAYS
SO FAR ON AVERAGE IT'S A GOOD
THING, NOT A BAD THING. >> THANK YOU.
I GUESS IT'S GOO GOOD TO KNOW TT
YOU'VE GOT CURRENT INFORMATION. I SAW THE LETTER ABOUT THIS
PANEL SUGGESTION THAT WAS MADE,
AND I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT HAS A LOT OF APPEAL.
BUT MY CONCERN ON IT IS HOW CAN
WE AS COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC BE CONFIDENT THAT THE
PANEL IS NOT BIASED?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION WHICH IS WHY I'VE SAID TO OUR DEAN I
DON'T WANT TO BE ON THIS PANEL
BECAUSE I'VE COME OUT PUBLICLY IN SUPPORT OF WATER
FLUORIDATION.
HOW CAN YOU BE SURE IT'S NOT BIAS, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO
HAVE FAITH IN OTHER PEOPLE.
IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE AS CITIZENS HAVE FAITH IN YOU AS
ALDERMEN THAT YOU WILL BE TRYING
TO BALANCE IT AND WITH THE RIGHT DOLLAR FIGURE.
WHAT YOU DO IS ENGAGE IN
DISCUSSION WITH Dr.

FEASBY AND SAY HERE IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE
TO SEE.
HOW CAN WE BE SURE? I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT
MAYBE YOURSELF ALDERMAN
MacLEOD JOIN THE COMMITTEE SO YOU CAN BE AN INSIDE PERSON TO
BE SURE THAT THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE OF BIAS, THAT — SO THAT YOU BECOME THEN AN EXPERT
FRANKLY IN SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ON
WATER FLUORIDATION. IT WOULD BE GOOD INSIDE
KNOWLEDGE TO HAVE.
I THINK THAT YOU ASK FOR WHATEVER MEASURES YOU NEED SO
THAT YOU AS A GROUP WILL FEEL
CONFIDENT THAT THIS WILL BE AN UNBIASED REVIEW AND YOU ASK
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
JUST LIKE ALDERMAN KEATING SAID, CAN YOU ANSWER THESE THREE
QUESTIONS, AND THEN THEY'LL GET
BACK TO YOU WITH THE ANSWERS. AT SOME POINT IF THE QUESTIONS
ARE 0 20, IT MAKES IT A LONGER
REVIEW. THE EASIEST WAY TO PREVENT BIAS
IS HAVE ONE OF YOURSELVES ON THE
COMMITTEE. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT WAY
TO BRING FORWARD THE VISION OF
IMAGINE CALGARY TOGETHER WHEREAS ORGANIZATIONS WORKING IN
COLLABORATION TOGETHER TO
ACHIEVE COMMON GOALS, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY IS ONE OF
THE PARTNER GROUPS IN
IMAGINATION CALGARY — IN IMAGINE CALGARY.
>> THANK YOU.
THE THOUGHT OF SITTING ON THAT PANEL SORT OF MAKES ME HEART
STOP A LITTLE.
I'M NOT SURE I PAID GOOD ENOUGH ATTENTION TO PHYSICS IN HIGH
SCHOOL TO FULLY UNDERSTAND AND
APPRECIATE WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS.
IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY,
THOUGH, PART OF THE BENEFIT OR THE — HOW WE STRUCTURE THE
PANEL WILL BE THE TERMS OF
REFERENCE, WHAT QUESTIONS WE ASK THE PANEL WOULD BE JUST AS
IMPORTANT AS WHO'S ON THE PANEL.
>> I WOULD THINK BECAUSE THAT GIVES THE PANEL A CLEAR JOB TO
DO.
AND THERE ARE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF WATER
FLUORIDATION, OBVIOUSLY.
WE'VE SEEN THEM IN THE FIRST SIX SPEAKERS HERE TODAY.
THE PANEL WOULD NOT BE WEIGHING
IN ON THAT.

THEY'D BE ANSWERING SPECIFIC AND
SCIENTIFIC ANSWERS.
WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS THAT WOULD HELP YOU AS
ALDERMEN DO WHAT YOU DO EVERY
DAY. I WOULD THINK THIS IS A HANDY
RESOURCE, RATHER THAN HAVING ME
COME UP AND IT'S GOOD AND HAVING SOMEBODY ELSE WHO IS A PROFESSOR
COME UP AND SAY IT'S BAD, THIS
WOULD BE A GOOD THING. >> THAT'S PART OF THE APPEAL
BECAUSE AT SOME POINT YOU DO
HAVE TO DEFER TO THOSE THAT ARE TRULY EXPERTS AND PAID BETTER
ATTENTION TO PHYSICS IN HIGH
SCHOOL. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY MORE
QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> THANK YOU. AND THANK YO THANK YOU FOR BEINE
TODAY.
I KNOW WE DISAGREE ON THIS TOPIC, ALTHOUGH I THINK WE
PROBABLY AGREE ON OTHER THINGS.
AND ONE OF THEM IS THE ROLE OF HEALTH, ALTHOUGH NOT HEALTH
CARE, BUT HEALTH FOR CALGARIANS.
AND SO THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF PART 2 OF THE MOTION.
THAT WAS A CONTROVERSIAL PART OF
THE MOTION.

BECAUSE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES
BELIEVE IT'S NOT THE CITY'S
RESPONSIBILITY. TO GET INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO — IF THE
MOTION IS SUCCESSFUL, THE FIRST PART OF THE MOTION, THEN WE HAVE
AN OBLIGATION TO LOOK AT THE
SECOND PART. AND THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF MY
FIRST QUESTION.
DO YOU THINK IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN REMOVING FLUORIDE
FROM THE DRINKING WATER IN ITS
ENTIRETY WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO LOOK AT OUR OTHER CHOICES?
>> WELL, I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. I THINK CITY DECISION MAKERS
SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
AND IF THERE'S AN INCREDIBLY WELL DOCUMENTED WAY TO PROMOTE
ORAL HEALTH PARTICULARLY IN
PEOPLE IN LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSES AND YOU AS A GROUP OF
CITY ALDERMEN AND MAYOR AS A
GROUP DECIDE TO ABANDON THAT, THEN YOU'VE CAUSED A PROBLEM, I
WOULD SUGGEST.
AND THEN IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THINK HOW CAN
YOU BEST ADVOCATE TO ENSURE THAT
THOSE WHO WILL BE MOST HARMED BY THAT DECISION, AND THERE WILL
BE, CAN BE BEST PROTECTED.
FOR THE GENTLEMAN, Mr.

MEADE, WHO TALKED EARLIER TALKED ABOUT
DIVERTING THE MONEY FOR
FLUORIDATION TOWARDS SOM SOME ST OF DENTAL CARE PROGRAM, AND
WHILE THAT MAY SOUND ATTRACTIVE
I'M QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW FAR THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION
DOLLARS WILL STRETCH ACROSS A
CITY THIS BIG AND IT WILL LIKELY BE EXHAUSTED IN NO TIME WITH
VERY ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO
MEASURE BENEFITS DERIVED. IT WOULD BE A FAR MORE EXPENSIVE
PROGRAM.
AS YOU SAY, YOU'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE BOTTOM LINE.
WATER FLUORIDATION IS YOUR BEST,
CHEAPEST WAY TO PROTECT THE ORAL HEALTH OF CALGARIANS.
PERIOD.
AND SO IF YOU DO SOMETHING ELSE, IT'S GOING TO BE INCREDIBLY
EXPENSIVE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY WANTS TO TAKE ON THAT BURDEN, BUT,
BOY, YOU AS ALDERMEN WILL TAKE
ON THAT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HAVING MADE THIS DECISION THAT
AFFECTS THE ORAL HEALTH OF SO
MANY PEOPLE.

>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT SOME MAY
THINK BY FLOUR DATING WATER,
WE'RE DEALING WITH THE POVERTY ISSUE.
PERIOD.
AND I THINK THERE'S EVIDENCE IN MANY, MANY CITIES THAT HAVE HIGH
RATES OF POVERTY, THEIR TOOTH
DECAY RATES ARE GOING UP. AND SO IT'S NOT A PANACEA.
>> NO, IT'S NOT.
>> NOR SHOULD WE SEE IT AS BEING DONE.
I THINK THAT'S MY POINT.
NOW, ONE OF THE CRITICISM — AND YOU HAD MENTIONED CONTROLLING
THE DOSE.
AND CERTAINLY ONE OF THE CRITICISMS I'M HEARING FROM
CONSTITUENTS IS WE CAN'T CONTROL
THE DOSE.

PEOPLE DRINK VARYING AMOUNTS OF
WATER.
SOME PEOPLE DRINK VERY LITTLE. SO THEY — IF FLUORIDE'S A
BENEFIT, THEY'RE NOT CONSUMING
TAP WATER. AND OTHERS DRINK COPIOUS AMOUNTS
OF TAP WATER.
SO THE DOSE ISN'T BEING CONTROLLED.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE
CRITICISMS. >> SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WOULD
BE A GREAT QUESTION TO ASK AN
EXPERT PANEL. HOW BIG AN IMPACT DOES THIS
VARIABILITY OF FLUORIDE IN THE
CITY HAVE. >> SO IF FLUORIDE IS REMOVED
FROM THE WATER AND WE HAVEN'T
BEEN COMPARING — THERE WAS NO STUDIES IN CALGARY ON THE
EFFECTS — OR BENEFITS OF
FLUORIDE SPECIFIC TO THIS CITY, WHICH I WOULD SUGGEST IS AN
ETHICAL ISSUE PERSONALLY, IF WE
DO REMOVE IT THEN SHOULD WE BE OLD GAITED TO REVIEW THE IMPACTS
OF REMOVAL ON THE HEALTH OF THE
POPULATION? WATERLOO JUST REMOVED FLUORIDE
FROM THEIR WATER.
ONTARIO FLOURIDATES WIDELY. QUEBEC DOES NOT.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEALTH —
DENTAL HEALTH IS STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.
SO WOULD WE BE THEN OBLIGATED TO
STUDY THE IMPACTS OF OUR DECISION.
>> THE REASON FOR A DIFFERENCE
IN DENTAL HEALTH BETWEEN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO COULD BE FOR A
VARIETY OF REASONS, NOT JUST
WATER FLUORIDATION.

I WOULD CAUTION PLEASE AS
ALDERMEN YOU DON'T MAKE A
DECISION ON RAPID EASY COMPARISONS WHICH YOU DON'T KNOW
WHY THE DIFFERENCES MAY BE.
>> BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY AND WHAT WE'LL
CONTINUE TO HEAR ALL DAY IS A
DIVERSITY OF OPINION. 60 YEARS INTO IT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING AS
FUNDAMENTAL AS OUR DRINKING WATER.
AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE
JURY'S STILL OUT. THAT CONCERNS ME WHEN IT'S MY
TASK AS A DECISION MAKER WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING AS FUNDAMENTAL AS DRINKING WATER.
>> I WOULD DISAGREE.
THE JURY WORLDWIDE IS IN. MADAME FARRELL, THERE HAS NOT
BEEN A SINGLE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
THAT I COULD FIND THAT SAID WATER FLUORIDATION WAS A BAD
THING.
>> AND MY QUESTION IS THEN EVALUATION.
WOULD IT BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY
TO LOOK AT EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF OUR DECISION FROM
TODAY OR IF WE CHOOSE TO REMOVE
FLUORIDE, SHOULD WE THEN STUDY IT?
AND LOOK AT THE IMPACTS OF OUR
DECISION IN THE FUTURE? >> I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A
WELL-DESIGNED STUDY TO DO THAT BUT I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE
SENSE.
>> NOW, THE LAST TIME WE WENT TO AN EXPERT PANEL, THE EXPERT
PANEL RECOMMENDED LOWERING THE
AMOUNT IN THE DRINKING WATER.

THAT WASN'T MADE — THAT
RECOMMENDATION WASN'T MADE BY
HEALTH CANADA. AND IT WASN'T MADE BY ALBERTA
HEALTH SERVICES, ALTHOUGH
ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES PARTICIPATED IN THE PANEL.
BUT IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO
REVIEW IT BY THE CITY OF CALGARY.
THAT LOWER DOSE THEN HAS NOW
BECOME MANY, MANY YEARS LATER THE NEW STANDARD, WHICH WAS VERY
INTERESTING.
SO PRIOR TO THAT, PEOPLE WERE CONSUMING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE.
WHAT DO WE SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE
WHO WE ASSURED AT THAT TIME THAT EVERYTHING WAS GREAT AND THEN
SINCE THEN LOWERED THE
ACCEPTABLE DOSE? SCIENCE CHANGES, AND WE SHOULD
ALWAYS BE REVIEWING SCIENCE.
>> I WOULDN'T SAY THAT SCIENCE CHANGED IS THERE'S LIKE A
PENDULUM AND IT EVENTUALLY
SWINGS RIGHT BACK TO THE MIDDLE SPOT.
IT MAY BE IN THE PAST WHEN
FLUORIDE FIRST CAME OUT IT SWUNG TOO FAR AND THERE WERE A LOT OF
STUDIES THAT SHOW IT WAS TOO
SUPPLEMENTED — >> WHEN FLUORIDE FIRST CAME OUT,
IT WAS 50 YEARS OF FLUORIDE —
OVERDOSING ON FLUORIDE. 50 YEARS.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I'M SO
CONCERNED IS IT TOOK US THAT LONG TO GET TO THAT POINT IN OUR
KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE.
AND SO WHEN DOES THE NEXT BIG LEAP COME WITH OUR KNOWLEDGE?
AND IT'S CONCERNING ME.
SO I IMAGINE — >> THE ANSWER TO THAT IS IT'S
ONLY IN THE RECENT 40, 50 YEARS
THAT THE SCIENCE OF HOW TO DO THESE STUDIES HAVE BEEN FIGURED
OUT.
YES, I THINK YES, YOU EVALUE AND MAYBE THE NUMBER SHOULD BE LOWER
THAN .7.
MAYBE IT SHOULD BE .6.

DO WHAT YOU DID BEFORE.
YOU HAD GOOD SUCCESS IT SOUNDS
LIKE. CALGARY DID THIS BEFORE AND HAD
A VERY GOOD SUCCESS WITH THAT
AND IN FACT WAS A TRAILBLAZER SO DO IT AGAIN.
>> IT WAS A TRAILBLAZER BECAUSE
OF CITY COUNCIL. IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF ALBERTA
HEALTH SERVICES, I HAVE TO SAY,
OR HEALTH CANADA. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
MY QUESTION THAT I WANTED TO DRILL DOWN A LITTLE DEEPER ON
WITH YOU WAS YOUR COMMENT ABOUT
PEOPLE WILL BE HARMED.

CAN YOU DRILL DOWN ON THAT AND
BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHICH
PEOPLE, WHICH AGE GROUP AND WHAT THE HARM WOULD BE.
>> OKAY.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WATER FLUORIDATION BENEFITS PEOPLE BY
PREVENTING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
CAVITIES OR CARRIES OVER TIME. >> SO THE HARM?
>> SO THE HARM IS THAT IF YOU
STOP DOING THAT, YOU WON'T GET AS GOOD PREVENTION.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN — I'M NOT AN
EPIDEMIOLOGIST WHO CAN SAY BASED UPON A HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE
WHAT THE HARM WILL BE.
BUT BY LOWERING THE WATER FLUORIDATION OR REMOVING IT TO
JUST AN ACTUAL LEVELS MY
UNDERSTANDING THERE WOULD BE LESS CAVITIES, THEREFORE MORE
CAVITIES PREVENTED.
>> WITH THE HOLE POPULATION? >> I UNDERSTANDING THAT AFFECTS
THE ENTIRE POPULATION.
THERE WAS A STUDY IN BRITAIN WHICH LOOKED AT AREAS ON THE
WEST COASTS OF BRITAIN,
Dr. JIM DICKINSON HAS READ THIS PAPER IN DETAIL AND HE'S A
BIT OF AN EXPERT ON SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS AND THESE SORTS OF THINGS AND SO I CAN PUT YOU IN
TOUCH WITH HIM ON THE DETAILS OF
THIS. BUT WHEN THEY WITH DREW WATER
FLUORIDATION AND STUDIED IT
CAREFULLY, THEN THEY FOUND IN ALL AGE CATEGORIES AND ALL
SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSES THERE WERE
MORE CAVITIES AND IT AFFECTED PEOPLE AT THE LOWER END OF
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSES MORE.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTAND.

>> WHAT OTHER HARM?
>> OF REMOVING WATER
FLUORIDATION? >> YEAH.
>> THEN AS I SAID TO I THINK
ALDERMAN STEVENSON OR KEATING, THERE'S POSSIBLY A BENEFIT FOR
FLUORIDATION FOR FRACTURE RISKS.
MAYBE TAKING POWER ADDITION OUT WOULD REMOVE — FLUORIDATIO FLUN
OUT.
THE HARM IS THE REMOVAL OF GOOD PREVENTION.
THAT'S THE HARM.
IF YOU TAKE WATER FLUORIDE OUT YOU LOSE ALL THE BENEFITS THAT
FLUORIDE BRINGS.
WHATEVER FLUORIDE IS GOOD FOR, IF YOU REMOVE IT, YOU LOSE ALL
THAT.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN PINCOTT.
>> JUST TO DECLARE AN INTEREST. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG, QUESTION?
>> YOU MENTIONED THE AUSTRALIA
STUDY. I'VE GLANCED AT A FEW — WELL,
QUITE A FEW OF THESE MYSELF AND
THERE ARE STUDIES FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE SPECTRUM SAYING
THAT IT'S GOOD AND IT'S BAD.
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT A STUDY DONE BY THE FACULTY OF
MEDICINE IN CALGARY OVER A SIX,
EIGHT-WEEK PERIOD IS GOING TO GIVE US A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER WHEN STUDIES
OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS SEEMS TO STILL, ALTHOUGH CONTRARY TO WHAT
YOU'RE SUGGESTING, LEAVE SOME
DOUBT IN THE MINDS OF APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THE
POPULATION?
>> SO WHAT YOU WOULD BE ASKING THEM TO DO IS NOT TO DO A
MASSIVE NEW — COMMISSION A NEW
RESEARCH STUDY THAT WOULD TAKE THREE YEARS.
YOU'D BE ASKING THEM TO REVIEW
THE AVAILABLE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT BY
AGREED-UPON STANDARDS MEET
CERTAIN LEVELS OF QUALITY OF HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED AND
LOOKING AT THOSE CONCLUSIONS AND
BRINGING THEM TOGETHER AND REPORTING BACK.
AND IT MAY BE — I COULD HAVE
JUST SIMPLY MISSED SOME SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS THAT SHOWED
THAT THERE WATER FLUORIDATION IS
NOT A GOOD THING.

I DID FIND ONE THAT HAD SOME
SLIGHT CAUTION.
BUT IT WASN'T ABLE TO DECLARE CLEARLY THAT IT WAS A BAD THING.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING
THEM TO DO IS TO LOOK AT WHAT'S AVAILABLE OUT THERE.
NOT TO CREATE NEW STUDIES AND
NOT NECESSARILY EVEN TO LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL STUDIES BUT TO LOOK
AT PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES ARE TO
REVIEW WHAT RESEARCH IS OUT THERE, TO PUT THEM TOGETHER AND
FIGURE OUT THE BOTTOM-LINE
ANSWER, TO LOOK AT THOSE DIFFERENT STUDIES AND PUT THEM
TOGETHER.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. YOU'LL NEVER FIND A FULL
AGREEMENT ON THIS.
WE KNOW THAT. AT SOME POINT, YOU HAVE TO MAKE
A DECISION, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST
IT WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL IF YOU CAN GET GREATER CLARITY ON WHAT
THE EVIDENCE MEANS, WOULD
PROBABLY HELP YOU, ALDERMAN DEMONG, BE ABLE TO MAKE YOUR
DECISION BETTER.
BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE, YOURSELF, STRUGGLING WITH THIS.
I WASN'T SURE, AND THAT'S WHY I
WENT IN.

BUT I'M TRAINED IN HOW TO GO TO
PUB MED, PULL OUT THE STUDIES
THAT ARE QUALITY STUDIES. >> WOULD THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE
BE WILLING TO ACCEPT LEGAL
LIABILITY AS TO — WHEN THEY COME BACK WITH THEIR RESULT?
>> I'M NOT AN AGENT ON BEHALF OF
THE FACULTY. I THINK THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE
WOULD IF YOU ASK SOMEBODY TO DO
THEIR JOB PROPERLY AND THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'VE DONE
THEIR JOB PROPERLY, THEY'LL
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

IT'S UP TO YOU AS ALDERMEN —
THIS IS WHY YOU'RE ELECTED, IS
INFORMATION AND FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
NOT HERE AS AN
AGENT OF THE FACULTY. THAT WOULD BE A SPECIFIC
QUESTION YOU'D HAVE TO ASK FOR
THE DEAN BUT IF WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS AS A COLLABORATIVE
CITY WHERE WE USE OUR PARTNER
ORGANIZATIONS TOGETHER, LET'S ASK THEM THE QUESTIONS THEY CAN
ANSWER AND THEY'LL GET BACK TO
YOU. >> FROM YOUR POINT OF REFERENCE
MD, YOU'VE HEARD MANY
PEOPLE SPEAK TO THE FLUORISIS OF THE TEETH.
DO YOU CONSIDER THAT A CONCERN
WHATSOEVER? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
HOW BIG IS THE PROBLEM OF
FLUORISIS? ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES Dr. JIM
DICKENSON HAS DONE QUITE A BIT
OF WORK, DELVED INTO THE LITERATURE ON IT, A LOT OF
DENTAL ABNORMALITIES ARE LABEL
THE AS FLUORISIS BECAUSE THEY'RE SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE.
ALTHOUGH WHEN A DENTIST LOOKS
LIKE IT, THIS IS DUE TO CHANGE.

IF YOU ARE A TRAINED EXPERT YOU
CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
LIKELY FLUORIDE-INDUCED CHANGES AND NOT.
WE'VE HEARD FROM ONE PERSON
TODAY WHO CLEARLY SAYS IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS A BIG BURDEN OF
ILLNESS FOR THEM IN SOME
FASHION. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S WHY
YOU FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT AMOUNT
OF PARTS PER MILLION FOR THE FLUORIDE TO GET IT TO THE SWEET
SPOT OF THE CURVE AS WE SAY TO
IT GIVES YOU REASONABLE BENEFIT WITH A VERY LOW CHANCE OF BAD
FLUORISIS.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WITH THAT.
MY CONCERN COMES UP WITH AGAIN
THE DOSAGE REQUIREMENTS. YOU SAY THERE'S A SPECIFIC
DOSAGE THAT IS A SWEET SPOT AS
YOU SAY.

YET I STRUGGLE TO COME UP WITH
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ONE
PERSON THAT DRINKS MAYBE A GLASS OF WATER A DAY AND THE ATHLETE
THAT'S DRINKING 20 OR 30 GLASSES
A DAY. HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE THAT THAT
IS THE RIGHT DOSAGE FOR THAT
PERSON VERSUS THAT PERSON HAD THERE IS NO SPECIFIC SAYING YOU
SHOULD ONLY DRINK THIS MUCH
WATER. >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
THE NUMBER YOU PICK IS NOT THE
NUMBER THAT GOES IN PEOPLE'S MOUTHS.
IT'S THE NUMBER IN THE WATER
SUPPLY OF THE CITY THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO SHOW THAT
OVERALL THE POPULATION IS DOING
WELL WITH GREAT BENEFIT AND VERY LOW HARM.
>> I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING. YOU DECIDE WHAT — WE'RE TO
DECIDE THE ACTUAL QUANTITY IN
THE SYSTEM.

BUT YOU SPECIFICALLY SAY THERE'S
A DOSAGE TO AVOID FLUORISIS AND
CAN STILL ASSIST IN DECAY SITUATIONS.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THAT THE
PERSON THAT IS ACTUALLY RECEIVING THIS MEDICATION
NUTRIENT WHATEVER YOU WILL IS
GETTING THAT RIGHT DOSAGE? CAN YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR
FORM CONTROL THAT?
>> YOU CAN'T, BUT WHAT YOU CAN CONTROL IS — I'LL RETURN TO MY
PREVIOUS STATEMENT IS WE KNOW
1.5 PARTS PER MILLION IS TOO MUCH.
AND THEY KNOW THAT BECAUSE WHEN
THEY LOOK AT THE WHOLE POPULATION AND THEY SEE OH
THERE'S WAY TOO MUCH FLUORISIS
GOING ON FOR WHAT PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, FOR WHATEVER
VALUE FLUORIDE BRINGS.
THEN YOU DIAL IT DOWN TO THE NUMBER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS..7,
THEN FOR AT THE END OF THE DAY
IT EVENTS YOU THE FOR THE POPULATION.
>> YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT SOME
WILL GET NOT ENOUGH AND SOME WILL GET FAR TOO MUCH.
>> YES, BECAUSE THAT'S THE
PROBLEM — >> AND YOU'RE OKAY AS A DOCTOR
TO SAY AS LONG AS THE OVERALL
AVERAGE IS OKAY FOR THE PEOPLE I DON'T MIND THAT SOME PEOPLE GET
TOO MUCH AND SOME PEOPLE GET TOO
LITTLE.

>> WELL, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT POPULATION HEALTH, YOU
HAVE TO MAKE LARGE, BIG SWEEPING DECISIONS.
IT'S LIKE IMMUNIZATIONS —
>> I'M JUST ASKING YOU AS A DOCTOR TO SAY YOU'RE OKAY BY
GENERALLY SAYING THIS I'M OKAY
THAT SOME ARE GETTING TOO LITTLE AND SOME ARE GETTING TOO MUCH,
BUT BECAUSE THE OVERALL PEOPLE
ARE GETTING THE AVERAGE AMOUNT, I'M OKAY WITH THAT?
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU
SUPPLEMENT THE RIGHT LEVEL SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE
GETTING INTO GOOD RANGES AND
THERE'S A SMALL NUMBER AT MOST WHO GET INTO A BIT MORE AND
MIGHT END UP WITH COSMETIC
DEFECTS. I'M NOT SAYING IT EVEN.
YOU ERR ON THE SIDE OF LOWER
AMOUNTS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE SAID WE DON'T WANT TOO MUCH FLUORISIS
IN OUR COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.

>> I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND
THAT.
IT DOES CONCERN ME THAT I'M SEEING STUDIES WHERE UP TO 30,
40% OF UNITED STATES CITIES AND
DOCTORS, DENTISTS ARE SAYING THERE IS THAT MUCH FLUORISIS
HAPPENING TO PEOPLE IN THE
CITIES WHERE THEY HAVE FLOURIDATED WATER SUPPLY.
AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY WE'VE
GOTTEN TOO MUCH IN, WE HAVE 20, 30% FLUORISIS IN THE CITY WE
HAVE TO DIAL IT DOWN.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONCE YOU'VE GOT FLUORISIS, YOU CANNOT TREAT
IT.
ONCE IT'S DONE, IT'S DONE.

YOU CAN'T GO BACK AND SAY WE'LL
FICTION IT NOW.
>> YOUR QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DO YOU DIAL DOWN?
>> YEAH.
I'M CONCERNED THAT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE STUDIES SAYING IT'S AT
RATES OF AS HIGH AS 30 TO 40% IN
SOME U.S. CITIES. NOW THEY HAVE DECIDED WE'VE GOT
TO DIAL IT DOWN.
WHAT DO WE DO IN 15 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE REALIZE THAT .7 WAS
TOO MUCH?
THE ENTIRE ATHLETICS, SUBSECTION OF OUR POPULATION, ARE COMING
DOWN WITH FLUORISIS, LET'S DIAL
IT DOWN AGAIN. IT'S TOO LATE FOR THEM NOW.
AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY WE'VE
DONE THE RIGHT THING? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THOUGH YOU'RE
PRO-FLUORIDATION YOU'RE JUST FIGURING OUT WHAT LEVEL —
>> I'M NEITHER PRO NOR ANTI.
I WANT TO LOOK AT THE INFORMATION.
>> SO IT'S THE SAME AS THE FLIP
SIDE IS IF YOU REMOVE IT ALTOGETHER WHEN PEOPLE HAVE
CAVITIES AND DENTAL SURGERY AND
SO ON THEN YOU'VE MISSED THE BOAT ON THEM TOO.
SO I THINK THAT THAT'S ONE OF
THE QUESTIONS THAT THE CITY SHOULD ASK, IS TODAY .7 THE
RIGHT NUMBER.
MAYBE .6 IS THE RIGHT NUMBER.

YOU ASK PEOPLE WHO ARE WATER
FLUORIDATION EXPERTS AND
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY EXPERT. YOU ASK THEM WHAT IS TODAY'S
RIGHT NUMBER.
IT SOUNDS LIKE CALGARY WAS A TRAILBLAZER WHEN IT PICKED .7
SOME TIME AGO.
WHAT WE KNOW IS THE BOW RIVER HAS .1 TO .2 WHICH IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE GREAT
PROTECTION FROM DENTAL CAVITIES. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RICHARD MUSTEL.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M Dr. RICHARD MUSTEL. I'M TRAINED AS A PHYSICIAN IN
FAMILY MEDICINE AND IN THE
SPECIALTY OF COMMUNITY MEDICINE. AND I SERVE AS THE LEAD MEDICAL
OFFICER OF HEALTH FOR CALGARY
ZONE EVER ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES.
I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
THAT YOU HAVE AFFORDED OUR COMMUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS
ON FLUORIDATION.
I HOPE THAT ALL OF US WILL HEAR AND LEARN SOMETHING NEW TODAY
AND THAT WE'LL EACH LEAVE WITH A
MORE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES AND THEIR MEANING TO
CALGARIANS.
I WILL FOCUS MY FEW MINUTES ON THE RELATED ISSUES OF RISK AND
MISPERCEPTION, AN AND THEN WILL
MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE INTENDED TO HELP US MOVE FORWARD
TOWARDS A REASONABLE AND
DEFENSIBLE RESOLUTION.

I'VE BEEN INTERESTED IN
FLUORIDATION FOR MANY YEARS BOTH
AS A SAFE AND HIGHLY COST EFFICIENT PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE
THAT BRINGS A MEANINGFUL ORAL
HEALTH BENEFIT TO ALL WHO DRINK THE WATER AND AS A SOCIAL
PHENOMENON.
MUCH OF THE CONTROVERSY THAT CONTINUES TO SURROUND THE ISSUE
IN SOME COMMUNITIES CAN BE
EXPLAINED BY VARIATIONS IN THE WAY EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY AND
COLLECTIVELY MAKE DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT WE PERCEIVE AS RISKS AND WHAT LEVEL OF RISKS WE ARE
PREPARED TO ACCEPT TO ACHIEVE
CERTAIN BENEFITS. WE ALL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT RISK
EVERY DAY.
WHETHER CONSCIOUSLY OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY, AND THOSE
DECISIONS VARY AND EVOLVE
DEPENDING ON OUR CIRCUMSTANCES AND LIFE STAGE.
FACTORS THAT USUALLY ARE
INCLUDED IN THIS RISK ASSESSMENT INCLUDE THE SIZE AND MEANING OF
THE POTENTIAL HARM.
AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE HAVE CONTROL OVER OUR EXPOSURE TO
THAT RISK.
THIS NOTION OF CONTROL IS OF PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE IN THE
DISCUSSION OF FLUORIDATION.
WE ALL TRUST THAT THE CITY'S WATERWORKS DEPARTMENT HAS
FOLLOWED ALL THE CORRECT
PROCEDURES TO CLEAN AND DISINFECT THE WATER SO THAT IT
IS SAFE TO DRINK RIGHT OUT OF
THE TAP.

FEW CHALLENGE WHETHER IT IS BEST
TO CHLORINATE THE WATER AS AN
END POINT. WHY IS IT SOME CONTINUE TO
QUESTION THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE
LEVEL OF FLUORISIS, A NATURAL CONSTITUENT?
I THINK IT IS BECAUSE WE IN THE
PUBLIC SERVICE HAVE NOT ALWAYS BEEN EFFECTIVE IN MAKING CLEAR
WHAT THE DECISION-MAKING
PROCESSES ARE. WHAT CHECKS ARE IN PLACE TO
ENSURE THAT POTENTIALLY HARMFUL
DECISIONS ARE AVOIDED AND WHAT RIGOR IS FOLLOWED TO ENSURE
DECISIONS ARE TAKEN ON THE BASIS
OF THE BEST INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN ASKED PUBLICLY
ABOUT THE CLAIMS OF HARM MADE ABOUT FLUORIDATION HAVE I
GENERALLY RESPONDED THAT
ISOLATED FINDINGS ARE OF INTEREST BUT I PLACE GREATER
EMPHASIS ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
WHICH HAVE CONSISTENTLY FOUND THERE IS GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THE
EFFECTIVENESS FOR FLUORIDATION
AND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR HARMS OTHER THAN FLUORISIS.
HAVE I NEVER TAKEN PAINS TO
EXPLAIN HOW SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ARE CONDUCTED, HOW THEY
DELIBERATELY INCLUDE ALL
SUDDENIES SUGGESTING HARM IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ABOVE ALL
ELSE WE AVOID HARMING OUR
PATIENTS OUR IN PUBLIC HEALTH TERMS OUR COMMUNITIES.
THIS IS A RESPONSIBILITY THAT I
HAVE AS A MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH AND A PUBLIC SERVANT THAT
I TAKE SERIOUSLY.
TO ENSURE THAT ALL OUR PROGRAMS AND OUR INVENTIONS ARE
CONTINUALLY UPDATED AND BASED ON
THE MOST RECENT AND CURRENT EVIDENCE.
SO THIS LEADS ME TO SOME
SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT MOVE FORWARD TO A RESPONSIBLE
SOLUTION OR RESOLUTION OF
WHETHER TO CONTINUE FLUORIDATION OF CALGARY OR NOT.
WE'VE ALREADY HEARD NOW THIS
NOTION THAT PERHAPS THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY OR OTHER
RESOURCES MIGHT BE AVAILABLE OR
ASKED TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS.

WE DID THIS IN 1998 AND THAT
PANEL AS YOU KNOW DID DECIDE
THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO WARRANT
DISCONTINUATION OF FLUORIDATION,
BUT IT DID RECOMMEND REDUCING THE TARGET LEVEL TO THE .7 BASED
ON EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS THE BEST
TRADEOFF BETWEEN THE BENEFIT OF A REDUCTION IN CARRIES AND THE
RISK OF FLUORISIS.
SO IF WE WERE TO ASK THE UNIVERSITY OFF OTHER BODIES TO
ASSIST US WITH IT NOW, I THINK
THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. BUT WE DO NEED TO BE CLEAR ON
WHAT THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE —
WE'D LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERED. AND IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO SEEK
PUBLIC INPUT IN DEFINING THOSE
QUESTIONS AS WELL. THE EXACT MECHANISMS FOR
RESPONDING SHOULD BE TAILORED TO
THE QUESTIONS. SO ANOTHER EXPERT PANEL MIGHT BE
USEFUL FOR REVIEW OF THE RISKS
AND BENEFITS. WHILE A DIFFERENT GROUP MIGHT BE
ASKED TO EXAMINE THE ECONOMICS
OF ALTERNATE MEANS OF IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH AND SO ON.
IT MIGHT EVEN BE WORTHWHILE TO
CLARIFY WHETHER CITIZENS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DIRECT INPUT ON THE
FINAL DECISION THROUGH A
PLEBISCITE OR WHETHER THEY WILL BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE
COLLISIONORS MAKING THE DECISION
ON THEIR BEHALF.

ONCE THE ANSWERS TO THESE
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED
TO THE CITIZENS OF CALGARY AND I MIGHT ADD OTHER COMMUNITIES SUCH
AS AIRDRIE THAT ARE ON THE
CALGARY WATER SUPPLY, THEN WE SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO BE
CONFIDENT THAT A THOUGHTFUL AND
JUST DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN KEATING. QUESTIONS?
>> YES.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. AGAIN, I'M — GREAT THAT YOU'RE
HERE BECAUSE I'M LOOKING FOR
THOSE SPECIFICALLY MEDICALLY SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION TO BE
ABLE TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION,
AND THAT'S THE UNFORTUNATE PART IS EVENTUALLY WE HAVE TO MAKE A
DECISION SO WE'LL GO DOWN THAT
LINE. I HAVE HEARD TALK ABOUT IODIZED
SALT AND I'M NOT SURE BUT I
BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUAL IODINE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IODIDE?
>> COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT'S IN THERE?
>> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT'S
ADDED. IT'S IODIDE IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND
BUT I HAVEN'T THOUGHT TO LOOK AT
THAT PRIOR TO COMING HERE.

>> IT'S BEEN USED AS A
COMPARISON MANY TIMES.
SHOULD WE TAKE IT OUT OF SALT AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE
PURPOSE IS TO TELL YOU THE
TRUTH. I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT THE
CHEMICAL IS.
WE KNOW IT'S THERE AND IT'S BEEN USED MANY TIMES IN THIS DEBATE.
>> THE IODINE AGAIN IS — IODIDE
IS A NATURAL ELEMENT IN OUR ENVIRONMENT.
AND THE ISSUE — WHY IT WAS
INTRODUCED WAS SOME PARTS OF ONTARIO AND QUEBEC HAD A HIGHER
INCIDENCE OF GOITER RELATED TO
THE THYROID. IT WAS RELATED TO INADEQUATE
AMOUNTS OF IODINE SO THE
SOLUTION WAS PUT IT IN THE SALT SO WE ALL HAVE THE APPROPRIATE
AMOUNT.
>> THIS IS AN ACTUAL ADDITIVE THEY PUT IN SALT, IT'S NOT
TREATMENT OR DO ANY SPECIFICS?
>> IT'S TO SUPPLEMENT WHAT WE WOULD GET NATURALLY THROUGH
OTHER SOURCES IN OUR
ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S A PARALLEL TO FLUORIDE.
>> MY QUESTION FOLLOWS DOWN THAT
LINE IS IF YOU HAVE TOO MUCH IODIDE, IS IT A PROBLEM?
>> AGAIN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING
I'VE LOOKED AT.

BUT IT'S NOT — I'M NOT AWARE
THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS
RAISED ABOUT HARMS BY THE IODIZED SALT.
IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE IN UNIODIZED
FORM. >> MY POINT IS AND ONE OF THE
REASONS I ASK IS THAT DECISION
HAS TO COME DOWN. SALT IN MY VIEW IS NOT A BASIC
UNIT OF HUMAN CONSUMPTION, WHERE
WATER IS. WE CAN'T GET ALONG WITHOUT THE
WATER.
AND WE HAVE TO TAKE THE FLUORIDE WITHOUT QUESTION.
SALT ON THE OTHER HAND WE HEAR
THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO USE AS MUCH SO I MIDDLE EASTERN
THAT'S BEING REDUCED.
BUT — I MEAN THAT'S BEING REDUCED.
AND I GUESS THAT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING OR MY — WHERE DO WE GO FROM THIS?
BECAUSE I IT IS A BASIC — I'LL
JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. IT IS A BASIC UNIT, WATER IS,
AND THEREFORE SALT ISN'T.
SO USING THAT COMPARISON IN MY VIEW ISN'T EXACTLY CORRECT
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HELP BUT NOT
TAKE WATER, BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY HAVE A CHOICE OF SALT
AND YOU CAN PROBABLY GET
UNIODIZED SALT I'M GUESSING AND ALL OF THAT SORT OF STUFF BUT
PRESENTLY YOU CAN'T GET UNFLOUR
DATED WATER UNLESS YOU PAY FOR IT, WHICH WE PAY FOR SALT
ANYWAYS.
>> I WOULD MAKE THE DISTINCTION THAT I HAVE NOT — I DIDN'T
INTRODUCE THE NOTION OF IODIZED
SALT IN THIS, AND — IN FACT IN EUROPE, THAT IS ONE OF THE WAYS
THAT FLUORIDE IS DELIVERED.
THEY — INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT IN THE WATER, THEY PUT IT IN THE
SALT, THEY PUT IT IN MILK.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DELIVER THE BENEFIT OF FLUORIDE.
>> AND I GUESS — I MEAN THAT'S
A GREAT POINT, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF DOING IT AND THEN PEOPLE
WOULD MAKE THAT CHOICE TO DO IT
RATHER THAN PUTTING IT IN OUR BASIC UNIT.
>> AND I AGREE WITH YOU ENTIRELY
THAT THE FACT THAT IT'S IN WATER, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A
HUMAN RIGHT, A BASIC HUMAN
RIGHT, THE ACCESS TO GOOD HEALTHY CLEAN WATER, MAKES IT
THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE
DO THE RIGHT THING.

AND THAT JUST ADDS THE BURDEN TO
ALL OF US WHO ARE INVOLVED IN
MAKING THAT DECISION. AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
SCIENCE CONFIRMS, ALLOWS, ME TO
REAFFIRM MY SUPPORT FOR FLUORIDATION AS AN EFFECTIVE AND
SAFE WAY OF GETTING THAT BENEFIT
TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT DRINK THE WATER.
>> PERFECT.
THANK YOU. THE OTHER THING WE HEAR OFTEN
IS — AND I'VE HEARD THIS FROM
INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE TALKED TO ME THAT OUTSIDE OF WHAT I'VE
HEARD HERE TODAY IS MY
GRANDPARENTS — OR MY GRANDCHILDREN NEED IT IN THE
WATER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT
GETTING THEIR TEETH BRUSHED BECAUSE THEY WON'T GET IT DONE.
SO THAT COMES INTO PARENTING AND
WHERE WE GO FROM THERE. WHICH IS ANOTHER WHOLE THING.
SO, AGAIN, IT COMES BACK TO THE
IDEA OF PUTTING IT IN BECAUSE SOME DO NOT DO IT, AND WE CAN'T
GET INTO THE IDEA OF PARENTING
EVERYONE WITHIN THE CITY.

BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT IN
SOME ASPECT.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU BECAUSE IT WAS RAISED TODAY, AND
I GUESS MY STATEMENT IS IT CAME
FORWARD THAT INFANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE FLUORIDE IN BASICALLY
ALMOST ANY SORT OF FORM AT THIS
POINT. AND YOU RECOMMEND THAT YOU
BREASTFEED FOR SIX MONTHS.
BUT THERE ARE MEDICAL CASES, AND I'M SURE YOU CAN COMMENT ON
THIS, WHERE THE CHILD IS
ALLERGIC TO MILK, AS I HAPPEN TO HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO HAD TO GO ON
FORMULA BECAUSE SHE WAS ALLERGIC
TO MILK, SHOULD THE CITY START PROVIDING BOTTLED WATER TO EVERY
HOUSEHOLD WHERE THEY HAVE TO USE
FORMULA BECAUSE THE PARENTS MIGHT NOT USE BOTTLED WATER TO
MAKE THAT FORMULA?
>> SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE ABOUT THE USE OF
FLOURIDATED WATER IN INFANT FORMULA.
IN FACT WHAT THE BODIES
INCLUDING HEALTH CANADA AND ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES AND CDC
ATLANTA AND THE AMERICAN DENTAL
ASSOCIATION SAY IS THAT IT IS SAFE TO USE WATER THAT'S
FLOIRIDATED IN THE .7 PARTS PER
MILLION AS OUR WATER IS IN THE PREPARATION OF INFANT FORMULA.
I WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY THINK THE
CITY SHOULD BE PROVIDING FOR AN ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE THEY DON'T
NEED TO.
>> OKAY.

SO TO FOLLOW THAT UP, BECAUSE I
DID ASK THE QUESTIONS AND I'VE
HEARD STATEMENTS BECAUSE OF KIDNEY DIFFICULTIES OR
TRANSPLANT OR ANTIREJECTION
DRUGS AND A NUMBER OF THESE THINGS, IS ANY OF THAT ALONG THE
SAME LINES AS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
NOW? >> AGAIN, I KNOW OF NO REASON
WHY A PHYSICIAN WOULD ADVISE
THEIR PATIENT TO AVOID FLOURIDATED WATER.
THE KIDNEY DISEASE IN
PARTICULAR, FOR PERSONS WHO ARE IN RENAL FAILURE AND ARE ON
DIALYSIS, THE FLUID THAT'S USED
IN DIALYSIS IS FILTERED OF MORE THAN FLUORIDE.
CHLORINE IS OUT AND SO ON AS
WELL. SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
FOR SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ON
DIALYSIS, THERE'S NO HARM IN DRINKING OUR FLOUR DATED WATER.
>> THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY STATISTICS OR STUDIES OUT THERE THAT TALK
ABOUT TOOTH DECAY WITH THE REST
OF THE WORLD? AND I RAISE THIS BECAUSE NORTH
AMERICA OR HOWEVER IS
UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE A VERY HIGH SUGAR CONTENT, AND MANY
OTHER AREAS OF THE WORLD DO NOT
HAVE THAT SUGAR CONTENT THAT WE HAVE AND THEREFORE IN COMPARISON
ARE THERE ANY STUDIES OR THINGS
THAT TALK ABOUT TOOTH DECAY OUTSIDE OF THE SUGAR CONTENT?
>> I THINK YOU'RE ASKING WHAT
ARE THE INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AROUND TOOTH DECAY?
>> OKAY.
>> IT'S A VERY COMMON PROBLEM ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
AND THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS
THAT — MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAN'T TO THAT.
AND ALSO MANY THINGS THAT
CONTRIBUTE TO AVOIDANCE OF TOOTH DECAY, AND FLUORIDATION AS
ALDERMAN FARRELL SAID, IS NOT A
PANACEA.

IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO IN
ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE
OPTIMAL ORAL HEALTH. >> MY LAST QUESTION, AND AGAIN
IT'S MORE OF AN OPINION THAN A
QUESTION, BECAUSE I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE GOING
FROM THIS, WE ALL KNOW THAT IN
MANY CASES SCIENCE WILL SAY THAT FLUORIDE IS GOOD AND THEREFORE
LET'S DO IT, WITHOUT QUESTION,
WE KNOW IT'S GOOD FOR YOUR TEETH.
THE ISSUE IS WHEN WE COME BACK
TO IT IS MANY TIMES SCIENCE WILL NOT STATE THAT IT IS HARMFUL
WITHOUT CLEAR, CLEAR STUDIES OR
DEFINITION THAT THIS IS HARMFUL, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T KNOW
WHETHER IT'S THERE OR NOT.
>> WELL, YEAH, I WOULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, AND THAT'S THE
POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WITH
THE DESCRIPTION — BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE WAY
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ARE
CONDUCTED.

BECAUSE WE ARE — BECAUSE IT IS
SUCH A RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE
DON'T HARM, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE LEARNED IN MEDICAL
SCHOOL, FIRST, DO NO HARM.
IT'S PART OF THE HYPOCRATIC OATH.
SO THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US.
SO IN FACT THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ERR ON THE SIDE OF
IDENTIFYING A RISK, A HARM.
AND THEY DOWNPLAY BY REQUIRING A HIGHER QUALITY OF STUDY TO —
THAT PROPOSE A BENEFIT.
EVEN WITH THAT, THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE
CONTINUE TO STATE THAT THERE'S
GOOD EVIDENCE OF A BENEFIT, NO GOOD EVIDENCE OF MEANINGFUL HARM
OTHER THAN FLUORISIS.
AND THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY THAT WE ALL FACE.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO
PROVE THE NEGATIVE.

SO IT'S EASY TO SAY MAYBE IT
COST US THIS, MAYBE IT DOES
THAT; AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.
SO WE HAVE TO MANAGE THAT
PERCEPTION. AND THAT'S WHY I FOCUSED ON
THAT.
AND I THINK THE WAY TO DO THAT, ONE OF THE WAYS TO DO THAT, IS
TO TRY TO MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS
POSSIBLE THAT WE'VE GOT AS ROBUST A PROCESS AS POSSIBLE
AROUND HOW WE MAKE OUR
DECISIONS. AND HOW WE DETERMINE WHAT THAT
LEVEL OF RISK IS.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE THE INPUT OF OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE IN SOME
RESPECTS, RISK TOLERANCE IS AN
EXPRESSION OF A COMMUNITY NORM.

SO IF WE ARE ABLE TO COMPLETE
THIS PROCESS, WHETHER OR NOT YOU
DECIDE TO ENGAGE UNIVERSITY OR OTHERS TO HELP WITH ANSWERING
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU
HAVE, AND WE WORK AT GETTING THAT INFORMATION OUT TO THE
PUBLIC, AND THEY STILL SAY ON
BALANCE THAT'S NOT FOR US, OKAY, I ACCEPT THAT AS THE WILL OF THE
COMMUNITY.
THAT WOULD BE OUR COMMUNITY NORM.
THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS
PUBLIC SERVANTS TO PROVIDE THE BEST INFORMATION WE CAN, MAKE
DECISIONS AS WE CAN BASED ON ALL
THAT BEST EVIDENCE. SOMETIMES WE WILL MAKE A
DECISION THAT ISN'T A POPULAR
ONE, AND YOU DO THAT AND OTHERS WILL DO THAT AS WELL.
THAT'S BEST ON YOUR BEST
JUDGMENT OF THE EVIDENCE.

AND YOU WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES.
SOMETIMES THAT MEANS YOU LOSE
THE NEXT ELECTION. BUT IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT DO WE
NEED TO DO, WHAT DOES THE
SCIENCE TELL US, AND I'M TELLING YOU WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE
SCIENCE TELLS US.
WHAT IS THE REFLECTION OF THE COMMUNITY'S WILL IN TERMS OF
RISK TOLERANCE.
WE HAVE TO SORT THAT OUT AS WELL, AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF
THIS PROCESS AND HOW YOU MOVE
FORWARD IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT WAS FABULOUS BECAUSE IT DOES NAIL DOWN EXACTLY WHAT
WE'RE DOING, UNFORTUNATELY, IS
WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION WHETHER IT'S FAVOURABLE OR
UNFAVOURABLE.
AND EITHER WAY — I WAS GOING TO MAKE A KIND OF SILLY COMMENT.
BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT MEDICAL
RESEARCH AND ALL OF THAT, AND I WASN'T GOING TO DO IT BUT AFTER
YOUR COMMENTS I THINK I WILL,
AND IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
AND I ASK EVERYONE HERE TO TAKE ASIDE THE EMOTIONAL I GUESS
CONCEPT OF WHAT I'M GOING TO
SAY, BUT — AND I WATCH WAY TOO MUCH T.V., SO YOU CAN TAKE IT IN
THAT CONTEXT, I ONCE SAW A SHOW
WHERE THEY BELIEVED THE FELLOW'S ARTHRITIS WAS FROM BAD TEETH SO
THEY PULLED ALL HIS TEETH.
WHEN WE LOOK AT MEDICAL I GUESS RESEARCH AND THEORY AND RISK,
WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT, WE HAVE TO WEIGH OUT THAT RISK AND DECIDE WHERE WE'RE
GOING FROM THERE.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A MEDICAL ISSUE, IF THAT WAS
ACTUALLY TRUE OR NOT, BUT IT WAS
ON T.V.

SO IT HAS TO BE TRUE. [Laughter]
>> I MUST HAVE MISSED THAT
PROGRAM. >> BUT THEREIN LIES WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> THANK YOU.
I THINK WE'RE — A NUMBER OF
YEARS AGO, THE DENTISTRY PROFESSION WAS VERY UNITED ON
THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST TAKING
FLUORIDE OUT OF THE WATER, AND THEIR SUPPORT FOR FLUORIDATION.
BUT IT'S NOT UNITED TODAY.
THERE'S A BIG SPLIT.

AND ALTHOUGH YOU AND I LIKELY
AGREE AND A THE UNIVERSITY OF
TORONTO IS NOT ANYWHERE COMPARABLE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALGARY, BUT THE UNIVERSITY OF
TORONTO IS A WELL-RECOGNIZED UNIVERSITY AND HARDY LIMBACK WHO
IS THE HEAD OF PREVENTIVE
DENTISTRY PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STATES AND
I'LL QUOTE WHAT HE SAID
"FLUORIDATION IS NO LONGER EFFECTIVE."
HE WENT ON TO ADD "BUT ADDING
THE CHEMICAL TO THE WATER IS MORE HARMFUL THAN BENEFICIAL."
CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT?
BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE THIS STRUGGLE TO TELL US THAT
EVERYBODY'S UNITED ON THIS, THAT
ADDING FLUORIDE TO THE WATER IS BENEFICIAL AND THERE'S NO HARM.
>> SO CERTAINLY I'M AWARE OF
Dr. LIMBACK AND HIS ROLE OF U OF T AND RESPECT HIS OPINION.
HE REGULARLY IS INVOLVED IN
RESEARCH. IN FACT ONE OF HIS RECENT PAPERS
LOOKED AT THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THERE WAS ACCUMULATION OF FLUORIDE IN BONE.
AND THEY LOOKED AT — THEY
ACTUALLY SAMPLED BONE IN PEOPLE THAT WERE UNDERGOING SURGERY AND
FROM AREAS THAT WERE FLOUR DATED
AND NOT FLOURIDATED, IT WAS NOT BORNE OUT BY HIS OWN RESEARCH.
>> DO YOU THINK HE'S CHANGED HIS
POSITION? >> NO, I THINK IF YOU ASKED HIM
TODAY, HE'D REAFFIRM THAT QUOTE.
HE IS ONE THAT'S A VOICE THAT NEEDS TO BE HEARD AND THAT'S WHY
WE NEED TO HAVE THE REGULAR AND
ONGOING SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE WITH RA TOUR.
LITERATURE.
WHERE THE UNANIMITY COMES IN THAT I SAID AND OTHERS HAVE SAID
IS WHEN YOU DO THAT SYSTEMATIC
BROAD LOOK AT IT ALL, ALL OF THE BODIES HAVE COME TO THE SAME
CONCLUSION.
SO, YES, THERE ARE "OUTLIERS".

AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.
YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO FOLKS WHO
RAISE QUESTIONS. BUT THEN YO THEN YOU HAVE TO THE
INTO THE SCIENCE AND TAKE THE
BODY OF IT TO GUIDE OUR DECISION-MAKING.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART.
>> THANK YOU, DOCTOR, FOR BEING
HERE. ARE YOU AN EXPERT ON FLUORIDE OR
FLUORIDATION?
>> I'VE BEEN INTERESTED IN READING ABOUT FLUORIDATION FOR A
LONG TIME.
WHERE WOULD MY EXPERTISE BE? IT WOULD BE REALLY ACTUALLY
AROUND IT AS A PUBLIC HELL HEALH
MEASURE, SO, YES, I AM. I'M A PUBLIC HEALTH PHYSICIAN
AND THAT'S WHERE MY EXPERTISE
LIE. >> SO AS A MEASUREMENT AND
INFORMING YOURSELF THROUGH
PROBABLY KEEPING CURRENT ON THE RESEARCH?
>> I DO.
AND I RELY ALSO ON OUR TEAM WITHIN HEALTH PROMOTIONS AND
DISEASE PREVENTION.
ONE OF THE FOLKS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWING ME IS OUR PROVINCIAL
DENTAL OFFICER.
HE WOULD BE MORE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN FLAGGING THINGS FOR
ME AND I REVIEW THEM.
>> WHAT MAKES PEOPLE AN EXPERT AROUND THIS MATTER?
>> I GUESS I'D MAYBE ASK YOU.
>> I GET TO ASK THE QUESTIONS.

[Laughter]
>> YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GET
INTO SEMANTICS ABOUT — >> WE NEED TO KNOW BECAUSE
EVERYONE CLAIMS TO BE.
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY ELSE —
I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS SAID I
HAVE EXPERTISE AROUND FLUORIDATION AS A PUBLIC HEALTH
MEASURE BECAUSE MY EXPERTISE IS
PUBLIC HEALTH. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRAINED TO DO.
IT'S A ROYAL COLLEGE SPECIALTY,
THAT'S WHAT I'VE DONE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL.
SO BASED ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS YOU'VE MADE, IF THIS IS SO
CRITICAL AND SO IMPORTANT, WHY
IS IT NOT A PROVINCIAL ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES POLICY, AND WHY
ARE RURAL ALBERTANS LEFT OUT OF
HAVING FLUORIDATION IN THEIR WATER?
I COME FROM SOUTHERN ALBERTA.
THOSE RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE IT, AND I'M SURE IT'S THE SAME WAY
ACROSS RURAL ALBERTA.
WHY THE DISCREPANCY? >> ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES DOES
NOT OPERATE THE WATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES, THAT'S A MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY.
SO IT'S NOT OUR PLACE TO PUT
THAT IN THOSE COMMUNITIES.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR
QUESTION.
>> SO THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES, DOESN'T
DEEM IT TO BE A MANDATORY HEALTH
REQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH AND WELLNESS.
>> WE NEED TO MAKE A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN ALBERTA HEALTH AND WELLNESS WHICH IS MAYBE WHO
YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT AND ALBERTA
HEALTH SERVICES. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT ALBERTA
HEALTH AND WELLNESS.
>> BOTH. BOTH.
I WOULD THINK THEY WORK
TOGETHER. >> SO ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES IS
THE SERVICE DELIVERY ARM.
SO WE DO NOT SET POLICY FOR THE PROVINCE.
THAT'S THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT.
AND ALBERTA HEALTH AND WELLNESS IN FACT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF
FLUORIDATION AS A GOOD PUBLIC
HEALTH MEASURE. THAT MINISTER DOES NOT SET
GOVERNMENT POLICY, CAUCUS DOES.
SO I DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT WHETHER THEY'VE ASKED THAT.
WE'VE ADVOCATED, AS YOU KNOW, IN
MANY — IN SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES FOR PROVINCIAL ACTION SUCH AS ON
TOBACCO CONTROL AND SO ON, YET
THE CITY CHOSE TO BE AHEAD OF THE PROVINCE IN TERMS OF
RESTRICTING ACCESS TO TOBACCO.
SO THAT'S THE POLITICS OF OUR PROVINCE.
>> HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT RURAL
ALBERTA NOT HAVING ACCESS TO FLUORIDATION?
>> WELL, I'M CONCERNED.
SO SOME DO.

WE DO — ALBERTA HAS I THINK
IT'S ABOUT 70 ODD PERCENT OF OUR
POPULATION IS COVERED BY FLOURIED WATER.
THE BIGGEST POPULATIONS ARE
CALGARY AND EDMONTON. MANY RURAL COMMUNITIES DO
FLOURIDATE, SOME DON'T.
AND MANY ALBERTANS WHO ARE ON WELLS OF COURSE WILL NOT BE
HAVING THEIR WATER TREATED.
SOME OF THOSE HAVE A GOOD LEVEL OF FLUORIDE IN THEIR WATER.
SOME HAVE TOO MUCH.
THAT'S ONE OF THE ROLES THAT WE SERVE AS PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS
IS TO REVIEW THE WATER LEVEL IN
WELLS AND — OR A VARIETY OF THINGS ALSO NITRITES AND SO ON,
WHICH ARE AN ISSUE FOR INFANTS.
SO WE WORK WITH RURAL ALBERTANS AS WELL, AND I THINK IT'S — I
WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT IN FACT
THE PROVINCE TOOK ACTION ON IT AND MADE IT A MANDATORY POLICY
ACROSS THE PROVINCE.
BUT THEY HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO DO THAT.
[Please Stand By]
>> THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS — PARDON ME, IF WE WERE TO TAKE
IT OUT, AGAIN, THEN YOU HAVE A
MAJORITY WHO ARE NOT GETTING THE BENEFIT THAT THEY ASKED
YOU TO KEEP IN THERE.
SO, YOU HAVE TO SORT THAT OUT AS POLITICIANS.
AGAIN, I THINK YOU…
AS YOU POINT OUT, IT'S NOT BINDING SO YOU TAKE THAT AS
DIRECTION, BUT NOT — BUT NOT
BINDING DIRECTION, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO ALSO UNDERSTAND
AND ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AS YOU
ARE NOW, AND POTENTIALLY WITH OTHER RESOURCES, LIKE THE
UNIVERSITY, SO THAT YOU'RE
SATISFIED ABOUT THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF THE ISSUE.
AND THEN YOU MAKE YOUR
DECISION.

>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
OH, MY LAST QUESTION… PEOPLE JUST CONFINE THEIR
QUESTIONS ON FLUOROCIES TO
JUST TEETH. SO, WHAT IN YOUR VIEW, IS THE
IMPACT OF FLUOROCIES ON THE
BODY? >> WHAT IS THE…?
>> THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
ABOUT FLUOROCIES HAVE JUST BEEN CONFINED TO ITS EFFECT ON
TEETH, SO COULD YOU COMMENT,
PLEASE, ON THE EFFECT OF FLUOROCIES ON THE BODY?
>> OKAY.
EXCUSE ME. THE OTHER AREA WHERE PEOPLE
TALK ABOUT FLUOROCIES IS IN
BONE, AND THAT'S AT LEVELS THAT ARE JUST NOT SEEN HERE.
SO IT'S NOT AN ISSUE IN A
COMMUNITY WITH OPTIMALLY FLUORIDATED WATER.
>> THANK YOU.
>>ALED ALDERMAN MARCH? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
FIRSTLY, TO DECLARE ANY
INTEREST, AND THANK YOU FOR COMING, DOCTOR.
I DO APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENCE,
BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, YOU CARRY A LOT OF WEIGHT IN THE
PROVINCE OF ALBERTA AND IN THE
CITY OF CALGARY.

SO, LISTENING TO YOUR COMMENTS
AND THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M
HEARING FROM MY COLLEAGUES, I HAVE A FEW VERY, VERY POIGNANT
COMMENTS REGARDING HEALTH OF
CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY INFANTS.
I'M ABOUT TO HAVE A NEW-BORN
BABY, LITERALLY ANY MINUTE… WELL, NOT ME PERSONALLY, BUT
JOELLA.
I HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT, OR SO THEY TELL ME.
SO MY CONCERN IS MY WIFE IS
ALSO UNABLE TO BREAST-FEED BECAUSE OF THE — SHE HAS SOME
OTHER HEALTH ISSUES AS WELL.
SO THIS IMPACTS MY DECISION-MAKING TREMENDOUSLY,
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I AM
AWARE OF ALL THE LATEST INFORMATION AND STUDIES THAT
ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE — IF
WE'RE GOING TO FEED OUR CHILD THROUGH BOTTLE, WHICH IS
OBVIOUSLY THE ONLY WAY THAT WE
CAN NOW, THE STUDIES ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD NOT
BE USING — AS ALDERMAN
COMPETING SUGGESTED, WE SHOULD NOT BE USING MUNICIPAL TAP
WATER BECAUSE OF THE FLOOR
RIDE, AND WE SHOULD ALSO REDUCE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OUR
CONSUMPTION OF THIS.
AND THERE'S NO REAL WAY TO — TO CONTROL THAT IF ONE
CONSUMES A LOT OF WATER.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF I CONSUME TWO GLASSES OF WATER A DAY,
MUNICIPAL TAP WATER, AND YOU,
PERHAPS, AS A MARATHON RUNNER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD
CONSUME 30 OR MORE.
THIS WOULD DRAMATICALLY INCREASE AND INFLUENCE THE
AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE THAT YOU'RE
BRINGING INTO YOUR SYSTEM.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU
CANNOT CONTROL.
>> SO, I THINK THERE'S STILL QUESTIONS THERE.
ONE IS AROUND YOUR CHILD, AND
CONGRATULATIONS. THAT'S WONDERFUL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YOUR LIFE'S ABOUT TO CHANGE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND ACTUALLY, WHEN I WAS CUTTING — WHEN I FIRST WROTE
MY COMMENTS, I DID ACTUALLY
BRING THAT IN, ABOUT THE NOTION OF THE RISKS THAT —
AND OUR RISK JUDGMENT THAT WE
MAKE. IT VARIES THROUGH OUR TIME
COURSE, AND ONE OF THE BIG
CHANGES IN YOUR LIFE COURSE IS WHEN YOU BECOME A PARENT AND
YOUR RISK TOLERANCE CHANGES.
>> MM-HMM. >> AND YOU HAVE THIS
ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
THAT'S ALSO THE KIND OF ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT
ACCRUES TO YOU AS A PUBLIC
SERVANT AND ME IN PUBLIC HEALTH.
SO WE TAKE THOSE
RESPONSIBILITIES VERY SERIOUSLY.
THE EVIDENCE, INDEED, IN SPITE
OF YOUR COMMENT, AND I'M SORRY TO CONTRADICT YOU, BUT — IS
THAT YOUR CHILD, IF YOU ARE
RECONSTITUTING FORMULA WITH CALGARY WATER OF.
7 PARTS PER MILLION, THAT
WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY SAFE.

>> OKAY.
>> THE SECOND PART WAS ABOUT
ME. I'M NOT A RUNNER.
I'M AN OLD-TIME HOCKEY PLAYER
AND I DRINK LOTS OF WATER, AND I'M GLAD THAT I DO, BECAUSE —
THE FACT THAT I'M AN OLD-TIME
HOCKEY PLAYER, IS MY GUMS ARE RECEDING AND MY ROOTS ARE
BEING EXPOSED AND I KNOW THAT
THE FLUORIDE IN THE WATER IS CONTINUING TO PROVIDE
PROTECTION TO ME AS WELL.
IT'S NOT A BENEFIT THAT ONLY ACCRUES TO CHILDREN.
>> MM-HMM.
MM-HMM. SO, THAT'S — YOU'RE REFERRING,
OF COURSE, TO THE TOPICAL
BENEFITS OF HAVING IT ON YOUR TEETH FOR THAT FRACTION OF A
SECOND THAT YOU'RE DRINKING
IT? >> WELL, AS WAS POINTED OUT
EARLIER, IT'S BOTH TOPICAL AND
SYSTEMIC, AND THE SYSTEMIC, THERE'S THE SALIVA, AND IT'S
IN OUR SALIVA AND IT THAN
CONTINUES THAT BATHE, IF YOU WILL, OF OUR TEETH IN THE
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF FLUORIDE.
>> Alderman John Mar: OKAY.

SO FROM A GOVERNMENT'S
PERSPECTIVE, AND I DON'T — I
DON'T MIND YOU CONTRADICTING ME AT ALL.
I'M A PUBLIC SERVANT AND THAT
HAPPENS QUITE WRECKLY, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE.
SO MY COMMENT NOW IS IF WE ARE
LOOK AT THIS FROM A GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE AND WE'RE TRYING
TO DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN AS
A MUNICIPAL, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS HEALTH IN
TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT
STRUCTURE IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA?
>> WELL, IT'S A SHARED
RESPONSIBILITY.

EXCUSE ME.
IT'S A SOCIETAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND IT'S THE — IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
INSTITUTIONS THAT WE CREATE IN
SOCIETY, BECAUSE HEALTH IS — THE HEALTH THEY FELT THAT WE
ENJOY OR THE ILLNESSES THAT
BEFALL US ARE A SUM MAKINGS OF MANY DETERMINANTS.
HEALTH CARE IS ONE LITTLE BIT,
AND IN FACT, THE SMALLEST PART OF OUR HEALTH.
IT'S THE OTHER SOCIAL
DETERMINANTS, AS THE VERY FIRST SPEAKER TALKED ABOUT:
INCOME AND HOUSING AND SO ON.
THOSE ARE ALL VERY IMPORTANT.

YOU HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY IN
THOSE.
I HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY AROUND THE HEALTH SERVICES PIECE.
I ALSO HAVE A ROLE AS A
MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH TO ADVOCATE WITH YOU AND WITH
OTHER GOVERNMENT LEVELS TO
ENSURE THAT WE ALL DO OUR PART, THAT WE HAVE — THAT WE CREATE
AN ENVIRONMENT THAT CREATES
OPPORTUNITIES FOR HEALTH FOR ALL OF THE CITIZENS.
AND I BELIEVE FLUORIDATION IS
ONE THAT DOES THAT. >> Alderman John Mar: I
APPRECIATE THAT.
I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT, IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS,
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS ABOUT
BUILDING CITIES, AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE DOING
AS A WELLNESS PERSPECTIVE.
AND IT IS HEALTH CARE AND IT IS ARTS AND IT IS SOCIAL
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM A VARIETY
OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES. ALL WORKING TOGETHER, BUT
MY — MY QUESTION SPECIFICALLY
IS IF YOU ARE SO INTERESTED AND BELIEVE TO YOUR VERY CORE,
AS I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DO,
THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS PROCESS, WHY IS THE ALBERTA
HEALTH SERVICES NOT
CONTRIBUTING FINANCIALLY TO THIS PROGRAM?
IT IS $750.000 A YEAR.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF CALGARY HAS HAD A
RESPONSIBILITY THAT HAS, IN
EFFECT, BEEN DOWNLOADED ON TO IT BY THE PROVINCE, AND WE
WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IF
THIS IS A PRIORITY, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IT IS, FOR ALBERTA
HEALTH SERVICES, WHY IS IT NOT
COMPENSATING THE CITY? >> SO, ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES
IS, IN FACT, CONTRIBUTING IN
MANY WAYS TO THE ORAL HEALTH OF THE POPULATION.
SO, WE — ONE OF THE PROGRAMS
THAT WE DO, IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT FLUORIDATION IS
NOT SUFFICIENT.
IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTES TO A REDUCTION IN
DENTAL CARE AND IMPROVED ORAL
HEALTH.

WE HAVE TARGETED PROGRAMS TO
SCHOOLS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AS
HAVING CHILDREN WITH — WHO ARE AT HIGHER RISK FOR DENTAL
CARRIERS AND WE HAVE STAFF
THAT ATTEND AND APPLY FLUORIDE VARNISHES, SO, IN FACT, WE ARE
CURRENTLY SPENDING MORE THAN
THE AMOUNT — THE $750 ODD THOUSAND DOLLARS IN ORAL
HEALTH PROGRAMMING.
SO IT'S A PARTNERSHIP. THAT WAS WE DO.
YOU MANAGE THE WATER WORKS.
THAT'S WHAT YOU DO.

>> Alderman John Mar: NO, AND
I APPRECIATE THAT.
I DO. AND SOME RECENT MATERIALS THAT
I'VE RECEIVED AND DO FEEL FREE
TO CONTRADICT OR INTERJECT WHERE NECESSARY…
THAT APPROXIMATELY OUT OF A
THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT WE WOULD SPEND ON FLUORIDATING OUR
WATER, ABOUT 995 OF THOSE
DOLLARS ARE LITERALLY FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET, USED TO WASH
OUR CARS, USED TO WASH OUR
DISHES, USED TO WASH ALL OF THESE OTHER DAY-TO-DAY ITEMS,
AND ONLY $5 IS ACTUALLY
CONSUMED BY PEOPLE AS POTABLE WATER.
FURTHERMORE, ALL OF THAT $5,
REALLY, ONLY 50 CENTS OUT OF A THOUSAND DOLLARS — I'LL SAY
THAT AGAIN, ONLY 50 CENTS OUT
OF A DLAU DOLLARS ACTUALLY GOES TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE,
WHICH IS — WHICH IS CHILDREN,
ISN'T IT? DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOUND
FINANCIAL SENSE?
>> TO BROADEN THE CONVERSATION…
WE — THERE'S MANY THINGS
THAT — WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, AND YOU'VE ALREADY DONE ONE OF
THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU — I
THINK CAME NEWSPAPER THE LAST CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, WHERE
YOU WENT AHEAD OF WHAT THE
PUBLIC WANTED WORKS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER
METERS.
WE KNOW WE NEED TO BE WISER IN HOW WE USE OUR WATER, AND
THERE ARE OTHER METHODS THAT
WE MIGHT DO TO TRY TO SEPARATE OUT THE USES OF THE WATER.
THEY THEMSELVES HAVE
COMPLICATIONS OR IMPLICATIONS AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING
THAT WILL BE OF FUTURE
DISCUSSION THAT COUNCIL HAS TO DO, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER
IS EVEN THOUGH SO MUCH OF THAT
WATER IS USED IN THOSE OTHER WAYS, THAT IS STILL THE MOST
SUFFICIENT WAY, COST-EFFICIENT
WAY TO GET THAT BENEFIT TO EVERYBODY.
NOT JUST THE CHILDREN.
ALL OF US WHO BENEFIT, BECAUSE IT IS — AS I SAID EARLIER,
ALL OF US BENEFIT, INCLUDING
ALL OF YOU HERE, IF YOU DRINK THE WATER.
THE ALTERNATIVE, AND THAT IS
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE POSED TO AN EXTERNAL
BODY, IS WHAT ARE THE — DOING
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE OTHER POTENTIAL WAYS OF
DELIVERING IT.
ANYTIME YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUALLY MOVING TO DENTAL
CARE.
FIRST OF ALL, YOU'VE ALREADY MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PREVENT.
SECONDLY, YOU'VE GOT ONE-ON-ONE, YOU'VE GOT A
HEALTH PROFESSIONAL WITH A
PATIENT.

THAT'S WAY MORE EXPENSIVE.
SO THAT THE ALTERNATIVES, IN
FACT, ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. WE NEED THEM.
WE NEED THOSE OTHER SERVICES,
AS I MENTIONED. WE ARE ALREADY INVESTING
ADDITIONALLY TO TRY TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT TO CHILDREN AT HIGHEST RISK.
SO IT'S NOT ONE THING ONLY.
IT'S A COMBINATION OF — OF OUT OF EFFORTS AND THE THINGS
THAT YOU HOLD RESPONSIBILITY
FOR AS CITY LEADERS AND WHAT I HOLD THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR AS
A HEALTH LEADER.
>> Alderman John Mar: NO, AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MY JOB, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS
TO FOLLOW THE INITIATIVES AND THE DIRECTION FROM MY
CONSTITUENTS.
THUS FAR, AND THIS THING HAS BEEN LIT UP LIKE YOU WOULDN'T
BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE.
PROBABLY MORE THAN ANY OTHER ISSUE THAT I'VE COME ACROSS IN
MY THREE AND A BIT YEARS ON
THIS COUNCIL, IT IS ABOUT 400-1 TO SAY GET THIS OUT OF
OUR WATER.
AND THE ARGUMENTS THAT I'M HEARING, THERE'S FINANCIAL
ARGUMENTS, OBVIOUSLY.
THERE'S THE HEALTH ARGUMENTS ALSO, BUT FOR ME,
FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT STRUCK ME
THE MOST WAS THE MORAL AND ETHICAL QUESTIONS THAT THIS
PRESENTS, BECAUSE ONE CANNOT
REALLY OPT OUT OF THE WATER.

CAN YOU?
YOU'RE ACTUALLY, IN EFFECT —
WE ARE, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, IN EFFECT, MASS MEDICINE
INDICATING WITHOUT CONSENT.
— MEDICATING WITHOUT CONSENT, AND TO HAVE SOMEBODY
FROM A PLEBISCITE OR TO HAVE
OUR COUNCIL DICTATING TO CITIZENS REALLY WHERE THEY
HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS IS —
IT'S IMMORAL, ISN'T IT? >> WELL, SOME ETHICIST, IN
FACT, HAVE ARGUED THAT IT
WOULD BE IMMORAL TO DO OTHERWISE.
THAT IT WOULD BE I AM IMMORAL
TO DENY THAT BENEFIT TO CALGARIANS.
I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE THAT.
THE MOST COGENT AND THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE ETHICS OF
FLUORIDATION WAS CONDUCTED BY
THE COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS IN THE U.K.

IN — A COUPLE OF
YEARS AGO, AND THEY WERE
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC HEALTH ETHICS.
SO MUCH OF THE ETHICS THAT
HAVE GOVERNED HEALTH PROFESSIONALS REALLY HAVE BEEN
AROUND DIRECT FACE-TO-FACE
CARE, AND THERE'S FOUR PRINCIPLES THAT WE FOLLOW:
AUTONOMY BEING ONE OF THEM.
DOING GOOD IS ANOTHER. DON'T DO HARM IS THE THIRD,
AND JUSTICE IS THE FOURTH.
>> Alderman John Mar: YES. >> SO THOSE ARE RELEVANT IN
THE PUBLIC HEALTH REALM, BUT
THEY DON'T TRANSLATE PARTICULARLY WELL, BECAUSE
THEY'RE — IF YOU LOOK AT
AUTONOMY, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND
HOW AUTONOMY PLAYS OUT IN A
COMMUNITY.

THERE ARE MANY DECISIONS THAT
ARE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT ARE
UNKNOWN TO ME ABOUT WHAT PRODUCTS — WHAT THINGS ARE
PUT IN THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE
IN THEIR STORES. WHAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ME TO
BUY.
I DIDN'T DECIDE THAT. I CAN CHOOSE THE PRODUCT
THAT'S THERE, BUT I MAY NOT
EXACTLY KNOW WHAT'S IN IT. IT'S — YOU KNOW, WE HAVE
RULES AROUND WHAT'S DISCLOSED
IN A PRODUCT. THEY'RE NOT AS CONCLUSIVE OR
AS INCLUSIVE AS, PERHAPS, WE
MIGHT WANT, SO THE ISSUE OF AUTONOMY IS ONE THAT THERE'S A
LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT.
AND IT'S NOT AS CLEAR AS IT IS IN A MEDICAL KIND OF
DECISION-MAKING.
IN THE — IN THE REPORT — SO THEY DID A — THEY ADDRESSED
THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC HEALTH
"E.T."ICS AND WHAT KINDS OF THINGS DO YOU NEED TO HAVE IN
PLACE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS
IN AN ETHICAL WAY FOR A WHOLE POPULATION AND THEN THEY DID A
NUMBER OF CASE STUDIES, AND
ONE OF THE CASE STUDIES, HAPPILY, WAS FLUORIDATION.
AND THEY DID ADDRESS THE
QUESTION OF IS — YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF PATERNALISM, IF
YOU WILL, IN ANY STATE
JUSTIFIABLE IN THIS SITUATION? IS THE BENEFIT — TO DO THE
BENEFITS APPROPRIATELY
OUTWEIGH ANY POTENTIAL RISKS? AND THEY DID END UP COMING
DOWN WITH — WITH, YES, THE
QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IS THE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE.
DO PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO EXPRESS THEIR WILL ON IT? SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE THEY
LANDED.
THEY THINK IT SATISFIED EVERY OTHER CRITERIA THAT THEY FELT
NEEDED TO BE THERE AND THEN
THE FINAL ONE IS IS THERE A GOOD PROCESS, AN OPEN AND FAIR
PROCESS, FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE
INPUT INTO WHETHER THAT IS APPLIED AT A POPULATION LEVEL?
AND THAT'S THIS PART OF THAT
PROCESS THAT WE'RE INVOLVED IN NOW AND MAYBE WHAT YOU MIGHT
CHOOSE TO DO BY ENGAGING
OTHERS TO HELP WITH ANSWERING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU
HAVE.
>> Alderman John Mar: NO.

AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THAT'S SOME — THAT'S VERY
HELPFUL. MY LAST QUESTION…
BECAUSE ALBERTA'S JUST ONE
SMALL CORNER OF CANADA. WHEN WE LOOK AROUND THE
COUNTRY, OTHER PROVINCES AND
OTHER JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT — THROUGHOUT
CANADA HAVE OPTED ALSO TO
REMOVE FLUORIDE FROM THEIR WATER.
SO, IF WE LOOK AT TWO OF OUR
EASTERN NEIGHBOURS — THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO AND THE
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC — IF WE
LOOK AT THOSE TWO, ONE OF THEM HAS REMOVED IT COMPLETELY.
WHEREVER AS THE OTHER HAS NOT,
AND YET, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR — GENERALLY, THEIR
RATES OF CAVITIES AND THINGS
OF THAT NATURE, VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT WOULD
BE? >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, QUEBEC
HAS NOT REMOVED FLUORIDE.
THERE ARE STILL FLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES.
THERE ARE STILL COMMUNITIES
THAT HAVE, OF COURSE, LIKE CALGARY, NATURAL LEVELS OF
FLUORIDE IN THEIR WATER.
SO — AND NOT EVERY COMMUNITY IN ONTARIO IS FLUORIDATED
OPTIMALLY.
SO, IT'S NOT AN EITHER/OR.

SO THE COMPARISONS — AND
THERE HASN'T BEEN A SYSTEMATIC
COMPARISON THAT LOOKS AT HOW LONG IS EACH PERSON LIVED IN
THAT PARTICULAR COMMUNITY AND
IN THEIR HISTORY OF EXPOSURE. SO THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE, BUT
IT'S NOT A PASS YEO EITHER/OR.
>> Alderman John Mar: OKAY. WELL, THAT'S ALSO HELPFUL.
ALSO, VARIOUS COUNTRIES IN
EUROPE. IN FACT, VIRTUALLY ALL OF
EUROPE DOES NOT FLUORIDATE.
IS THAT TRUE OR IS THAT NOT TRUE?
>> IT'S NOT TRUE.
>> Alderman John Mar: IT'S NOT TRUE?
>> AS I MENTIONED EARLIER,
THERE ARE COUNTRIES THAT, IN FACT, DO FLUORIDATE, SUCH AS
THE U.K.
AND THERE ARE OTHERS THAT PROVIDE — HAVE OTHER
MECHANISMS OF PROVIDING
FLUORIDE ON A MASS LEVEL.

SO ADDED IT TO SALT.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND THANK YOU
IN THIS 4-IN MILK AND THEY MAY HAVE OTHER ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
HEALTH PROGRAMMING WHERE
CHILDREN ARE — HAVE FLUORIDE VARNISHES AND SO ON.
>> Alderman John Mar: RIGHT.
>> SO EUROPE IS NOT A FLUORIDE-FREE ZONE, BY ANY
STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
>> Alderman John Mar: VERY WELL.
BUT YOU CAN — YOU'RE
SUGGESTING THAT THEY HAVE THESE TOPICAL TREATNTS:
VARNISHES.
AND THEY'VE ADDED IT TO CERTAIN PRODUCTS.
WHERE YOU CAN OPT IN OR OPT
OUT, AS YOU WISH. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> SOME COUNTRIES, THAT'S THE
CASE, YES. >> Alderman John Mar: OKAY.
NOW, I APPRECIATE THAT,
BECAUSE IF YOU WANTED TO — IF YOU WANTED TO — YOU COULD
DIRECT YOURSELF TOWARDS THESE
PROGRAMS, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE YOU WITH THIS TYPE OF FLOOR
FLUORIDE TREATMENT.
WHEREAS IN CALGARY RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN'T.
YOU CAN'T OPT OUT.
WE ARE, IN EFFECT, AS A STATE, CHOOSING IT FOR YOU.
SO, IN EUROPE, YOU'RE SAYING
THAT THERE ARE PLACES WHERE IT IS FLOOR — THERE IS FLOOR AID
AVAILABLE.
IT'S NOT A FLUORIDE-FROOEN ZONE, BUT YOU HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO JUMP IN OR JUMP
OUT, AS REQUIRED.

IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING?
>> CORRECT.
HERE IN CALGARY. AS YOU WAVED YOUR BOTTLE OF
WATER, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO
DO IT. IT MIGHT BE ANOTHER QUESTION,
IN FACT, YOU MIGHT WANT TO
EXPLORE IF YOU ENGAGE OTHERS TO HELP WITH THIS REVIEW.
YOU KNOW, I'M SURE, THAT WHEN
EDMONTON INTRODUCED FLUORIDATION BACK IN — I
THINK THE '60s, THEY ACTUALLY
DID SAO HAVE A TAP AVAILABLE WHERE PEOPLE COULD GO AFTER
THE TREATMENT OF THE WATER WAS
BEFORE THE FLOOR AID WAS ADDED SO THAT WAS AN OPTION THAT
THEY MAINTAINED FOR A PERIOD
OF TIME AND THEN DISCONTINUED BECAUSE IT WASN'T BEING
ACCESSED SO THAT MIGHT BE
SOMETHING YOU'D WANT TO EXPLORE HERE.
AGAIN, THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS
THAT SHOULD BE ASKED AND BE PART OF YOUR DECISION.
>> Alderman John Mar: OKAY.
AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN HERE, BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF COUNCIL HERE.
THERE'S A VERY LARGE AUDIENCE.
AND THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT CALGARIANS AND ALBERTANS ARE
VERY, VERY INTERESTED IN.
BUT — AND SORRY TO PULL A COLOMBO, BUT MY LAST THING WAS
THAT OUT OF THAT $1,000, YOU
DON'T DISPUTE THE NUMBER AND YOU DON'T DISPUTE THE FACT
THAT WE ARE, IN EFFECT,
FLUSHING ABOUT $995 DOWN THE TOILET?
>> I'M NOT REAL GOOD AT DOING
NUMBERS IN MY HEAD, SO…

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT.
>> Alderman John Mar: THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD: THANK YOU.
I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS. DO YOU — IN SOME OF THE MANY,
MANY, MANY E-MAILS THAT I'VE
HAD ON THIS, THERE WAS QUESTIONS IN ONE OF THEM ABOUT
THE ACTUAL RATE OF FLUOROCIES
AND THE INDICATIONS WERE THAT — THAT THERE MAY BE SOME
MISDIAGNOSES, THAT SOME THINGS,
DENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE BEING DIAGNOSED AS FLUOROSIS WERE
NOT, IN FACT, FLUOROSIS OR
RELATED TO THE FLUORIDE.

DO YOU KNOW OFF HAND WHAT THE
RATE OF FLUOROSIS IS AS A
RESULT OF FLUORIDE? >> IN CALGARY?
>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD: YES.
>> I DON'T. I'M NOT SURE IF Dr. SCHWARZ IS
GOING TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON
THAT AREN'T. >> Alderman Gael MacLEOD:
OKAY.
>> IT REQUIRES THE SPECIFIC EFFORT TO LOOK AT THAT.
>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD:
OKAY. THAT MAY BE THE SAME, THEN,
FOR MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS
ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE REDUCTION IN CAVITIES AS A RESULT OF THE
FLUORIDE, IF WE'RE ABLE TO
ACTUALLY GET A HANDLE ON THAT.

>> WELL, WE — WE HAVE DONE
SURVEYS AROUND DECAYED,
MISSING, FILLED TEETH, AND SINCE WE — SINCE WE
INTRODUCED FLUORIDATION, THE
RESULTS ARE MIXED. IT'S NOT A CLEAR AND
CONSISTENT DROP.
WHICH IS NOT SURPRISING, BECAUSE OF — AS I'VE
MENTIONED AND IT'S BEEN REPEATED
BY OTHERS, THERE ARE MANY FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OR AVOIDANCE OF
DENTAL CARRIES. FLUORIDATION IS ONE HELPFUL
MEASURE THAT CAN BE ACCESSIBLE
TO ALL OF US. IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT.
IT'S NOT THE ONLY ONE.
>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD: OKAY. YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT DO NO HARM
AS BEING AN UNDERPINNING OF
YOUR HIPPOCRATIC OATH. AND I'M WONDERING WHEN WE HAVE
CONFLICTING RESEARCH AND
THERE'S THAT, YOU KNOW, OFF CHANCE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING
OUT THERE AND WE'VE HEARD
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES FROM TWO COUNCILORS.
HOW — HOW DO YOU BALANCE THAT
ONE-OFF OR ANOMALY AGAINST THE DO NO HARM.
LIKE, AT WHAT POINT DO YOU SAY
THAT THE BROAD PUBLIC BENEFIT IS BETTER EVEN THOUGH A FEW
PEOPLE DROP OFF THE TABLE?
I'M KIND OF PUTTING IT IN A BAD WAY THERE, BUT…
>> WELL, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT
THAT CLAIM, AND THEN YOU WEIGH IT AGAINST — WELL, DOES IT
MAKE SENSE?
IS THERE BIOLOGICAL PLAUSIBILITY?
IS THERE A DOSE RESPONSE?
IS THERE CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER RESEARCH?
THERE'S A WHOLE LIFT OF
CRITERIA CALLED BRADFORD HILLS IS ONE OF THE SORT OF COMMON
SET OF CRITERIA BY WHICH WE
EXAMINE CAUSALITY.

SO YOU EVALUATE IT AND THEN
YOU PLACE IT AGAINST THE OTHER
EVIDENCE F IT'S COMPELLING, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S REPLICATED.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, RICHARD DOLL, WHO WAS A PHYSICIAN IN
THE — IN THE UNITED KINGDOM,
WHO REALLY LED THE CHARGE AGAINST TOBACCO AS A
CARCINOGEN, HIS FIRST PAPER
THAT LINKED CANCER — CIGARETTE SMOKING WITH CANCER
WAS REJECTED BY "THE BRITISH
MEDICAL JOURNAL" BECAUSE IT WAS A ONE-OFF.
THEY DIDN'T ACCEPT IT UNTIL IT
WAS REPLICATED IN ANOTHER STUDY.
SO IT'S THAT LEVEL OF RIGOR
THAT WE NEED TO DO BEFORE WE ACT ON SUPPOSITION OR
POSSIBILITIES OR WHAT-IFs.
>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD: MM-HMM.
I'VE HEARD IN THESE E-MAILS
THAT I'VE GOT, THAT FLUORIDE HAS — I THINK WE HEARD
EARLIER ABOUT A CASE WITH
ARTHRITIS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT FLUORIDE
IS BEING BLAMED FOR EVERY
DISEASE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A KNOWN CAUSE, AND CAN YOU
COMMENT ON THAT OR…?
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY RELATIONSHIPS TO ANY OF THESE
ISSUES?
>> WELL, AGAIN, THERE ARE LOTS OF CLAIMS OF HARM BEING MADE,
AND THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT MAKES THE WHOLE ISSUE TROUBLING FOR YOU AS
DECISIONMAKERS AND FOR THE
PUBLIC, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WITH SEEMINGLY
REASONABLE CREDENTIALS MAKING
THESE CLAIMS.

SO WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THEM,
AND WE NEED TO STUDY THEM AND
WE NEED TO WEIGH THEM AGAINST THE OTHER EVIDENCE.
IT'S DIFFICULT, AS I SAID
EARLIER, TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE.
>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD:
YEAH. >> SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT
ALL TOGETHER AND THEN MAKE A
DECISION ON THE BALANCE OF THAT INFORMATION.
>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD:
MM-HMM. THANK YOU.
MY LAST QUESTION IS BACK TO
THIS IDEA OF HAVING AN EXPERT PANEL.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT
TO ADD ON THE QUESTION OF HOW WE ENSURE THAT THE PANEL IS
UNBIASED GOING INTO THIS — IF
WE DECIDE TO CREATE THIS? >> WELL, I THINK WHAT I WOULD
ADD IS THAT IT'S AROUND THE
TRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCESS. SO, IF YOU'VE HAD A GOOD
PROCESS TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE
QUESTIONS ARE THAT YOU WISH TO HAVE ASKED, YOU ARE VERY CLEAR
IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW OR
WHAT PROCESSES ARE GOING TO BE UNDERTAKEN TO ANSWER THOSE
QUESTIONS AND AN EXPERT PANEL
MIGHT — AS I SAID, MIGHT BE ONE OF THE WAYS THAT YOU DO
THAT.
THERE MIGHT BE OTHER RESOURCE THAT IS YOU'D WANT TO TAP
INTO.
YOU MIGHT EVEN WANT TO COMMISSION A STUDY OF SOME
DESCRIPTION OR ANOTHER.
BUT IF YOU'RE A PARENT — OR TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT
THROUGHOUT AND PEOPLE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT AROUND THESE CITE CRITERIA OR
THE RULES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
PLAY BY, THEN I THINK THAT OUGHT TO GO A LONG WAY IN
INCREASING OUR CONFIDENCE THAT
PEOPLE ARE BEING HONEST AND ETHICAL.
AND, AGAIN, I WOULD REPEAT
WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO TRUST.
YOU KNOW.
I TRUST YOU AS MY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO BE HONEST
AND ETHICAL AND TO WORK HARD.
YOU ARE WORKING HARD ON THIS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU PEOPLE
HAVE MADE SURE THEY'RE WORKING
HARD ON IT BECAUSE THEY'RE SENDING ALL SORTS OF STUFF.
SO I RESPECT YOU FOR THAT.
I TRUST THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN, AND I
WOULD LIKE TO EXPECT THAT YOU
HAVE A SIMILAR FAITH AND TRUST IN ME, BECAUSE THAT'S
ESSENTIALLY FOR ME TO DO MY
JOB WELL, THAT I HAVE CREDIBILITY WITH YOU AND THAT
YOU CAN TRUST WHAT I'M SAYING
TO BE BEST — BASED ON MY BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THIS OR ANY
OTHER QUESTION THAT I MIGHT
COME BEFORE YOU.

>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> YOU MENTIONED IN THE RURAL COMMUNITIES, YOU FOUND WELLS
WITH TOO MUCH FLUORIDE.
HOW MUCH TOO MUCH? MAYBE I CAN SHORTCUT THAT
QUESTION A LITTLE BIT EASIER
INSTEAD. WITH THE LAST PRESENTER, WE
WERE DISCUSSING DOSE AND THE
SWEET SPOT OF WHAT THE DOSAGE, THE CORRECT DOSAGE IS, AND I'M
STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND
AROUND THAT. IF WE'RE PUTTING.
7 MILLIGRAMS INTO THE WATER,
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING DOING, WHAT — HOW MANY
LITRES — SO, THE AVERAGE
PERSON GENERALLY DRINKS THREE LITRES A DAY?
THAT'S CORRECT IS THAT
CORRECT? >> I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT
MUCH.
>> I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING FEW FOR THE CORRECT ANSWER ON
THAT.
>> LESS THAN THAT.

>> TWO LITRES?
>> A LITRE, A LITRE AND A
HALF. >> SO WE SHOULD BE GETTING ONE
AND A HALF MILLIGRAMS OF
FLUORIDE A DAY, IS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS.
AND THAT'S REALLY THE NUMBER
I'M TRYING TO GET AT. SO THAT'S APPROXIMATELY THE
CORRECT DOSAGE?
>> I THINK SO. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT FLOOR FLUORIDE CAN BE ABSORBED
THROUGH THE SKIN, THROUGH
BATHS, SHOWERS, ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES?
HAS THERE BEEN ANY STUDIES
WHATSOEVER IN 60 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION TO SEE IF THERE'S
ANY EPIDERMAL SEEPAGE, SO TO
SPEAK? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT.
>> SO I CAN — AFTER 60 YEARS, YOU'D THINK SOMEBODY WOULD
HAVE DONE THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW. IT'S — THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT
OF THINGS THAT — I MEAN,
WE'VE GOT — THE SKIN IS A MARVELOUS ORGAN.
>> OH, I KNOW.
>> THAT PROTECTS US FROM ABSORBING LOTS OF THINGS.
SO, IT'S NOT INTUITIVE TO ME
THAT IT WOULD BE ABSORBED THROUGH THE SKIN AND SO — I
MEAN, I'M QUITE HAPPY TO —
>> WELL, IT'S JUST — I MEAN, WE REALIZE THAT THE SKIN
ABSORBS PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING
ELSE, SO, WHY — >> IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY.
THE SKIN IS A VERY EFFECTIVE
BARRIER FOR MANY THINGS.

>> OKAY.
FAIR ENOUGH.
AFTER 60 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION, THE DEBATE STILL SEEMS TO RAGE
ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
WHY, IN YOUR OPINION? >> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I TRIED
TO ADDRESS IN MY COMMENTS, SO
I'M SORRY IF I DIDN'T EXPRESS MYSELF WELL ENOUGH.
I THINK IT IS THIS ISSUE OF
RISK AND RISK TOLERANCE. ALDERMAN STEVENSON MADE THE
POINT ABOUT, THIS IS
SOMETHING — I HOPE IT WAS ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
PERHAPS IT WAS ALDERMAN
COMPETING.

>> SOMEONE OVER THERE.
IS IT DOESN'T MATTER.
>> ABOUT WATER BEING THIS PRECIOUS THING THAT — AND I
SAID THAT I BELIEVE IT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S — IT'S A RIGHT TO US AS CITIZENS.
SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS JUST
GIVE IT THAT MUCH MORE EMOTIVE IMPACT, AND THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S LIFE, AND IT JUST MEANS
THAT WE HAVE TO BE — WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS
REGULARLY.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT — THAT THOSE OF US IN OUR
RESPECTIVE ROLES, — IN HEALTH
OR IN GOVERNMENT — WE DO STAY ON TOP OF THESE ISSUES.
>> OKAY.
>> SO THAT'S FINE.

>> DO YOU CONSIDER STRESS —
I'VE HEARD MANY TIMES THAT
STRESS IS ONE OF THE LEADING CAUSES OF HEALTH PROBLEMS IN
THE WESTERN WORLD.
IS THAT A REASONABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT?
>> STRESS IS A BIG THING IN
OUR LIVES. >> OKAY.
WOULD THE CONCEPT THAT A VAST
MAJORITY — A VAST MINORITY — A VAST NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN OUR
POPULATION THAT BELIEVE THAT
FLUORIDE IS BAD AND HAVING IT IN OUR WATER CAUSES THEM
STRESS?
>> WELL, THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A SUPPOSITION.
OKAY?
WHAT IF…? WHAT IF?
SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.
>> NO, I'M NOT ASKING WHETHER THAT'S SUPPOSITION.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT
STRESS — THAT THAT COULD BE A CAUSE OF STRESS?
>> NO.
>> THAT'S A SUPPOSITION? >> AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER
TO THAT.
I KNOW THAT WHEN I HAVE — WHEN I WAS YOUNGER — AND I
CAN'T SAY WHEN MY CHILDREN HAD
CAVITIES, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T.

BECAUSE WHEN MY PARENTS HAD
CARRIES, WHEN I HAD CARRIES AS
A CHILD GROWING UP IN MONTREAL, WHERE THERE WAS NO
FLUORIDATION, THAT WAS STRESS.
LET ME TELL YOU. THAT PAIN:
THE COST THAT MY PARENTS HAD
TO PAY FOR IT WITHOUT INSURANCE PLANS.
THAT'S STRESS.
>> INTERESTING. OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> SEEING NO OTHER. QUESTIONS…
THANK YOU, DOCTOR.
OH, DID YOUR LIGHT JUST COME ON?
ALDERMAN FARRELL?
>> Alderman Druh Farrell: I ALWAYS ENJOY YOUR
PRESENTATIONS.
THEY'RE VERY THOUGHTFUL. I ALSO WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR
ONE OF YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU
JUST MADE.

SEVERAL COMMENTS I'VE RECEIVED
FROM CALGARIANS WHO WERE —
DIDN'T AGREE WITH ME BRINGING THIS MOTION FORWARD SUGGESTED
THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL OF
THIS AND AREN'T WE DONE WITH THIS DISCUSSION?
AND WHAT YOU SAID WAS THAT WE
SHOULD CONTINUE TO REVIEW THESE THINGS, AND I WANTED TO
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO — OTHERWISE WE
WOULD STILL HAVE BISPHENOL A
AS AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTANCE, THAT'S NOW UBIQUITOUS OR THE
BIG DEBATE NOW IS PHTHALATES,
SO WE'RE ALWAYS LEARNING AND WE SHOULD BE KEEPING ABREAST
OF THIS NEW INFORMATION.
>> THIS IS OUR PRIVILEGE TO BE IN A DEMOCRACY.
>> Alderman Druh Farrell:
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, DOCTOR.
FOR THE AUDIENCE, ANYBODY THAT
HAS — THAT WISHES TO SPEAK THAT HAS NOT SIGNED THE
SPEAKER'S LIST THAT IS ON THE
SPEAKER'S PODIUM OVER THERE… WE ARE NOW RECESSED UNTIL
1:05.
CAPTIONING OF THIS MEETING IS PROVIDED AS A COMMUNICATION
ACCESSIBILITY MEASURE AND IS
NOT INTENDED AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
IF INACCURACIES OCCUR, IT MAY
BE DUE TO HUMAN ERROR, TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
OR AN INABILITY ON THE PART
OF THE WRITER TO HEAR OR UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING
SAID.
WHILE BEST EFFORTS ARE MADE TO DOCUMENT AS CLOSELY
AS POSSIBLE WHAT IS BEING
SAID, THE CAPTIONS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS A CERTIFIED
ACCURATE RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS.

>> OKAY.
CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
THE NEXT SPEAKER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FORWARD — I SHOULD
LET YOU KNOW WE'RE ON SPEAKER
NUMBER EIGHT OF 41. SO WE GOT A LONG WAY TO GO.
SO MY NEXT SPEAKER IS MICHELLE
ROBINSON. DO WE HAVE YOUR NAME.
AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
>> HI THERE. I'M MICHELLE ROBINSON.
I'M FROM ABBEYDALE.
I HAVE COPIES FOR WHAT I WANTED TO SAY TO EVERYBODY HERE IN CASE
YOU'D LIKE ONE.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR GIVING THE WHOLE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO
SPEAK TODAY.
I CAME HERE TODAY ADVOCATING FOR MY FAMILY.
MY HUSBAND WANTED TO BE HERE
TODAY BUT HE HAD TO WORK.

THERE IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO
PROVE THAT ADDING FLUORIDE TO
OUR WATER IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO MAINTAIN OUR HEALTH.
BOTH ORALLY AND OTHERWISE.
WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR SCIENTIFIC DEBATE ON
THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF
FLUORIDATION, DESPITE OUR MEDICAL AND DENTAL ASSOCIATION'S
OBJECTIONS.
TO NAME AT LEAST ONE WHOLE BOOK DEVOTED TO THE SUBJECT I
RECOMMEND "THE CASE AGAINST
FLUORIDE: HOW HAZARDOUS WASTE ENDED UP IN OUR DRINKING WATER,
AND THE BAD SCIENCE AND POWERFUL
POLITICS THAT KEPT IT THERE" BY THREE SCIENTISTS.
Dr. PAUL CONET, Dr. JAMES
BECK, AND Dr. PENNING MICKOLM. SORRY IF I MISPRONOUNCED.
THAT THE MEDICAL AND DENTAL
ASSOCIATIONS HAVE PLAYED POLITICS ON THIS ISSUE.
IF THERE IS THAT MUCH EVIDENCE
TO ILLUSTRATE THE DOWN SIDES OF FLUORIDATION TO MAKE A BOOK, CAN
WE PLEASE STOP PLAYING POLITICS
ON THE CONCEPT THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO DEBATE.
THERE IS A DEBATE AND WE NEED TO
LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE THAT HASN'T BEEN ADVOCATED FOR.
NOT EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF
INGESTING THIS TOXIN. TO THOSE WHO HAVE LEGITIMATE
HEALTH ISSUES, SPECIFICALLY
KIDNEY ISSUES, WE ARE MAKING THEIR HEALTH ISSUES MUCH HARDER
TO OVERCOME.
FLUORIDE EXASPERATES CHRONIC KIDNEY ISSUES.
IF FLUORIDATION IS WANTED FOR
THE WILLING, THERE ARE OPTIONS.

RATHER THAN MASS WATER
CONSUMPTION.
THOSE OTHER OPTIONS INCLUDE TABLETS, TOOTHPASTE, WITH
FLUORIDATION.
AND OR FLUORIDATION AT THE DENTAL OFFICES.
EVEN FORMULA FOR BABIES HAVE A
HIGH SOURCE OF FLUORIDE TO THE POINT OF CONCERN.
I WOULD ASK THESE PEOPLE WHO
SUPPORT FLUORIDATION TO CONSIDER THE RIGHTS OF THE UNWILLING.
AS A CALGARIAN IN A FREE SOCIETY
I SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION ON HOW TO APPROACH MY
HEALTH AND HEALTH TO MY FAMILY.
FORCING EVERYONE TO DRINK A CHEMICAL, DRUG OR TOXIN GOES
AGAINST THE WHOLE IDEA OF
FREEDOM AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
AS A PARENT I TRY TO ELIMINATE
FOOD DYES, PROCESSED FOODS, PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES,
CHEMICALS, CARCINOGENS AND MANY
OTHER TOXINS FOUND IN OUR FOOD, WATER, AND SUPPLEMENT CHOICES.
EVEN OUR AIR LOCALLY IS POLLUTED
WITH SILVER IODINE, CONSIDERED A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, A PRIORITY
POLLUTANT AND A TOXIC POLLUTANT
BIT EPA ALL IN THE NAME OF HAIL SUPPRESSION.
MANY OF THESE THINGS I DON'T
HAVE A CHOICE ON AND I WISH I DID.
FLUORIDE IS ANOTHER TOXIN I'M
TRYING TO HAVE A CHOICE ON AND TRYING TO ELIMINATE.
I'M ASKING YOU AS A PARENT, AS A
WIFE O, AS A PET OWNER, A NURSIG MOTHER, AND A CITIZEN WANTING
CLEAN WATER TO PLEASE TAKE THE
FLUORIDE OUT OF THE CITY WATER.

TO HAVE TAXPAYERS SPEND MONEY ON
THIS IS DISGRACEFUL AND
UNNECESSARY. TO FORCE THIS ON MY FAMILY
WITHOUT OUR CONSENT IS
UNETHICAL. PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND WHILE
MAKING YOUR DECISION AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. PEACEFULLY, MICHELLE ROBINSON.
>> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, MISS ROBINSON
THANKS FOR COMING DOWN AND DOING
YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT SPEAKER ON THE LIST IS
STAN NICOL.

JUST HOLD ON A SECOND.
ALDERMAN, CARRA, YOU DON'T HAVE
TO STAND. WE'RE IN COMMITTEE.
>> I'D LIKE TO DECLARE AN
INTEREST. IT'S HARD NOT TO STAND IN THIS
CHAMBER.
>> Mr. NICOL. >> CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS STAN NICOL.
I'M A MEMBER FOR THE COALITION
OF SENIORS' ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION AND ITS PAST
VICE-PRESIDENT.
I AM APPALLED THAT WITH THE INTELLIGENCE, EDUCATION AND
INFORMATION AVAILABLE BEING
POSTED EVERYWHERE WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO INGEST AND
PROMOTE WATER TREATED WITH SUCH
A DANGEROUS CHEMICAL AS FLUORIDE?
MY WIFE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION
THE MEETING A– THE MEANING ACCORDING TO THE CANADIAN DIXARY
OF FLUORIDE.
FLUORIDE IS A BINARY COMPOUND OF FLORINE WITH ANOTHER ELEMENT.
IT IS HIGHLY CORROSIVE,
POISONOUS, GASEOUS, HALOGEN ELEMENT.
THE MOST REACTIVE OF ALL THE
ELEMENTS. THIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE AND A
MATTER OF ONE'S CHOICE WHICH IS
BEING DENIED TO THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT FLUORIDE IN THEIR WATER.
IT IS FORCED UPON US.
IS THIS DEMOCRACY? JUST AS SMOKERS DON'T HAVE A
RIGHT TO EXPOSE US TO SECONDHAND
SMOKE, SO SHOULD THOSE AGAINST FLUORIDE BE EXPOSED TO CHEMICAL
IN OUR WATER SUPPLY.
CAN ALL THE FLUORIDE EXPERTS GUARANTEE THAT NONE OF THE
THYROID, KIDNEY, HIP FRACTURES,
BRAIN TUMORS, OSTEOPOROSIS, CANCER AND OTHER HEALTH
CONDITIONS WERE NOT CASE 'CAUSED
BY THE INGESTION OF FLUORIDE FROM OUR WATER SUPPLY OVER A
PERIOD OF YEARS?
IT BUILDS UP IN OUR BODIES.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE COSTS TO OUR
HEALTH CARE ON THE ADVERSE
EFFECTS CAUSED BY THE INGESTION OF FLUORIDE?
ARE OUR LIVES BEING SHORTENED BY
INGESTING FLUORIDE? WE DON'T EVER HEARD THE SIDE
EFFECTS OF INGESTING FLUORIDE
FROM THE PRO-FLUORIDATIONISTS. WHY?
WE ARE KEPT BY ALL THE FOOD AND
DRINK MADE WITH FLUORIDATED WATER, EATING AND DRINKING
BEVERAGES IN RESTAURANTS WITH
FLUORIDATED WATER ALSO PUTS US AT RISK.
WE CAN'T ESCAPE FROM IT NO
MATTER WHAT WE DO. ISN'T THAT OVERKILL?
AND IRRESPONSIBLE?
SERIOUSLY. I ONCE ENJOYED CALGARY WATER AND
BRAGGED ABOUT ITS GOOD TASTE.
SHORTLY AFTER FLUORIDE WAS INTRODUCED TO OUR WATER SUPPLY
MY STOMACH REACTED TO IT
ADVERSELY. TBIERSED TO BUY NON-FLUORIDATED
BOTTLED WATER AND DISPENSERS,
COSTING ME THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OVER ALMOST 20 YEARS.
AND I AM STILL PAYING FOR CITY
WATER.

AS ALDERMAN MAR WAS SAYING, WHAT
GOD IS FLUORIDE IN FLUSHING OUR
TOILETS, WASHING DISHES, CLOTHES, WATERING OUR LAWNS AND
GUARDNESS AND WASHING VEHICLES.
WHAT WASTE OF OUR TAX MONEY TO WHICH I STRONGLY OBJECT.
THEY ARE ALSO POLLUTING OUR
RIVERS WITH FLUORIDE. WHAT GOOD IS FLUORIDE TO PEOPLE
WITH DENTURES?
THEY DON'T NEED FLUORIDE. WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WITH
ALLERGIES?
SHOULD THEY BE IGNORED? MOUTH RINSES CONTAIN FLUORIDE.
TOOTHPASTE IS HEAVILY
FLUORIDATED.

DENTISTS GIVE FLUORIDE
TREATMENTS.
YOU CAN PURCHASE FLUORIDE DROPS IN THE DRUGSTORE.
SO WHY IS OUR WATER FLUORIDATED?
IS IT ETHICAL OR EVEN LEGAL BEING SLOWLY POISONED?
THIS MAY BE CHALLENGED AND THE
CITY WOULD BE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR ACTIONS, COSTING US
EVEN FURTHER.
WITH ALL THIS FLUORIDE BEING CONSUMED AND THE GOOD IT'S
SUPPOSED TO DO, THEN DENTISTS
SHOULD BE LEANING ON THEIR DRILLS WAITING FOR PATIENTS.
INSTEAD YET THEY SEEM TO BE VERY
BUSY AS OBTAINING AN APPOINTMENT TAKES LONG PERIODS OF TIME.
OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE REMOVING
OR RESISTING FLUORIDATING THEIR WATER SUPPLY.
WHY IS CALGARY SO BACKWARD IN
NOT DOING SO LIKEWISE? LOOK WHAT FLUORIDE —
FLUORIDATION — FLUORIDE IS
DOING TO THE DISPENSING EQUIPMENT.
NOW IT WILL COST US MILLIONS TO
REPLACE IF FLUORIDE, WHAT IT'S DOING TO THE DISPENSING
EQUIPMENT, THEN HOW IS IT
AFFECTING OUR BODIES? NOW IT WILL COST US MILLIONS TO
REPLACE THIS EQUIPMENT.
NOT TO MENTION THE $750.000 PER YEAR FOR THE FLUORIDE.
WE DO NOT NEED THIS COST TO OUR
TREASURY.

NOR TO OUR HEALTH RISK.
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST FLUORIDE
HAS BEEN CONTINUALLY MOUNTING. WHY ISN'T THIS EVIDENCE AND
COMMON SENSE PREVAILING HERE?
TAKE FLUORIDE OUT OF OUR WATER. THE PAPERS WRITTEN BY Dr.
RICHARD FOCUS, WHICH IS SOME OF
IT HERE, THE LATE Dr. JOHN CAHOON "WHY I CHANGE MY MIND
ABOUT FLUORIDATION", AND Dr.
JIM BECK AS WELL AS OTHERS ARE PROFESSIONALS WHOSE EXPERTISE
AND ADVICE SHOULD BE TAKEN
SERIOUSLY. WITH THE KIND OF DETERMINED
INFORMATION NOW AVAILABLE I
DON'T SEE HOW ANY MUNICIPALITY DARES TO PUT FLUORIDE IN OUR
WATER SUPPLY.
PLEASE TAKE IT OUT IMMEDIATELY FOR THE HEALTH OF OUR CITIZENS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, Mr. NICOL. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION. THE NEXT SPEAKER ON MY LIST IS
LUKE SWARTZ.
>> I'D LIKE TO USE THE PROJECTOR FOR THE OVERHEAD.
OH, IT'S ON.
Mr.

CHAIRMAN AND COUNCILORS, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
MY NAME IS Dr. LUKE SWART.
I AM A DENTIST. I AM THE DENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH
OFFICER FOR ALBERTA HEALTH
SERVICES. I DRINK FLUORIDATED TAP WATER
EVERY DAY.
ORAL HEALTH IS A KEY COMPONENT OF GENERAL HEALTH.
YOU CANNOT SEPARATE THE HEALTH
OF YOUR MOUTH FROM THE HEALTH OF YOUR BODY.
COMMON SENSE TELLS US THAT FEWER
CAVITIES MEANS FEWER DAYS MISSED FROM SCHOOL, FEWER INSTANCES OF
PAIN AND SWELLING.
BETTER ABILITY TO CHEW FOOD. AND BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.
THERE IS GOOD SCIENCE SHOWING
THAT WATER FLUORIDATION WORKS TO REDUCE TOOTH DECAY.
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
INDICATES THAT IT HAS TWO POSITIVE DENTAL EFFECTS.
NUMBER ONE: IT INCREASES THE
NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE NEVER HAD DECAY.
I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU PAGE
TWELVE FROM THE BRITISH SYSTEMIC REVIEW.
WHICH SHOWS 30 DIFFERENT
RESEARCH METHODS IN CITIES THAT STARTED WATER FLUORIDATION WHERE
THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM.
THE VERTICAL BLACK LINE SHOWS — AT ZERO MEANS THERE'S BEEN NO
CHSM THE COLOURED BARS SHOW THE
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE ZERO CAVITIES.
MOST STUDIES SHOW THAT AFTER
FLUORIDATION STARTS THE PROPORTION OF CHILDREN WITH NO
DECAY INCREASES.
THEY'RE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE "NO CHANGE" LINE.
THE SECOND EFFECT THAT
FLUORIDATED WATER HAS IS IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF DECAY IN
CHILDREN WITH CAVITIES.
THE SECOND PAGE I'LL SHOW SU PAGE 16 FROM THE BRITISH
SYSTEMIC REVIEW THAT SHOWS SEVEN
MEASURES OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN FLUORIDE WAS REMOVED FROM A
FLUORIDATED COMMUNITY.
THE VERTICAL LINE AT 0 AGAIN SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO EFFECT.
THE COLOURED BARS ON THE LEFT OF
THE LINE SHOW THAT AFTER FLUORIDATION STOPS, CHILDREN
HAVE MORE CAVITIES.
CALGARY CHILDREN HAVE BETTER DENTAL HEALTH SINCE WATER
FLUORIDATION STARTED.
AS YOU KNOW, CALGARY DOES HAVE NATURAL FLUORIDE IN THE WATER.
IT FLUCTUATES WITH THE SEASONS.
UP TO .3 OR MAYBE EVEN .4 PARTS PER MILLION.
CITY ENGINEERS CAREFULLY BOOST
AND CONTROL THE NATURAL LEVEL AT 0.7 PARTS PER MILLION.
ENOUGH TO BENEFIT DENTAL HEALTH.
FLUORIDATION IS SAFE EXPESKTIVE AND IMPROVES — AND EFFECTIVE
AND IMPROVES HEALTH OF TEETH.
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT DENTAL FLUOROSIS.
AND HOW IT IS CAUSED BY WATER
FLUORIDATION.

FIRST OF ALL, FLUOROSIS IS AN
AESTHETIC MARKING OF TEETH.
NOT A HEALTH PROBLEM. IT IS TYPICALLY A WHITISH
DISCOLOURATION OF ENAMEL.
THE BIGGEST RISK FOR ENAMEL FLUOROSIS COMES FROM USING DROPS
OR TABLETS OF FLUORIDE OR
UNCONTROLLED AMOUNTS OF TOOTHPASTE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
CALGARY HAD AN EXPERT PANEL REVIEW IN 1998.
DENTAL FLUOROSIS RANGES FROM
VERY MILD TO SEVERE. WE DO NOT FIND SEVERE LEVELS OF
DENTAL FLUOROSIS IN CALGARY.
AND IT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEVELS OF FLOOR AID THAT WE
USE IN — OF FLUORIDE THAT WE
USE IN WATER FLUORIDATION. CALGARY IS ALREADY AT THE LOWEST
LEVEL OF WATER FLUORIDATION
RECOMMENDED BY HEALTH CANADA'S EXPERT PANEL.
I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A PAGE
THAT SHOWS THE DENTAL FLUOROSIS RATES IN CALGARY AND ACROSS THE
PROVINCE.
THE BLUE LINE — THE HEAVY BLUE LINE SHOWS THE NUMBER OF
CHILDREN WHO HAVE 0 DENTAL
FLUOROSIS.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT'S ON
THE INCREASE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO BE HAVING.
THE GREEN AND RED LINES SHOW THE
LEVELS OF DENTAL FLUOROSIS THAT ARE EITHER OF VERY MILD CONCERN
OR MODERATE CONCERN.
AND BOTH OF THOSE LINES ARE DROPPING OVER THE YEARS.
AND THEN THE FINAL PAGE THAT
I'LL SHOW YOU IS THE LEVEL OF DENTAL FLOOR OWES NEWS CALGARY
COMPARED WITH THE PALLISER
HEALTH REGION. I USE PALLISER HEALTH REGION
BECAUSE WHEN WE DID THE SURVEY
THERE WE HAD A SIMILAR CALIBRATOR.
AND THE COMPARISON WITH WATER
FLUORIDATION IS QUITE DIFFERENT.

SO THE LEVEL OF COMMUNITIES IN
THE PALLISER HEALTH REGION WITH
OPTIMAL FLUORIDE WATER IS LESS THAN 10% THE POPULATION.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE LEVEL OF
DENTAL FLUOROSIS IS ALMOST IDENTICAL.
AND THAT'S JUST IN ANOTHER PART
OF OUR OWN PROVINCE. MANY THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN TO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENAMEL ON
PERMANENT TEETH TO CAUSE THINGS THAT LOOK LIKE DENTAL FLUOROSIS,
TAKING ANTIBIOTICS, HAVING HIGH
FEVERS, HAVING AN ABSCESS ON THE PRIMARY TOOTH.
FALLING AND BUMPING THE PRIMARY
TOOTH. OFTEN ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE
LUMPED TOGETHER AND CALLED
DENTAL FLUOROSIS. SOME CHILDREN HAVE THESE EFFECTS
ON ENAMEL WITHOUT ANY GOOD
REASON.

WE'VE BEEN ASKED WHY NOT JUST
GIVE TOOTHPASTE OR FLUORIDE
TREATMENTS TO AT-RISK PEOPLE? THERE IS NO SIMPLE WAY TO FIND
AND REACH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
MOST AT RISK OF TOOTH DECAY. BUT FLUORIDATED WATER IS
AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
IT DOESN'T STIGMATIZE OUR FELLOW CITIZENS WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE
ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DENTAL
CARE OR PREVENTIVE SERVICES. OR MAY NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO BRUSH
AT ALL.
I WOULD SUGGEST MAKING THE EASY CHOICE A GOOD CHOICE.
DRINK TAP WATER.
BY FLUORIDATING THE COMMUNITY SAYS THAT IT VALUES THE DENTAL
HEALTH OF ALL ITS RESIDENTS.
THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
ALDERMAN MacLEOD?
>> SORRY. UM, I GUESS — IF I'M LOOKING AT
THIS CHART, AM I TO UNDERSTAND
THAT A RATE OF — ACTUALLY, YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT OUR RATE OF
FLUOROSIS IS?
THE PERCENTAGE IS? ROUGHLY?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CHART,
THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF DENTAL FLUOROSIS
IS 69%.
>> RIGHT, SO — >> SO 31% MIGHT HAVE SOME
EVIDENCE OF DENTAL FLUOROSIS.
>> AND THAT WOULD BE FLUORIDE RELATED AS OPPOSED TO OTHER
ISSUES THAT CAUSE TEETH TO LOOK
LIKE FLUOROSIS? >> NO.
IT WILL BE ALL OF THOSE THINGS
ROLLED UP TOGETHER. SO, HEALTH CANADA RECENTLY DID A
CANADIAN HEALTH MEASURES SURVEY
THAT LOOKED AT DENTAL FLUOROSIS SPECIFICALLY WITH VERY CAREFULLY
CALIBRATED OPERATORS.
THEY LOOKED AT THE POPULATION ACROSS CANADA AND INCLUDED ABOUT
1100 CHILDREN.
10% OF THOSE CHILDREN WERE IN ALBERTA.
AND THAT INCLUDED A SITE IN
EDMONTON AND A SITE IN RED DEER. BOTH OF THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE
FLUORIDATED.
THE CANADIAN HEALTH MEASURES SURVEY DID NOT FIND ANY CHILDREN
WOULD MODERATE DENTAL FLUOROSIS.
SO SOME OF THESE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE GETTING IS JUST ON THE
BASIS OF HOW OUR PEOPLE WERE
CALIBRATED.

AND WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY. YOU'RE SAYING THEALT CANADA
STUDY THAT WAS RECENTLY DONE
SHOWED NO DENTAL FLUOROSIS IN RED DEER AND EDMONTON FROM THE
FLUORIDE WATER?
>> FORGIVE ME. NO MODERATE DENTAL FLUOROSIS.
SO THERE WAS VERY MILD AND MILD
DENTAL FLUOROSIS WAS FOUND. >> OKAY.
THAT'S INTERESTING.
AND THAT WAS SEPARATING IT OUT FROM OTHER FACTORS?
>> YES.
>> THAT'S VERY INTERESTING. SO THESE NUMBERS, WHEN YOU SAY
31%, MEAN — MAY INCLUDE A LOT
OF OTHER THINGS THEN. >> YES.
>> WHAT ABOUT REDUCTION IN
CAVITIES? DO YOU HAVE ANY NUMBERS ON THAT?
>> IF WE LOOK AGAIN AT THE
SYSTEMIC REVIEW — SO WE LOOK AT THE GOOD STUDIES THAT ARE ALL
ROLLED UP TOGETHER, THE
NUMBER — OR THE PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE NO DECAY
WHATSOEVER PROBABLY INCREASES BY
ABOUT 15%.

THAT'S GREAT, BECAUSE THESE ARE
KIDS WHO NEVER HAD A CAVITY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE STUDIES THAT SHOW, AND HOW MANY LESS — HOW
MUCH LESS DECAY IS THERE ACROSS
THE POPULATION? SO IN THESE LARGE STUDY IT IS
SHOWS THERE'S ABOUT TWO TEETH
WITH LESS DECAY. AGAIN I'M ROLLING UP TOGETHER
THE 6-YEAR-OLDS, 12-YEAR-OLDS,
AND THE 14-YEAR-OLDS. IT'S HARD TO GENERALIZE BUT WHEN
YOU DO A SYSTEMIC REVIEW THEY
TRY AND MAKE A CASE FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.
>> SO THE EVIDENCE DOES SUPPORT
A REDUCTION IN CAVITIES FOR SURE THEN?
>> YES.
THE BEST STUDY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF WATER FLUORIDATION, HOW GOOD
IS IT AT ACTUALLY REDUCING DECAY
WAS DONE BY THE AMERICANS.

AND REPORTED IN 2001 BY THE
CENTRES FOR DISEASE CONTROL.
THEY GIVE IT — THEY GAVE IT AN EFFECTIVE RATING OF 2 A.
WHICH IS THE SECOND HIGHEST ON A
RECOMMENDATION LEVEL OUT OF FIVE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU. AND MY LAST QUESTION IS ABOUT
THIS IDEA THAT IS BEING FLOATED
WITH THE EXPERT PANEL. DO YOU HAVE A VIEW ON THAT?
AND DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE THAT
YOU MIGHT WANT TO GIVE US, IF WE DID A PANEL WHAT, KIND OF
QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO
ASK? >> CALGARY HAS DONE AN EXPERT
PANEL BEFORE.
AND THIS ISSUE COMES UP ROUTINELY.
AS YOU KNOW, THE IRISH DID A
HUGE REVIEW THAT TOOK THEM A COUPLE YEARS AND REPORTED IN
2002.
AND ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE LEVEL OF FLUORIDATION BE AT 0.7.
THE BRITISH DID A HUGE REVIEW
THAT TOOK AT LEAST A COUPLE OF YEARS AND REPORTED IN YEAR 2000.
AND THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WATER
FLUORIDATION — THERE WAS NO REASON TO CHANGE
THAT AS AN EFFECTIVE PUBLIC
HEALTH MEASURE. THE AUSTRALIANS UPGRADED THE
YORK REVIEW AND THEY REPORTED
THAT IN 2007. AND THEY DIDN'T FIND THAT THERE
WAS ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO
THAT.

HEALTH CANADA IN THE WAKE OF ITS
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE
ALSO DID AN EXPERT PANEL REVIEW WHICH INCLUDED Dr. LEVY WHOSE
PROBABLY THE PRIME RESEARCHER ON
FLUORIDE INTAKE IN THE WORLD. AND ALSO INCLUDED A TOXICOLOGIST
ON THEIR PANEL.
AND LOOKED AT ALL OF THE RESEARCH TO SEE WHAT IS THE BEST
RECOMMENDATION WE CAN MAKE FOR
CANADIANS. AND THEIR REPORT HAS STILL NOT
BEEN FINALLY PUBLISHED.
BUT IT HAS BEEN OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
THAT'S FINALLY CLOSED AND THEY
ARE NOW RESPONDING TO IT.

SO THE EXPERT PANEL INCLUDED
BOTH HEALTH CANADA AND MINISTRY
OF THE ENVIRONMENT. BECAUSE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE
ABOUT THE SAFETY OF BOTH OF
THOSE. THAT REPORT WILL BE COMING OUT
PROBABLY IN APRIL.
AND THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THAT THE LEVEL OF FLUORIDATION
THAT IS IDEAL IN CANADA IS 0.7
PARTS PER MILLION. WHERE WE ARE IN CALGARY AND HAVE
BEEN SINCE 1999.
>> OKAY. SO IF WE HAVE A PANEL THAT LOOKS
INTO THIS FROM THE UNIVERSITY,
THEY'RE GOING TO FIND THE SAME INFORMATION?
>> EVERY TIME THERE'S AN EXPERT
PANEL THEY ALMOST INVARIABLY COME UP WITH THE SAME RESPONSE.
>> OKAY.
THAT'S INTERESTING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT'S THE
LEADING CAUSE OF FLUOROSIS?
>> EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF TOOTHPASTE.
>> OF TOOTHPASTE ITSELF?
>> YES. >> AND WHAT IN THE TOOTHPASTE IS
CAUSING THE FLUOROSIS?
>> THE FLUORIDE IN THE TOOTHPASTE, YES.
>> OKAY SO, WHEN THEY SAY THAT
IT'S — THE PEA-SIZED AMOUNT ON TOOTHPASTE THAT THEY RECOMMEND
FOR THE TOOTHBRUSH, THAT'S TOO
MUCH? OR — HOW — WHAT DO YOU MEAN —
I DON'T QUITE GRASP —
YOU'RE SUGGESTING BRUSHING OUR TEETH IS CAUSING FLUOROSIS?
>> DENTAL FLUOROSIS ONLY OCCURS
WHILE THE TOOTH IS DEVELOPING.

SO ONCE THE TOOTH HAS ERUPTED
THERE IS NO LONGER ANY DANGER OF
THE TOOTH DEVELOPING DENTAL FLUOROSIS.
THE LATEST RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
HEALTH CANADA, AND THESE JUST CAME OUT LAST YEAR, IS IN FACT
THAT A PEA-SIZED AMOUNT OF
TOOTHPASTE IS TOO MUCH FOR A VERY YOUNG CHILD.
OUR LATEST RECOMMENDATION IS FOR
THE AMOUNT OF TOOTHPASTE THAT'S THE SIZE OF A GRAIN OF RICE.
UP TO AGE THREE YEARS.
>> UP TO AGE THREE YEARS. SO, HOW MUCH FLUORIDE IS IN A
PEA-SIZED QUANTITY OF
TOOTHPASTE? >> WELL IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE
OF THE PEA, BUT IT COULD BE UP
TO MAYBE .75 MILLIGRAMS. >> .75 MILLIGRAMS.
OKAY.
NOW I WAS TALKING TO Dr. — I'M SORRY I CAN'T REMEMBER YOUR
NAME FROM EARLIER, WHO WAS
RECOMMENDING THAT 1.5 MILLIGRAMS PER LITRE IS THE RECOMMENDED
DOSAGE FOR AN AVERAGE PERSON TO
TAKE FLUORIDE IN. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE AVERAGE ADULT CONSUMES
ABOUT TWO LITRES OF WATER A DAY. SO IF THAT'S MILLION 7, THAT
WILL MAKE 1.4 MILLIGRAMS.
>> 1.5 — OKAY — SORRY, YOU'RE RIGHT.
1.4.
SO IF A 3-YEAR-OLD HAPPENS TO DRINK MORE THAN A LITRE AND A
HALF OF WATER A DAY, AND I
REALIZE THAT'S A GREAT DEAL FOR A 3-YEAR-OLD, THEY'RE AT RISK OF
GETTING FLUOROSIS?
>> THEY'D HAVE TO BE DRINKING THAT ROUTINELY MANY DAYS.
DAY IN AND DAY OUT.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

THAT WILL INCREASE YOUR RINK.
DENTAL FLUOROSIS IF THEY'RE
CONSUMING THAT MUCH WATER. >> OKAY.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AT A STUDY
THAT WAS COMMENTING THAT MAJOR DENTAL RESEARCHERS CONCLUDE THAT
FLUORIDE IS INEFFECTIVE AS
PREVENTING PIT AND FISSURE TOOTH DECAY WHICH 185% THE TOOTH DECAY
EXPERIENCED BY — WHICH IS 85%
OF THE TOOTH DECAY EXPERIENCED BY CHILDREN.
IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> ONE OF THE SYSTEMIC EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE IS TO ACTUALLY
SMOOTH OUT THE LAYERS OF ENAMEL
IN THE PITS AND FISSURES.

SO IT DOES HAVE SOME EFFECT
THERE, BUT THAT IS NOT ITS MAJOR
EFFECT. TOPICAL FLUORIDES WORK BEST ON
SMOOTH SURFACES.
SO THE FLUORIDES THAT YOU ACTUALLY APPLY TO THE TOOTH AS
OPPOSED TO THE INGESTED
FLUORIDE. >> OKAY.
JUST KIND OF REFERENCES THE
IRISH STUDY THAT HU YOU HAD COMMENTED ON.
THEY WERE COMMENTING THAT UP TO
50% OF IRISH YOUTH ARE EXPERIENCING FLUOROSIS.
ARE THEY ALL BRUSHING TOO MUCH?
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. >> BUT THAT WAS IN THE SAME
STUDY THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED.
>> THE IRISH STUDY? ALL OF THE STUDIES LOOK AT
LEVELS OF FLUOROSIS.
>> YES, I KNOW. AND THAT STUDY SUGGESTED THAT UP
TO 50% OF IRISH YOUTH ARE
EXPERIENCING FLUOROSIS. >> YES, AND SO THEY RECOMMENDED
THAT THEY TURN IT DOWN TO 0.7.
THE WATER FLUORIDATION LEVEL BE TURNED DOWN.
>> SO, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE
AMOUNT THAT WE'RE FLUORIDATING, AND YOU COMMENTED THAT
.7 MILLIGRAMS —
I THINK I'M DOING THAT RIGHT.

IS THE LOWEST AMOUNT THAT HEALTH
CANADA RECOMMENDS.
>> CORRECT. >> AND THAT IS WHAT CDC AND
IRELAND HAVE JUST BOTH REDUCED
IT DOWN TO. CORRECT?
>> CDC'S RECOMMENDATION CAME OUT
EARLIER THIS MONTH. IT WILL BE APPROVED LATER THIS
SPRING.
>> BUT IT IS RECOMMENDING TO LOWER IT TO .7 AS WELL?
>> IT IS.
>> OKAY, SO THAT MEANS FOR THE LAST — AGAIN, 60 YEARS WE'VE
BEEN RECOMMENDING TOO HIGH OF A
DOSAGE? >> IT MEANS THAT THE WORLD HAS
CHANGED SINCE 60 YEARS AGO.
>> INTERESTING.

OKAY.
OKAY I'M GOING TO QUOTE ONE MORE
STUDY. YOU REFER TO THE MAJOR STUDY.
I'M LOOKING AT A STUDY FROM THE
U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE DENTAL RESEARCH.
39.000 CHILDREN IN 84
COMMUNITIES, DONE IN 1986 — NO, SORRY.
FROM '88-'89, COMMENTED THAT
THERE WAS NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE OUT OF THE 1 F 8
TOOTH SURFACE — 128 TOOTH
SURFACES IN A CHILD'S MOUTH, .6 OF A CAVITY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE COMMUNITIES OF FLUORIDATED
AND NON-FLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES.

>> TO GET AN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENT OF THE DIFFERENCE
THAT YOU HAVE IN DENTAL HEALTH, YOU HAVE TO DO A VERY INVOLVED
STUDY.
IF YOU'RE JUST DOING A GROSS LOOK AT: WHAT ARE THE PEOPLE
HERE AND WHAT ARE THE PEOPLE
HERE, WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE THEY MOVED FROM, WHERE THEY GREW UP,
WHETHER THEY WERE ACTUALLY
DRINKING THE TAP WATER, AND WHETHER THEY'RE BRUSHING WITH
FLUORIDE TOOTHPASTE YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET A GOOD ASSESSMENT OF WHAT EFFECT THE
FLUORIDATION IN THE WATER
ACTUALLY GAVE YOU. >> AND YET ISN'T THAT THE BASIS
OF USING THE LARGE QUANTITIES?
I MEAN 39.000 PEOPLE THERE'S AN AVERAGE THAT YOU START TO GET A
GIST OF.
>> YES.

>> THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF
TAKING LARGE-SCALE STUDIES.
>> YOU DO START TO GET A GIST FROM THAT.
SO YOU CAN GET SOME INFORMATION
FROM THAT. I WOULDN'T CALL THAT A GOOD WAY
TO MEASURE THE EFFECT OF WATER
FLUORIDATION. >> BUT THE STUDY THAT YOU CITED
WHERE IT CAME ONE TWO CAVITIES
DIFFERENCE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE? >> THAT WAS FROM THE SYSTEMIC
REVIEW.
SO THAT IS LOOKING AT ALL OF THE STUDIES AND PULLING THE BEST
QUALITY EVIDENCE.
>> AND WHEN YOU SAY THE BEST QUALITY EVIDENCE, WHO DECIDES
WHICH IS THE BEST QUALITY
EVIDENCE? >> SO, WHEN THEY GO INTO A
SYSTEMIC REVIEW, THEY SAY
BEFOREHAND: WHAT IS THE QUESTION GOING TO BE?
AS Dr.

KEIGAN DESCRIBED, YOU
HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A PROPER CONTROL GROUP.
>> WELL, NO.
I REALIZE YOU LOOK AT THE STUDIES AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE
NOT BEING DONE BY Mr. JOE OUT
OF HIGH SCHOOL. I GATHER THAT.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M HAVING
DIFFICULTY GRAPPLING WITH THE FACT THAT THE PRO-FLUORIDE AND
ANTI-FLUORIDE ARE — SEEM TO BE
USING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT METHODS OF STUDIES.
AND I LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THAT
THEY'RE DEALING WITH AND GO OKAY, WELL THESE ARE RESPECTABLE
PEOPLE.
THEY'RE DOING LITERALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THESE
STUDIES.
WHAT MAKES IT SO THAT YOU WOULD ACCEPT THESE STUDIES AND NOT
THESE THAT I CAN GRASP FROM A
SIMPLE POLITICAL LAYMAN'S OUTLOOK?
YOU LOOK AT THIS AND YOU SAY
WELL, HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT A STUDY OVER 39.000 PEOPLE IN THIS
COMMUNITY IS NOT A LEGITIMATE
STUDY? >> IT IS A LEGITIMATE STUDY BUT
NOT AN EFFECTIVE STUDY OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF WATER FLUORIDATION.
>> INTERESTING.
OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> AMENDERMAN PINCOTT.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING YOU SAID.
IN YOUR OPINION, FLUOROSIS IS
CAUSED PRIOR TO ERUPTION? OR IS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO
ERUPTION?
TOOTH ERUPTION? >> CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
AND FLUOROSIS IS CAUSED BY TOOTHPASTE, IN YOUR OPINION.
>> OKAY, EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF
TOOTHPASTE, YES. >> ALL RIGHT.
SO, IF THE TOOTH HASN'T ERUPTED,
HOW DOES THE TOOTHPASTE CAUSE FLUOROSIS?
>> CHILDREN OF COURSE HAVE
PRIMARY TEETH. BUT THE PERMIT TEETH ARE
DEVELOPING.
AND ERUPTING UNTIL ABOUT AGE 12 OR 13.
>> OKAY, SO IT'S —
SO MAYBE — SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S THROUGH
THE INGESTION OF FLUORIDE IN THE
TOOTHPASTE? >> YES.
>> THAT CAUSED FLUOROSIS IN THE
TEETH THAT ARE NOT ACTUALLY IN THE MOUTH YET, BUT THAT THE ONES
THAT ARE NOT ERUPTED YET.
>> YES. >> OKAY.
THERE HAS BEEN TALK ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, AND YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH ALDERMAN DEMONG.
TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES
OF CAVITIES AND HOW IT'S FLUORIDE ACTUALLY HELPS 85% O
OF — OR DOESN'T HELP 85% OF THE
CAVITIES AROUND PITTING.

BUT — BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE
APPLIED TOPICALLY FOR THAT, THAT
INGESTION OF FLUORIDE DOESN'T WORK ON THAT.
SO, IS INGESTED FLUORIDE HELPING
SMOOTH OUT THE ENAMEL, LIKE YOU TALKED, BUT ON TEETH THAT ARE
NOT ERUPTED YET?
>> IT DOES HAVE THAT EFFECT. HAS A MINOR EFFECT, YES.
>> OKAY SO IT'S MINOR BUT IT
ACTUALLY CAUSES FLUOROSIS ON THE TEETH THAT ARE NOT ERUPTED.
>> IN EXCESSIVE DOSES, YES.
>> RIGHT. WHICH WE HEARD IS MORE THAN A
SAID.
>> WELL THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE A
GRAIN OF RICE.
>> OKAY, A GRAIN OF RICE.

GREAT, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE THANK YOU, Dr.
SWART.
>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT SPEAKER IS VALLEY FITCH.
VALERIE
FITCH. >> COUNCILORS.
MY NAME IS VALERIE FITCH.
AND I BELIEVE THAT CALGARIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO CLEAN, POTABLE,
UNMEDICATED WATER.
THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY IS NOT A VEHICLE TO MASS MEDICATE THE
POPULATION.
THIS IS AN ETHICAL ISSUE. I HAVE A DEGREE IN PHARMACY.
I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT DOSAGE.
WITH FLUORIDE IN THE CITY WATER THERE'S NO CONTROL OVER DOSAGE.
THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE.
IF THE FLUORIDE IS APPLIED TOPICALLY BY THE DENTIST, AT
LEAST THERE IS SOME DEGREE OF
CONTROL OVER DOSAGE. SO, WHAT ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE
THINGS WE CAN DO TO PREVENT
CAVITIES? AND I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT
HEALTH IN A VERY DIFFERENT WAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT ALBERTA HAS A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
WHAT WE HAVE A HIGH-TECH
DIAGNOSTIC AND TREATMENT ILLNESS CARE INDUSTRY.
WE SHOULDN'T BE FOCUSING ON THE
MAGIC PILL OR THE MAGIC POTION TO PREVENT ILLNESS.
IF YOU WOULD VISUALIZE A CLIFF
WITH THE HEALTHY PEOPLE AT THE TOP THE CLIFF, AND THE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE HEALTH CHALLENGES OR
ILLNESS AT THE BOTTOM THE CLIFF AND ASK THEM VERY BASIC
QUESTIONS: WHY ARE SO MANY
PEOPLE FALLING OFF THE CLIFF? THE SUPPLY IS NOT ONLY TO DENTAL
CARRIES, BUT IT APPLIES TO HEART
DISEASE, CANCER, OBESITY, TYPE TWO DIABETES.
OSTEOPOROSIS.
YOU NEED TO ASK THE VERY BASIC QUESTIONS.
SO YOU HAVE HEALTH AT THE TOP.
YOU HAVE ILLNESS CARE AT THE BOTTOM.
YOU HAVE YOUR AMBULANCES, YOUR
HOSPITALS, AND THINGS JUST TEND TO GO ROUND AND ROUND THERE.
A LOT LIKE THE CALGARY WEIR.
SO, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT HEALTH.

DO PEOPLE NOT KNOW HOW TO STAY
HEALTHY?
DO THEY CHOOSE NOT TO STAY HEALTHY?
OR ARE THERE SO MANY DISEASES
AROUND THAT NOBODY CAN STAY HEALTHY?
I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS THE
FIRST ONE. AND I DON'T THINK PEOPLE KNOW
THOU STAY HEALTHY.
AND A LOT OF IT COMES — THESE ARE — ALL THESE ILLNESSES ARE
REALLY BASICALLY LIFESTYLE
ILLNESSES. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT LIFESTYLE,
YOU NEED TO — WHEN YOU START TO
MAKE LIFESTYLE CHANGES, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT FOOD CHOICE AND
NUTRITION.
BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY BASIC THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO
CHANGE.
THE MORE PROCESSED FOOD YOU EAT, THE MORE DISEASE.
THE MORE ANIMAL FOOD YOU EAT,
THE MORE DISEASE. IF YOU'RE ON A HIGH PROTEIN
WESTERN DIET, YOUR BODY —
THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOUR BODY IS GOING TO BE ACIDIC.
TO COMPENSATE, THE BLOOD WILL
DRAW FROM — DRAW CALCIUM FROM THE BONES IN ORDER TO BALANCE IT
OUT.
IF YOU CONTINUE TO EAT A HIGH PROTEIN DIET YOU'RE GOING TO
STAY IN NEGATIVE CALCIUM BALANCE
NO MATTER HOW MUCH CALCIUM YOU TAKE.
AND IF YOU THINK THIS IS
AFFECTING THE BONES, IT WILL ALSO AFFECT THE TEETH.
WHAT ABOUT PROCESSED FOODS?
I'M THINKING SPECIFICALLY OF REFINED CARBO HYDRATES.
THE WHITE RICE, WHITE FLOUR, THE
CAKES, THE COOKIES.

THE HIGH FRUCTOSE DRINKS.
EVEN THE PURE FRUIT JUICES.
THESE ARE CONCENTRATED SUGARS. THESE I THINK ARE MORE
IMPORTANT.
AND THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WITH ALL THE
POPULATION.
AND SPECIFICALLY WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DISADVANTAGED IN THE LOW
INCOME GROUPS.
BECAUSE WHAT'S THE GOOD OF HAVING A CHILD WHO IS
DISADVANTAGED, WHO HAS REALLY
GOOD TEETH, BUT THEY HAVE OBESITY BECAUSE THEY'RE EATING
ALL THE WRONG FOODS?
AND IT JUST SETS THEM UP FOR LIFE.
SO INSTEAD OF FOCUSING MONEY ON
THE MAGIC PILL OR THE MAGIC POTION, IN CITY WATER WHICH I
THINK IS TOTALLY RIDICULOUS, WHY
DON'T WE LOOK AT NUTRITION? AND SPEND THE MONEY ON THAT.
IT WILL HELP THE POPULATION AS A
WHOLE. AND IT WILL ALSO HELP THE
DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE.
AND LOOK AT SOME BASIC STUDIES LIKE COLIN CAMPBELL IN THE CHINA
HEALTH STUDY.
IN CHINA PEOPLE DON'T — IN RURAL CHINA PEOPLE DON'T TEND TO
MOVE AROUND VERY MUCH.
AND THEY COULD DO A REALLY GOOD STUDY ON WHAT THE PEOPLE ATE AND
THE DISEASES THAT THEY GOT.
AND, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT.

SO DIFFERENT RESEARCH.
YOU KNOW, LAST TIME I THINK CITY
COUNCIL RELIED ON THE AUTHORITIES IN CALGARY.
AND I'M REALLY —
WELL, I GUESS I FEEL MORE LIKE THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO
BECAUSE I'M REALLY QUITE
SUSPICIOUS OF ALL THESE LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
BUT THE BASIC THING IS ETHICAL.
I THINK IT'S REALLY UNETHICAL TO BE PUTTING THIS FLUORIDE IN CITY
WATER.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
YOUR TIMING WAS RIGHT TO THE
SECOND ACTUALLY.

PRETTY GOOD.
ALDERMAN PINCOTT YOU HAVE A
QUESTION. >> HI, VAL.
>> HI.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS AROUND DOSE.
AND WE HEARD IT WITH SOME OF THE
QUESTIONING AROUND THAT ALDERMAN DEMONG ASKED, YOU KNOW, HOW DO
YOU CONTROL THE DOSE WHEN
SOMEBODY DRINKS ONE GLASS OF WATER OR 20 GLASSES OF WATER OR
ONE OF OUR POLITICAL COLLEAGUES
WHO DRINKS 30 A DAY. HE HAS TO DRINK 30 A DAY.
YOU CAN — I MEAN, YOU CAN THINK
OF ANY OTHER KIND OF MEDICATION THAT WE MIGHT PRESCRIBE WHERE WE
ACTUALLY DON'T BOTHER
CONTROLLING THE DOSE? >> I THINK WITH SOME DOSAGE
THERE CAN BE A BIT OF A WIDE
RANGE.

BUT I THINK WITH DRUGS OR
CHEMICALS — WELL AND SUCH IS
FLUORIDE, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A CLOSE — TO
MONITOR THE DOSE CLOSELY.
>> OKAY. BUT IN THIS ONE YOU — WE CAN'T.
IS THAT YOUR OPINION?
>> YOU CAN'T. AND SO YOU SHOULDN'T BE PUTTING
IN THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.
IT'S NOT A VEHICLE TO MASS MEDICATE THE POPULATION.
>> RIGHT.
>> BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, AT THE TAP WE CANNOT
CONTROL HOW MUCH SOMEBODY GETS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND MORE PEOPLE — AND MORE
PEOPLE BECOME INFORMED ABOUT
HEALTH I THINK THEY TEND TO DRINK MORE WATER.
AND I JUST THINK IT'S TOTALLY
WRONG TO BE MASS MEDICATING LIKE THIS.
>> OKAY, THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN MAR.
>> I'M STOOD UP AGAIN.
THANK YOU. AND SORRY I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR
NAME.
>> MY NAME IS VALERIE FITCH. >> OKAY, MISS FITCH THANK YOU.
I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
WHAT I WAS STRUGGLING WHICH WAS TALKING TO Dr. MUSTO EARLIER
WAS REALLY OVER THIS ETHICAL
QUESTION WHICH YOU'RE BRINGING AGAIN.
WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS AS
SOMEBODY THAT DOES NOT WANT FLUORIDE IN THE WATER?
WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT OPTIONS TO
LIMIT YOUR EXPOSURE TO IT RIGHT NOW IN THE CITY OF CALGARY?
>> WELL, I SUPPOSE I COULD USE
BOTTLED WATER. BUT I'M RELUCTANT TO DO THAT FOR
VARIOUS REASONS.
A FRIEND OF MINE HAD BREAST CANCER.
AND I ATTENDED A CONFERENCE IN
VANCOUVER AT INSPIRE HEALTH. THEY HAD BANNED ALL THE NUMBER
ONE AND THE NUMBER SEVEN
CONTAINERS IN THEIR FACILITY. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SORT OF
BEFORE THE PLASTIC WAS CHANGED.
BUT EVEN NOW IN CALGARY I KNOW OF A PLACE THAT HAD USED THESE
BOTTLES — THE BOTTLES TO EMPTY
OUT THEIR PHOTOGRAPHIC CHEMICALS.
AND I AM — AND YOU KNOW, I'M
REALLY RELUCTANT TO USE THESE BOTTLES BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW
WHERE THEY'VE BEEN.
HOW WELL THEY'VE BEEN CLEANED.

AND WHAT'S LEECHING OUT OF
BOTTLE.
SO I THINK THE BEST OPTION IS PROBABLY TO BUY WATER FILTER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THESE CAN BE
QUITE EXPENSIVE. AND I THINK IT'S BEYOND THE
MEANS OF A LOT OF THE LOW-INCOME
PEOPLE. SO THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE A
CHOICE.
YOU KNOW, ANY HAVE TO DRINK THE TAP WATER.
MAYBE TRY TO GET SOME BOTTLED
WATER.

I JUST THINK IT'S VERY UNFAIR
FOR THE CITY TO BE HAVING PEOPLE
JUMP THROUGH HOOPS IN ORDER TO JUST GET A GLASS OF WATER.
>> THANK YOU.
THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS MISS FITCH THANKS FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION.
NEXT SPEAKER. NIKKI McKINN.
>> GOOD ARCH.
I'M HERE TODAY — GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M HERE TODAY AS A GRANDMOTHER
WHO WANTS HER GRANDCHILDREN TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF FLUORIDATED
WATER.
WHEN I HEARD THAT IT WAS AT RISK I HAD TO COME TO BE A VOICE FOR
PROPONENTS.
BECAUSE I KNEW WOULD YOU HEAR FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
AND WE'VE HEARD TODAY THAT
YOU'VE HAD MANY ELECTRONIC MESSAGES, IF THEY'RE NOT HERE IN
PERSON, FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
SO I'M HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE
ENDORSEMENTS OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT I TRUST FOR MY MEDICAL INFORMATION, AND
EVERYTHING FROM THE CDC TO THE
CANADIAN PEDIATRIC SOCIETY, CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES, I AM
CONFIDENT THAT AT THE REGULATED RATE OF 0.7 PARTS PER MILLION
FLUORIDATION IS SAFE AND WILL
PROTECT MY GRANDCHILDREN'S TEETH.
AS OUR VERY FIRST SPEAKER THIS
MORNING SAID: MY GRANDCHILDREN ARE MY MOST PRECIOUS THING AND I
WOULD NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING
THAT WOULD CAUSE THEM ANY HARM.

I'M SPEAKING TODAY AS SOMEONE
WHO HAD A SUBSTANTIAL DENTAL
DECAY AS A CHILD. I MISSED LOTS OF SCHOOL FOR
DENTAL APPOINTMENTS.
AND I'M NOW FACED WITH FILLINGS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED.
AND A MOUTHFUL OF SILVER AND
GOLD. I'D RATHER IT WAS ON MY WRIST.
MY MOTHER TOLD ME THAT OUR
DENTIST SAID BACK IN THE '30s THAT IF — IN THE 50s THAT IF
WE HAD WATER FLUORIDATION I
WOULD NOT BE IN THIS SITUATION. NOW IN MY SENIOR YEARS I REALIZE
WHY CAVITY-FREE TEETH IN
CHILDHOOD ARE IMPORTANT. BECAUSE THEY'RE THE BEST TEETH
TO TAKE US INTO OUR LATER YEARS.
I GAVE MY OWN THREE CHILDREN WHO WERE RAISED IN CALGARY IN THE
'70s AND '80s FLUORIDE
SUPPLEMENTS. THOSE FLUORIDE DROPS THAT I
ADDED TO THEIR JUICE, AS DID
MANY OF MY FRIENDS WITH THEIR CHILDREN.
THIS WAS A LONG-TERM UNDERTAKING
OVER MANY YEARS.

TWELVE YEARS FOR EACH OF THOSE
CHILDREN.
THAT REQUIRED A HUGE COMMITMENT TO OBTAIN THE FLUORIDE — OBTAIN
THE SUPPLEMENTS.
TO USE THEM REGULARLY. TO ENSURE THAT THE NUMBER OF
DROPS WAS EXACT.
AND TO MAKE SURE MY CHILDREN DRANK THEIR JUICE.
ALTHOUGH I REALLY WAS A HIGHLY
MOTIVATED MOTHER IN THIS AREA, I FREQUENTLY FELL OFF THE WAGON.
AND MY CHILDREN HAD INCONSISTENT
ACCESS TO SUPPLEMENTAL FLUORIDE. I REGRET THAT THEY WERE NOT
PRIVILEGED AS THEIR COUSINS WERE
IN EDMONTON WHERE THERE WAS FLUORIDATION TO HAVE HAD THAT
BENEFIT.
AND THEIR COUSINS ALL HAVE NO CAVITIES AND BEAUTIFUL TEETH.
IDEALLY I WOULD ASK THIS
COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL TO SUPPORT FLUORIDATION FOR MY
GRANDCHILDREN.
AND ALL CALGARY CHILDREN WHO WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
GROW UP WITHOUT ANY CAVITIES.
WHILE THIS MAY BE IDEALISTIC, I WOULD THEN ASK THAT THIS COUNCIL
REMAIN OPEN MINDED AND ESTABLISH
THE EXPERT PANEL THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT EARLIER TODAY.
FLUORIDATION IS OUR BEST,
UNIVERSAL, SAFE AND EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR PROJECTING CAVITIES.
TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM
CAVITIES.

THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS? ALDERMAN DEMONG?
>> WHERE DID I PUT IT?
THIS IS MORE IN A FECECIOUS MATTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE, BUT
IN 1950, 19.223 DENTISTS ALSO
ADVISED TO YOU SMOKE VICEROY CIGARETTES.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT AS TIME
GOES BY THINGS CHANGE. SO —
THAT WAS REALLY ALL.
IT WASN'T — SORRY, THAT WAS IMPROPER OF ME.
THAT WASN'T A QUESTION.
I APOLOGIZE. >> IF I CAN COMMENT ON THAT,
THOUGH, I THINK THAT WE — WE'VE
HEARD TODAY OF THE QUALITY OF PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THE
INVESTIGATION WHO ARE REVIEWING
DOING THE SYSTEMIC REVIEWS. AND I STILL FEEL THAT THEY ARE
BETTER EQUIPPED TO MAKE THOSE
JUDGMENTS. COMING FROM A POSITION OF DOING
NO HARM THAN I AM AS A LAY
PERSON. >> THANK YOU.
DO YOU WANT TO WAIT.
ONE MORE QUESTION. ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> I WAS INTERESTED IN YOUR
COMMENT ABOUT HOW MUCH — HOW DIFFICULT IT WAS TO MAKE SURE
YOUR KID GOT THE PROPER DOSE O
OF — HOW DID YOU MEAN — HUE TO MAKE
SURE THEY GOT THE RIGHT AMOUNT
EVERY DAY? >> EXACTLY.
HUE TO SQUEEZE IT OUT OF THIS
LITTLE BOTTLE AND YOU HAD TO COUNT THE DROPS.
AND THE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
DROPS CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE CHILD.
BELIEVE ME, IF YOU WERE IN A
HURRY IN THE MORNING, A LITTLE EXTRA SQUIRT.
>> SO TELL ME HOW PEOPLE TODAY
ARE ABLE TO GET THAT RIGHT AMOUNT.
>> I DON'T KNOW — I'M NOT AWARE
OF WHERE THEY'RE USING FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS ANYMORE.
THEY'RE NOT IN CALGARY.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT FROM OUR WATER.
HOW WOULD A PARENT KNOW TODAY
THAT THEIR CHILD IS GETTING EXACT AMOUNT.
>> WELL I KNOW THAT IT'S WELL —
IT WOULD BE WELL CONTROLLED AT .7 PARTS PER MILLION.
AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT .7 PARTS
PER MILLION IS A SAFE AND EFFECTIVE DOSE.
>> I'M FULLY AWARE THAT THAT'S
WHAT'S IN THE WATER.

AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THEY'RE
REGULATING THAT TOO.
WHAT I'M ASK YOU IS HOW WOULD A PARENT MAKE SURE THEIR CHILD GOT
THE RIGHT AMOUNT?
BECAUSE ALL WE KNOW IS .7 IN THE WATER.
BUT HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THE
CHILD GETS THE RIGHT AMOUNT NOW? >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
I THINK.
AND THAT IS HOW ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT
AND NOT TOO MUCH FLUORIDE THAT
THEY'RE DRINKING TO GET THAT REGULATED?
>> RIGHT.
>> WELL, I THINK THE STUDIES THAT INDICATE THAT FLUORIDE AT
THE REGULATED LEVEL IS IN FACT
REDUCING DECAY, IS INDICATING THAT IT IS EFFECTIVE.
AND SO PEOPLE MUST BE GETTING —
CHILDREN MUST BE GETTING ADEQUATE FLUORIDE THROUGH THE
WATER SYSTEM.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN.
>> ALDERMAN MAR YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> I DO.
AND I THINK IT WAS — ALDERMAN STEVENSON WAS TRYING TO GET TO
THE POINT WHERE YOU WERE
SUGGESTING BACK IN YOUR CHILDREN'S TIME THAT YOU WERE
USING A MEASURING DROPPER.
WHERE YOU COULD CONTROL BY OPTING IN AT YOUR OWN CHOICE AS
A MUCH PARENT TO DETERMINE HOW
MUCH FLUORIDE YOU WERE GIVING YOUR CHILD.
BUT TODAY I DON'T KNOW IF MY
DAUGHTER IS SITTING AT THE WATER FOUNTAIN RIGHT NOW DRINKING A
LITRE AND A HALF OF WATER, PLUS
THE FACT THAT THE WATER SHE WOULD DRINK AT HOME AND DA, DA,
DA, DA.
SO THE POINT IS THAT WE NOW HAVE NO CONTROL OVER HOW MUCH YOU'RE
CONSUMING, BASED ON, WE DON'T
KNOW HOW MUCH THESE CHILDREN ARE CONSUMING AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU COULD
CONTROL AS THREE DROPS PER GLASS OF WATER, YOU WOULD GIVE IT ONCE
A DAY, MOVE ON.
NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING X AMOUNT OF PARTS PER MILLION, .7
PARTS PER MILLION IN OUR WATER.
AND IF YOU'RE DRINKING LET'S SAY THREE CUPS OF WATER A DAY AS A
CHILD AND I'M DRINKING THREE
CUPS OF WATER AS AN ADULT, THE DOSE IS NOT PROPORTIONATE.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE
IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT PEOPLE CAN MEASURE AND CONTROL HOW MUCH
IS BEING CONSUMED?
>> I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THE
TOLERABLE RANGE IS.
AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT WITH FLUORIDATION AND THE AMOUNT OF
WATER THAT WE'RE DRINKING WE'RE
WITHIN THE TOLERABLE RANGE FOR THE AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE.
THE POINT I WAS WANTING TO MAKE
ABOUT THE FLUORIDE DROPS IS THAT IT'S NOT A GOOD ALTERNATIVE.
BECAUSE IT REALLY TAKES A HIGH
LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE.

AND PEOPLE — IF WE'RE THINKING,
NOT OF MY GRANDCHILDREN, BUT OF
DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN TO HAVE PARENTS THAT WOULD BE ABLE,
WILLING, CAPABLE EVER DOING THAT
MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN OPTION. >> THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE I THINK
IT'S UNFAIR TO ASK A MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC QUESTIONS THAT RELATE TO THINGS LIKE THAT.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAVE IT FOR A
COUPLE DOCTORS OR EXPERTS TO COME UP.
THEY MIGHT HAVE A BETTER ANSWER.
THE NEXT PERSON ON MY LIST IF I PRONOUNCE THE NAME RIGHT IS NICK
ETKUS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, HONOURABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
MY NAME IS NICK ECHES. I'M A PHYSICIAN DOING SPECIALTY
TRAINING IN INTERNAL MEDICINE.
I'M HERE AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND I'M NOT REPRESENTING ANY
ORGANIZATION.
TODAY I'D LIKE TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS MAKE DECISIONS
REGARDING HEALTH.

AND ESSENTIALLY THAT DECISIONS
MADE BY HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONALS DERIVE THEIR FOUNDATIONATIONS FROM TWO MAIN S
AS WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY.
SCIENCE AND ETHICS. SO, SCIENCE IN ITS ESSENCE IS
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH.
BEYOND OPINION, BEYOND CONJECTURE, BEYOND INTUITION,
BEYOND BELIEF.
SCIENCE ATTEMPTS TO SHOW IN A RELIABLE, REPRODUCIBLE FORM WHAT
WE CAN REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE
UNIVERSE IN WHICH WE LIVE. HOWEVER, SCIENCE IS A WORLD OF
PROBABILITY.
NOTHING CAN EVER BE KNOWN FOR SURE BECAUSE SCIENTISTS ARE
ALWAYS OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY
THAT ANOTHER EXPERIMENT WILL SOME DAY DISPROVE WHAT IS
CURRENTLY THOUGHT TO BE TRUE.
SCIENCE IS A PART OF MEDICINE.

WHAT CAN WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT
CAUSES A DISEASE?
WHAT CAN WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT MAKES IT BETTER?
HOWEVER, THE LIMITS OF OUR
KNOWLEDGE IN SCIENCE ARE ALSO THE LIMITS OF OUR KNOWLEDGE IN
MEDICINE.
NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN FOR SURE. BUT THE MORE STUDIES THAT THERE
ARE, THE MORE CAREFULLY THAT
THOSE STUDIES ARE DONE. AND THE MORE CONSISTENT THE
RESULTS ARE THE MORE WE CAN BE
SURE THAT WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN ALL LIKELIHOOD REPRESENTS THE
TRUTH.
THE SECOND COMPONENT OF MEDICAL DECISION MAKING CONCERNS ETHICS.
ESSENTIALLY: WHAT IS THE RIGHT
THING TO DO? SO LOOKING AT FLUORIDATION
THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS WE NEED TO
ANSWER.

NUMBER ONE: WHAT IS THE TRUTH
TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE
REGARDING THE BENEFITS AND THE RISKS OF FLUORIDATION?
DO THESE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE
RISKS? AND NUMBER TWO: IS FLUORIDATING
THE WATER ETHICAL?
IS IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO? TO ANSWER QUESTION NUMBER ONE:
WHAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT WATER
FLUORIDATION, WE MUST LOOK TO THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.
TWO RECENT SYSTEMIC REVIEWS, ONE
COMMISSIONED BY GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM IN THE YEAR
2000, AND THE OTHER COMMISSIONED
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA IN THE YEAR 2007 COMPILE THE
RESULTS OF ALL OF THE MOST
CAREFULLY CONTROLLED STUDIES. IN SHORT, THEY SUGGEST THAT IT'S
LIKELY THAT FLUORIDATING THE
WATER IS BENEFICIAL IN PREVENTING DENTAL CARRIES.
AND UNLIKELY THAT IT CAUSES
SIGNIFICANT HARM. IT IS LIKELY THAT THE BENEFITS
OF FLUORIDATING THE WATER
OUTWEIGH THE RISKS. AND IT'S ALSO LIKELY THAT A
DECISION TO REMOVE FLUORIDE FROM
THE WATER WOULD CAUSE HARM.

THIS IS THE MOST CERTAIN THAT
ANYBODY CAN BE ABOUT THE TRUTH
OF WATER FLUORIDATION. AND I'D SUGGEST BEING VERY
CAUTIOUS WHEN LISTENING TO
ANYBODY WHO STATES THEIR CASE MORE STRONGLY THAN THAT.
THIS ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE
BEST KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US TODAY.
ANSWERING ETHICAL QUESTION IS
MORE COMPLICATED. AS ARE MOST ISSUES OF RIGHT
VERSUS WRONG.
HOWEVER, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ETHICAL QUESTION MUST
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE KNOW
ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION. I'LL USE A CLEAR EXAMPLE.
WE KNOW THAT IT'S LIKELY THAT
CAR BRAKES SAVE LIVES. AND UNLIKELY THAT THEY CAUSE
ANYBODY SIGNIFICANT HARM.
SO, IT IS CONSIDERED ETHICAL TO REQUIRE EVERYONE TO HAVE BRAKES
ON THEIR CARS.
EVEN THOUGH THAT RESTRICTS THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD
CHOOSE NOT TO OUTFIT THEIR CARS
WITH BRAKES. WE ALSO KNOW THAT IT'S ALMOST
CERTAINLY MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO
OUTFIT CARS WITH BRAKES THAN IT WOULD BE TO PAY FOR AWFUL
ASSOCIATED HEALTH CARE AND
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR COSTS THAT WOULD GO ALONG WITH NOT HAVING
BRAKES.
SIMILARLY, WE KNOW IT'S LIKELY THAT WATER FLUORIDATION PREVENTS
DENTAL CARRIES.
AND UNLIKELY THAT IT CAUSES SIGNIFICANT HARM.
THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE FROM
Dr.

JOHN HARRIS, AN INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED
EXPERT IN MEDICAL ETHICS.
HE STATES: WE SHOULD NOT ASK: ARE WE ENTITLED TO IMPOSE
FLUORIDATION ON THE UNWILLING
PEOPLE, BUT ARE THE UNWILLING PEOPLE ENTITLED TO IMPOSE THE
RISKS, DAMAGE, AND COSTS OF
FAILURE TO FLUORIDATE ON THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE?
END QUOTE.
SHOULD YOUR NEIGHBOUR HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE BRAKES OFF OF
HIS CAR?
IN SUMMARY, NUMBER ONE: WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
THE TRUTH IS THAT THE BENEFITS
OF FLUORIDE LIKELY OUTWEIGH THE RISKS.
NUMBER TWO, IS IT ETHICALLY
RESPONSIBLE TO FLUORIDATE THE WATER?
BASED ON EVERYTHING WE CURRENTLY
KNOW ABOUT FLUORIDE, YES.

IT IS.
I HOPE THAT THIS HAS HELPED
CLARIFY THE WAY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS MAKE DECISIONS AND
WILL HELP EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND
EXACTLY WHY HEALTH CANADA, THE CANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, THE
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SUPPORT
FLUORIDATION AS DO OUR OWN
MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH. AND OUR OWN DENTISTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS?
ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
JUST BECAUSE YOU USED THE
METAPHOR, I THINK IT'S INTERESTING.
THE CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL
IN THE UNITED STATES POINTS TO ADULT OBESITY AS A PANDEMIC ON A
SCALE THAT, YOU KNOW, BEGGARS —
THE PANDEMICS THAT THE CDC WAS SET UP TO ADDRESS: POLIO AND
TIE TYPHOID.
AND DIRECTLY CONNECTS AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY AND THE OBESITY
ASSOCIATED WITH SPENDING TOO
MUCH TIME IN YOUR CAR AND NOT OUGH TIME WALKING, WITH
THAT — WITH, YOU KNOW, THE
HEART DISEASE AND THE DIABETES ASSOCIATED WITH ADULT OBESITY.
WHAT THESE ARE ARE HUGE
EXTERNALITIES.

THAT FLOAT BACK TO THE QUESTION
OF: HOW DO WE MAKE CARS SAFER
FOR PEOPLE TO DRIVE? WE PUT BRAKES ON THEM.
PUTTING BRAKES ON CARS, YOU
KNOW, MAKES IT MORE — MAKES IT EASIER FOR US TO RATIONALIZE
USING CARS AS A PRIMARY MODE OF
TRANSPORTATION WHICH AT THE END OF THE DAY, AFTER A 70-YEAR
EXPERIMENT IN ABANDONING HUMAN
HABITAT CONSTRUCTION AND ABANDONING AUTOMOBILE HABITAT
CONSTRUCTION AS MAYBE HAVING
EXTERNALITIES THAT WE DIDN'T SEE.
SO I THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF FLUORIDE RIGHT NOW DOESN'T PREVENT THAT.
BUT ARE WE — HOW LIKELY IS IT
THAT WE ARE EXAMINING THE FULL SUITE OF POTENTIAL EXTERNALITIES
THAT COME FROM THIS?
AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO PUT OUT THERE.
WE'RE MIXING OUR METAPHORS LIKE
MAD PEOPLE HERE, BUT THE REALITY IS, IT COMES DOWN TO A QUESTION
OF: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLES.
AND HOW MUCH HAVE THESE STUDIES, THESE SORT OF, LIKE, METASTUDIES
THAT HAVE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE
INFORMATION REALLY EXPLORED QUESTIONS OF EXTERNALITY?
>> SO, I THINK — ONE THING THAT
IS TRUE OF ANYTHING IS THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF VARIABLES
IN THE WORLD.
AND AN INFINITE NUMBER OF VARIABLES ESSENTIALLY AFFECTING
HEALTH.
AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO — I MEAN, THE FIELD OF MEDICINE IS
VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, THE BODY AS A SYSTEM HAS, YOU KNOW, MILLIONS OF VARIABLES.
AND SO THE DIFFICULTY IN SCIENCE
IS DOING OUR BEST TO ISOLATE THOSE VARIABLES.
AND THE BEST TO MEASURE THE
RELEVANT OUTCOMES.

AND I THINK THAT IF THERE WERE,
YOU KNOW, A LARGE NUMBER OF
SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSE EVENTS OCCURRING FROM FLUORIDE, THAT
LIKELY WOULD HAVE BORNE ITSELF
OUT IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE TO THIS POINT.
HOWEVER, YOUR POINT IS WELL
TAKEN. YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT
IF PEOPLE HAVE BETTER TEETH
THEY'RE GOING TO EAT MORE AND BECOME MORROW BEES.
BUT, I MEAN, AGAIN — BECOME
MORE OBESE. BUT TO ACTUALLY DRAW THE
CONNECTION THEREFORE BETWEEN
MORE FLUORIDE AND OBESITY, WOULD YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT
CONNECTION.
BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A LOT OF OTHER REASONS WHY PEOPLE IN A
CERTAIN AREA WOULD BE BECOMING
OBESE.

>> NO, FORGIVE ME.
WHAT I WAS DRAWING THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN WAS, WE PUT BRAKES ON CARS.
SO WE CONTINUALLY THINK THAT
CARS ARE A GOOD WAY TO GET AROUND.
IF WE HAD NEVER PUT BRAKES ON
CARS, WE MAY MAYBE WOULD HAVE SAID THIS ISN'T A GOOD WAY TO
GET AROUND.
LET'S ORGANIZE OUR LIVING ARRANGEMENT DIFFERENTLY.
I'M USING YOUR METAPHOR.
I THINK WE'RE MIXING OUR METAPHORS CRAZILY HERE.
SO I APOLOGIZE.
I GUESS IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF —
MY QUESTION JUST GETS BACK TO
EXTERNALITIES. LIKE, DO WE UNDERSTAND — WE'RE
WEATHER TRYING TO ISOLATE
VARIABLES.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE
PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZED
COMPLEXITY. THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, DIFFICULT TO
PULL OUT WHEN WE'RE USING
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. >> AND I WOULD AGREE AND SAY THE
DIFFICULTY IS THE NOT
FLUORIDATING WATER. THE DECISION TO STOP
FLUORIDATING WATER COULD HAVE
JUST AS MANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT AS THE
DECISION TO FLUORIDATE.
THE POINT BEING THAT WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT ANY OF
THOSE ARE.
BUT BASED ON WHAT WE DO KNOW, THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS.
AND THAT'S THE WAY PEOPLE MAKE
DECISIONS EVERYDAY. IS BASED ON WHAT WE DO KNOW.
DOT BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS?
YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S HOW PEOPLE GO ABOUT MAKING DECISION
EVERYDAY.
MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE MEDICAL LITERATURE AND BASED ON,
YOU KNOW, MEDICAL ETHICS THAT
THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, AN INTERVENTION THAT WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED ON THE POPULATION
LEVEL. >> THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN KEATING.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. ON THAT NOTE I'M AWFULLY GLAD
THAT WE DON'T PUT FLUORIDE ON
CARS AND HOPE IT TRANSFERS. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE
DIFFICULT.
BUT I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THAT GOT IN THERE, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HAVE THE
CAPABILITY OF COMING BACK AND ASKING ANOTHER QUESTION FROM A
COMMENT THAT WE'VE HEARD THAT
WE'VE ALREADY QUESTIONED ON.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID EARLIER.
TALKING ABOUT SALIVA IN THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE FLUORIDE
BATHING THE TEETH FROM YOUR
SALIVA. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE PRECISE
MOLECULAR MECHANISMS, NOT TO BE FECECIOUS AT ALL.
BUT ESSENTIALLY, I THINK THAT
YEAH THE FLUORIDE IS ABSORBED SYSTEMICALLY AND THEN HE IS
CONCRETED IN YOUR A — AND THEN
SECRETED IN YOUR A LIE VAVMENT. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING
FOR.
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> SO ABSORBED BY YOUR BODY AND
THEN GIVEN OFF.
SO WE CAN ASSUME THERE IS FLUORIDE IN SWEAT AND ALL THOSE
SORTS OF THINGS AT THE SAME
TIME, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.
IF I HAD TO HAZARD I A GUESS
WOULD I SAY POSSIBLY BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.

ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANTED TO GET BACK TO THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH FLUORIDE IS
BEING INGESTED.
AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT LITTLE PEOPLE, CHILDREN,
INFANTS, NEED LESS FLUORIDE THAN
ADULTS. OR CAN TOLERATE LESS FLUORIDE.
AND I GUESS THAT'S PART OF MY
QUESTION. BUT AS — HOW MUCH WATER DO WE
HAVE TO DRINK BEFORE WE GET TO A
TOXIC LEVEL? OF FLUORIDE?
DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT?
>> SO, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, FLUORIDE TOXICITY WHERE YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE SERIOUS ADVERSE
EVENTS FROM FLUORIDE, YOU KNOW, BEYOND COSMETIC CONCERNS, I'M
NOT SURE A IF THAT LEVEL EXISTS
OR B WHAT, IT IS. IN TERMS OF CONTROLLING THE DOSE
OF FLUORIDE — SO YOU COULD MAKE
THE ARGUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, SMALLER PEOPLE ALSO PROBABLY
DRINK LESS WATER.
THE ARGUMENT THAT WOULD I MAKE ABOUT DOSAGE IS ACTUALLY ONE
THAT NOT FLUORIDATING THE WATER
DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANYMORE CONTROL OVER DOSAGE THAN
FLUORIDATING IT DOES.
BECAUSE, I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY THERE IS FLUORIDE THAT NATURALLY
OCCURS IN THE WATER.
IT'S BEEN STATED IT VARIES BASED ON THE SEASON.
IN FACT I THINK WOULD YOU HAVE A
MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TIME KNOWING HOW MUCH FLUORIDE WAS GOING INTO
YOUR BODY IF THE DOSAGE WAS —
IF THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN THE WATER WAS UNCONTROLLED.
BECAUSE ON ANY GIVEN DAY YOU'D
HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW MUCH FLUORIDE IS IN THE WATER.
AND SO REALLY IF IT'S A CONCERN,
IF THE JUDGMENT IS THAT FLUORIDE IS A MEDICATION AND NOT, YOU
KNOW, JUST A NATURALLY OCCURRING
SUBSTANCE THAT WE WANT TO ALTER THE LEVELS OF, THEN IF YOU'RE
APPROACHING THE POLICY FROM THAT
PERSPECTIVE, THEN THE ETHICAL THING TO DO WOULD BE TO ACTUALLY
PAY MONEY TO REMOVE ALL OF THE
FLUORIDE FROM THE WATER.

SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD KNOW
EXACTLY HOW MUCH THEY'RE
GETTING. BUT THAT ON A POPULATION LEVEL
WOULD POSSIBLY PROBABLY NOT BE
VERY GOOD FOR THE HEALTH OF ANYBODY.
AND IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE
THE ORIGINAL STUDIES THAT TALK ABOUT WHERE FLUORIDE COMES FROM,
THEY CAME FROM I THINK COLORADO.
AND THE DOSAGE OF — SORRY, THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN THE
WATER THERE WAS 3-4 PARTS PER
MILLION. OR SOMETHING QUITE HIGH.
AND THE REASON A DENTIST FIRST
NOTICED IT WAS BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE GETTING FLUOROSIS AT THAT
HIGH LEVEL.
BUT IT'S INTERESTING THEN, BECAUSE IF YOU WENT T TO THOSE
PEOPLE AND IT'S KIND OF THE
REVERSE OF THE ARGUMENT YOU SEE HERE.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE SAYING HEY,
WE'RE GETTING FLUOROSIS THE SAME WAY PEOPLE HERE ARE SAYING HEY,
WE GET CAVITIES.
THEN THEY SAY WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD REDUCE THE LEVELS OF
FLUORIDE IN OUR WATER SO PEOPLE
DON'T GET FLUOROSIS.

BUT THEN THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO
DIDN'T HAVE FLUOROSIS WILL SAY
THEN WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP CAVITIES.
GENT REVERSE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT NATURALLY OCCURS IN THE
WATER.
SO WHAT STUDIES HAVE SHOWN US IS THERE'S A LEVEL WE CAN OPTIMIZE
IN TERMS OF CAVITIES VERSUS
FLUOROSIS. SO IF HUE A COMMUNITY THAT HAD A
BUNCH OF FLUORIDE IN THE WATER
THAT WAS NATURALLY OCCURRING, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE DECISION
TO ACTUALLY BRING FLUORIDE DOWN
ETHICALLY WOULD PROBABLY BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE DECISION WE'RE
LOOKING AT TODAY IN TERMS OF
OPTIMIZING A DOSE OF FLUORIDE IN THE WATER.
>> THAT'S VERY INTERESTING.
THANK YOU. >> THANKS.
ALDERMAN DEMONG.
>> WHEN YOU REFER TO ETHICS, WHERE DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF
LIE?
UPON THOSE THAT ADVOCATE THE ACTIVITY?
OR THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT?
BASED ON THOSE PRINCIPLES. >> I THINK IT LIES WITH BOTH.
I THINK ESSENTIALLY IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE DOING THE SCIENCE ARE ETHICAL ABOUT THE
WAY THAT'S CONDUCTED.
SO IT'S VERY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WERE TO BE A FACULTY OF
MEDICINE COMMITTEE THAT WAS
APPOINTED TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, IT'S THE BURDEN OF ETHICAL
RESPONSIBILITY LIES ON THEM TO
DOT BEST JOB THAT THEY CAN WITH THE TRAINING THAT THEY HAVE TO
ARRIVE AT THE ANSWER THAT'S
CLOSEST TO THE TRUTH.

AND THEN IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE POLICY MAKERS TO TAKE
THAT AND WEIGH IT AGAINST EVERYTHING ELSE, INCLUDING
PUBLIC OPINION.
INCLUDING COST. INCLUDING EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND COME TO A DECISION.
AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN REST RESPONSIBILITY ON ONE PARTY OR
THE OTHER.
I THINK EVERYBODY HAS THE — ESPECIALLY INVOLVED IN — IN
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS HAT THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO BEHAVE ETHICALLY IN ALL ASPECTS WHAT
THEY DO.
AND THIS IS, AGAIN, LIKE MOST THINGS IN OUR SOCIETY, THIS IS
KIND OF MULTIFACTORIAL.
SO EVERYBODY HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY.
>> OKAY, SO ONCE THE ACTIVITY IS
DONE, PER SE, FLOOR IDES IN THE WATER, DOES — FLUORIDES IN THE
WATER, DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF
LIE WITH THOSE WHO ADVOCATE REMOVING IT OR THOSE THAT HAVE
IT IN TO CONTINUE TO PROVE THAT
THIS IS THE RIGHT QUANTITY.

THAT IT IS STILL DOING WHAT IT'S
INTENDED TO DO.
OR THE REVERSE? >> SO, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR — I MEAN IN GENERAL IN A
DEMOCRACY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYBODY TO ADVOCATE FOR
WHAT THEY BELIEVE.
>> COURSE. AND THIS IS JUST YOUR OPINION.
I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I'M
JUST LOOKING FOR YOUR OPINION. YOUR RE– YOU'RE A RESEARCHER.
YOU'VE COMMENTED ON THE ETHICS.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING, FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW, WHERE DOES
THAT BURDEN OF PROOF LIE?
WITH THE PEOPLE THAT SAID IT SHOULD BE THERE, WE HAVE TO
CONTINUE HAVING IT THERE AND
THESE ARE THE REASONS? OR NOW THAT IT'S IN THERE DO
THEY GET TO RELAX SOMEWHAT AND
WAIT FOR THE OTHER SIDE TO SAY: NO, THESE ARE THE REASONS IT HAS
TO COME OUT?
>> SO, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY QUICKLY, I'M NOT A RESEARCHER —
>> I APOLOGIZE.
>> NO, THAT'S OKAY.

JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY.
I GUESS WHAT I WAS GETTING TO
WITH THE WHOLE, EVERYBODY NEEDS TO ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES IN A
DEMOCRACY WAS NOT TO BRUSH THE
QUESTION OFF. IT WAS REALLY TO SAY THAT REALLY
IT'S UP TO EVERYBODY TO BE
COGNIZANT OF OUR ONGOING, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE TAKE FOR
GRANTED IN SOCIETY THAT MAY OR
MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT THING? THERE'S TONS OF THINGS THAT WE
DO NOW THAT MIGHT BE THE
RIGHT — MAYBE IT'S WRONG TO HAVE CARS THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY —
IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY RAIS REMAIN VIGILANT.
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT
SCIENTISTS ARE OFTEN — THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND SCIENCE IS TO
BE CRITICAL OF WHAT'S ALREADY
KNOWN.

I MEAN, IF YOU DO A VERY, VERY
WELL DESIGNED STUDY THAT SAYS
HEY, YOU KNOW, THE TRUTH OF WHAT WE THOUGHT BEFORE IS NOT TRUE,
IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE LOOKED AT.
I MEAN AND TO BRING BACK THE EXAMPLE OF SMOKING IN THE
1950s, I MEAN IF WE HADN'T —
IF SOMEONE HADN'T SAID HEY, MAYBE SMOKING IS A BAD THING.
MAYBE IT'S CAUSING THESE
CANCERS, THEN NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
AND IF — AGAIN IF POLICY
MAKERS, IF PEOPLE HADN'T LISTENED TO THAT I MEAN WHO
KNOWS WHERE WE'D BE TODAY.
SO I THINK IT LIES WITH BOTH PARTIES.
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT AGAIN, IN
THIS SITUATION, IT'S NOT EVEN NECESSARILY — I MEAN, IT'S
DIFFICULT TO SAY BLACK AND WHITE
KIND OF FLUORIDE OR NO FLUORIDE.

BECAUSE AGAIN, FLUORIDE OCCURS
SNARLLY IN THE WATER SO IT'S A
LEVEL ISSUE. AND I THINK THAT GETS A LITTLE
BIT LOST IN THE DEBATE.
AND PEOPLE ARE SAYING HEY, LIKE WE DON'T WANT FLUORIDATION.
YOU SAY WELL, THE NORMAL LEVEL
IS .3 OR MILLION 4. SO WE ARE AGRICULTURE ADDING
MILLION 3 OR MILLION 4 TO THAT
AND CREATING .7. SO I MEAN YOUR POINT IS WELL
TAKEN.
BUT I THINK THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH EVERYBODY.
AND ESPECIALLY, YEAH, IF YOU
ADVOCATE FOR HAVING IT AT A LEVEL OF.
7 AND NEW DATA COMES OUT THAT IS
STRONG DATA AND SAYS HEY THAT'S NOT GOOD, THEN I THINK MOST —
ESPECIALLY THE MEDICAL AND
DENTAL COMMUNITY WOULD BE THE FIRST PEOPLE TO SAY HEY, WHOA,
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AGAIN
AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON. >> THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE JOINING
THIS DISCUSSION.
THIS IS VERY HEALTHY DISCUSSION AND SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO
ON A REGULAR BASIS.
I CAN'T AGREE WITH YOUR CAR BRAKES ANALOGY.
BECAUSE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE BRAKES
I THINK WE WOULD HAVE MAYHEM. MAYBE THAT'S WHAT MY COLLEAGUE
TO MY LEFT WOULD LIKE.
BUT THE — MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE ETHICS OF DELIVERING A
SUBSTANCE THROUGH THE WATER
SUPPLY.

AND THAT SEEMS TO BE OFTEN WHERE
THIS DISCUSSION COMES DOWN.
IS WATER IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE. WE'VE GOT OTHER — I MEAN, THE
REFERENCE TO SALT OR MILK OR
FORTIFIED CEREALS COMES UP. BUT PEOPLE DO HAVE CHOICE WITH
THAT.
BUT IF WATER IS SUCH A GOOD DELIVERY SYSTEM, FOR CERTAIN
SUBSTANCES, WE'VE BEEN HEARING A
LOT ABOUT VITAMIN D SPECIFICALLY CANADIANS AND THEIR LACK OF
SUNLIGHT.
SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT OTHER — AND I'M NOT BEING FECECIOUS.
I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION.
I'M WONDERING WHY WE STOPPED AT THIS SUBSTANCE, AND NOT MOVED ON
TO OTHERS AS A DELIVERY STHOD
FOR THINGS THAT WE — DELIVERY METHOD FOR THINGS THAT WE ALL
NEED?
>> YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN. I THINK SOME OF THE ETHICAL
ISSUES REGARDING THAT IS, AGAIN,
IT JUST GOES BACK TO THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, FLUORIDE IS IN
OUR WATER.
FLUORIDE IS IN ALL THE FOOD THAT WE EAT.
IT'S IN EVERYTHING THAT WE
DRINK.

FLUORIDE SEVER WHERE.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING
THE — ABOUT KEEPING THE LEVEL. KEEPING, YOU KNOW, IMREAG UPO AN
A LEVEL THAT PROVIDES THE MOST
BENEFIT WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME.
AGAIN THERE'S COMMUNITIES THAT
HAVE MORE FLUORIDE THAN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.
>> I KNOW.
WE'RE INTERVENING IN THAT. SO WE'RE TAKING ACTION THAT'S
SEPARATE FROM PROVIDING SAFE,
CLEAN DRINKING WATER. THERE IS — IT'S A QUESTION WE
NEED TO ASK OURSELVES ON A
REGULAR BASIS. THE THINGS WE DECIDED WERE FINE
AND ETHICAL IN THE '50s ARE
VERY — I MEAN, OUR VERSION AND VISION OF ETHICS IS VERY
DIFFERENT.
SO THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS TO BE ASKING OURSELVES: IS
THERE A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING
IT? YOU SAID THAT IT'S LIKELY —
VERY LIKELY THAT FLUORIDE IS
HELPFUL.

AND YET TEN YEARS AGO IT WAS
VERY LIKELY THAT MUCH HIGHER
CONCENTRATION WERE HELPFUL. AND YET WE'VE LEARNED FROM THAT
BECAUSE WE ASKED THESE SAME
QUESTIONS. AND THE SAME QUESTIONS ARE BEING
ASKED WITH SUBSTANCES HEALTH
CANADA HAS DEEMED SAFE. IT TAKES A LOT LONGER TO GET
SOMETHING OUT OF THE WATER.
LYNVIEW RIDGE WE ALLOWED SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN
LYNVIEW RIDGE BECAUSE OUR
PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF SAFE LEVELS OF LEAD CHANGED.
AND THEN WE REALIZED WE ALLOWED
A COMMUNITY THAT HAS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED.
SO WE'RE ALWAYS LEARNING.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION.
SO, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY.

>> ANDERMAN MAR.
>> SORRY.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. IN ALL THIS DEBATE, I'VE RATHER
FORGOTTEN YOUR NAME.
>> NICK. >> OKAY.
WELL, Dr. NICK IS WHAT I'LL
CALL YOU. BECAUSE I THINK YOU'VE EARNED
THAT TITLE, DOCTOR.
AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR CONTRIBUTING TODAY.
NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE
IS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLUORIDE AVAILABLE TO ADD TO
THE WATER.
ARE YOU AWARE OF WHICH KIND WE'RE USING HERE IN THE CITY OF
CALGARY?
>> NO, I'M NOT SURE WHICH ADDITIVE WE'RE USING.
I THINK THE ISSUE OF CONCERN OR
INTEREST IN THAT DISCUSSION WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE — I MEAN,
FLUORIDE ITSELF IS AN ION.
SO WHENEVER YOU HAVE FLUORIDE ADDED TO — FLUORIDE WOULD
INITIALLY BE A SOLID AND IT
WOULD BE ADDED TO THE WATER AND THEN IT WOULD DISASSOCIATE FROM
WHATEVER THAT ION WAS BOUND TO.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE IN SODIUM FLUORIDE IT WOULD BE SODIUM THAT
THE FLUORIDE WAS BOUND TO.
SO FLUORIDE ITSELF IN SOLUTION SHOULD — THE FLUORIDE ION
EXISTS IN ISOLATION AND WOULDN'T
NECESSARILY — THE ION IS INDEPENDENT THEREFORE WHAT IT
WAS BOUND TO.
BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE USE TO — WHAT COMPOUND THE FLUORIDE
IS A PART WHEN WAS IT'S ADDED
I'M NOT SURE.

SO IN TERMS OF, I GUESS, THE
QUESTION WOULD BE WHAT
ADDITIONALLY APART FROM FLUORIDE IS BEING ADDED TO OUR WATER.
I DO KNOW THERE ARE SIX OR SEVEN
WAYS THAT IT CAN BE DONE. SO I'D IMAGINE THAT ANY WAY THAT
HAS BEEN CHOSEN WOULD LIKELY
HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE SAFEST, MOST
BENEFICIAL, CHEAPEST, WHAT HAVE
YOU. AND THAT — I MEAN FLUORIDE
AGAIN IT'S IN THE WATER
NATURALLY AND IT WOULD COME IN A COMPOUND FROM A ROCK INITIALLY.
YOU KNOW, FOR SODIUM FLUORIDE OR
FLOORO CYLICATE OR WHATEVER.

WOOPS.
>> WELL — I'LL TELLISM THE ONE
WE ARE USING IS HYDRO FLOORO SILLIC ACID.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
BASICALLY IT'S A BY-PRODUCT FROM THE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY.
WOULD YOU AGREE?
OR YOU HAVE HEARD THIS? >> I HAVEN'T HEARD THIS.
AND AGAIN, I MEAN — FOR
EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW THE INITIAL KIND OF VISCERAL RESPONSE FOR
MOST PEOPLE WHEN THEY HEAR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS, W WHOA, THAT SOUND KIND OF SCARY.
I MEAN REALLY WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT CONCENTRATIONS HERE.

WE'RE TALKING ONE PART PER
MILLION.
AND AN ACID IS REALLY ONLY AN ACID DEPENDING ON ITS
CONCENTRATION.
SO ESSENTIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE PH OF WATER IT WOULD
ESSENTIALLY BE UNCHANGED BY THE
ADDITION OF THAT SMALL QUANTITY OF ACID.
SO, I MEAN IT, IS AN ISSUE OF
QUANTITIES. AND SO TO SAY THAT WE'RE
INGESTING ALL OF THIS HORRIBLE
ACID, I MEAN YOU REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT PROPORTIONS.
>> RIGHT.
SEVEN PARTS PER MILLION. >> .7.
>> SORRY, .7.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
THE ACID PART IT WAS DOESN'T
SCARE ME SO MUCH AS THE METHOD IN WHICH THIS IS COLLECTED.
BECAUSE IT IS ESSENTIALLY
COLLECTED FROM THE SCRUBBERS OF THE SMOKESTACKS IN CREATING
FERTILIZER.
THAT'S PARTLY — THAT CONCERNS ME.
AND THERE IS, AS YOU SAY,
THERE'S SIX OR SEVEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLUORIDE AVAILABLE.
AND YOU ALSO SUGGESTED THAT
THERE IS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT RATIONALS AS TO WHY WE WOULD
SELECT X VERSUS Y.
COST BEING ONE OF THEM.

AND SAFETY ANOTHER.
BUT, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE, AND WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS
FLUORIDE GOT TO US, HOW IT'S
GOING TO AFFECT US, IN THE LONG-TERM.
I'M NOT NECESSARILY TALKING
ABOUT THE TEN YEARS OR 15 YEARS OR WHAT IT'S DOING TO OUR TEETH.
BUT WHAT IS IT DOING TO OUR
BODIES OVER TIME FOR A MILLION, 1,000 PEOPLE.
MY RESPONSIBILITY AS ONE OF THE
ELECTED OFFICIAL THIS WAS IS TO LOOK AFTER THE SAFETY AND
SECURITY OF THAT POPULATION.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE MAY BE. >> Andrea: SILLRY BENEFIT TO
FLOOR — MAY BE AN ANCILLARY
BENEFIT TO FLUORIDATING WATER. AND IF IT DOES AND IF YOU CAN'T
OPT OUT OF IT BECAUSE IT'S IN
YOUR WATER, WHICH NO ONE CAN GET OUT OF, THEN WE HAVE AN ETHICAL
PROBLEM HERE THAT CANNOT BE
JUSTIFIED BASED ON. SO COMMENTS THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH
REGARDS TO REDUCTION OF
CAVITIES. IN MY VIEW, THIS IS — ETHICAL
PART COMES FROM: YOU CAN'T OPT
OUT.

YOU ARE BASICALLY HERE.
YOU'RE ALL IN OR YOU'RE ALL OUT.
MY QUESTION NOW IS: IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT KINDS OF FLUORIDE IS
AVAILABLE, HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS
DECISION FOR 1.1 MILLION PEOPLE? AND HOW WOULD YOU HELP US MAKE
THAT DECISION SOLELY ON THE
BASIS THAT THE STUDIES THAT YOU'VE READ TELL US THAT IT'S
NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM?
>> SO, I THINK — THAT'S ABSOLUTELY A VERY GOOD POINT.
SO I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF
POINTS TO BE MADE ABOUT THAT. THE FIRST IS THAT I WOULD SAY
YEAH, IF PEOPLE ARE TAKING
COMPOUND OFF SMOKESTACKS AND DROPPING IS INTO WATER, THAT
WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE PROCESS THAT
OCCURS.
BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, THE ISSUE IS THAT —
WHEN IF COMES TO UNKNOWNS, IT'S
ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT ESSENTIALLY IF YOU ARE ADDING THIS SMALL
AMOUNT OF SUBSTANCE TO A WATER
FOR ALL THAT WE KNOW, THAT COULD BE — LIKE, THE HUMAN BODY IS
SUCH AN INFINITELY VARIABLE
SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THE EFFECTS OF THAT
TINY AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL ARE.
BUT THEY COULD JUST AS LIKELY BE GOOD AS BE BAD.
AND, YOU KNOW, AND THE POINT
BEING — I MEAN IT'S AN ORGANIC COMPOUND AND YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO IDEA OF SAYING, YOU KNOW,
WHAT IF YOU TOOK IT OUT AND FOUND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GOT MORE
CANCER?
THERE'S NO WAY OF KNOWING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
AND, YOU NEGOTIATION THE OTHER
ARGUMENT WOULD I MAKE IS THAT IF THERE WERE, YOU KNOW,
SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE HEALTH
OUTCOMES FROM THE COMPOUND THAT FLUORIDE A PART OF, WE'D
PROBABLY SEE IT IN THE LONG-TERM
WE'D PROBABLY SEE ALL KIND OF THESE — YOU KNOW, WE'D SEE A
STATISTICAL, SIGNIFICANT LARGE
NUMBER OF CANCERS IN POPULATIONS THAT HAVE FLUORIDATED WATER.
AND THAT JUST HASN'T BEEN SEEN.
AND THAT HASN'T BEEN BORNE OUT IN THE LITERATURE.
BUT IF THAT WAS THE CASE YEAH
INITIALLY YOU'D SAY OKAY, WE'RE SEEING LOFTS CANCERS HERE IN ALL
THESE FLUORIDATED AREAS AND IT'S
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND THE STUDIES DONE ARE GOOD
STUDIES AND, YOU KNOW, LET'S
TAKE IT OUT.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN,
YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC HEALTH PHYSICIANS WOULD BE COMING TO
YOU SAYING LET'S GET THE
FLUORIDE OUT OF THE WATER, IT'S CAUSING CANCER, BUT THAT'S NOT
WHAT'S HAPPENING.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LITERATURE HAS SHOWN US.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU DOCTOR FOR YOUR
TIME.
NEXT SPEAKER ON MY LIST IS JEANETTE BOYD.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME'S JEANETTE BOYD. THANKS SO MUCH FOR HAVING US
HERE TODAY.
SOME GREAT INFORMATION I'M LEARNING A LOT HERE TODAY.
INCREDIBLE BRAINS AND MIND AND
GREAT INSIGHTS. I AM FOR FLUORIDE.
BUT I THINK ONE OF OUR BIGGEST
ISSUES IS EDUCATION. MY CHILDREN WERE ALL BORN IN
VANCOUVER AND THEY HAD NO
FLUORIDE IN VANCOUVER. SO YES, WE DID HAVE TO GIVE THE
FLUORIDE DROPS THAT PEOPLE HAVE
TALKED ABOUT HERE TODAY. IT HAD TO BE DONE ON A DAILY
BASIS.
WHEN MY SECOND CHILD WAS BORN SHE WAS TWELVE MONTHS OLD, I
CAME HOME TO CALGARY TO VISIT MY
PARENTS.

I RAN OUT OF FLUORIDE DROPS.
SO I WENT TO THE PHARMACY.
WHEN I WENT TO THE PHARMACY, THE PHARMACIST GAVE ME SUCH A BLAST
BECAUSE I WAS DOING SOMETHING SO
TERRIBLE TO MY DAUGHTER BY GIVING HER FLUORIDE DROPS.
THAT I STOPPED GIVING HER
FLUORIDE DROPS. THIS PHARMACIST DID NOT KNOW
THAT I WAS LIVING IN A PROVINCE
THAT HAD NO FLUORIDE IN THE WATER.
I WAS A YOUNG MOM.
THERE IS NO LITERATURE GIVEN TO MOMS — AT LEAST THERE WASN'T AT
THE TIME WHEN I HAD CHILDREN, AS
TO ORAL CARE. FOR YOUR CHILD.
SIX MONTHS AFTER I GOT HOME, IN
B.C., I HELD MY 18-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER AS SHE PASSED OUT
SCREAMING IN PAIN.
DUE TO ROTTEN TEETH. SHE WENT FOR FOUR YEARS WITHOUT
FRONT TEETH.
BECAUSE I DID NOT GIVE HER HER FLUORIDE DROPS.
BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF TWO
PROVINCES. AND NO EDUCATION.
ONE THING PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO
REALIZE, AND I'M SURPRISED IT WASN'T MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY
FROM THE PHYSICIANS AND THE
DENTISTS IS: WHEN CHILDREN'S TEETH FIRST ARE FORMED AND FIRST
COME OUT OF THEIR GUMS YOU CAN
LITERALLY TAKE YOUR FINGERNAIL AND ERODE IT TO NOTHING.
THEY HAVE NO PROTECTION.
ON THEIR TEETH.

THAT'S WHY IT'S A NECESSITY THAT
THEY HAVE FLUORIDE.
PUTTING IN THE WATER, MASS MEDICATION, IS THE BEST WAY TO
GO.
THAT WAY IT'S AVAILABLE FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE.
WHEN Mr. MEADE HAS MENTIONED
THAT, YOU KNOW, HE'S WORKING WITH THE HOMELESS AND THE
WORKING POOR, I WAS A SINGLE MOM
OF THREE KIDS FOR YEARS. AND OF COURSE YOU'RE NOT HEARING
THEM TALK ABOUT FLUORIDE AS AN
ISSUE HERE IN CALGARY. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT AN
ISSUE.
THEY ARE GETTING THE FLUORIDE. BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU, IF YOU
TAKE THE FLUORIDE OUT OF THIS
WATER, Mr. MEADE IS GOING TO HEAR QUITE A BIT COMING FROM
THESE POOR PEOPLE WHILE THEIR
CHILDREN'S TEETH ARE LITERALLY ROTTING OUT OF THEIR MOUTH.
WHO'S GOING TO GIVE THE PARENTS
THE EDUCATION? WHO IS GOING TO ENSURE THAT OUR
CHILDREN HAVE HEALTHY TEETH?
THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WILL BENEFIT BY TAKING FLUORIDE OUT
OF THE WATER ARE DENTISTS.
THEY WILL BE GETTING A LOT, A LOT OF WORK.
SO I ASK YOU GUYS, THINK ABOUT
IT.

BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION WHAT
THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE GOING TO
BE. SAVING YOURSELF $750.000 A YEAR,
THAT'S PEANUTS AS TO WHAT IT'S
GOING TO COST PARENTS IN THIS CITY TO KEEP UP WITH THEIR
CHILDREN'S TEETH.
I AM 43 YEARS OLD, BORN AND RAISED CALGARIAN.
ZERO CAVITIES.
THANKS TO THE WATER. IN CALGARY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER ON MY LIST IS
DENNIS STEFANIE. DENNIS STEFANIE.
>> OKAY.
THANKS FOR SHARING THAT WITH US. I'LL GO TO THE NEXT —
I'LL GO TO THE NEXT SPEAKER.
YVONNE SHEERMAN. (INAUDIBLE COMMENT)
>> OKAY.
SHEILA TAMINSKY. SHEILA TAMINSKY.
YOU'RE SHEILA?
ARE YOU DENNIS? >> I AM DENNIS.
SORRY.
>> WE KNOW WHERE YOU WERE.

WE WON'T GO THERE.
>> DO YOU HAVE SOME SLIDES?
SO THANKS VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS DENNIS STEFANIE.
AND I'M WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAM. HERE IN CALGARY.
AND I'M HERE TO TALK INTAIFT OF
HYDRO FLOORO SILLIC ACID WHICH IS THE FLUORIDE PRODUCT BEING
USED — BEING ADDED TO THE
CALGARY DRINKING WATER SUPPLY. (PLEASE STAND BY)
THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS BY
THE MANUFACTURER FOR THIS PRODUCT ARE FOR
HYDROFLUOROSILICATE LESS THAN 1%
AND SOME TRACE IMPURITIES TO 0.02% MAXIMUM.
THE PRODUCT IS CERTIFIED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE AND
THE NATIONAL SANITATION
FOUNDATION TO STANDARD 60 FOR DRINKING WATER CHEMICALS AND FOR
HEALTH EFFECTS.
WHICH IS A STANDARD TO ENSURE PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION FOR
ADDITIVES THAT ARE ADDED TO
WATER AND ALSO PRESENT IN THE FINISHED DRINKING WATER.
THE NEXT SLIDE I'M GOING TO SHOW
YOU IS THE ANALYTICAL BREAKDOWN OF TRACE CONTAMINANTS IN THE
PRODUCT RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF
CALGARY PRIOR TO ADDITION TO THE DRINKING WATER.
NOW, THIS TABLE SHOWS THE
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CENTRE COLUMN OF IMPURITIES IN THE
PRODUCT RECEIVED BY THE CITY.
THE RIGHT COLUMN SHOWS HEALTH CANADA ACCEPTABLE DRINKING WATER
GUIDELINES FOR THOSE SUBSTANCES.
NOW, IN THE CONCENTRATED PRODUCT, PRIOR TO DILUTION, 16
OF THE 18 SUBSTANCES ARE ALREADY
BELOW GUIDELINE STANDARDS.

THE REMAINING 2 SUBSTANCES ARE
ALSO WELL BELOW THE HEALTH
CANADA GUIDELINE WHEN THE PRODUCT IS ADDED TO THE DRINKING
WATER.
NOW, DURING YOU'RE TREATMENT, APPROXIMATELY 430 FAMILIARS OF
THIS PRODUCT — GRAMS OF THIS
PRODUCT ARE ADDED PER 1 MILLION LITRES OF WATER RESULTING IN A
VOLUMEETRIC DILUTION OF
3 MILLION TIMES. CONCENTRATIONS YOU SAW IN THE
PREVIOUS TABLE MUST BE DILUTED
BY 3 MILLION TIMES FOR THEIR FINAL CONCENTRATION IN THE
FINISHED CALGARY DRINKING WATER
SUPPLY. AND THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THESE
CONCENTRATIONS.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE BY ALL THOSE ZEROS IN THE CENTRE COLUMN, THE
FINAL CONCENTRATIONS OF THESE
IMPURITIES IN CALGARY DRINKING WATER AFTER DELUSION RANGES FROM
170.000 TO OVER 1 MILLION TIMES
LESS THAN THE HEALTH CANADA AND DRINKING WATER QUALITY
GUIDELINE.
THESE ARE HUGE DILUTIONS. SO WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF
THIS PRODUCT TO PUBLIC HEALTH
AND SAFETY? REALLY, THERE ARE NONE.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE
ARE NO HEALTH CONCERNS BASED ON THE EXTREMELY LOW CONCENTRATIONS
PRESENT IN THE FINAL DRINKING
WATER THAT ARE 170.000 TIMES AT THE MINIMUM TO OVER A MILLION
TIMES IN THE LOWER THAN CANADIAN
DRINKING WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES.
SO I THINK THIS CERTAINLY GIVES
A LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE OF THE SAFETY OF THAT WATER.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
NO QUESTIONS?
OKAY. THANK YOU.
NEXT PRESENTER, TED WYNILOWICZ.
I HOPE I GOT THAT RIGHT. OH, SORRY.
I TEND TO SKIP OVER — I'LL CALL
YOU RIGHT AFTER HIM. >> THANK YOU.
MY TED WYNILOWICZ.
I'M A CITIZEN OF CALGARY SINCE 1975.
I'VE — THE POINTS THAT I MADE
HAVE BEEN MADE SO I'M GOING TO CERTAINLY HONOUR THE REQUEST
MADE AND BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN
BE. AT ANY RATE, PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION PLAYS AN IMPORTANT
ROLE IN A DEMOCRACY, AND I'M PLEASED TO STAND BEFORE YOU TO
OFFER MY POSITION AND EXPLAIN
WHY I SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF FLUORIDE FROM CITY WATER.
I'LL GO BRIEFLY ABOUT IT BECAUSE
IT'S BEEN MENTIONED. THE FIRST ONE WAS A 1991-2001
CENTRES OF DISEASE CONTROL
PREVENTION HAS ACKNOWLEDGE THE MECHANISM OF FLUORIDE'S BENEFITS
ARE MAINLY TOPICAL AND NOT
SYSTEMIC. THE SECOND POINT ALSO MENTIONED
ONCE FLUORIDE IS PUT IN THE
WATER IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTROL THE DOSE THAT EACH
PERSON RECEIVES.
AND THE THIRD POINT IS THAT FLUORIDATION IS UNETHICAL
BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
ASKED FOR THEIR INFORMED CONSENT PRIOR TO MEDICATION.
THIS IS STANDARD PRACTICE FOR
ALL MEDICATION.

AND ONE OF THE KEY REASONS WHY
MOST OF WESTERN EUROPE HAS RULED
AGAINST FLUORIDATION. FOR THOSE THREE OUT OF MANY
DIFFERENT REASONS I OPPOSE THE
FLUORIDATION. I AM NOT A SIGN TEST, NOT AN
EXPERT ON THAT, BUT THAT DOES
NOT PRECLUDE US FROM HAVING AN OPINION.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE
IS THAT THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT'S VERY ABSOLUTE, AND AS
VACLAV HAVEL ONCE SAID FOLLOW
THOSE WHO SEEK THE TRUTH BUT RUN FROM THOSE WHO HAVE FOUND IT.
SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE
CAUTIOUS IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE TAKE AND HAVE A DEBATE WHERE
ALL POSITIONS ARE LISTENED TO,
BUT WITH A DEGREE OF SKEPTICISM. SO TO CONCLUDE, A CHOICE ON THIS
MATTER IS IMPORTANT, FROM MY
VIEWPOINT. THOSE WHO WISH TO CONTINUE TO
USE FLUORIDE HAVE THAT RIGHT AND
THERE COULD BE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DISPENSING THAT.
FROM COULD BE FLUORIDE VOUCHERS
OR WHATEVER. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK
THAT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO
OPPOSE FLUORIDATION SHOULD BE RESPECTED AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE.
THANK YOU. SHEILA.
TAMYNSKI.
SORRY FOR FORGETTING ABOUT YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND GOOD
AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS SHEILA TAMYNSKI AND I AM A PUBLIC HEALTH DIETITIAN AND
MANAGER OF POPULATION AND PUBLIC
HEALTH NUTRITION IN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES.
I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT
FOR OUR PUBLIC WATER FLUORIDATION IN THE CITY OF
CALGARY.
FLUORIDE IS A NUTRIENT. THIS MEANS THAT ITS CONSUMPTION
IS ESSENTIAL FOR OPTIMAL HEALTH.
THIS IS RECOGNIZED, IT'S RECOGNIZED AS A NUTRIENT BY
EVERY CREDIBLE HEALTH AND
SCIENTIFIC BODY AROUND THE WORLD.
INCLUDING HEALTH CANADA, THE
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE AND THE CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL.
THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS
HAVE ESTABLISHED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REQUIREMENTS.
FLUORIDE'S MAIN ROLE IS IN THE
PREVENTION OF TOOTH DECAY, HAVING HEALTHY TEETH IS AN
IMPORTANT PART OF OVERALL HEALTH
SO PROTECTING OUR TEETH FROM DECAY CONTRIBUTES TO OUR HEALTH
AND WELL BEING.
THERE IS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE AVAILABLE NATURALLY IN
OUR FOOD AND WATER.
NOT ENOUGH TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
BY ADDING FLUORIDE TO OUR WATER,
WE ENSURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH FLUORIDE TO PROTECT OUR TEETH
FROM DECAY.
MAJOR HEALTH BODIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD HAVE UNDERTAKEN
EXTENSIVE AND EXHAUSTIVE REVIEWS
OF THOUSANDS OF STUDIES AROUND THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
WATER FLUORIDATION AND THE
RESULTS ARE CLEAR AND CONSISTENT.
IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, NO ADVERSE
EFFECTS TO HUMAN HEALTH WERE FOUND AND THERE'S WITH MODERATE
LEVELS OF CONSUMPTION.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M THE MOTHER OF FOUR CHILDREN WHO
ARE GROWN UP.
AND AS SOMEONE WHO WORKS IN THE FIELD OF NUTRITION AND IS
FAMILIAR WITH THIS STUDY, MY
CHILDREN HAVE ALWAYS DRANK FLUORIDATED WATER, TAP WATER.
AS A MOTHER I WOULD NEVER HAVE
DONE ANYTHING TO PUT MY CHILDREN IN HARM'S WAY.
SO I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE FULL
CONFIDENCE IN THE RESEARCH AND STUDIES TO PROVIDE MY KIDS WITH
TAP WATER.
AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO JUST ADD TO THE DIALOGUE HERE AROUND
THE COUNT, NONE OF MY KIDS HAVE
ANY DENTAL CARRIES.

ALL OF MY KIDS HAVE GOOD STRONG
TEETH AND NONE OF THEM HAVE ANY
SIGNS OF FLOUROSIS. FLUORIDE IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF
A HEALTHY DIET.
THE JURY IS IN. WATER FLUORIDATION AS CARRIED
OUT IN CALGARY IS THE SAFEST AND
MOST EFFECTIVE WAY OF ENSURING THAT ALL OF OUR CITIZENS GET
ENOUGH FLUORIDE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
THE NEXT SPEAKER I HAVE IS
Dr. BOB DICKSON. I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU DON'T
LOOK LIKE A BOB.
>> I'M PRESENTING Dr. BOB DICKSON WHO IS UNFORTUNATELY
ABSENT THIS WEEK, AND MY NAME IS
SUZANNA NEDERO.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY —
I'M READING HIS PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT BEFORE THE UND COMMITTEE
AND IN ESSENCE TO CITY COUNCIL.
MY PROFOUND APOLOGIES FOR NOT ATTENDING IN PERSON.
AT THIS MOMENT, I'M MOST LIKELY
SITTING UNDER THE UNFLUORIDATED WATERFALL IN COSTA RICA.
HOWEVER, YOU CAN BE CERTAIN THE
COMMITTEE AND THE PROCESS WILL BE CLOSE TO MY MIND AND HEART.
I EXPECT THERE WILL BE MANY
PASSIONATE PRESENTERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTENTIOUS
DEBATE.
I CAN ASSURE THAT YOU NONE HAVE RESEARCHED AND PORED THROUGH THE
LITERATURE AND PRESS TO THE
EXTENT THAT Dr. BECK AND I HAVE.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I BELIEVE IN
FLUORIDE. IT IS JUST THAT WE ARE USING IT
ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
AND DANGEROUSLY. FLUORIDE AS ADMITTED BY MOST OF
THE WORLD INCLUDING THE OFTEN
QUOTED CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL WORKS ONLY TOPICALLY.
THE HUMOROUS ANALOGY OFTEN
REPEAT IS THAT WE DON'T SWALLOW OUR SUNSCREEN SO WE SHOULDN'T
SWALLOW FLUORIDE EITHER
PARTICULARLY WITH ALL THE INHERENT PROBLEMS AND ASSOCIATED
DANGERS.
YOU WILL LIKELY HEAR A LOT ABOUT PROPONENTS ABOUT THE SAFETY OF
FLUORIDATION.
I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW INGESTING ONE OF THE MOST TOXIC
SUBSTANCES ON THE PLANET WITHOUT
CONTROL OF DOSE AND WITHOUT MONITORING OR FOLLOWUP COULD
EVER BE CONSIDERED SAFE.
THIS DEFIES THE OATH I HAVE TAKEN AS A PHYSICIAN TO DO NO
HARM TO PATIENTS AND HUMANKIND.
WE HAVE A SMALL AMOUNT OF NATURAL CALCIUM FLUORIDE IN OUR
BOW AND ELBOW RIVER WATER
SUPPLIES, AND MANY OF US INCLUDING ME BRUSH WITH
PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE SODIUM
FLUORIDE.

HYDROFLUOROSILICATE HAS CREPT
OUT THE INDUSTRY SMOKESTACKS OF
THE FERTILIZER AND ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES.
THEN BECAUSE IT IS SO TOXIC AND
VOLATILE, IT IS RIGIDLY CONTROLLED AND NOT ALLOWED TO BE
DISPOSED OF IN YOUR STREAMS,
RIVERS, LAKES, OCEANS AIR OR LAND.
THE ONLY PLACE THAT INDUSTRY HAS
BEEN ALLOWED TO DISPOSE OF THIS VOLATILE WASTE ASIDE FROM TOXIC
WASTE DUMPS IS IN OUR OTHERWISE
PRISTINE DRINKING WATER. HIGHLY LEVEL MEDICAL OFFICIALS
IN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES HAVE
TOLD ME THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT DOSE OR MASS
MEDICATION AS FLUORIDE IS NOT A
MEDICATION. WELL, IT DOESN'T NATURALLY OCCUR
IN THE BODY, AND IT IS NOT
ESSENTIALLY TO BODILY FUNCTIONS.

AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
IN 1958 RULED THAT FLUORIDE IS
INDEED A MEDICATION. THEREFORE, ANY ETHICAL PHYSICIAN
IS BOUND TO OBTAIN INFORMED
CONSENT, CONTROL DOSE, MONITOR EFFECTS, BE VIGILANT FOR SIDE
EFFECTS AND FOLLOW UP REGULARLY.
NONE, I REPEAT, NONE OF THESE ARE DONE BY THE CITY OF CALGARY,
ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES OR
HEALTH CANADA. A SENIOR HEALTH OFFICIAL ALSO
WAS QUOTED ON CBC NATIONAL RADIO
RECENTLY IN SAYING THERE IS NO MEDICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR
M.D.s TO TELL PATIENTS NOT TO
TAKE FLUORIDE. THAT STATEMENT SIMPLY DEFIES
COMMON SENSE, RESPECT,
RESPONSIBILITY, GOOD MEDICINE AND THE PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLES.
WE SAY IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN, DON'T DO IT.
HARM IS MOST CERTAINLY BEING
DONE SLOWLY AND INSIDIOUSLY TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN.
BUT TAKE A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT
THOSE WHO CANNOT VOTE OR OFTEN DON'T HAVE A VOICE OF THEIR OWN,
INFANTS AND SMALL CHILDREN.
THE ELDERLY, KIDNEY PATIENTS, THE POOR.
THIS BRINGS UP ANOTHER ADAGE
INCESSANTLY REPEATED, FLUORIDATION IS GOOD FOR THE
POOR.
THAT IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH.

VERY GOOD STUDIES SHOW THAT IT
IS POVERTY, NOT FLUORIDATION,
THAT MAKE IT IS OR BREAKS IT FOR POOR KIDS.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN
PARALLEL STUDIES. IN GROUPS OF DISADVANTAGED KIDS
WHO ARE EITHER NOR DATED OR NOT.
— FLUORIDATED OR NOT. MANY GRAPHS VERIFY IT IS BETTER
DENTAL CARE, MORE BRUSHING AND
FLOSSING. FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE, BETTER
DIET WITH INCREASED LEVELS OF
CALCIUM AND OTHER ESSENTIAL NUTRITION THAT ARE CAUSING THE
DECLINE OF DENTAL DECAY IN OUR
WORLD. NONFLUORIDATEED REGIONS IN
COUNTRIES HAVE THE SAME DECLINE
IN CAVITIES AS A NATURE OF FLUORIDATED AREAS SUCH AS
ALBERTA AND THE U.S.A.
SOME QUICK POINTS TO FINISH. BRITISH COLUMBIA AND EUROPE ARE
95% AND 98% UNFLUORIDATED.
THEY'RE TEETH ARE AS GOOD AS OURS IN 75% FLUORIDATED ALBERTA.
A NOBEL LAUREATE RECENTLY CALLED
FLUORIDATION THE BIGGEST FRAUD EVER PROPAGATED AGAINST SOCIETY.
7,000 SCIENTISTS FROM THE EPA
HAVE PETITIONED THE U.S.

CONGRESS TO PUT A MORATORIUM ON
FLUORIDATION.
3,300 PROFESSIONALS WORLDWIDE HAVE SIGNED ONTO A CAMPAIGN TO
HOLD FLUORIDATION —
>> I HATE TO BREAK IN ON YOU BUT YOUR FIVE MINUTES IS UP.
DO YOU HAVE A CONCLUDING
COMMENT? >> AS A STATEMENT, PLEASE HAVE
THE POLITICAL COURAGE TO REMOVE
THIS VOLATILE TOXIN FROM OUR DRINKING WATER.
THANK YOU.
ON BEHALF OF Dr. BOB DICKSON. >> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
CAN WE GET COPIES OF YOUR
PRESENTATION? >> I HAVE MY PRESENTATION, YES.
>> COULD YOU MAYBE GET — GIVE
IT TO THE CLERK SO WE COULD COPY IT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEE NOTHING QUESTIONS.
SEEING NO QUESTIONS.
THE NEXT PRESENTER IS SUZANNA NEDER?
>> ME AGAIN.
>> GLAD I DIDN'T HAVE TO LOOK VERY FAR.
>> I'M NOT A MEDICAL EXPERT, NOT
A SCIENTIST, NOT A CHEMIST.

BUT AN ENTREPRENEUR AND A
CONCERNED CITIZEN.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT BEFORE YOU.
I'M A NEW CALGARIAN AND MOVED
FROM SWITZERLAND ALMOST ONE AND A HALF YEARS AGO.
WHEN I LEARNED THAT CALGARY
STILL FLUORIDATED THE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER, I WAS MORE THAN
SURPRISED THAT SUCH AN OUTDATED
AND POLITICALLY — POTENTIALLY HARMFUL PRACTICE IS STILL IN
USE.
SWITZERLAND IS A COUNTRY WITH ONE OF THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF
LIVING, WITH ONE OF THE BEST
EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, AND VERY IMPORTANT
SWITZERLAND'S WATER IS NOT
FLUORIDATED. THE ONLY CITY IN SWITZERLAND
FLUORIDATED ITS WATER IN THE
PAST FROM 1962 TO 2003. SWITZERLAND USES SALT
FLUORIDATION AND USES IT UP TO
THE INDIVIDUAL TO USE SALT WITH OR WITHOUT FLUORIDE.
ALSO OFFERS TOOTHPASTE WITH OR
WITHOUT FLUORIDE. IN SWITZERLAND, FLUORIDE IS
REGARDED AS INVENTION INTO
PERSONAL FREEDOM.

I BELIEVE IT'S A PERSONAL
ATTRIBUTE THAT IS ALSO VERY DEAR
TO CANADIANS AND TO NORTH AMERICANS IN GENERAL.
A BOARD MEMBER OF A HEALTH AND
SOCIAL COMMISSION SAID IT IS OF MOST IMPORTANCE THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL HAS THE FREEDOM TO
CHOOSE THE APPROPRIATE PROPHYLAXIS.
THE MAIN REASON WATER
FLUORIDATION STOPPED IN 2003 WHICH WAS THE ONLY CITY IN
SWITZERLAND ARE REPORTED AS LACK
OF EVIDENCE THAT WATER FLUORIDATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE
THAN SALT FLUORIDATION IN
REDUCING TOOTH DECAY. THE SECOND POINT, THE
INEFFICIENCY OF WATER
FLUORIDATION, AND SWISS LIKE TO BE VERY EFFICIENT.
THE HEALTH COMMISSION PRESIDENT
STATED ONLY A MINIMAL PART OF SO-CALLED DRINKING WATER IS USED
FOR DRINKING AND COOKING.
MORE THAN 99% OF THE WATER IS NOT DRINKING WATER BUT IS USED
FOR WASHING CARS, CLEANING
STAIRS, SHOWERING TO POUR ON FLOWERS AND SO ON.
FLUORIDE IS POISON THAT UNLOADS
NECESSARY OUR RIVERS AND ENVIRONMENT SUPPORTED BY A
DOCTOR, THE FLUORIDATION OF
WATER HAD A MINIMAL EFFICIENCY AS MOST OF THE FLUORIDE WAS
BOILED.
THE HEALTH COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO STOP WATER
FLUORIDATION AND TO OFFER THE
INDIVIDUALS FLUORIDATION SALT.

AT THE CITY PARLIAMENT
ACKNOWLEDGED EFFECTS AND STOPPED
THE CITY WATER FLUORIDATION IN 2003.
AT A EUROPEAN MEET ON
FLUORIDATION, CONCERNED ABOUT THE MEDICAL ETHICS WERE VOICED
QUITE STRONGLY BY THE RECENT
NOBEL PRIZE RECIPIENT FOR MEDICINE, A DOCTOR FROM SWEDEN.
CARLSON WHO LOCKED THE
SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN TO STOP FLUORIDATION IN SWEDEN, THE
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES ARE NOT
THE APPROPRIATE VEHICLE WITH WHICH TO DELIVER
PHARMACALOGICALLY DRUGS TO THE
POPULATION. FLUORIDATION WILL BE CONSIGNED
TO MEDICAL HISTORY.
THE ADDITION TO DRUGS TO THE DRINKING WATER MEANS EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE OF INDIVIDUALIZED
THERAPY.

NOT ONLY IS THAT THE DOSE CANNOT
BE ADAPTED TO INDIVIDUAL
REQUIREMENTS, IT IS IN ADDITION BASED ON COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT
FACTOR, NAMELY CONSUMPTION OF
DRINKING WATER WHICH VARIES GREATLY BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND
IS MOREOVER VERY POORLY
SURVEYED. CARLSSON'S VIEWS ARE SIMILAR TO
THOSE EXPRESSED BY RECENT EUROPE
HEALTH AUTHORITIES, FOR EXAMPLE AN AUTHORITY IN BELGIUM.
IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL POSITION
OF THE DRINKING WATER SECTOR THAT IT IS NOT ITS TASK TO
DELIVER MEDICINAL TREATMENT TO
PEOPLE. THIS IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY
OF HEALTH SERVICES.
ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF WATER AUTHORITY IN LUXEMBOURG, IN OUR
VIEW THE DRINKING WATER ISN'T A
SUITABLE WAY FOR MEDICAL TREATMENTS, AND THAT PEOPLE
NEEDING AN ADDITION OF FLUORIDE
CAN BE DECIDED BY THEIR OWN TO USE THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY.
AND GERMANY'S GOVERNMENT WAS
SAYING THE AUGMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH
AGAINST THE GENERAL PERMISSION
OF FLUORIDATION OF DRINKING WATER IS THE PROBLEMATIC NATURE
OF COMPELSRY MEDICATION.
AND IN FRANS, FLUORIDE CHEMICALS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF
CHEMICALS FOR DRINKING WATER
TREATMENT.

THIS IS DUE TO ETHICAL AS WELL
AS MEDICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH FLUORIDE-FREE DRINKING WATER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR
LAST NAME.
>> NEDERIL. >> SO YOU'RE NOT A HEALTH
PROFESSIONAL.
>> NO. >> YOU HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE IN
THE DISCUSSION THAT HAS BEEN
OCCURRING IN EUROPE. AND WHEN DID THIS CHANGE —
BECAUSE MUCH OF EUROPE DID
FLUORIDATE, OR — >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> THEY DID.
SO WHEN DID THIS CHANGE OF PROCESS HAPPEN?
WHEN DID — AND WHAT
PRECIPITATED IT? I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
>> SO I CANNOT TALK FOR ALL THE
COUNTRIES, FOR SWITZERLAND IT WAS ONLY BASIL WHICH FLUORIDATED
WATER AND ALL THE OTHER
COUNTRIES, THEY STARTED FLUORIDATING IN THE '50s, BUT
THEN MANY STOPPED AFTER 20, 30
YEARS BECAUSE IT WAS JUST NOT PROVEN — THE BENEFITS WERE NOT
STRONG ENOUGH THAT IT REALLY
PREVENTS THE HEALTH OF THE DENTAL HEALTH, BECAUSE IT CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED AND IT'S ALSO
MINIMIZES THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF THE PERSON TO CHOOSE OR NOT
TO CHOOSE.
>> SO THIS IS MOSTLY WESTERN EUROPE WHERE THIS IS OCCURRING?
THIS CHANGE OF PROCESS?
OR IS IT — >> A LOT OF COUNTRIES IN EASTERN
EUROPE WHICH DON'T FLUORIDATE AS
WELL.

EVEN SOME NORTH AFRICAN
COUNTRIES.
SO IT IS CERTAINLY A STRONG TREND.
>> AND SO ARE THOSE COUNTRIES
MONITORING THE EFFECTS? >> VERY STRONGLY.
I MEAN, BASIL DID EXPENSIVE
RESEARCH, IN SWITZERLAND LIKE ZURICH NEVER FLUORIDATED ITS
WATER, SO THEY DIDN'T SEE ANY
BETTER DENTAL HEALTH IN THE PEOPLE, CHILDREN AND OLDER
PEOPLE THAN IN BASIL.
SO THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT
FLUORIDATION IS NECESSARY OF THE
WATER. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION
TODAY. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS — SORRY.
SORRY. THERE IS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
THAT WAS A LATE LIGHT.
>> I THINK IT'S JUST ON THE OUTSIDE, YOU HAVE TROUBLE SEEING
IT.
>> I DON'T GO BY WHAT'S THERE, I GO BY WHAT'S HERE.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU SAID THAT BASIL STOPPED
FLUORIDATING THE WATER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO — I CAN'T REMEMBER
EXACTLY HOW YOU SAID IT, BUT
NO — FLUORIDE WAS SHOWN NOT TO BE EFFECTIVE —
>> THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT
WATER FLUORIDATION WAS EFFECTIVE.
>> YOU ALSO SAID THAT AFTER THEY
TOOK IT OUT, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE DENTAL DECAY RATE.
>> CORRECT.
>> BUT THEY DID ADD IT TO THE SALT.
>> YEAH.
CITIES OF SWITZERLAND, SWITZERLAND ADDS IT TO THE SALT
BUT THERE IS FLUORIDATED SALT
AND SALT THAT IS NOT FLUORIDATED.
SO I AS AN INDIVIDUAL CAN
CHOOSE.

>> I SEE.
BUT THAT MAY EXPLAIN WHY THERE
WAS NO CHANGE IN THE DENTAL DECAY RATE.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> MY PLEASURE.
>> THANKS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DANIELLA
ANDRE.
>> HELLO, EVERYONE. I SALUTE THE ENTIRE AUDIENCE.
>> COULD YOU MOVE CLOSER TO THE
MIC? >> I SALUTE THE ENTIRE AUDIENCE.
Mr. CHAIR, ALDERMEN, COMMITTEE
AND FELLOW CITIZENS, I THANK EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE FOR
TAKING THE PASSION, THE CARE,
THE EFFORT AND THE TIME TO PUT SOMETHING FORWARD THAT INTERESTS
ALL OF US PRESENT AND NOT
PRESENT. I'M A CALGARY CITIZEN.
I'M NOT A WATER, MEDICAL OR
LEGAL EXPERT AND I'M NOT CLAIMING THAT.
I JUST EXPRESS MY OPINION BACKED
BY RESEARCH AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RESEARCH.
I LET YOU REVIEW, ANALYZE AND
DRAW CONCLUSIONS. I'M PETITIONING THE CALGARY
MUNICIPALITY TODAY TO STOP WATER
FLUORIDATION BECAUSE, ONE, NUMEROUS STUDIES SHOW THAT NOT
ONLY IS FLUORIDATION INEFFECTIVE
AGAINST CAVITIES, BUT IT POSES SERIOUS HEALTH RISKS SUCH AS
ALTERING OF THE ENDOCRINE
FUNCTION, CAUSING DENTAL FLUOROSIS IN YOUNG CHILDREN,
LOWERING IQ, INCREASING RISK OF
BONE FRACTURES AND OVEREXPOSURE OF FLUORIDE IN COMBINATION WITH
TOOTHPASTE, MOUTH RINSE PRODUCTS
AND FOODS.

ARTICLES WITH SOURCES ON AUTHORS
PUBLICATIONS AND STUDIES ARE
ATTACHED AND I WILL PROVIDE THEM TO YOU.
A COUPLE OF STUDIES TO CONTINUE
WHAT THE OTHER FELLOW CITIZENS HAVE BROUGHT HERE, SO, ONE, THE
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION HAS
COMPILED A STUDY THAT SHOWS NO DIFFERENCE IN TOOTH DECAY IN
COUNTRIES THAT USE FLUORIDATED
WATER VERSUS COUNTRIES THAT USE NONFLNONFLUORIDATED WATER.
TWO, THE LARGEST DENTAL SURVEY
EVER CONDUCTED IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND VIRTUALLY NO
DIFFERENCE IN DENTAL DECAY
BETWEEN CHILDREN LIVING IN FLUORIDATED VERSUS UNFLUORIDATED
AREAS.
THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL
RESEARCH.
THREE.

THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION
AND THE AMERICAN CENTRE FOR
DISEASE CONTROL RECOMMENDS THAT INFANTS SHOULD NOT RECEIVE
FLUORIDATED WATER FOR DRINKING
OR MAKING BABY FORMULA AS FLUORIDATED WATER CONTAINS 250
TIMES MORE FLUORIDE THAN THE
MOTHER'S MILK. FOUR.
PROFESSIONALS ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT WE ALREADY TAKE THE OPTIMAL 1 MILLIGRAM OF FLUORIDE FROM
PESTICIDE RESIDUALS, FLUORIDATED
FOODS AND BEVERAGES AND FLUORIDE AIR POLLUTION.
FIVE.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE ARE TAKING FLUORIDE
IN OUR BODIES NOT ONLY THROUGH
DRINKING THE WATER, BUT ALSO WHEN WE SHOWER AND TAKE BATHS.
FROM WHAT I READ, IT SEEMS LIKE
OUR BODY CAN TAKE UP TO 1.5 LITRE OF WATER WHEN TAKING A
BATH OR A SHOWER.
AND THE THIRD AND VERY IMPORTANT, THE FLUORIDE IS
EVAPORATING EASIER THAN THE
WATER.

SO WHEN WE SHOWER OR TAKE A
BATH, WE ARE INGESTING
CONCENTRATED — A CONCENTRATED PORTION OF FLUORIDE WHICH IS NOT
GOOD.
SO THAT COMES TO THE FACT THAT BASICALLY WE ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT
CONTROLLING HOW MUCH FLUORIDE WE
ARE PUTTING IN OUR BODIES THROUGH DIFFERENT WAYS.
SKIN, INHALING AND ALSO
DRINKING — THROUGH THE DRINKING WATER.
AND, SEVEN, WITH YOU ASKED ABOUT
THE QUANTITY OF FLUORIDE WHICH IS SAFE.
NOBODY KNOWS THAT.
BUT WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT 500-MILLIGRAMS OF FLUORIDE IS
ENOUGH TO KILL A CHILD.
MY SECOND POINT IS THAT IT MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE TO SPEND 3,
4 MILLION OR 6 MILLION OR MORE
WHEN WATER FLUORIDATION IS INCREASINGLY REJECTED BY
COMMUNITIES WORLDWIDE.
98% OF WESTERN EUROPE REJECTED WATER FLUORIDATION AND SO HAVE
MANY COMMUNITIES IN THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA. IN CANADA, ONLY ALBERTA AND
PARTS OF ONTARIO ARE STILL
FLUORIDATING WATER. THREE.
WATER FLUORIDATION SEEMS ILLEGAL
TO ME. WATER FLUORIDATION IS BASED ON
THE CLAIM OF PREVENTING
CAVITIES, WHICH HAVE A MEDICAL CLAIM AND AS SUCH MAKING THESE
CLAIMS INSTANTLY AND
AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFORMS FLUORIDE INTO A DRUG.
>> EXCUSE ME, MA'AM, YOUR TIME
IS UP.

CAN YOU DO A CONCLUDING COMMENT?
>> YES.
THE FIVE MINUTES? >> YOU CAN ONLY GET ANOTHER FIVE
MINUTES IF MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE
GIVE IT TO YOU. NOBODY'S PUT THEIR LIGHT ON TO
GIVE YOU EXTRA TIME SO I NEED A
CONCLUDING COMMENT THAT'S LESS THAN A MINUTE.
IF YOU WISH, YOU CAN LEAVE A
COPY OF YOUR PRESENTATION TOO. >> YES.
SO BESIDES WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED
SO FAR, FLUORIDATING THE WATER IS VIOLATING CANADIAN LAWS,
MEDICAL LAWS AND HUMAN RIGHTS.
SO MY KINDLY REQUEST IS THAT YOU DO PULL OUT RESEARCH
ONE ENGINEER WHO HAS COME WITH A
3, 4 MILLION COST SO WE NEED TO HAVE A FIRM NUMBER TO TAKE A
DECISION.
AND, THIRD, I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO BE ON THE PANEL THAT FURTHER
DISCUSSES THE ISSUE ON FLUORIDE
AND I THINK I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK TO HAVE A POINT FOR
THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
THE NEXT PRESENTER IS — NOT
SURE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS, GRACE WRIGHT OR MELINDA MUSEME?
ARE YOU A SINGLE OR A DOUBLE?
WHICH ONE ARE YOU? WAS THIS AN EITHER OR?
>> IT WAS GOING TO BE BOTH OF
US, NOW IT'S ONE. HELLO, MY NAME IS GRACE WRIGHT.
I WORK FOR THE ABORIGINAL HEALTH
PROGRAM WITH ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES.
WHICH IS A PROVINCEWIDE PROGRAM
COMMITTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF HEALTH
SERVICES TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH
AND WELLNESS CAPACITY AND ACCESS OF SERVICES FOR ABORIGINAL
PEOPLE RESIDING IN ALBERTA.
IN 2001, THERE WERE ALMOST 20.000 SELF-IDENTIFIED
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN
THE CITY OF CALGARY.

THE GROWTH RATE OF THE
ABORIGINAL POPULATION IN CALGARY
IS THE FASTEST IN CANADA. IF CURRENT GROWTH RATES
CONTINUE, THE ABORIGINAL
POPULATION WILL NEARLY TRIPLE TO 65.000 IN 2017.
CONSISTENT FINDINGS ACROSS MANY
STUDIES HAVE INDICATED THAT ABORIGINAL PEOPLE EXPERIENCED
SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER MORTALITY
AND MORBIDITY RATES AND POORER SELF-RATED HEALTH COMPARED TO
OTHER ALBERTANS.
THE CONSISTENT POOR HEALTH IS A CONCERN ACROSS CANADA.
ABORIGINAL POPULATIONS HAVE
THREE TO FIVE TIMES THE DENTAL DECAY RATES OF OTHER CANADIANS,
AND MANY OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRE
HOSPITAL CARE FOR DENTAL ABSCESSES.
THE AVERAGE ABORIGINAL CHILD IN
ALBERTA HAS MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY DECAYS, MISSING OR FILLED
TEETH AND IS TWICE AS LIKELY TO
HAVE UNTREATED DECAY COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE NONABORIGINAL CHILD.
FIRST NATIONS AND INUIT
INDIVIDUALS RECOGNIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HAVE
TREATY RIGHTS ARE ELIGIBLE ONLY
FOR LIMITED ORAL AND DENTAL INSURANCE SERVICES.
THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF
NONREGISTERED FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE AND METIS PEOPLE RESIDING
IN CALGARY WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE
FOR ANY BENEFITS FROM THIS PROGRAM.
A MAJOR CONCERN, THEN, IS ACCESS
TO ORAL AND DENTAL SERVICES WHICH IS SEVERELY IMPACTED BY
LACK OF INSURANCE AS A RESULT OF
INCOME INEQUITY.

THE MAJORITY OF URBAN ABORIGINAL
PEOPLE IN CALGARY STRUGGLE WITH
POVERTY. IN 2006, THE MEDIAN INCOME FOR
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE WAS $18.962.
30% LOWER THAN THE 27.000 MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE REST OF
CANADIANS.
THE INCOME GAP IS $7,083 HIGHER IN URBAN SETTINGS.
THIS MEANS URBAN ABORIGINAL
PEOPLE HAVE A 50% LESS MEDIAN INCOME THAN OTHER CANADIANS IN
URBAN SETTINGS.
ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE POPULATION IN CANADA USUALLY
THOSE WITH LOW INCOMES GO TO
DENTISTS FOR LITTLE MORE THAN EMERGENCY CARE.
THIS IS MIRRORED BY THE
ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY, ALBEIT A MUCH HIGHER RATE AND ALTHOUGH
NOT DUE SOLELY TO LOW INCOME,
THIS BEHAVIOUR DOES RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESS TO DENTAL
SERVICES GENERALLY.
WE KNOW THAT WATER FLUORIDATION IS BENEFICIAL TO ALL.
AS A MEASURE THAT IS EQUALLY
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL, FLUORIDATION REACHES THOSE IN GREATEST NEED
AND AT HIGHEST RISK BECAUSE
EVERYONE HAS EASY ACCESS TO IT, WATER FLUORIDATION IS AN
EFFECTIVE AND SOCIALLY EQUITABLE
STRATEGY FOR REDUCING TOOTH DECAY ACROSS OUR COMMUNITIES.
THERE ARE SEVERAL CAUSES FOR THE
POOR ORAL HEALTH OF URBAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE.
TODAY, HOWEVER, WE HIGHLIGHTED
THE OBVIOUS FOR URBAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE.
INCOME INEQUITY, POVERTY AND
LACK OF ACCESS TO SERVICES.

WATER FLUORIDATION IN THE FACE
OF LACK OF ACCESS TO ORAL AND
DENTAL SERVICES BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLE CANNOT BE UNDERESTIMATED
AS AN EFFECTIVE PREVENTIVE
STRATEGY AGAINST THE PERSISTENT POOR ORAL HEALTH OF URBAN
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE RESIDING IN
CALGARY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ALDERMAN FARRELL?
>> THANK YOU.
EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY.
I PUT MY LIGHT ON LATE.
I CAN'T RESIST. YES, THERE IS NO QUESTION URBAN
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE ARE IN A
DESPERATE STATE FOR A WHOLE SERIES OF REASONS.
YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT
FLUORIDE WILL SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS.
>> NO, NOT SOLVE THEM.
BUT IT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE DENTAL HEALTH OF THE URBAN
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE.
>> AND IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT?
AS WE'RE SEEING, POVERTY — A
LOT OF THE DENTAL DECAY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH POVERTY,
WHETHER IT'S NUTRITION, HYGIENE,
A WHOLE MYRIAD OF ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH POVERTY.
BUT THE CITIES IN THE STATES WHO
HAVE BEEN FLUORIDATING FOR MUCH, MUCH LONGER THAN WE HAVE, WHO
ARE STILL DEALING WITH A DENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS, FLUORIDE ISN'T A PANACEA.
AND I FIND IT OFFENSIVE TO THINK
THAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT THINK IT IS.
SO AS LONG AS WE CAN AGREE THAT
THERE'S MUCH MORE WORK TO BE DONE IN THE ISSUE OF POVERTY
THAN SIMPLY FLUORIDATING THE
WATER.

WE DON'T JUST PUT FLUORIDE IN
THE WATER AND THEN, WE'RE DONE.
>> NO, THAT WAS NOT MY SUGGESTION.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN KEATING, YOU HAVE A
QUESTION?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THE STATISTICS, IS THAT
TODAY'S — OR IN REAL TIME SORT
OF WHETHER I MEAN TODAY OR IN THE LAST WHILE?
>> WHICH STATISTICS —
>> THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT — >> THE INCOME?
>> THE ORAL HEALTH OF URBAN
ABORIGINALS AND HOW IT IS I THINK YOU SAID THREE TIMES —
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S FROM 2006.
>> SO THAT HAPPENED DURING FLORIDDIZATION OF WATER.
>> WOULD THERE NOT BE A BETTER
PROGRAM TO HELP THEM RATHER THAN JUST CONTINUING THE COURSE?
>> THERE PROBABLY ARE MANY
PROGRAMS THAT COULD HELP WITH DENTAL IF THEY HAD ACCESS TO A
DENTIST REGULARLY, THAT WOULD BE
BENEFICIAL.

BUT FLUORIDATION IN THE WATER IS
SIMPLY ONE POSITIVE STEP.
>> BUT I GUESS GOING BACK TO THE SECOND PART OF THE MOTION IS IF
WE MAKE THE DECISION TO REMOVE
IT, AND TAKE THOSE FUNDS AND PUT THEM INTO A PROGRAM THAT IS
GOING TO HELP THOSE IN MOST
NEED, WOULD THAT NOT BE BETTER THAN JUST LEAVING IT AS IT IS?
>> IS THERE A PROGRAM NOW THAT
THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING? OR IS THIS JUST…
>> WELL, THE SECOND PART OF THE
MOTION SAYS LOOK INTO THE FACT OF TAKING THE MONEYS THAT IS NOW
SPENT AND PUTTING IT INTO A
PROGRAM TO HELP THOSE IN MOST NEED.
>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER IS JUDY JOHNSON.
JUDY JOHNSON.

OKAY.
AFTER THAT IT'S KEVIN TAYLOR.
KEVIN TAYLOR. CHRIS HARPER.
>> GOOD MORNING — OR AFTERNOON,
ACTUALLY. IT WAS MORNING WHEN I GOT HERE.
MY NAME IS CHRIS HARPER AND I'M
JUST STANDING BEFORE YOU AS A CITIZEN, NOT REPRESENTING ANY OF
THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT I WORK
WITH IN THE COMMUNITY. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THAT
I LOVE FLUORIDE.
I HAVE BEEN — WHEN I GREW UP IN ONTARIO IN THUNDER BAY, WE HAD A
FLUORIDATION PROGRAM AT OUR
SCHOOL WHERE EVERY FEW WEEKS WE WOULD GO LINE UP IN THE HALLWAY
AND WE WOULD SWISH IT IN OUR
MOUTHS AND SPIT IT OUT, AND I DO HAVE FLUOROSIS OF MY TEETH OR
WHAT APPEAR TO BE SOME OF THE
SYMPTOMS OF IT, SO DOES MY SISTER, SO DOES MY BROTHER.
MY PARENTS DO NOT.
MANY OF MY COHORTS IN THUNDER BAY DO HAVE THE WHITE MARKS ON
OUR TEETH AND SOMETIMES THE
PERCEPTION IS I HAVE POOR DENTAL HEALTH BECAUSE OF THAT.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
I DO FLOSS AND BRUSH REGULARLY, ALWAYS HAVE.
MY PARENTS INSTILLED THOSE
VALUES IN US. YET I DO HAVE A PARTIAL GOLD
TOOTH WHICH ACCORDING TO THE
STOCK MARKET WILL BE VERY VALUABLE BY THE TIME I RETIRE.
BUT I LOVE FLUORIDE.
BUT I LOVE FLUORIDE IN THE CORRECT DOSE.
WHEN I GO TO THE DENTIST, MY
DENTIST IS VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT USING THE LITTLE TRAYS AND YOU
CAN PICK THE FLAVOUR, NASTY,
NASTIER AND THEN THERE'S MINT WHICH IS THE ONLY ONE THAT SEEMS
SENSIBLE TO PUT IN MY MOUTH.
AND SO MY DENTIST USES THE PROPER DOSE.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN TOLD BY MY
DENTIST OR MEDICAL PRACTITIONER DRINK LOTS OF TAP WATER, DON'T
DRINK BOTTLED WATER BECAUSE TAP
WATER HAS FLUORIDE.

NO DENTIST OR DOCTOR HAS EVER
TOLD ME THAT IN MY LIFE.
IF THERE ARE SO MANY BENEFITS, I'M CURIOUS WERE PROFESSIONALS
ARE NOT ENCOURAGING PATIENTS TO
DRINK TAP WATER DIRECTLY. MUNICIPAL WATER IS MADE TO SEEM
SORT OF DIRTY AND IMPROPER.
AND SO I'M ALL ABOUT THE PROPER DOSAGE AND I'M ALSO — I WAS
ALSO GIVEN BY GOD WHEN I WAS
BORN A MIND AND A BODY. AND MY BODY TELLS ME WHEN IT'S
NOT FEELING WELL BUT MY MIND CAN
INTERPRET THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND ME.
THERE HAVE BEEN THE ASSERTION
THAT THESE ARE FACTS, IT IS A FACT THAT FLUORIDATED WATER IS
IN FACT BENEFICIAL FOR HUMAN
HEALTH. THAT MAY VERY WELL BE TRUE.
BUT AS Dr. NICK POINTED OUT,
IT MAY ALSO BE EQUALLY AS LIKELY THAT IT IS NOT.
AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO MY MIND,
MY MIND TELLS ME THAT THERE'S CONFLICTING INFORMATION.
AND WHEN I HAVE CONFLICTING
INFORMATION I'M CURIOUS FOR MORE FACTS AND WELCOMING THE CAUTION.
BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY WANT TO
BE PUTTING THINGS IN MY BODY THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
MANY OF US DO THAT ANYWAY.
HOWEVER WHETHER IT COMES TO WATER, WATER IS A BASIC
FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT FOR LIFE.
I NEED WATER TO LIVE, WE ALL NEED WATER TO LIVE.
BE IT WATER FROM COFFEE, POP,
TAPS, LITTLE GREEN BOTTLES IN THE SHOPPING STORES AND AT
RESTAURANTS.
BUT WATER IS NECESSARY TO LIVE.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONFLICTING
INFORMATION THAT I'M OBSERVING
AND TODAY PROVED THAT EVEN FURTHER FOR MYSELF.
POVERTY AND ACCESS TO DENTAL
CARE, I THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES TO POVERTY THE ISSUE IS LESS
ABOUT FLUORIDE IN WATER AND MORE
ABOUT THE FACT THAT I THINK EVEN FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN
POVERTY IN ALBERTA, WE DO HAVE A
VERY, VERY HIGH COST TO PROPER AND DILIGENT DENTAL CARE IN THIS
PROVINCE.
AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE DEREGULATION OF THE FEE
GUIDE BUT I THINK ACCESS HAS
CREATED THE NECESSITY TO MASS MEDICATE PERHAPS THE POPULATION
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD.
I THINK IF WE WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO PROPER DENTAL
CARE, THEY SHOULD GET THAT FROM
A DENTIST AND NOT FROM THEIR TAP.
ESPECIALLY HAD THERE'S
CONFLICTING INFORMATION REGARDING THE MERITS AND SAFETY
AND THE BENEFITS OF WHAT COMES
OUT OF OUR TAP WATER.

I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S A LITTLE
BIT CONTRADICTORY THAT WE EXTOL
THE VALUES OF FLUORIDE IN WATER WHILE AT THE SAME TIME KIDS AT
SCHOOL FOLLOW THEIR GLASS OF
WATER OR BOTTLE EVER WATER WITH A CHASER OF COKE OR PEPSI.
I THINK THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT
CONTRADICTORY. IF WE REALLY HAVE A VESTED
INTEREST IN THE HEALTH OF OUR
KIDS, WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS FROM THE BIG PICTURE AND NOT SIMPLY
FROM THE ISSUE OF FLUORIDE IN
WATER. THERE'S MANY OTHER WAYS TO
PREVENT CAVITIES SUCH AS
BRUSHING AND FLOSSING, NOT EATING TOO MANY SUGARS AND WHAT
NOT WHICH AS WE DISCUSSED TODAY
ALREADY ARE VERY PREVALENT IN OUR FOOD IN NORTH AMERICA.
AND IF FLUORIDE WAS THE SOLUTION
TO THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I'M NOT CONVINCED IT IS.
THE CONFLICTING INFORMATION
TELLS ME THAT PERHAPS THERE IS FURTHER INVESTIGATION THAT NEEDS
TO BE DONE.
I WOULD ALSO QUESTION THE ROLE OF THE CITY IN FLUORIDATION.
I DO FEEL SORRY THAT COMMITTEE
AS WELL AS COUNCIL HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TASK OF HAVING TO
DECIDE THIS.
IN MY OPINION, I HAVE AS I STATED A MIND AND I HAVE A BODY.
MY MIND IS VERY CAPABLE OF
APPLYING COMMON SENSE TO THE INFORMATION THAT I SEE IN THE
WORLD.
AND MANY OF US HAVE THAT CAPABILITY.
AND ARE PRIVILEGED TO HAVE THAT.
HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THE ROLE OF HEALTH SERVICES IN THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE TO
FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING SO THAT I CAN MAKE MY OWN CHOICES FOR MY
BODY IN AN INFORMED MANNER AS
OPPOSED TO SIMPLY STATING THAT REPORTS FROM EUROPE AND THE
STATES ARE GOOD, THEREFORE IN
CANADA WE SHOULD PUT FLUORIDE IN OUR WATER.
GIVE ME FACTS AND ALLOW ME TO
MAKE THE DECISION.

THAT'S WHAT I EXPECT FROM MY
DOCTOR.
I DON'T EXPECT MY GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME I NEED TO CONSUME
FLUORIDE.
I EXPECT MY DOCTOR TO TELL ME I NEED TO CONSUME FLUORIDE.
I SEE MY TIME IS UP ALDERMAN
JONES. >> IF YOU CAN DO A CONCLUDING
STATEMENT.
>> MY CONCLUDING STATEMENT IS THAT I'M CAPABLE OF MAKING
CHOICES WITH THE RIGHT
INFORMATION. MY PERSPECTIVE IS THAT
GOVERNMENT AND MEDICAL
PRACTITIONERS, THEIR ROLE IS TO PROVIDE ME WITH THAT INFORMATION
SO I CAN MAKE AN INFORMED
CHOICE.

AND FRANKLY IF PEOPLE WANT
FLUORIDATED WATER, LET'S PUT
THAT IN BOTTLES BECAUSE I THINK THAT WATER SHOULD BE CLEAN WATER
AND AS CLOSE TO THE SOURCE AS
POSSIBLE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL CALGARIANS AND ALBERTANS AND
WE CAN PUT THE OTHER STUFF INTO
BOTTLES RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND WHICH IS WHAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, Mr. HARPER. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE, WE ARE RECESSED TO 3:45.
>> CALL THE MEETING BACK TO
ORDER. AND MY NEXT SPEAKER IS BRYCE
ADAMSON.
BRYCE ADAMSON. HE'S RIGHT THERE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILLORS
OF THE CITY OF CALGARY.

I'M HERE AS THE PAST PRESIDENT
OF THE CALGARY AND DISTRICT
DENTAL SOCIETY. AT OUR JANUARY MEETING, 140
DENTISTS VOTED IN FAVOUR OF A
MOTION TO WRITE A LETTER TO COUNCIL WHICH I HAVE HERE AND
SPEAK TO YOU IN PERSON WITH THE
OPINION THAT FLUORIDATION SHOULD REMAIN.
FLUORIDATION BUYS TIME.
TIME TO EDUCATE, PROVIDE DENTAL TREATMENT AND REDUCE THE PAIN
AND SUFFERING CAUSED BY EARLY
CHILDHOOD DECAY. I WILL SHOW YOU THE HUMAN COST
OF THIS ENTIRELY PREVENTIBLE
DISEASE AND THE ROLE FLUORIDATION PLAYS IN IT.
IN HIGH SCHOOL, I LEARNED TWO
THINGS: ONE, I WAS GOOD AT SCIENCE, AND, TWO, I WAS BAD AT
CARDS.
THE PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS HAS FLUORIDE ON THE TOP RIGHT
CORNER.
AND THAT IS THE MOST REACTIVE ELEMENT.
FLUORIDE IS THE ANTIION OF
FLUORENE.

I'M NOT PARTICULARLY GOOD AT
CARDS SO WHEN I'M PLAYING I LIKE
GAMES WHERE THERE'S A JOKER OR WILD CARD.
IF THE PERIODIC TABLE OF
ELEMENTS WERE A DECK OF CARDS, FLUORIDE WOULD BE THE JOKER.
WHAT DEFINES A TRUE DENTAL
EMERGENCY? FOR ME A TRUE DENTAL EMERGENCY
IS A PHONE CALL FROM A PARENT
WITH A CHILD WHO IS UP AT NIGHT, A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 5 WHO
IS UNABLE TO SLEEP BECAUSE OF
THE SEVERE PAIN CAUSE BID ONE OR MORE SEVERELY DECAYED AND NOW
INFECTED TEETH.
THAT ALONE IS TRAGIC. BUT SOMETIMES THE TRAGEDY
DOESN'T END THERE.
CONSIDER ONE OR TWO INCREASINGLY TIRED AND FRUSTRATED PARENTS.
NORMALLY THESE PEOPLE ARE CALM,
RATIONAL HARD-WORKING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.
BUT THEY'RE GROWING IMPATIENT.
THEY'RE GROWING IMPATIENT BECAUSE OF THE SLEEPINESS AND
THE SLEEPINESS IS MAKING THEM
IRRATIONAL.

IRRATIONAL ENOUGH THAT A HUSBAND
WOULD STRIKE HIS WIFE.
WHAT FOR? FOR ALLOWING THEIR CHILD TO
CONTINUE TO SCREAM ROBBING HEM
OF HIS SLEEP MAKING HIM FEAR OF LOSING HIS JOB.
IRRATION ENOUGH FOR THE WIFE OF
THAT HUSBAND TO START PUTTING ALCOHOL IN THE CHILD'S FORMULA
OR JUICE IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM
TO SLEEP AND TO AVOID YET ANOTHER BEATING.
OR WORSE YET, EITHER PARENT WHO
WOULD PICK UP AN INCONSOLABLE CHILD AND SHAKE THEM UNTIL THEY
ARE UNRESPONSIVE IN A FIT OF
FRUSTRATION AND RAGE.

THIS IS NOT HYPERBOLE.
THIS IS A SCENARIO THAT DOES AND
CAN OCCUR. AND IT CAN BE PREVENTED BY THREE
THINGS: EDUCATION, CARE AND
TIMELY ACCESS TO IT, AND FLUORIDATION.
FLUORIDE ALONE WILL NOT PREVENT
TOOTH DECAY. OUR MODERN DEET DIETS ARE INSIDI
COULDN'T TELLLY HARD ON OUR
TEETH. FLUORIDE SLOWS DOWN TOOTH DECAY.
IT GIVES ME TIME TO WATCH A
SMALL CAVITY ON A YOUNG PERSON FOR SIX TO 12 MONTHS TO SEE IF
THE BODY CAN HEAL ITSELF WITH
IMPROVED BRUSHING AND DIET AT HOME.
TIME FOR CHILDREN WITH MULTIPLE
CAVITIES TO IDLE PATIENTLY ON A WAITING LIST FOR THREE OR FOUR
MONTHS FOR HOSPITAL TIME TO BE
TREATED BY A PEDIATRIC DENTIST SAFELY UNDER SEDATION SAFELY
FICTION ALL THE TEETH AT — FIX
ALL THE TEETH AT ONCE. IT GIVES US TIME TO TREAT THESE
TEETH MORE CONSERVATIVELY AND
THUS LESS EXPENSIVELY. VANCOUVER HAS NEVER HAD FLUORIDE
IN THEIR WATER.
MY COLLEAGUES THERE CANNOT WAIT TO SEE IF THAT SMALL CAVITY WILL
GET BETTER.
THEY MUST CUT SOONER AND THEREFORE THEY MUST CUT MORE
OFTEN.
AND TOO OFTEN, THEY MUST CUT DEEPER.
DEEPER INTO THE CHILD'S TOOTH
AND DEEPER INTO THOSE PARENTS' WALLETS.
I DO NOT NEED A JOKER TO PLAY
CARDS.

I WANT A JOKER BECAUSE IT
IMPROVES MY ODDS OF WINNING.
YOU DO NOT NEED FLUORIDATION TO HAVE A SAFE DRINKING WATER
SUPPLY.
YOU WANT FLUORIDATION IN YOUR WATER IF YOU PUT A CHILD'S
WELLNESS BEFORE YOUR OWN.
AS A DENNIST I FEEL THE REAL JOKER HERE IS ME.
I AND MY COLLEAGUES WOULD BE
CONSIDERABLY BUSY WITHIN A SHORT FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS WITHOUT
FLUORIDATION.
THAT IS NOT WHY I AM HERE. I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE I AM
BETTER AT SCIENCE THAN I AM AT
CARDS. SCIENCE HAS SHOWN FLUORIDATION
TO REDUCE THE IMPACT, COSTS AND
SOCIETAL PAIN THAT IS CAUSED BY EARLY CHILDHOOD DECAY.
WHEN I DRINK CALGARY WATER, I
WANT FLUORIDE IN IT. I WANT FLUORIDE IN IT FOR MY TWO
SONS AGES 3 AND 2 MONTHS OLD,
AND IF YOU CARE ABOUT DOING YOUR PART IN THE PREVENTION OF THE
MISERY OF CHILDHOOD DECAY,
YOU'LL WANT FLUORIDE IN YOUR CITY WATER TOO.
>> IS THAT YOUR PRESENTATION?
>> THAT'S THE END OF IT.

THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> YOU BRING UP YOUR VANCOUVER
COLLEAGUES WHEN DISCUSSING
DENTAL DECAY. WE'VE HEARD HERE AND SEEN
STUDIES THAT THE DENTAL RATE OR
DENTAL DECAY RATE IN VANCOUVER AND/OR B.C. IS NO MAJOR VERY
LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN DENTAL
DECAY BETWEEN A NONFLUORIDATED LOCATION AND US BEING
FLUORIDATED.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS WITH REGARDS TO THIS?
>> I'M HERE AS THE MAN IN THE
TRENCHES. THE PERSON WHO'S DEALING WITH
DECAY AND HELPING MY PATIENTS
TOWARDS BETTER ORAL HEALTH. AND AS THAT, I DO TALK TO MY
COLLEAGUES.
AND ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IS A PEDIATRIC DENTIST IN HOPE, B.C.,
AND THE MAJORITY OF HIS
POPULATION — HIS PATIENT POPULATION BEING FROM VANCOUVER.
IF I'M ALLOWED TO TELL A STORY
HE SHARED WITH ME.

Dr. JOHNSTON WAS ONCE HEAD OF
THE PEDIATRIC DENTAL DEPARTMENT
AT SICK KIDS IN TORONTO AND SUBSEQUENTLY MOVED TO VANCOUVER.
WHEN Dr. JOHNSTON FIRST BEGAN
WORKING, HE KIND OF FELT HIS COLLEAGUES WERE OVERTREATING THE
PATIENTS.
HE WONDERED WHY THEY WERE INTERVENING SO EARLY.
SOMETHING HE WOULD NORMALLY
WATCH TO SEE IF IT WOULD CHANGE OR GET WORSE.
IN TORONTO, THEY WERE TREATING
IN VANCOUVER. AND A YEAR LATER HE UNDERTSOOD
WHY.
BECAUSE THE THINGS HE DID WATCH BLEW UP ON HIM.
DECAY JUST MOVED MORE
AGGRESSIVELY IN VANCOUVER COMPARED TO HIS EXPERIENCE IN
TORONTO.
>> OKAY. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE —
I CAN'T REMEMBER THE CONFERENCE
THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING, 140 VOTED IN FAVOUR OF KEEPING
FLUORIDE IN THE WATER.
HOW MANY VOTED AGAINST, OR HOW MANY ABSTAINED?
>> THERE WERE NO ABSTENTIONS.
>> IT WAS UNANIMOUS? >> IT WAS UNANIMOUS.
IT WAS 140 WHO WERE IN
ATTENDANCE AT THAT MEETING THAT DAY.
THE CALGARY DISTRICT DENTAL
SOCIETY HAS APPROXIMATELY 650 MEMBERS.
OF THE 850 THAT WHY IN CALGARY.
SO THAT'S JUST A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF THAT DAY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU. THANKS FOR COMING OUT TODAY.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU.

SEE NOTHING OTHER QUESTIONS.
MY NEXT SPEAKER IS JACQUELINE
VAN MALLSON. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS JACQUELINE VAN NELSON AND I'M A DENTAL HYGENIST WITH
MOSAIC DENTAL CARE NETWORK.
WE WORK TOGETHER TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE.
MY ROLE WITHIN MOSAIC PCN IS TO
IMPROVE THE ORAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN IN EAST CALGARY.
WE'VE CHOSEN TO FOCUS ON EAST
CALGARY RECOGNIZING THAT THIS POPULATION HAS HIGHER LEVELS OF
DENTAL DISEASE.
AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE IS THE IMPORTANCE THAT A CHILD'S ORAL
HEALTH HAS ON THEIR OVERALL
HEALTH. DENTAL CAVITIES AS A RESULT OF A
BACTERIAL INFECTION.
IF CAVITIES ARE NOT TREATED THE INFECTION CAN SPREAD TO OTHER
PARTS OF THE BODY, CAUSE FEVER,
PAIN AND SWELLING. IN SEVERE CASE, THE INFECTION
CAN ENTER THE BLOOD STREAM AND
CAUSE SEPSIS. EVERY DAY IN CALGARY, THERE ARE
CHILDREN WHO CANNOT PAY
ATTENTION IN SCHOOL, WHO CANNOT FALL ASLEEP AT NIGHT BECAUSE
THEY HAVE TOOTH PAIN.
RESEARCH HAS LINKED DENTAL DECAY IN BABY TEETH WITH MANY IMPACTS
ON A CHILD'S OVERALL HEALTH
INCLUDING PROBLEMS WITH NUTRITION, SPEECH DEVELOPMENT,
LEARNING AS WELL AS EFFECTS ON
THE CHILD'S ADULT TEETH.

SEVERE DENTAL DECAY HAS BEEN
LINKED WITH FAILURE TO THRIVE.
EARLY CHILDHOOD CARRIES HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE MOST COMMON
CHRONIC CHILDHOOD DISEASE.
IT IS MORE COMMON THAT ASTHMA, HAY FEVER AND DIABETES.
IN CALGARY, THE PREVALENCE OF,
DENTAL DECAY IN CHILDRENS BETWEEN AGES 1 AND 4 IS 11%.
IN EAST CALGARY, 1 IN 4 CHILDREN
EXPERIENCE DENTAL DECAY BEFORE AGE 5.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS DISEASE
IS LARGELY PREVENTIBLE. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF WATER
FLUORIDATION SUPPORT ITS
EFFECTIVE FEST A SAFETY TO REDUCE CAVITIES.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS LOOK AT AWFUL
THE RESEARCH INCLUDING STUDIES ABOUT THE BENEFITS AND THE
POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF
FLUORIDATION AS WELL AS THE QUALITY AND THE QUANTITY OF THE
LITERATURE WITH THE DELIBERATE
INTENT TO ELIMINATE INVESTIGATOR BIAS AND DETERMINE BEST
EVIDENCE.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IN PREVENTS CAVITIES LOOK AT BOTH THE IMPACT
ON DENTAL DECAY WHERE WATER
FLUORIDATION HAS BEEN INSTITUTED AND WHERE IT'S BEEN REMOVED.
THE RESULTS SHOW THE SAME THING
THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER FLUORIDATION IS STRONGLY
ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASE IN
THE PERCENTAGE OF CAVITY-FREE CHILDREN BY APPROXIMATELY 15%.
ANOTHER DENTAL INDEX CALLED DMFT
IS USED TO DESCRIBE THE PREVALENCE OF DECAY IN AN
INDIVIDUAL BY LOOKING AT THE
NUMBER OF DID HE KAYED MISSING AND — DECAYED MISSING AND
FAILED TEETH PERFOR.
ON AVERAGE, 2.3 FEWER TEETH ARE AFFECTED ACCORDING TO SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS.
INDIVIDUAL STUDIES CONTINUE TO SHOW THAT WATER FLUORIDATION IS
COST-EFFECTIVE.
THE CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION REPORTS THAT FOR
EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON
FLUORIDATION, ON AVERAGE SAVES $38 IN ASSOCIATED DENTAL
BILLS.
OVER A LIFETIME, THE COST OF FLUORIDATION IS TYPICALLY LESS
THAN THE COST OF A DENTAL
FILLING.

PROPONENTS OF REMOVING WATER
FLUORIDATION HAVE SUGGESTED
ALTERNATE METHODS OF DELIVERY FOR DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS.
ALTERNATE METHODS MAY NOT
MITIGATE THE RISK OF DENTAL DECAY AS EFFECTIVELY AS
FLUORIDATION.
LITERATURE RECOMMENDS FLUORIDATION IN COMBINATION WITH
ADJUNCTIVE TOPICAL FLUORIDE SUCH
AS FLUORIDE VARNISH. AT-RISK POPULATIONS MAY FAIL TO
UTILIZE ALTERNATE METHOD OF
FLUORIDE BECAUSE OF LANGUAGE, ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS.
PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF
FLUORIDATION IN CALGARY, FLUORIDE DROPS WERE MADE
AVAILABLE AS AN ALTERNATIVE.
PARTICIPATION IN THE FLUORIDE DROP PROGRAM WAS ESTIMATED TO BE
LESS THAN 20%.
CAN BE ASSUMED THAT MANY AT RISK CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE
CHILDREN TO THE FLUORIDE THROUGH
THESE PREVENTIVE PROGRAMS. FLUORIDE IS PROVEN TO BE AN
EFFECTIVE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM
TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF CAVITIES.
WHILE THE BENEFITS OF
FLUORIDATION ARE ACHIEVED FOR THE POPULATION IN ITS ENTIRETY,
THE EFFECTS ARE MOST IMPACTFUL
FOR DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS.

MY CODE OF ETHICS REQUIRES THAT
THE ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
MY PATIENT. I FEEL URGED TO ASK COUNCIL TO
RETAIN WATER FLUORIDATION.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
ALDERMAN KEATING.
>> IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A QUESTION I ASKED SOME TIME AGO,
YOU BROUGHT IT UP, DECAY IS
CAUSED BY BACTERIA IN THE MOUTH OR AROUND THE TEETH.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, HOW DOES
FLUORIDE INHIBIT THAT BUILDUP OR CAN YOU ANSWER THAT?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
DECAY IS A MULTIFACTOR DISEASE. IN ORDER TO HAVE A CAVITY, YOU
NEED TO HAVE A TOOTH.
YOU NEED TO HAVE A SOURCE OF BACTERIA, YOU NEED TO HAVE A
SOURCE OF FERMENTABLE
CARBOHYDRATE.

IN LOOKING AND — THE APPROACH
THAT WE TAKE TO PREVENTING
CAVITIES IS AS WELL MULTIFACTOR. WE WANT TO KEEL MOMS HEALTHY SO
THAT THE BACTERIA ISN'T
TRANSFERRED TO BABY. IT'S FLUORIDE THAT OFFERS A
PROTECTIVE EFFECT IN TERMS OF
MAKING THE ENAMEL CRYSTAL MORE — LESS SOLUBLE TO ACIDS
CAUSED BY THE BACTERIA.
IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS, THERE'S LITERATURE THAT SUGGESTS THAT
THERE IS A BACTERIACIDAL EFFECT.
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERTSOOD
THAT LAST PART, THE BACTERIAL
SIDE EFFECT? >> THAT IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS,
WHICH IS LESS RELEVANT FOR THE
CONVERSATION AROUND WATER FLUORIDATION, AND MORE SO AROUND
ADJUNCTIVE TOPICAL SUCH AS A
FLUORIDE VARNISH THAT IT REDUCES THE LEVEL OF BACTERIA.
AFFECTS THE PLAQUE TO REDUCE THE
LEVEL OF BACTERIA. >> I WANT TO GET BACK TO]p THE
QUESTION OF INFANTS AND YOUNG
CHILDREN AND THE DOSAGE. BECAUSE YOU WORK WITH THIS
SPECIFICALLY.
WHAT ADVICE DO YOU GIVE FAMILIES, GIVEN THAT FLUORIDE IS
IN THE WATER AND HOW DO YOU
RECOMMEND THEY CONTROL THAT? >> THE — IN TERMS OF YOUNG
INFANTS, WE LOOK AGAIN,
REGARDLESS OF AGE, TO DIETARY REFERENCE AND INTAKING FOR
FLUORIDE.
THEY EXIST FOR MANY NUTRIENTS, VITAMIN A, VITAMIN D AND
INCLUDING FLUORIDE.
FOR CHILDREN AGE 1 TO 3, THE RECOMMENDATION IS 1.3 MILLIGRAMS
PER DAY.
SO IN DISCUSSION WITH PARENTS, WE LOOK TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES,
HEALTH CANADA, CANADIAN DENTAL INSTITUTION — OR CANADIAN
DENTAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY WHICH ARE MANDATED TO PROVIDE
SAFE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC.
WITH RESPECT TO INFANTS, THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION AROUND
FORMULA, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH HAS
COME UP IN DISCUSSION TODAY, IS THAT WITH THE WATER LEVEL AT .7
PPM, RECONSTITUTING INFANT
FORMULA IS SAFE.

THE RECOMMENDATION AS WELL
AROUND TOOTHPASTE, BECAUSE
CHILDREN MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SPIT OUT TOOTHPASTE AT A YOUNG AGE
AND THE CONCERN WAS SWALLOWING
EXCESS TOOTHPASTE IS ALSO VERY TRUE AND VERY REAL.
SO WITH PATIENTS, WE'D AGAIN
ARTICULATE THE AMOUNT OF TOOTHPASTE MUST BE CONTROLLED
FOR YOUNG INFANTS.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> YES, I THINK IT DOES.
I'M THINKING ALSO THOUGH OF
JUICES AND POP. NOW, WE'VE HEARD THAT THERE'S
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS RELATED
TO THIS, AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY WORKING IN THE AREA
THAT YOU DO.
BUT FOR THAT POPULATION, A LOT OF TIMES WE HEAR — I DON'T KNOW
IF IT'S FACT OR NOT, THAT
THERE'S A TENDENCY TO USE CHEAP JUICES OR RECONSTITUTED JUICES
OR WATER.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU FACTORING IN WHAT'S IN THOSE
PRODUCTS AS WELL IF THEY'RE MADE
IN CALGARY, THEY'VE GOT FLUORIDE IN THEM TOO?
>> DEFINITELY.
A DOCUMENT PUBLISHED FROM HEALTH CANADA RECENTLY — LET ME JUST
PULL UP THE TITLE SO I'M
REFERENCING IT ACCURATELY FOR YOU.
FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER WHICH
IS A DOCUMENT THAT WENT OUT TO PUBLIC FOR COMMENT, IT
RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE OTHER
SOURCES OF FLUORIDE, AND IN MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED
TO THE DOSE FROM WATER LOOKED
AND CONSIDERED THAT THERE WERE ALTERNATE SOURCES IN FRUIT
JUICES, IN THE FOOD, FLUORIDE
THAT FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE.

>> SO YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED AT
ALL THAT THESE CHILDREN ARE
GETTING TOO MUCH. >> NO.
I AM NOT.
>> AND YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED THAT IT'S HARMFUL TO THEM IN ANY WAY.
>> NO, I AM NOT.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS CONTINUE TO REPORT THAT DENTAL FLUOROSIS IS
THE ONLY ADVERSE EFFECT OF
FLUORIDE. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
SEE NOTHING FURTHER QUESTIONS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GRAHAM
GREEDS.
GRAHAM GREEDS. NEXT SPEAKER IS Dr. BRENT
FRIESEN.
>> WOULD I BE ABLE TO HAVE THE PROJECTOR ON, PLEASE?
MY NAME IS Dr. BRENT FRIESEN.
I'M MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH WITH ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES.
AND LEAD MEDICAL OFFICER OF
HEALTH WITHIN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC HEALTH.
I HAVE PAST HISTORY IN TERMS OF BEING A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR
PROTECTION OF WATER SUPPLIES IN
THE PROVINCE AND IN PARTICULAR PROTECTION OF THE WATER SUPPLY
FOR THE CITY OF CALGARY THROUGH
ADVOCACY AROUND THE — BOTH THE BOW RIVER AND ELBOW RIVER TO
PROTECT THE QUALITY OF THE RAW
WATER THAT'S USED FOR OUR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY.
FLUORIDE IS RECOGNIZED AS A KEY
FACTOR IN ORAL HEALTH.

AND THAT RESEARCH CONSISTENTLY
SHOWS COMMUNITIES WITH WATER
FLUORIDATION HAVE BETTER ORAL HEALTH THAN COMMUNITIES WITH LOW
WATER FLUORIDE LEVELS.
DOCTOR ANDRE CORRIVEAU, THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH
FOR THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
STRONGLY ENDORSES WATER FLUORIDATION.
I KNOW THAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM
OTHERS ABOUT THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, BUT, AGAIN, JUST WANTED
TO REENFORCE THOSE SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS WITH YOU. AND HIGHLIGHT THE CURRENT NATURE
OF THOSE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS.
SO, AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS THROUGH THE
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION IN
2006. THE AUSTRALIAN REVIEW IN 2007.
HEALTH CANADA'S REVIEW IN 2009.
AND THEN MORE RECENTLY REVIEWS IN THE U.S. BY THE CENTRES FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. AND, AGAIN, THE REVIEWS BY ALL
OF THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR
SCIENTIFIC GROUPS THAT HAVE DONE THESE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAVE
REACHED A SIMILAR CONCLUSION
THAT FLUORIDE AT A CONCENTRATION FOUND IN DRINKING WATER
REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF
FLUORIDE AGENT USED DOES NOT POSE ANY HEALTH CONCERNS TO
CONSUMERS.
WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF THE LEVEL OF FLUORIDE, AND THAT
BEING BENEFICIAL.
HEALTH CANADA'S CURRENT RECOMMENDATION IS THE FLUORIDE
LEVEL IN DRINKING WATER BE
.7 MILLIGRAMS PER LITRE.

THIS LEVEL WAS ARRIVED AT BY A
RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS THAT
TAKES INTO ACCOUNT TOTAL FLUORIDE INTAKE AND IN
CONSIDERING FLUORIDE FROM OTHER
SOURCES SUCH AS THE FOOD AND DENTIFRICES THAT PEOPLE WOULD
USE.
IT DOES REFLECT A BALANCE IN TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE EFFECT
OF FLUORIDE ON ORAL HEALTH WHILE
MINIMIZING THE RISK OF FLUOROSIS.
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE
HAVE IN CALGARY AND IF THE CITY WERE TO MAKE A DECISION TO
REMOVE FLUORIDE OR DISCONTINUE
FLUORIDATION IS THE WIDE VARIATION THAT EXISTS BETWEEN
THE GLENMORE WATER TREATMENT
PLANT AND THE BEARSPAW WATER TREATMENT PLANT.
THE NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE
OUT OF THE GLENMORE PLANT RANGES FROM .2 TO OVER .3 DEPENDING ON
THE TIME OF THE YEAR, THE
BEARSPAW PLANT IT RANGES FROM .1 TO .2.
IF THERE WAS A DECISION TO
DISCONTINUE WATER FLUORIDATION, THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE A MUCH
WIDER VARIATION IN THE EXPOSURE
OF RESIDENTS IN CALGARY TO FLUORIDE THROUGH THE WATER
SUPPLY THAN CURRENTLY EXISTS
WHERE IT IS CONTROLLED AT .7 PARTS PER MILLION.
TO SUMMARIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF
WATER FLUORIDATION IS REALLY ESSENTIAL FOR CHILDREN WITH POOR
SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND.
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION HAS IDENTIFIED THAT IT CAN BE A
KEY FACTOR IN REDUCING THE
INEQUITIES IN DENTAL HEALTH.

JUST IN MY CONCLUDING REMARKS,
IT'S INTERESTING APPEARING
BEFORE YOU HERE TODAY IN THAT DENTAL CARRIES AND THAT WAS ONE
OF THE ISSUES THAT CAUSED ME TO
BECOME INTERESTED IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND UNDERTAKE SPECIALTY
TRAINING IN COMMUNITY MEDICINE.
AS A GENERAL PRACTITIONER, WORKING IN CHURCHILL AND IN THE
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN WAS GIVING ANESTHETICS TO
YOUNG INUIT CHILDREN AND THAT
FOR TREATMENT OF MASSIVE DENTAL DISEASE.
AND SO SITUATION OF GIVING
THESE — PULLING THESE CHILDREN OUT OF THEIR HOME COMMUNITIES TO
FLY THEM DOWN INTO ANOTHER
PROVINCE FOR THEIR TREATMENT, THE DISRUPTION FROM THAT AND
THEN SEEING THEM WITH A MOUTHFUL
OF STAINLESS STEEL AS TREATMENT OF THEIR UNDERLYING DENTAL
DISEASE.
I THINK FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE, I WAS EXTREMELY
PLEASED AND PROUD IN TERMS OF
WHEN CALGARIANS MADE THE DECISION FOLLOWING A PLEBISCITE
FOR WATER FLUORIDATION, AND I
THINK IT'S ESSENTIAL FOR, AGAIN, MAINTAINING THAT BENEFICIAL
EFFECT FOR ORAL HEALTH AND
RECOGNIZING THAT DENTAL DISEASE IS A SIGNIFICANT ILLNESS, THAT
WE CONTINUE WATER FLUORIDATION.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS AFTERNOON.
>> ALDERMAN KEATING.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.

ONE OF THE BEST DESCRIPTIONS
I'VE HEARD TONIGHT OF ALL OF THE
SCIENCE IS IT'S LIKELY THAT IT IS A BENEFIT.
IT'S NOT LIKELY THAT IT'S A
HARM. BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT,
THE QUESTION WE STILL HAVE IS
THIS THE BEST WAY TO GO AHEAD. AND SO COMING BACK TO THE NUMBER
OF STUDIES THAT YOU'VE
REFERENCED, DID ANY OF THEM TALK ABOUT IF THERE WAS A SEPARATE
PROGRAM TO TARGET THOSE IN MOST
NEED, WOULD WE SEE THE SAME RESULTS OF — OR EVEN BETTER
RESULTS IF WE REMOVED FLUORIDE?
>> ONE OF THE MAJOR CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE WITH ANY PROGRAM,
WHEN YOU MOVE FROM WHAT WOULD BE
A UNIVERSAL PROGRAM WHICH IS WHAT WATER FLUORIDATION IS IN
TERMS OF BEING UNIVERSALLY
AVAILABLE TO ALL TO A TARGETED PROGRAM, IS THE DIFFICULTY OF
ACTUALLY IDENTIFYING THOSE MOST
AT RISK.

AND SO THERE ARE STRATEGIES THAT
YOU CAN DO FOR THAT.
LIKE TO PUT THOSE PROGRAMS TOGETHER.
I THINK, AGAIN, I'D WANT YOU TO
REMEMBER THE COMMENT FROM ONE OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS THAT THE
OTHER TARGETED INTERVENTION
PROGRAMS FOR HIGH RISK, AND WE HAVE SOME OF THEM ALREADY IN
PLACE IN CALGARY, ARE INTENDED
OR BUILT ON WATER FLUORIDATION AS A BASE.
IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT A
TARGETED PROGRAM, IT WILL BE MUCH MORE COSTLY AND IT WILL BE
AN ONGOING CHALLENGE TO ENSURE
THAT IT'S REACHING THE — THOSE MOST AT RISK TO PROVIDE THEM
WITH CARE.
AND WE JUST KNOW THAT EVEN DATING BACK TO THE SUPPLEMENT
PROGRAM THAT WAS DONE IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF CALGARY PRIOR TO WATER
FLUORIDATION IS THAT WE HAD
INCONSISTENT USE OF THE DROPS AT OUR VARIOUS CLINICS ACROSS THE
CITY AND OFTEN THE UTILIZATION
OF THE FLUORIDE DROPS WAS HIGHEST IN THE HIGHER INCOME
NEIGHBOURHOODS COMPARED TO THE
LOWER INCOME NEIGHBOURHOODS.

IT'S HARD FOR A SINGLE MOM THAT
MAY BE WORKING TWO JOBS AND
WORRYING ABOUT PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE AND WHERE THE
PAYMENT'S GOING TO COME FOR NEXT
MONTH'S RENT TO BE THINKING THAN ABOUT PUTTING THE FLUORIDE DROPS
INTO THEIR CHILDREN'S JUICE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, AND
I THINK THEY'RE CLEAR AS WELL.
I GUESS I'LL REPHRASE MY QUESTION BECAUSE YOU'VE ANSWERED
ALL THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF
GOING DOWN THAT ROUTE, BUT NEVER REALLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
HAS THERE EVER BEEN A STUDY
THAT'S LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF REMOVING FLUORIDE AND SETTING
UP A SEPARATE PROGRAM TO HELP
THOSE IN MOST NEED? >> THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEMATIC
REVIEW LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS
SUCH AS FLUORIDE IN SALT, FLUORIDE IN MILK PROGRAMS SO
THEY DID LOOK AT OTHER
APPROACHES. SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION
IS, YES, DEPENDING ON THE
PARTICULAR QUESTIONS, CHARGES THAT WERE MADE TO THOSE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW COMMITTEES,
SOME OF THEM LOOKED AT ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, AND THAT IS
PART OF THEIR PROCESS.
THOSE THAT DID FOUND THAT WATER FLUORIDATION WAS STILL THE
SAFEST, MOST COST EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF PROVIDING THE PROTECTIVE EFFECT OF FLUORIDE
FOR DENTAL CARRIES.
>> THANK YOU.

>> ALDERMAN DEMONG.
>> IN ANY OF YOUR STUDIES HAVE
YOU LOOKED AT WHAT ANY OF THE CUMULATIVE BUILDUP OF FLUORIDE
WHETHER IT BE IN THE BODY, IN
THE ENVIRONMENT, IN THE PLANTS, AND WHAT THE RESULTS OF THAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN?
>> YES. THE STUDIES HAVE LOOKED AT THAT.
AND, AGAIN, THE FINDING OF THOSE
STUDIES IS THAT THE LEVEL THAT IS USED IN WATER FLUORIDATION
THAT THERE IS NOT A CONCERN WITH
REGARDS TO ANY OTHER SYSTEMATIC — OR, PARDON ME,
SYSTEMIC HUMAN EFFECTS IN THAT
THE ONLY EFFECT NOTED IS DENTAL FLUOROSIS.
BUT THERE'S NO CONCERN WITH
REGARDS TO SKELETAL FLUOROSIS OR OTHER ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS.
SIMILARLY, THE STUDIES THAT HAVE
LOOKED AT ADDING WATER, WATER FLUORIDATION AND THAT HAVE NOT
IDENTIFIED ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS
ON ACQUATIC LIFE AS A RESULT OF COMMUNITIES THAT FLUORIDATE THE
WATER.
>> THANK YOU.

>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD?
>> THANK YOU.
MY QUESTION WAS JUST TOUCHED ON, ACTUALLY, A MINUTE AGO, BUT
WHAT — SO, WE'VE HEARD ABOUT
THE FLUORIDE STRENGTHENING THE TEETH, AND WE'VE HEARD THAT
FLUORIDE MIGHT CAUSE BONE
DENSITY LOSS OR BONE STRUCTURE. I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN COMMENT
ON THAT, BECAUSE I'M NOT CLEAR,
TEETH AND BONES SEEM DIFFERENT TO ME, AND I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT
THE EFFECT IS ON YOUR BONES.
>> WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND, AND THIS HAS BEEN NOTED IN CERTAIN AREAS
OF THE WORLD WHERE THERE ARE
VERY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF FLUORIDE OCCURRING IN THE WATER,
THAT YOU CAN GET WHAT IS CALLED
SKELETAL FLUOROSIS. WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT HEALTH
CONDITION.
AND IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO AVOID AND NOT HAVE
OCCUR.
THE CONCENTRATIONS THAT — WHAT YOU'D BE CONCERNED ABOUT FOR
THOSE ARE CONCENTRATIONS OVER 10
PARTS PER MILLION IN THE WATERS WHERE IT'S SEEN.
THE CENTRES FOR — IN THE U.S.
AND THROUGH THE CENTRES FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THEY HAVE A
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LIMIT OF
FLUORIDE IN WATER — NATURALLY OCCURRING WATER OF 4 PARTS PER
MILLION.
AND THAT'S INTENDED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST THAT
CONDITION ARISING, TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION OTHER ESSENTIAL SOURCES OF FLUORIDE.
THE STUDIES — THIS IS A HEALTH
ISSUE THAT, AGAIN, THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAVE
SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT BECAUSE
IT IS A CONCERN THAT IS RAISED WITH REGARDS TO WATER
FLUORIDATION, AND, AGAIN, THOSE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT IN FINDING THAT THERE
IS NOT A CONCERN WITH SKELETAL
FLUOROSIS AT THE CONCENTRATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR WATER
FLUORIDATION.
>> THANK YOU.

I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION — I'M
NOT SURE IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS
OR NOT, BUT I STILL HAVE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN WHAT'S ADDED TO OUR
WATER AND WHAT NATURALLY OCCURS IN OUR WATER.
YOU'VE COMMENTED THAT THERE'S
NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE. I'VE HEARD THAT FLUORIDE THAT'S
ADDED HAS TO HAVE A — BE
BONDED? I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE WORD WAS.
BUT IT COMES WITH SOMETHING ELSE
IN ORDER TO GET INTO THE WATER. >> WELL, THAT'S — YOU KNOW,
FLUORIDE IS AN ION AND BY NATURE
OF AN ION IT MEANS IT'S BOUNDED WITH ANOTHER COMPOUND AND THERE
CAN BE DIFFERENT COMPOUNDS THAT
IT'S BOUNDED WITH. SO IT DEPENDS WHAT THE SOURCE OF
THE FLUORIDE IS AS TO THE TYPE
OF COMPOUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN BOUNDED WITH.
BUT THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE AS FAR
AS THE CLINICAL EFFECT OF THE FLUORIDE ION, DEPENDING ON THE
SOURCE OF THE — PARTICULAR
SOURCE THAT'S USED.

AND, AGAIN, THE SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS, THIS IS OFTEN A
QUESTION — OR HAS BEEN A QUESTION/CONCERN RAISED IN THE
PAST THAT IT'S NOT NATURALLY
OCCURRING FLUORIDE. AND SO THAT — IT'S — IT HAS
BEEN A FOCUS OF THE REVIEWS.
AND, AGAIN, THE REVIEWS HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED THAT AS A CONCERN FOR
WATER FLUORIDATION AS TO THE
NATURE OF THE SOURCE. OF FLUORIDE THAT IS USED FOR
FLUORIDATION.
>> SO WE'VE HEARD THAT THEY GOT THE FLUORIDE BY SCRUBBING OUT
SOME CHIMNEYS OR SOMETHING.
IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHERE THE FLUORIDE COMES FROM, IT'S
STILL FLUORIDE.
>> WELL, WHAT'S CRITICAL IS THE ISSUE IS FLUORIDE LcBx IS PRESEN
ROCK AND MINERAL.
SO THE WAY THAT IT GETS INTO OUR WATER, THE WATER GOING INTO THE
BOW AND THE ELBOW IS THROUGH THE
GROUND WATER THAT ENTERS INTO THOSE RIVERS.
AND THE REASON WHY IT'S HIGHER
IN THE ELBOW THAN THE BOW RIVER IS THAT GROUND WATER HAS A MUCH
GREATER IMPACT IN TERMS OF — OR
IS A GREATER CONTRIBUTOR TO THE FLOWS IN THE ELBOW COMPARED TO
THE BOW RIVER.
SO, AGAIN, WITH THE PRODUCTION OF FLUORIDE IF IT COMES THROUGH
VARIOUS MINING OPERATIONS AND
THAT WHERE THE ROCK IS BEING PROCESSED IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE
FLUORIDE GENERATED.
WHAT'S REALLY CRITICAL IS WHAT Mr.

STEFANI PRESENTED TO YOU
EARLIER IS THAT THE SOURCE THAT
THE CITY OF CALGARY IS USING FOR FLUORIDE HAS THE APPROPRIATE
QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES IN
PLACE AND MEETS THE STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR FLUORIDE THAT IS
USED IN DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS.
WHICH IS IN FACT THE CASE FOR THE CITY OF CALGARY, THE
SOURCING OF FLUORIDE FOR THE
CITY OF CALGARY. >> JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M
UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY, IT
DOESN'T MUCH MATTER WHERE THE FLUORIDE COMES FROM, IT'S STILL
FLUORIDE.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN FLUORIDE OR DIRTY FLUORIDE, IT'S
JUST FLUORIDE.
>> YES. WHAT'S CRITICAL IN TERMS OF THE
SOURCE OF THAT FLUORIDE IS THAT
THERE IS THE APPROPRIATE QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES IN THERE, SEE
PHYSICIAN THERE IS CONTAMINANTS
PRESENT.

IF THERE ARE TRACE CONTAMINANTS
PRESENT, THAT THEY ARE AT A
LEVEL THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE AND THAT, AND WOULDN'T EXCEED IN
TERMS — EXCEED THE CANADIAN
DRINKING WATER GUIDELINES. >> I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION FOR
YOU.
DO YOU DRINK TAP WATER OR BOTTLED WATER.
>> TAP WATER EXCLUSIVELY.
AND THAT'S WHAT MY FAMILY DRINKS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE,
Mr.

FRIESEN. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WE'VE
ACCUMULATED DATA AND RESEARCH
FROM ALL OVE ALL OVER THE WORLD. OILSANDS JUST WANTED
>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU TO
COMMENT ON CHILE. IN 1985 THEY PUT IN FLUORIDATION
AT THAT POINT.
IT DECREASED FROM 6 DOWN TO 5.3 IN SIX YEARS.
BUT THEN BY THE TIME TEN YEARS
WENT BY, 1995, IT WAS UP TO OVER 6.7.
SO THEY DISCONTINUED FLUORIDE
AGAIN.

HAVE YOU — ARE THOSE FIGURES
RIGHT OR HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THAT
AT ALL? >> I'M SORRY, I'M NOT
SPECIFICALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE
DATA FOR CHILE, SO I CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT.
WHAT I CAN REFERENCE BACK IS TO
THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND YOU MAY RECALL ONE OF THE PRESENTERS
AGAIN PRESENTED STUDIES LOOKING
AT THE PROTECTIVE EFFECT THAT YOU SEE FROM WATER FLUORIDATION.
AND WHAT HAS BEEN SEEN OVER TIME
IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DECREASE IN THE OVERALL
EFFECTIVENESS OF WATER
FLUORIDATION AS FAR AS THE EXPECTED IMPACT FROM IT.
BUT THAT NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED
WITH CAUTION BECAUSE FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE POPULATION, WE
MAY NOT BE GETTING AS MUCH OF A
BENEFIT FROM WATER FLUORIDATION BECAUSE OF OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS
THE PRESENCE OF FLUORIDE IN
TOOTHPASTE AND THAT, OTHER SOURCES THAT WE'VE GOT FOR BEING
EXPOSED TO FLUORIDE SUCH AS
DRINKING BEVERAGES THAT MAY BE FLUORIDATED.
BUT THERE IS SIMILAR EVIDENCE
SHOWING FOR THE DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS THAT THERE IS STILL
A SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE BENEFIT
FOR THEM FROM WATER FLUORIDATION.
SO IN TERMS OF WHAT'S OCCURRING
IN CHILE, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FACTORS
THAT WERE IMPACTING TO SEE THAT
RESULT AS FAR AS THE DENTAL CARRIES.
AGAIN, AS ONE OF THE OTHER
PRESENTERS INDICATED, THERE'S OTHER FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE
RISK OF CARRIES OR DECREASES THE
RISK OF CARRIES SUCH AS THE NATURE OF THE DIET THAT WE'RE
CONSUMING.
>> WELL, IN IRELAND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE — THE LAST DATA
I SAW IT WAS THE MOST HEAVILY
FLUORIDATED OR 66% I THINK WAS THE NUMBER THAT WERE FLUORIDATED
THERE.
BUT IN NORTHERN EUROPE AND THE NORDIC COUNTRIES, THERE'S — I
THINK THERE'S FIVE OR SIX
COUNTRIES THAT HAVE LITTLE OR NO FLUORIDATION, AND YET THEY'RE
LESS TOOTH DECAY THAN WHAT
IRELAND HAS.

THESE ARE THE CONFUSING THINGS
FOR US BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S
PRESENTING US WITH DATA, BUT THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS
THE DOSAGE.
AND HOW WE — BECAUSE NO ONE'S QUESTIONING THE FACT THAT THERE
CAN BE OVERDOSAGE OF FLUORIDE.
EVERYBODY'S ADMITTING THAT CAN HAPPEN.
BUT HOW DO WE AS A COUNCIL FOR
THIS CITY OF A MILLION PEOPLE, HOW DO WE JUSTIFY HAVING THIS IN
THE WATER WHEN THERE IS NO
CONTROL ON DOSAGE? AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
THAT DO NOT WANT IT AND CAN'T
TAKE IT. >> THERE WAS CONVERSATIONS
EARLIER ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE SOME
OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'D ASK OF COMMITTEE OR PANEL THAT — IF
YOU WERE TO DECIDE TO CREATE
ONE.

THAT MIGHT IN FACT BE ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS YOU PUT TO THEM.
BECAUSE I HEARD FROM SOME OF THE COMMENTS OF OTHER
ALDERMEN/COUNCILLORS, I'M NOT
SURE WHERE WE ARE — >> WE'RE STILL ALDERMEN UNTIL
THE NEXT ELECTION.
>> FROM SOME OF THE OTHER ALDERMEN THAT TALKING ABOUT THE
AMOUNT OF WATER DIFFERENT PEOPLE
WOULD DRINK OR CONSUME DURING THE DAY.
IF YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO
DISCONTINUE WATER FLUORIDATION WITH THE VARIATION IN NATURAL
OCCURRING FLUORIDE AND THAT, IT
MEANS THAT POTENTIALLY SOMEBODY IN NORTHEAST CALGARY COULD BE
GETTING WATER IN TERMS OF AT .1
PART PER MILLION. SOMEBODY DOWN IN SOUTHWEST
CALGARY WOULD BE GETTING .3
PARTS PER MILLION. AND SO — AND THEN IF THEY'RE
WORKING IN DOWNTOWN CALGARY,
THEY'RE GETTING A BLEND BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
>> Dr. FRIESEN, I UNDERSTAND
THAT. I'VE HEARD YOU SAY THAT BEFORE.
BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW, WITH
THIS METHOD OF ADDING THE FLUORIDE IN THERE, HOW WE
INCORPORATE ALL THE OTHER
SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THEM.
AND SOME PEOPLE ARE BRUSHING
THEIR TEETH THREE TIMES A DAY WITH FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE.
SOME ARE DOING IT WITHOUT
FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN
EVER COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF
WHAT DOSAGE PEOPLE WOULD BE GETTING.
[Please Stand By]
THE CAPTIONS OF THIS MEETING — THAT HAVE OCCURRED.
THOSE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, EVEN
THOUGH THEY'RE BEING DONE AS RECENTLY AS — BEING CARRIED
OUT IN TERMS OF 2010, ARE
SUPPORTING THE POINT 7 PARTS PER MILLION THAT THE CITY OF
CALGARY IS AT.
SO I THINK YOU CAN TAKE COMFORT —
>> FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON WITH
THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF WATER?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
Mr. CHAIRMAN.
>> ALDERMAN PINCOTT. >> THANK YOU.
SO MY QUESTION, I STATED THIS
BEFORE, IS AROUND HIGH CONTROL AND I ACTUALLY WOULD TAKE YOUR
ARGUMENT ABOUT REMOVING IT AS
SUPPORTING — ALSO SUPPORTING NOT HAVING IT IN BECAUSE YOUR
ARGUMENT AROUND REMOVING IT
WAS PEOPLE WOULD BE GETTING DIFFERENT DOSAGES AND YOU
CAN'T CONTROL IT AND YET WITH
IT IN, WE CAN'T CONTROL HOW MUCH PEOPLE — HOW MUCH WATER
PEOPLE DRINK.
SO ASSUMING — AND YOU TALKED ABOUT OSTEOFLOROWES SIS AND I
THINK YOU SAID TEN PARTS PER
MILL.

IS THAT THE SAME AS 10
MILLIGRAMS?
OKAY. AS SORT OF 10 PARTS PER
MILLION BEING KIND OF THAT
THRESHOLD AROUND OSTEOFLUOROSIS?
>> I'D ASKED YOU — SKELETAL.
IF THE AVERAGE PERSON IS DRINKING TWO GLASSES OF WATER
A DAY OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT —
WHAT'S THE DOSAGE, THE IDEAL DOSAGE?
AS POINT 7 MILLIGRAMS PER
LITRE, WHAT'S THE IDEAL DOSAGE IN — THAT'S 2 LITRES.
>> SO THE
>> COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION.
>> GHEN, YOU'RE SAYING THE
POINT 7 IS BASED ON THE AVERAGE PERSON DRINKING THE
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF WATER.
HOW MANY GLASSES OF WATER IS THAT, ARE WE — IS THE SWEET
SPOT FOR THAT DOSAGE?
>> WITHIN THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IS
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DO,
ALL OF THEM DO, IS LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE THAT IS
CONSUMED BY DIFFERENT
POPULATION AGE GROUPS.

SO THEY LOOK IN TERMS OF THE
DIFFERENT SOURCES SO WHAT IS A
NORMAL RANGE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE DRINKING.
NORMALLY SEEN IN TERMS OF
CHILD, AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF FLUIDS THEY WOULD BE DRINKING.
WHAT ARE THE TYPE OF FLUIDS
THAT THEY WOULD BE EATING. AND COMING OUT WITH A TOTAL
DOSE, EXPECTED DOSE, OF
FLUORIDE THEY WOULD BE EXPOSED TO.
WITHIN THOSE SYSTEM — SO
THAT'S HOW THOSE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAVE LOOKED AT, TAKEN
THE LITERATURE, LOOKED AT THE
DOSAGES THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING EXPOSED TO, LOOKING AT THE
VARIOUS EFFECTIVENESS, LOOKING
AT THE RISK, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'VE LANDED IN TERMS OF ON
THE POINT 7 PARTS PER MILLION
AS A LEVEL FOR WATER FLUORIDATION WHICH WILL
PROVIDE A PROTECTIVE EFFECT
AGAINST DENTAL CARIES, WITH MINIMAL RISK OF DENTAL
FLUORDOSIS.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THEN THAT THERE'S NO RISK SO FOR THE
PERSON WHO'S DRINKING TWO
GLASSES OF WATER OR 20 GLASSES OF WATER, THERE'S NO RISK?
>> OF SKELETAL NOR OWES SIS?
YEAH.

— I JUST CANNOT CONCEIVE OF
ANY WAY IN WHICH SOMEBODY
DRINKING FLORIDATED — CITY OF CALGARY FLORIDATED WATER COULD
DEVELOP SKELETAL FLOROWES SIS —
FLUOROSIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO CONSUME
THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WOULD
GIVE RISE TO THOSE PROBLEMS. >> IT'S NOT MUCH OF A LEAP FOR
ME TO GO
TEN PARTS PER MILL. IS THAT THE SAME AS 10
MILLIGRAMS?
OKAY. AS SORT OF 10 PARTS PER
MILLION BEING KIND OF THAT
THRESHOLD AROUND OSTEOFLUOROSIS?
>> I'D ASKED YOU — SKELETAL.
IF THE AVERAGE PERSON IS DRINKING TWO GLASSES OF WATER
A DAY OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT —
WHAT'S THE DOSAGE, THE IDEAL DOSAGE?
AS POINT 7 MILLIGRAMS PER
LITRE, DOSAGE >> THE
YOU REPEAT YOUR
>> GHEN, YOU'RE SAYING THE POINT 7 IS BASED ON THE
OFRSON DRINKING THE
OF IS THAT, ARE WE — IS THE SWEET
SPOT FOR THAT DOSAGE?
>> WITHIN THE SYSTEMATIC BEEN DONE IS
BEEN DONE IS
THEM TO CONSUME THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WOULD GIVE RISE TO
THOSE PROBLEMS.
>> IT'S NOT MUCH OF A LEAP FOR ME TO GO FROM 7 PARTS PER
MILLION TO 10 PARTS PER
MILLION — >> 0.7.
>> ASKED YOU IF IT WAS THE
SAME MEASUREMENT AND YOU SAID IT WAS THE SAME.
WE'RE OVER 10 PARTS PER
MILLION AND THAT AND AGAIN THE COMMUNITIES IN INDIA WHERE
THIS HAS BEEN NOTED AND
REPORTED, WHAT WOULD BE FOUND THERE AS FAR AS THE
CONCENTRATION IN THE WATER IS
40 PARTS PER MILLION.

SO IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER
SO THERE'S — I JUST DON'T
THINK IT'S FEASIBLE FOR SOMEBODY TO DRINK THAT AMOUNT
OF WATER.
>> SORRY, I WAS GETTING THE SWITCHING BETWEEN MILLIGRAMS
AND PARTS PER MILLION.
ONE LAST QUESTION. IS THIS ANY OTHER MEDICATION
THAT YOU WOULD PRESCRIBE WHERE
YOU WOULD SAY TO THE PATIENT TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU WANT?
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT FOR
FLUORIDE AND THAT. WHAT I'M SAYING IN TERMS OF
FOR FLUORIDE IS THAT POINT 7
PARTS PER MILLION IN DRINKING WATER IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.
WHAT I WOULD ALSO BE SAYING
AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING TO PARENTAL IS YOU NEED TO BE
MONITORING THE AMOUNT OF
DENTISMTS FRICE THAT IS BEING USED AND THAT TO MINIMIZE,
FURTHER MINIMIZE, THE RISK OF
DENTAL FLUOROSIS. AGAIN, AROUND THE SAFETY OF
POINT 7 PARTS PER MILLION IN
THE WATER, I HAVE INTO CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO THE
SAFETY AT THAT LEVEL.
>> THANK YOU. >> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION
FOR YOU.
A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, MY FATHER WAS TOLD THAT HE
COULDN'T DRINK THE WATER
BECAUSE OF THE FLUORIDE.

HE HAD KIDNEY PROBLEMS AND HE
HAD DIABETES AS WELL.
WHAT DO YOU TELL THOSE PEOPLE? >> I THINK Dr. MUSTO TOUCHED
ON THIS PREVIOUSLY.
I'M NOT AWARE OF RECOMMENDATION FOR PEOPLE WITH
RENAL DISEASE TO NOT DRINK
FLORIDATED WATER. NOW, THERE'S SERGE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT GO TO
PEOPLE WITH RENAL DISEASE AROUND THEIR DIETARY
RESTRICTIONS AND THAT RELATED
TO THE OVERALL KIDNEY FUNCTION, BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT
BEING IDENTIFIED AS A CONCERN,
AND CERTAINLY FOR DIALYSIS MACHINES, DIALYSIS EQUIPMENT,
THERE'S SPECIALIZED WATER
SYSTEMS THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE FOR THOSE, AND THAT'S BECAUSE
OF CONCERNS FOR A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT — TO WANT TO ENSURE A VERY SAFE SOURCE OF WATER
THAT IS BEING USED FOR
DIALYSIS.

>> SO HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE
CITY OF CALGARY WOULD YOU SAY
WOULD FALL UNDER THAT CATEGORY?
DO YOU HAVE ANY BALLPARK
IDEAS? >> NO, I CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT
INFORMATION.
I CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON
DIALYSIS AND THAT, BUT COMING
BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE WITH KIDNEY
DISEASE, YOU KNOW, BEING
ADVISED NOT TO DRINK OR BEING A REGISTERS NOT TO DRINK
FLORIDATED WATER, THAT'S NOT
BEEN AN ISSUE, AND I THINK Dr. MUSTO FOLLOWED UP WITH THE
DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
OR DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL MEDICINE AND THAT WAS NOT
IDENTIFIED AS AN ISSUE.
AND Dr. MUSTO IS INDICATING AFFIRMATIVE THAT AGAIN THEY
DID NOT IDENTIFY IT AS A
HEALTH CONCERN WITHIN THE INTERNAL MEDICINE NEPHROLOGISTS
THAT LOOK AFTER PEOPLE WITH
KIDNEY DISEASE.

>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
SEEING NO MORE QUESTIONS, MY NEXT SPEAKER IS ELKIE — OH,
SORRY.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. Mr. FRIESEN, WE TALKED A
LITTLE BIT — Dr. FRIESEN —
WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT DURING THE BREAK.
WHY DO YOU THINK THIS
CONTINUES TO BE SUCH A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE?
AND ARE YOU PRIVY TO THE
DISCUSSIONS THAT OCCURRED IN EUROPE WHEN THEY MADE SOME
ALTERNATE DECISIONS TO NORTH
AMERICA? >> I'M NOT PRIVY TO THOSE
DISCUSSIONS THAT OCCURRED IN
EUROPE. SO I CAN'T COMMENT ON THOSE.
AS TO WHY DOES THIS CONTINUE
TO BE A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE IN CALGARY AND SOME OTHER
COMMUNITIES, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO
ME. I THINK Dr. MUSTO TOUCHED ON
SOME OF THE ISSUES.
I DO FIND IT INTERESTING THAT WATER FLUORIDATION HAS EXISTED
IN EDMONTON SINCE THE EARLY
SIXTIES, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN THE SAME DEGREE OF
DISCUSSION OCCURRING IN THAT
COMMUNITY AS OCCURRED IN CALGARY.
I THINK, AGAIN, HAVING THIS
DISCUSSION TAKE PLACE DOES PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW AND PRESENT THE
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF WATER FLUORIDATION,
REASSURE PEOPLE AROUND THE
SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF IT, BUT I CAN'T GIVE ANY INSIGHT
IN TERMS OF AS TO WHY IT'S
PERSISTED OR RECURRED AS AN ISSUE HERE.
>> AND IT'S THE SAME WITH
WATERLOO WITH THEIR DECISION, VERY SMALL MAJORITY, I THINK
IT WAS POINT 3 OF A PERCENT,
TO REMOVE IT AFTER MANY, MANY YEARS OF HAVING IT IN.
SO EVEN IN PLACES THAT HAVE
HAD IT FOR DECADES, IT REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL, AND THE
POPULATION IS SPLIT.
IT'S A FASCINATING DISCUSSION, AND IT MAY BE THAT THE METHOD
OF DELIVERY.
>> WELL, I THINK ANOTHER FACTOR IS AROUNDLISTIC
COMMUNICATION AND NO, AND IT'S
RELATIVELY EASY FOR ALLEGATIONS TO BE MADE IN
TERMS OF A PARTICULAR ADVERSE
EFFECTS OR IMPACTS RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION.
AND IT'S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT
TO REFUTE THOSE ALLEGATIONS IN TERMS OF — SOMEBODY CAN SAY
SOMETHING NEGATIVE, AND IT'S
OUT THERE VERY QUICKLY.

BUT THEN TO GO IN AND PROVIDE
THE SCIENTIFIC DETAIL AND
REASON WHY THAT IS NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT OR THAT
IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND
THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THAT PARTICULAR STUDY OR RESEARCH
WAS CARRIED OUT TAKES A MUCH
LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. AND THAT PEOPLE, IN THE
30-SECOND BIT, REALLY DOESN'T
LEND TO THAT TYPE OF INFORMED DISCUSSION FOR PEOPLE.
SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE
OTHER FACTORS THAT EXISTS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WATER
FLUORIDATION.
>> THANK YOU, Dr. FRIESEN. >> THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT PREVENTER IS ELKIE
BEVIAK. >> HI, THERE, IT'S BEEN A LONG
DAY.
(INAUDIBLE) >> THANK YOU.
I WAS INVOLVED IN THE
FLUORIDATION ISSUE A LONG TIME AGO.
I HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM OF
DENTISTRY (INDISCERNIBLE) NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE.
I HAVE RUN THROUGH THE FIRES
OF HELL WHEN I GOT MERCURY POISONING AND EXPERTS TOLD ME
THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG —
THIS WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH MERCURY IN MY MOUTH.
I WAS INVITED BY HEALTH CANADA
TO PARTICIPATE IN STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS FOR MERCURY AMALGAM.
WE DIDN'T GET THEM BANNED BUT
WE DID GET MAJOR CONCESSIONS.

SO I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH
DENTISTRY FOR WELL OVER 25
YEARS. I WORK WITH DENTIST WHO IS ARE
OPPOSED TO FLUORIDATION AND
WHO DO NOT USE FLUORIDE IN THEIR PRACTICES.
THEY ARE HARASSED, THEY CANNOT
COME DPOORD BECAUSE THEY ARE IN TROUBLE WHEN THEY DO BY
THEIR DENTAL ASSOCIATION.
THAT'S WHY YOU DIDN'T GET A DISSENTER.
THE DISSENTERS ARE NOT AT
THOSE MEETINGS. I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I HAVE
PULLED BACK A LITTLE BIT, AND
THE REASON I DID IS BECAUSE I WENT OUT AND GOT A JOB.
I AM NOW WORKING FOR CIR
REALTY. IT'S REALLY INTERESTING
BECAUSE AS A REALTOR NOW FOR
CIR, AND I'M A BUYER SPECIALIST, SO AS A BUYER
SPECIALIST I TAKE A LOT OF
FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS OUT, AND I HAVE SHOWN HUNDREDS OF
HOMES IN THE CITY.
ALL OVER THE CITY.

IN AFFLUENT AREAS AND LESS
AFFLUENT AREAS.
AND WHAT I FOUND IN THE AFFLUENT AREAS IS THAT MOST
PEOPLE DRINK EITHER FILTERED
WATER OR BOTTLED WATER, AND EVEN IN THE LESS AFFLUENT
AREAS, THERE ARE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE DRINKING BOTTLED WATER.
AND BOTTLED WATER HAS BECOME
VERY POPULAR LATELY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT TASTES BETTER THAN
TAP WATER AND IT'S SIEGE AS
BEING HEALTHIER THAN TAP WATER.
TO GIVE APERSPECTIVE ON DOSE,
THIS IS MY FORCE, SO THIS IS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF LITRES OF
WATER.
I'VE HAD FOUR CUPS OF COFFEE.

BEFOREGY TO BED TONIGHT I WILL
HAVE ANOTHER 2 LITRES OF
WATER. SO DOSE IS VERY IMPORTANT WHEN
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WEIGHT,
SO MYSELF, I WOULD GET MUCH MORE FLUORIDE IF I WAS
DRINKING FLORIDATED WATER THAN
MY FRIEND OVER THERE WHO IS 50 POUNDS HEAVIER THAN I AM, AND
THAT IS WHAT DOSE IS ALL
ABOUT. AND THAT IS WHY KIDS GET VERY
MUCH FLUORIDE FOR HOW MUCH
THEY WEIGH, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT ARE VERY SLIGHT IN
WEIGHT S AND IT'S VERY SIMPLE.
EVERY TIME SOMEBODY HAS ASKED ABOUT DOSE HERE AND WHAT IS A
SAFE DOSE, SOMEBODY TALKS
ABOUT CONCENTRATION OR LEVEL. DOSE IS VERY SIMPLE.
SOMEBODY LIKE MYSELF IS GOING
TO GET MUCH MORE BECAUSE I DON'T WEIGH AS MUCH THAN A
FULLY GROWN MAN DOES.
SO EVERY PERSON, DEPENDING ON WATER INTAKE, IS GOING TO GET
A DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF
FLUORIDE.

AND BECAUSE I DRINK A LOT OF
WATER AND I DON'T DRINK NOR
DATED WATER, I'M OKAY. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RUNNERS,
WHAT ABOUT THOSE?
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TWO GLASSES OF WATER A DAY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR TO
SIX LITRES, AT LEAST, WHEN YOU'RE TRAINING.
MY TRAINER RECOMMENDS AT LEAST
3 TO 4 LITRES OF WATER A DAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I
WANTED TO MENTION AS I AM —
HAVE NOTICED HOW MANY PEOPLE DRINK BOTTLED WATER IS
BASICALLY I WANT TO ASK SOME
QUESTIONS, AND THOSE QUESTIONS ARE WHO HAS MEASURED THE
DECLINE IN DENTAL CARIES IN
CALGARY SINCE CALGARY STARTED FLORIDATING?
CAN WE TRULY CLAIM THERE IS A
BENEFIT TO FLORIDATING OUR CITIZENS IF NO ONE HAS
BOTHERED TO DO A FOLLOW-UP
STUDY? IN THE 1980s, THEY FOUND NO
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN UNFLORIDATED CALGARY AND FLORIDATED EDMONTON, AND
YET WE STILL FLORIDATED OUR
WATER SUPPLY.

WHO IS LOOKED FOR POSSIBLE
EVIDENCE OF HARM IN CALGARY?
HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY SAY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HARM
WHATSOEVER IF NOBODY HERE HAS
LOOKED FOR IT? AND I DON'T LOOK AT REVIEWS BY
FLUORIDATION PROPONENTS.
CALGARY ALREADY WENT THERE IN 1998.
AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE
PANELISTS WAS IN FAVOUR OF NOR ADDITION EXCEPT FOR ONE.
SO HOW CAN YOU GET AN UNBIASED
REVIEW WHEN YOU'VE GOT A PANEL FULL OF FLUORIDATION
PROPONENTS?
THE OTHER THINGS, AS FAR AS FLUORIDATION COSTS THAT HAVE
NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED IS
BECAUSE THIS IS A BI-PRODUCTS OF FROS FATE FERTILIZER
MANUFACTURING.
CALGARY'S COST TO FLORIDATE IS ALWAYS GOING TO GO UP.
THE USE OF PHOSPHATE IS
DECLINING WORLDWIDE, AND THEY THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE A
SIGNIFICANT DECLINE IN THE
NEXT 20 YEARS.

YOUR COST, BECAUSE THERE WILL
BE LESS PHOSPHATE BYPRODUCT
AND LESS FLUORIDE BYPRODUCT PRODUCED, WILL KEEP GOING UP.
>> Ms. BABIAK, YOUR FIVE
MINUTES IS UP. CAN YOU GIVE ME A CONCLUDING
COMMENT.
>> MY MOST IMPORTANT THING WHEN I FIRST GOT STARTED IN
THE FLUORIDATION ISSUE WAS
FREEDOM OF CHOICE. YOU CANNOT CONTROL THE DOSE
HERE AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY
UNETHICAL TO FORCE SOME PEOPLE TO DRINK FLUORIDE AND OTHER
PEOPLE NOT.
>> ALDERMAN DEMONG, QUESTIONS? >> I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT WHERE TO START.
YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.
YOU'VE — WERE HERE THROUGH
'98, THROUGH THE LAST DISCUSSION.
PARDON?
>> (INAUDIBLE).

>> IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT WE
SEND THIS TO A PANEL OF
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL EXPERTS TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT
WE CAN LOOK FOR.
CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR OPINION ON WHAT YOUR OPINION OF THAT
IDEA MIGHT BE.
>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DETERMINE THAT THOSE MEDICAL
EXPERTS ARE UNBIASED?
YOU'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF PROPONENTS HERE FOR
FLUORIDATION.
WHO YOU DON'T HEAR FROM IS THE DENTISTS THAT ARE OPPOSED TO
FROR ADDITION — TO
FLUORIDATION BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID AND ALSO A LOT OF
DOCTORS WILL NOT SPEAK OUT.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARANTEE WHETHER THAT PANEL IS GOING TO
BE UNBIASED OR NOT.
THE CITY OF CALGARY TRIED TO HAVE A PANEL IN 1998.
IT TURNED OUT TO BE VERY
HEAVILY BIASED IN FAVOUR OF FLUORIDATION, YET DESPITE THAT,
WE LED NORTH AMERICA AS A CITY
IN SAYING WE WERE GETTING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE.
WE WERE 12 YEARS AHEAD OF THE
AMERICANS WHEN WE REDUCED TO POINT 7 AND NOW THE AMERICANS
ARE SAYING POINT 7.
WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.

LET'S BE AHEAD OF THEM AGAIN.
LET'S TAKE IT OUT OF OUR WATER
FLY WE ARE GETTING WAY TOO MUCH.
>> I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO
START… YOU WERE COMMENTING ABOUT THE
COST OF THE FLUORIDE TO THE
CITY OF CALGARY AND THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING UP.
WHERE EXACTLY WERE YOU GOING
WITH THAT, WHAT WERE YOUR COMMENTS?
>> THE USE OF PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZER HAS GONE DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE LAST
NUMBER OF YEARS, AND THE
DECLINE PREDICTED IN THE NEXT 20 IS THAT IT WON'T BE USED
THAT MUCH ANYMORE.
AS FAR AS STRIP MINES GO, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S LESS AND LESS
STRIPE MINES THAT ARE GETTING
PERMITS TO MINE PHOSPHATE ROCK BECAUSE IT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY
DISASTROUS.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A SHORTAGE OF CHEMICALS AS A
RESULT.
YOU'RE NOT USING PHOSPHATE IN DETERGENTS ANYMORE SO THE USE
OF PHOSPHATES ARE GOING WAY
DOWN.

WHEN THE USE OF PHOSPHATES GO
DOWN, YOUR INDUSTRIAL WASTE
BYPRODUCT WILL ALSO GO DOWN. THE REASON WE HAD A SHORTAGE
THE LAST TIME, AND CALGARY
EXPERIENCED THAT, IS BECAUSE THE MINES WERE OUT OF
PRODUCTION WHEN KATRINA HIT.
AND SO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, THOSE MONIES
ARE GOING TO BE — THOSE MINES
ARE GOING TO BE LESS AND LESS. WHERE IS THE COST OF THE
CHEMICAL GOING?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER QUESTION I SHOULD HAVE ASKED A
LONG TIME AGO TO REALLY
UNDERSTAND IT 'CAUSE WE'RE TALKING DOSE AND I THINK ALL
OF THE OTHER STUFF SET ASIDE
COMING DOWN TO MAKING A DECISION ON — 'CAUSE I THINK
WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT
FLUORIDE IS GREAT FOR TEETH. WHERE THE DISAGREEMENT COMES
IS HOW MUCH AND HOW AND WE GO
FROM THERE. AM I CORRECT THAT POINT 7
PARTS PER MILLION IS THE SAME
AS 7 MILLIGRAMS? >> NO.
>> NO?
OKAY.

>> POINT 7 PARTS PER MILLION
MEANS YOU'RE GETTING POINT 7
OF A MILLIGRAM IN 1 LITRE OF WATER.
>> POINT 7 OF 1 MILLIGRAM.
>> YES, EXACTLY. POINT 7 PARTS PER MILLION IS
POINT 7 MILLIGRAMS IN 1 LITRE
OF WATER. AND SO HOW MUCH YOU'RE GOING
TO BE GETTING IS HOW MUCH
YOU'RE DRINKING. SO I'M GOING TO BE DRINKING 4
LITRES OF WATER PER DAY.
SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE DRINKING NONE AT ALL OR 1
LITRE OF WATER A DAY SO EACH
ONE OF US GETS A DIFFERENT DOSE OF FLUORIDE IF WE DRINK
FLORIDATED TAP WATER.
THAT'S NOT AN EFFECTIVE DELIVERY METHOD.
>> IF WE LOOKED ON AVERAGE —
THEY KEEP SAYING YOU SHOULD DRINK EIGHT GLASSES OF WATER A
DAY, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY I
THINK MANY PEOPLE DO NOT DO, AND THEY SHOULD.
IF I BREAK THAT DOWN, THAT
WOULD BE ROUGHLY 2 LITRES OF WATER.
>> APPROXIMATELY, YES.
>> SO I WOULD BE GETTING 1.4 MILLIGRAMS OF FLUORIDE OUT OF
THAT.
>> YEAH.

>> NOT COUNTING ANY OF THE
OTHER WAYS I WOULD BE GETTING
FLUORIDE ON A DAILY BASIS. SO I WOULD GO WITH THE 1.4
WHICH IS PROBABLY FAIRLY
COMMON AND MAY BE EVEN LESS THAN THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T
DRINK WATER BUT THEN ON TOP OF
THAT I WOULD ADD ALL OF MY TOOTHPASTE AND ALL OF THESE
OTHER THINGS AND EVERY NOW AND
THEN THE DENTIST DOES PUT THOSE THINGS IN MY MOUTH BUT
NOT AS MUCH LATELY AS BEFORE.
MAYBE THAT'S 'CAUSE I'M GETTING OLDER, HE'S SAYING TO
HECK WITH YOU, I'M NOT SURE,
BUT ANYWAY, WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS
WHAT IS THE RECOGNIZED HARMFUL AMOUNT IN MILLIGRAMS?
>> THAT WILL VARY FROM PERSON
TO PERSON DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO FLUORIDE
OR NOT.
>> AGAIN WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOU FOR KIND OF AN AVERAGE.
IF I'M CORRECT, I THINK I'VE
HEARD SOMEWHERE AROUND 4 MILLIGRAMS, BUT I DON'T KNOW
IF THAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF INFORMATION AND I TRIED TO
TAKE AS MANY NOTES AS —
>> THE HARMFUL EFFECTS FOR CHILDREN ARE OBVIOUS, RIGHT,
AND SOME CHILDREN ARE GOING TO
BE DRINKING MORE WATER.

SOME CHILDREN NOT.
DENTAL FLUOROSIS IS A GIVEN IN
FLORIDATED COMMUNITIES. IT'S LIKE 41%.
THAT TELLS US THEY'RE GETTING
WAY TOO MUCH FLUORIDE. AS FAR AS THE ABSOLUTE
MILLIGRAM DOSE THAT IS HARMFUL,
IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO FLUORIDE, A HALF A MILLIGRAM
IS ENOUGH.
A HALF A MILLIGRAM IS ENOUGH. IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO
FLUORIDE.
THAT'S NOT VERY MUCH. THAT'S NOT VERY MUCH.
>> IF ANYONE ELSE HAS VERY
SPECIFIC INFORMATION ALONG THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT
AT A LATER TIME.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, Mr.

CHAIRMAN.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR
NAME. >> ELKA.
>> THAT'S WHAT I HAD WRITTEN
DOWN BUT I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS CORRECT.
FLIRS DECLARING AN INTEREST.
THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN. FIRST OF ALL I'D LIKE TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND
YOUR DILIGENCE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OVER MANY
YEARS, OBVIOUSLY.
AND I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
I CERTAINLY DID HEAR WHAT YOU
HAD TO SAY AND I HAVE BEEN TAPING THE PROCEEDINGS TODAY
SO I'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW THAT AT MY LEISURE.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
GOOD ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES.
I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ANY THE MAIN ISSUE IS THE
ETHICAL ONE.
ANYWAY, I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENCE AND YOUR PRESENTATION
HERE TODAY.
IF I MAY, TO THE CHAIRMAN, THERE'S BEEN APPEAR LOT OF
SUBMISSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE TODAY AND I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD PUT IN A REQUEST
THAT ALL OF THE SUBMISSIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED HERE TO THIS COMMITTEE BE FORWARDED
ON TO COUNCIL WHEN THIS REPORT
GOES TO COUNCIL. >> WELL, WE HAVEN'T HAD A LOT
OF SUBMISSIONS GIVEN TO US.
THEY WERE ALL VERBAL. >> OKAY.
WELL, I'VE SEEN A FEW.
BUT ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IF YOU CAN MAKE SURE THEY'RE
ADD THE TO THE COUNCIL AGENDA.
>> MAY SKI A QUESTION. MY PRINTER BROKE DOWN.
I DIDN'T HAVE ONE.
SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO DO A REAL FULL SMILGS.
MAY I SUBMIT AFTER?
>> ABSOLUTELY.

IF YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION
THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO US,
WHETHER YOU SEND IT TO ME DIRECTLY OR TO OTHER MEMBERS
OF COUNCIL, I'D APPRECIATE
THAT. THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS HELEN
MOORE. FOR THOSE THAT ARE COUNTING,
THAT'S THE END OF PAGE 1.
WE'LL START ON PAGE 2 NEXT. NUMBER 30.
0 OUT OF 50.
— NUMBER 30 OUT OF 50. >> THANK YOU.
I'M HELEN MOWATT, A MOTHER AND
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR AND CONCERNED CALGARIAN.
I HAVE LIVED IN CALGARY FOR
CLOSE TO FOUR DECADES. I WAS BROUGHT UP AND
ENCOURAGED TO BE A DISCERNING
AND CARING PERSON. I LEARNED AS A CHILD TO FOLLOW
THE GOLDEN RULE OF DOING UNTO
OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
I AM A GENERALIST AND HAVE A
MASTERS DEGREE IN EDUCATION.

I EXPECT ACCOUNTABLE, OPEN,
FAIR GOVERNMENT.
I ALSO FEEL THAT UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS SHOULD NOT FORCE
DECISIONS ON THE PUBLIC BASED
ON QUESTIONABLE SCIENCE. IN THE 1970s, I WAS
BRAINWASHED FROM AND DID NOT
QUESTION AUTHORITIES, OFFICIALS, OR EXPERTS.
CALGARY REGIONAL HEALTH
AUTHORITY, CRHA, RECOMMENDED CHILDREN BE GIVEN FLUORIDE
DROPS TO HELP WITH TOOTH
DECAY. IN 1989, CRHA CONDUCTED AN
IMPROPER PLEBISCITE WITHOUT
GIVING CITIZENS ALL THE FACTS AND LIKEWISE IN 1998 CRHA
SPENT 250.000 OF THAT MONEY —
OF TAXPAYERS MONEY PROMOTING THIS UNEVIDENT CAL METHOD OF
MEDICATING EVERY CALGARIAN.
READING HISTORY I FOUND OUT FLUORIDE WAS GIVEN TO THE MASS
INSIDE GERMANY DURING THE
HOLOCAUST TO KEEP THE PRISONERS PASS SICH.
IT IS ALSO KNOWN THAT FLUORIDE
IS A COMPONENT IN DRUGS LIKE PROZAC.
SINCE THE 1950s, MANY
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND ETHICAL CALGARIANS FOUGHT NOT TO HAVE
THIS POISON PUT IN OUR
DRINKING WATER BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD HISTORY, THEY
VALUED THE RICH RESOURCES OF
PURE, CLEAN MISSOURI WATER, FLUORIDE WAS KEPT OUT OF
CALGARY'S DRINKING WATER IN
THE FIFTIES, SIXTIES, SEVENTIES, ALONG WITH SIX
PLEBISCITES.
FINALLY THE POLITICIANS MADE THE DECISION TO PUT THE POISON
INTO OUR DRINKING WATER
WITHOUT LEGITIMATE SCIENCE NOR PROPER PUBLIC CONSENT IN 1989.
AFTER A SLIM MAJORITY
PLEBISCITE WHERE ONLY 17% OF CALGARIANS VOTED.
THIS WAS A SCAM AND RACKET
RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING.

ONE HAS TO ASK WHO WAS
PROMOTING AND PROFITING FROM
IT. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU LOOK
AT SOME OF THESE WEB SITES.
THERE ARE MANY BOOKS AND STUDIES WHICH HAVE PRESENTED
FLUORIDE HISTORY AND CONCERNS.
THOSE ARE GOOD WEB SITES. NEXT IS SOME BOOKS.
AND BY Dr. JAMES BECK IS A
CONCERNED CALGARIAN IS HERE AND HE WROTE THE CASE AGAINST
FLUORIDE, HOW HAZARDOUS WASTE
ENDED UP IN OUR DRINKING WATER AND HOW BAD SCIENCE AND
POWERFUL POLITICS HAVE KEPT IT
THERE. FINALLY, THEN THERE CAME A
SLIDE ABOUT THE CHRONOLOGICAL
ORDER OF — ABOUT FLUORIDE AND IT EVEN STARTED THE DEBATE
SINCE 1901.
AND I'LL LET YOU JUST READ THAT.
IT GOES TO Dr. MACKAY, A
DENTIST, NOTICED IT ON HIS PATIENT'S TOOTH AND HAS STAINS
ON HIS TEETH AND WENT TO THE
COLORADO STATE DENTAL ASSOCIATION, AND ARE NOTHING
TOO MUCH WAS DONE.
THEN Dr. HILL, A CITY COUNCILOR, ASKED THAT THE
COUNCILORS MOVE CAUTIOUSLY
BECAUSE HE SAID THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES HAVEN'T BEEN
FULLY DETERMINED.
NEXT, 1953, THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION DECLARED
THAT WATER FLUORIDATION WAS
THE GREATEST STEP IN PREVENTION OF DENTISTRY THAT
HAS OCCURRED DURING THIS
CENTURY.

FINALLY IN 1966, THE ALBERTA
GOVERNMENT AMENDED THE PUBLIC
HEALTH ACT TO PERMIT A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE ON FLUORIDATION
INSTEAD OF THE TWO-THIRDS
MAJORITY PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED. TODAY THERE ARE NO LEGITIMATE
SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT FLUORIDE
EVEN HELPS TOPICALLY WITH TOOTH DECAY.
MANY CREDIBLE STUDIES SHOW
THAT IT DELETERIOS EFFECTS ON THE SKELETAL SYSTEM.
OTHER PEER REVIEW STUDIES SHOW
IT HORS EYE IQ, NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS, THYROID PROBLEMS,
AND EVEN CANCER.
Dr. CARLSON WON A NOBEL PRIZE IN MEDICINE IN 2000 FOR HIS
WORK ON THE BRAIN, NEUROLOGY,
PLAYED A VERY IMPORTANT, PROMINENT ROLE IN BANNING
FLUORIDE IN SWEDEN.
OPER HEIMER OF GERMANY WHO PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN THE
INVENTION OF THE ATOMIC BOMB
QUOTES THESE WORDS FROM A SPIRIT 50U ANCIENT TEXT:
NOW I AM BECOME DEATH.
THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS. DID YOU KNOW THAT FLUORIDE IS
ONE OF THE MOST TOXIC
CHEMICALS STILL IN NORTH AMERICA?
IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST — IT
WAS ONE OF THE TOXIC COMPONENTS EVALUATED FOR USE
IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE
ATOMIC BOMB IN WORLD WAR II. Dr. McCOLA STATES WATER
FLUORIDATION IS BASED IN AN
ABSURD AND UNETHICAL BECAUSE STUDIES SHOW THIS CHEMICAL CAN
DAMAGE YOUR BRAIN, IMMUNE, GAS
ROW INTESTINAL SYSTEM AND SKELETAL SYSTEM.
IT'S SO DANGEROUS A FAMILY
SIZED TUBE OF NOR I'D TOOTHPASTE IS TOXIC ENOUGH TO
KILL A 25 POUND CHILD.
AS A MOM, WHEN I SAW THIS PICTURE OF MY SON, CRAIG, I
WAS WORRIED AND CONCERNED.
I ARRANGED APPOINTMENT AT THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL TO SEE A
NEUROLOGIST.
SADLY HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY CONNECTIONS AND NOR DID HE
GIVE ME ANY ANSWERS TO THE
PROBLEM.

TAKE NOTE OF MY SON'S RIGHT
LEG AND RIGHTNAND THESE TWO
PICTURES. TO ME THIS DOES NOT SEEM
NORMAL.
HOWEVER, WITH HOME LINE THINKING AND A MOM'S INTUITION
I PUT THE PUZZLE PIECES
TOGETHER AND FEEL IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE FLUORIDE DROPS
I GAVE HIM WHENERS A LITTLE
BOY. TODAY I HAVE LEARNED TO
QUESTION THE OFFICIALS, THE
EXPERTS, AND WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY BECAUSE OF MY MANY LIVED
EXPERIENCES.
MANY HISTORICAL ATROCITIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE
NAME OF SCIENCE.
TODAY I KNOW THAT SELF-INTEREST IS MORE
IMPORTANT TO POLITICIANS,
BUREAUCRATS, AND CORPORATIONS. MY PASSION WAS TEACHING.
TODAY IF SOMEONE TOLD ME YOU
JUST HAVE A LARGER AUDIENCE. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE WATER
PIPES AT THE BEARSPAW WATER
TREATMENT CENTRE SHOWING (INDISCERNIBLE) TOXIN, TOXIC
WASTE EATING THROUGH THE
PIPES. IT'S NOT A PRETTY SIGHTS.
WHY ARE CALGARIANS — SUM IT
UP? >> PLEASE.
>> WHY ARE CALGARIANS BEING
DECEIVED IN I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HONEST SCIENCE OR THE USE OF
SCIENTIFIC METHODS.
HOWEVER COMMONLY SENSE MUST ALWAYS RULE.
IT IS MY OPINION THE POLICIES
OF FLUORIDATION IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FRAUD AND THAT IS
THE IMPLEMENT — AND THIS —
AND THAT ITS IMPLEMENTATION IS CRIMINAL.
IT'S NOT EFFECTIVE, NOT SAFE,
AND UNETHICAL.

FOR UNELECTED AND ELECTEDED
OFFICIALS TO FOIST THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE UPON CALGARIANS.
FLUORIDE IS AVAILABLE IN
TOOTHPASTE. I WILL TRUST THAT CITY COUNCIL
WILL MAKE USE — WILL USE
COMMON SENSE AND STOP FLUORIDATION NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER AND COMMITTEE (INDISCERNIBLE)
CONFORM SO ALL MEMBERS OF
COMMITTEE WILL NEED TO KEEP THEIR SEATS UNTIL WE HAVE
(INDISCERNIBLE) MEMBERS.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JAMES BECK. >> WHAT I HEARD THUS FAR TODAY
HAS PRESENTED ME WITH A
DILEMMA. YOU HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH A
LOT OF TESTIMONY, AND I THINK
THAT TESTIMONY COMES FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO — WITH
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND
EFFECTS ON THEIR OWN LIVES HAS TO BE LISTENED TO AND
RESPECTED.
YOU'VE ALSO HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY FROM OFFICIALS FROM
ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES, AND
QUITE A LOT OF THAT TESTIMONY HAS OMITTED MUCH EVIDENCE
COUNTER TO THEIR CONCLUSIONS
AND HAS MISREPRESENTED SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT IS
INDICATION OF HARM OF
FLUORIDATION.

SO I HAVE ABOUT THREE BEIGES
HERE — THREE PAGES HERE OF
NOTES OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE SUSTAINED OUT BUT I GUESS I
MUST NOT DO THAT.
FIVE MINUTES ISN'T MUCH TIME. HERE, BY THE WAY, I HAVE
COPIES OF WHAT I'M ABOUT TO
SAY, IF YOU WANT THOSE, AND I'M TELLING ME CIV SELF I CAN
READ THIS IN THREE MINUTES SO
I'LL GIVE IT A GOOD SHOT. SOME OF YOU ON THE COMMITTEE
HAVE HEARD ME BEFORE ON
FLUORIDATION. I HAVE IN THE PAST FOCUSED ON
QUESTIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS IN
PREVENTING CAVITIES AND ON THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE
AND OF HEXAFLUORAL ACID.
THERE ARE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE INSIDE HOW YOU PUT FLUORIDE
ION INTO CITY WATER, WHETHER
YOU USE HEXA FLUORAL ACID OR SOMETHING ELSE.
THAT WAS DISMISSED BY THE
MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH AND IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED.
I HAVE GIVEN REASONS BASED ON
PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH PAPERS PUBLISHED INCREDIBLE JOURNALS
FOR CONCLUDING THE
FLUORIDATION IS AT BEST MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE AND
DEFINITELY HARMFUL TO SUB
GROUPS OF THE POPULATION AND QUITE POSSIBLY HARMFUL TO ALL
OF US.
SO IN THESE FEW MINUTES I'LL COMMENT ONLY ON THE ETHICAL
ISSUES.
IN 1957, THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULED THAT FLUORIDATION
IS "COMPULSORY, PREVENTIVE
MEDICATION".

THE COURT'S RULING IS
SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT
LEGITIMIZES THE COMMONSENSE CONCLUSION THAT WE ARE BEING
MEDICATED, AND IT PUTS THE
MATTER CLEARLY IN THE REALM OF MEDICAL ETHICS.
AND MEDICAL ETHICS IN TURN IS
EMBEDDED IN HUMAN RIGHTS. NOW, HERE'S HOW FLUORIDATION
VIOLATES THE CODE OF MEDICAL
ETHICS: IT IS ADMINISTRATION OF A DRUG
WITHOUT CONTROL OF DOSAGE,
CONTROLLING CONCENTRATION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EXCESSIVELY,
NOT CONTROL OF THE DOSE OR THE
DOSAGE.

IT IS ADMINISTRATION OF DRUG
WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT OF
THE RECIPIENT. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE MONITORING
OF THE EFFECTS OF THE DRUG ON
THE RECIPIENT. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE
RECIPIENT TO STOP RECEIVING
THE DRUG. MANY CANNOT GET NON-FLORIDATED
WATER AND NONE OF US CAN AVOID
EXPOSURE FROM FOODS AND DRINKS PROCESSED WHERE TAP WATER IS
FLORIDATED.
THE DRUG HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE SAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
ALL OF THOSE POINTS DISQUALIFY
FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES AS A MEDICALLY
ETHICAL PROCEDURE.
THE FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY IS NOT ONLY AN
ETHICAL OFFENCE AGAINST US ALL,
IT IS CLEARLY A MORE SERIOUS OFFENCE AGAINST THOSE
SUBGROUPS OF OUR POPULATION
WHICH ARE PARTICULARLY AT RISK OF HARM FROM FLUORIDE.
THESE GROUPS INCLUDE INFANTS
BEING FED WITH FORMULA RECONSTITUTED WITH TAP WATER,
DIABETICS, PERSONS DEFICIENT
IN EYE FINE INTAKE, PERSONS WITH KIDNEY DISEASE, BOYS
DOING THE 8-YEAR-OLD GROWTH
SPURT, AND OTHERS.

IT IS AN OBLIGATION OF CITY
COUNCILS AND OF ALBERTA HEALTH
SERVICES TO PROTECT NOT ALL — PROTECT ALL, NOT JUST THE
AVERAGE AND NOT JUST THE
MAJORITY. SEVERAL COUNCILORS HAVE
RIGHTLY BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT
THE DENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES.
IT IS SAID THAT FLUORIDATION
IS A PARTICULAR BENEFIT TO POOR CHILDREN.
WELL, THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN
INVESTIGATED WITH STUDIES THAT WERE DESIGNED TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION.
IT IS FOUND THAT THE FLORIDATED POOR GROUPS HAVE NO
BETTER CAVITY EXPERIENCE THAN
DO THE NON-FLORIDATED POOR GROUPS.
FURTHERMORE, IT IS FOUND THAT
THE PREVALENCE OF CAVITIES INCREASES AS FAMILY INCOME
DECREASES.
IT'S NOT FLUORIDE THAT WOULD BENEFIT POOR CHILDREN.
IT'S A HIGHER STANDARD OF
LIVING.

PROBABLY A BETTER DIET AND
BETTER ORAL HYGIENE.
WHAT KIND OF AN ETHICAL CONSCIOUSNESS ALLOWS ONE TO
CONTINUE TO APPLY A POSSIBLY
HARMFUL PROCESS TO UNWILLING PEOPLE UNTIL THERE IS ABSOLUTE
PROOF IT IS HARMFUL.
I HAVE SEEN THIS BACKWARD APPROACH TO SAFETY AND
GOVERNMENT REPORTS ON
FLUORIDATION. IT GOES LIKE THIS.
THIS STUDY THAT SHOWS
ASSOCIATION OF FLUORIDATION WITH THIS HARMFUL EFFECT IS
NOT A PERFECT STUDY.
THIS ARE WEAKNESSES. THEREFORE WE WILL CONTINUE THE
PROCESS UNTIL IT IS SHOWN WITH
CERTAINTY THAT IT IS HARMFUL. AND AT THE SAME TIME IN THESE
REPORTS NO FURTHER RESEARCH IS
RECOMMENDED. NO RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPORT A
BETTER STUDY IS ACCEPTED.
AND THE PRESENCE OF A SMALL AND DUBIOUS BENEFIT, SUCH A
CONCLUSION —
>> DOCTOR — >> — MORE THAN BEING
IRRESPONSIBLE IS OUTLANDISH.
SO I WILL END BY SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE THE MORAL RIGHT TO
DO THIS TO US, TO 1 MILLION
PEOPLE.

YOU SHOULD STOP IT NOW.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION. WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
ALDERMAN DEMONG.
>> YOU SAY THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN SAFE FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION.
COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT FOR ME, PLEASE.
>> THERE HAVE — PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENTS NOW INVOLVED IN THE WHOLE WORLD IN TERMS OF
FLUORIDATION ARE THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA. THE UNITED STATES, IT HAS BEEN
SAID BY THE FEDERAL DRUG
AGENCY THAT IT'S NOT BEEN EXAMINED FOR SAFETY FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION, AND IT'S NOT AN
APPROVED DRUG. IT'S WHAT'S CLASSIFIED AS AN
UNAPPROVED DRUG.
IN THE CASE OF HEALTH CANADA, HEALTH CANADA APPROVES OF IT,
BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
FIND OUT WHY. I AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE
HAVE SUBMITTED PETITIONS TO
HEALTH CANADA THROUGH THE FEDERAL AUDITOR'S OFFICE,
WHICH IN THE LAW REQUIRES THAT
HEALTH CANADA ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS WITHIN A CERTAIN
PERIOD OF TIME AND SO ON.
WE GOT ANSWERS BACK.

WE ASKED FOR THE EVIDENCE THAT
THEY HAVE FOR SAFETY AND THE
EVIDENCE THEY HAVE FOR EFFICACY AND THEY JUST DON'T
ANSWER.
THEY DON'T GIVE US ANY CITATIONS AND SO I PERSONALLY
GAVE UP THAT PURSUIT.
I DIDN'T CONTINUE BECAUSE I DON'T EXPECT IT TO PAY OFF.
I IN FACT FRANKLY EXPECT TO
YOU STOP FLORIDATING CALGARY IN ANY WAY LONG BEFORE COULD I
GET AN ANSWER OUT OF HAURND.
PETER COONY, THE FEDERAL OFFICER OF DENTAL HEALTH, HE
HAS NO WAY TO SUPPORT
FLUORIDATION. HE DOESN'T SEEM TO RESPOND IN
A KNOWLEDGEABLE BEYE WAY, AND
HE HAS CONTRIBUTED IN ONE MEETING, INTERNATIONAL MEETING,
ABOUT FLUORIDATION THAT HE
SAYS HE WALKED DOWN YOUR HIGH STREET, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN
PEOPLE WITH HORNS.
AND THAT'S HOW SERIOUSLY HE TAKES THE PROBLEM.
IT'S JUST BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO
GET SATISFACTORY RESPONSES FROM THAT KIND OF LEADERSHIP.
>> SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING —
YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THERE'S BEEN NO FDA TESTING ON
FLUORIDE AS A DRUG OR FLUORIDE
IN GENERAL? >> RIGHT.
AND ALSO UNAPPROVED DRUG — I
DON'T THINK THAT INCLUDES HEXA FLUORALACILIC ACID AND THERE
WERE SOME MISLEADING COMMENTS
MADE EARLIER TODAY ABOUT THE CHEMISTRY INVOLVED.
IT WAS DOES MATTER WHERE THAT
FLUORIDE COMES FROM.

THAT IS WHAT'S ADDED TO THE
WATER.
IT COULD MATTER VERY MUCH. FOR ONE THING IT'S TRUE THAT
ALMOST ALL THE FLUORIDE IS
ASSOCIATED FROM THE HEXA FLUORAL ACID IN VERY DILUTE
SOLUTION IN WATER BUT THE
SICI — SILICATES ENTER YOUR BODY WHEN YOU DRINK THE WATER
AS DOES THE FLUORIDE ION IN A
VERY ACIDIC ENVIRONMENT SUCH AS IN THE STOMACH, PH OF 1.2
OR SO.
THE FLUORIDE REASSOCIATES WITH SILICATES AND THIS ISN'T
CERTAIN BUT WE DO KNOW THAT
INGESTION OF THE ACID HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH LESIONS IN THE
MUCOSA OF THE INTESTINES AND
IT MAY BE BECAUSE OF THIS RECOMBINATION OF
FLUORALSILICATES AND THE OTHER
POINT IS IT OF INTEREST ON A CITY-WIDE SCALE BECAUSE THE
FLUORIDATION IS ASSOCIATED
ALSO WITH HIGHER LEAD LEVELS IN THE BLOOD OF CHILDREN.
AND THE PROBLEM EXPLANATION OF
THAT IS LEAD IS LEECHED OUT OF THE JOINTS IN THE PLUMBING
SYSTEM.
I KNOW WE DON'T USE LEAD PIPES ANYMORE, BUT WE SOLDER JOINTS
WITH A FLUX THAT HAS LEAD IN
IT.

AND THIS HAS BEEN DEFINITELY
DEMONSTRATED AND QUANTIFIED
THAT THAT ASSOCIATION — WE KNOW THAT WITH VERY RECENT
RESEARCH THAT CAME AFTER SOME
OF THE VERY GOOD STUDIES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL 2006 REPORT WHICH
INTERESTED TO SEE OUR COLLEAGUES FROM ALBERTA HEALTH
SERVICE MENTION AMONG THEIR
SYSTEM — SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, BUT THIS HAS SHOWN THAT THERE
IS — IN LABORATORY ANIMALS
YOU'VE GOT HIGHER LEVELS IN THE TOOTH ENAMEL OF LEAD AND
HIGHER LEVELS OF LEAD AND BONE
AND HUMANS AND CHILDREN YOU DO OBSERVE HIGHER LEVELS IN THEIR
BLOOD AND FLORIDATED AREAS,
HIGH LEVELS OF LEAD NOW, AND THERE'S NO DISPUTE HERE, I'M
SURE, OUR COLLEAGUES WOULD
AGREE WITH ME, THAT LEAD A WELL-KNOWN NEUROTOXIN.
AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE
WANT OUR CHILDREN TO BE EXPOSED TO.
>> SPEAKING OF THE SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT TODAY, YOU'RE
REFERENCING SEVERAL THINGS,
THEY'RE REFERENCING OTHER THINGS.
HOW IS THE LAYMAN SUPPOSED TO
KNOW THAT THEIR REVIEWS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE STUDIES
THAT YOU'RE PUTTING FORWARD
AND TO SAY WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT WE SHOULD BE RELYING ON?
>> WELL, I'VE MENTIONED ONLY
ONE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND THAT'S THE NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL REVIEW FROM 2006.
BUT THIS WAS DONE BY A PANEL OF 12 SCIENTISTS, SOME OF WHOM,
BEFORE THEY STARTED THIS STUDY,
WERE IN FAVOUR OF FLUORIDATION, SOME OF WHOM WERE AGAINST
FLUORIDATION, AND SOME OF WHOM
HAD NO POSITION ON THE MATTER.

THEY STUDIED THE PROBLEM FOR
THREE YEARS.
THEY LOOKED AT 1100 PRIMARY RESEARCH PAPERS.
I'LL MAKE A DISTINCTION IN A
MOMENT. AND THEY BASED THEIR
CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR ANALYSIS
ON PRIMARY RESEARCH. NOW, PRIMARY RESEARCH IS
RESEARCH WHERE DATA IS
GATHERED AND ANALYZED AND EVALUATED IN A PROPER MANNER,
WHEREAS SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OR
NON-SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ARE JUST REVIEWS OF HOPEFULLY OF
PRIMARY RESEARCH.
BUT IN MANY CASES IN THE FLUORIDATION CASE, WE HAVE
SORT OF AN INVERTED PYRAMID
WHERE ALL THESE PANELS, THIS DENTAL ASSOCIATION AND THAT
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND SO ON,
SAY FLUORIDE IS WONDERFUL BECAUSE THIS REVIEW SAID IT
WAS.
AND THIS REVIEW SAID IT WAS BECAUSE SOME OTHER REVIEWS
SAID IT WAS.
AND SOMETIMES WHEN YOU GO DEEP ENOUGH, YOU COME DOWN TO THE
POINT OF THIS UPSIDE-DOWN
PYRAMID AND IT'S A GROUP OF GOVERNMENT APPOINTED
(INDISCERNIBLE) — GOVERNMENT
APPOINTED PRO-FLUORIDATION PEOPLE AND YOU CAN'T REALLY
CREDIT THAT KIND OF REVIEW.
IT HAS TO BE DONE BETTER THAN THAT.
ANOTHER REVIEW ASIDE FROM THE
NRC 2006 REVIEW, THERE WAS WHAT'S CALLED THE YORK REVIEW
WHICH CAME OUT IN THE YEAR
2000 FROM GREAT BRITAIN AND THE CHAIR OF THAT REVIEW PANEL
HAS SINCE THEN BEEN
COMPLAINING THE PROPONENTS ARE USING THE YORK REVIEW TO
SUPPORT THEIR CONCLUSION THAT
FLUORIDATION IS WONDERFUL.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE REPORT
SAYS.
THIS REPORT — I THINK THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THEY START THE
OUT, LOOKED AT A 214 OR 220 OR
SOMETHING, MAYBE LUKE SCHWARTZ KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THAT
BECAUSE HE TALKED ABOUT IT
ONCE TO A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THIS COMMITTEE.
AND THEY LOOKED AT THESE 2
HUNDRED DOLLARS AND-SOME-ODD STUDIES AND CLASSIFIED THE
STUDIES IN THREE LEVELS:
GRADE A, B, AND C AS TO THE COMPETENCE OF THE STUDY.
THEY FOUND NO GRADE A AND
AMONG THE B AND C THEY MANAGED TO GET 12.
AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE
REPORT IS WE HAVE NO WAY TO SAY WHETHER THIS IS GOOD OR
BAD.
SO HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT THAT MADE FLUORIDATION GOOD IS
BEYOND ME.
SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS AND YOU HAVE TO ASK
THE QUESTION WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE YOU'RE CITING?
WHEN I TALK TO YOU MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL IN THE PAST, I TRIED TO EMPHASIZE THIS POINT FROM
BOTH THE PROPONENTS AND
OPPONENTS.

YOU MUST ASK WHAT IT IS — THE
BASIS OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS.
AND I THINK WHEN YOU'VE ASKED Dr. DIXON OR ME ABOUT THAT
OVER THE LAST YEARS, WE HAVE
GIVEN YOU — MENTIONED, ANYWAY.
WE HAVEN'T READ THEM TO YOU,
OBVIOUSLY. BUT WE'VE GIVEN YOU CITATIONS
OF PRIMARY RESEARCH, NOT TO
JUST REVIEWS. >> A LOT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED
ABOUT A POSSIBLE MEDICAL
REVIEW THROUGH THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE, UFRTD OF CALGARY,
AND THAT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL
WAY FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND TELL US WHETHER WE SHOULD
CONTINUE TO FLORIDATE OR
DISCONTINUE FLORIDATING.

CAN YOU GIVE ME YOUR VIEWS ON
WHAT THAT MAY LOOK LIKE,
WHETHER YOU WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT OR DISCOURAGE THAT.
WHAT WOULD YOUR VIEWPOINT ON
THAT? >> MY FIRST REACTION IS I
THINK YOU SHOULD JUST STOP
FLUORIDATION AND THAT WILL SETTLE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF REVIEWS AND
DISCUSSIONS AND SO ON. I'M NOT AGAINST THE FACULTIES
OF MEDICINE HOSTING OR EVEN
ORGANIZING SUCH APPEAR REVIEW, BUT I WOULD CAUTION YOU AGAIN,
JUST BECAUSE THERE'S SOMEBODY
WEARING A WHITE COAT, DOESN'T MEAN SHE OR HE IS RIGHT.
OR EVEN KNOWS WHAT SHE OR HE
IS TALKING ABOUT. I'LL GIVE YOU THE EXAMPLE THE
DEAN OF MEDICINE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY WAS SAYING HOW THE DOSE IS
CONTROLLED, HOW THERE'S NO
EVIDENCE OF HARM. NOT ONLY HE BUT THE HEAD OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
HEALTH SCIENCES. THEY JOINTLY WROTE AN OP ED IN
THE HERALD SAYING THESE
THINGS.

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE
HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES I HAVE
STUDIED DON'T EXIST, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY.
AND I SINCE HAVE HAD A
FRIENDLY TALK WITH THE DEAN OF MEDICINE AND HE NO LONGER
FEELS THAT CONTROLLING
CONCENTRATION IS CONTROLLING DOSE AND HE NO LONGER DENIES
THE EXISTENCE OF EVIDENCE OF
HARM. SO IF THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE
WANTS TO DO THAT, FINE.
WHOEVER WANTS TO DISCUSS IT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED IS
WELCOME AS LONG AS THEY DO IT
RESPONSIBLY. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANKS FOR COMING OUT HERE TONIGHT.
>> THANK YOU.
THERE ARE SOME MORE QUESTIONS. Dr. BECK.
BUT I'M NOT SURE, I SHOULD
HAVE MENTIONED THIS OR THE CHAIR SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED
THIS —
>> I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU.
>> OKAY.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? I'LL SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER.
>> IT'S MY EARS.
>> FOR ANY OF THE PRESENTERS WHO DON'T WANT TO STAND
THROUGH LONG QUESTIONING,
THERE IS A STOOL, AND WE CAN LOWER THE PODIUM IF IT'S MORE
COMFORTABLE.
SO THERE'S AN OPTION OPEN FOR EVERYONE WHO'S PRESENTING.
ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> THANK YOU.

ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THANK YOU.
I DIDN'T REALIZE I STILL HAVE MY LIGHT ON BUT THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS
FOR YOU. I GUESS I'D LIKE TO START ON
WHAT — YOU DIDN'T REALLY
TOUCH ON THIS, WHAT YOUR CREDENTIALS ARE FOR THIS.
YOU'VE GOT A PRETTY STRONG
BACKGROUND AS A RESEARCHER AND A PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY.
CAN YOU JUST TELL ME A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT YOUR RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND HOW YOU CAME TO
THE ISSUE OF FLUORIDE.
>> MY RESEARCH BACKGROUND? >> YES.
>> MY RESEARCH BACKGROUND HAS
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FLUORIDE OR FLUORIDATION.
MY OBJECTION NOW — I SHOULD
MAKE IT CLEAR. MY OBJECTION IS THE
FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLIES. TO SAY I'M AGAINST FLUORIDE IS
KIND OF SILLY.
IT'S THERE, IT'S IN THE PERIODIC TABLE, IT'S IN OUR
WATER NATURALLY.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED — WHAT BROUGHT ME TO THIS POSITION —
I DON'T PARTICULARLY ENJOY
DOING THIS.

IS ABOUT 10 OR 11 YEARS AGO, I
WAS INVITED TO JOIN A
COMMITTEE OF KNIFE DENTISTS AND ONE FAMILY PRACTITIONER
WHO WERE OPPOSED TO FLUORIDE
TO SEE WHETHER WE COULD ADVANCE THAT EFFORT.
AND I HADN'T REALLY THOUGHT
ABOUT FLUORIDATION BEFORE THAT. BUT WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT THE
ISSUE, THE THING THAT APPALLED
ME WAS THE ETHICS OF IT OR THE LACK OF ETHICS OF IT.
BUT IN ANY CASE, IT MADE ME
THINK THAT YES, SOMEBODY OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS.
AND THEN I BEGAN TO STUDY THE
SCIENCE ON IT.

THE SCIENCE INVOLVES THE
QUESTION OF EFFICACY.
DOES IT REALLY PREVENT CAVITIES.
AND THE OTHER ASPECT OF THE
SCIENCE IS DOES IT DO HARM. IS IT TOXIC.
AND SO I'VE SPENT THE LAST TEN
YEARS LOOKING INTO THAT. AND I'VE COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT OF THOSE THREE
QUESTIONS ON EFFICACY AND TOXICITY ALL HAVE TO BE
ANSWERED NO.
IN ADDITION, I SHOULD COMMENT THAT A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE WE
SEE IS UNCERTAIN.
THAT'S SOMETHING I SUPPOSE WE COULD AGREE ON WITH SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES.
BUT SOME OF IT IS NOT SO UNCERTAIN.
THERE ARE SOME VERY STRONG
RESULTS THAT INDICATE PARTICULAR TOXICITIES, BUT
ASIDE FROM THAT, IF THERE'S
EVEN DOUBTY DOUBT AND IF THE POSSIBLE BENEFIT IS MINIMAL,
THEN WE SHOULD STOP DOING IT
UNTIL WE KNOW IT'S OKAY.

INSTEAD OF THIS BACKWARD
POSITION I DESCRIBED THAT I
READ ABOUT IN GOVERNMENT REPORTS THAT WELL, WE DON'T
KNOW SO WE'LL KEEP DOING IT.
SOME YEARS AGO, THERE'S SEVERAL UNIONS OF WITHIN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES, UNITS OF A SCIENTIST,
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 7,000 AND
11.000 PEOPLE. THEY PETITIONED THE CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES TO
DECLARE A MORATORIUM ON FLUORIDATION UNTIL IT'S SHOWN
TO BE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.
WHAT'S INTERESTING HERE IS THAT THE SCIENTIFIC STANCE OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY IN GENERAL THINKS FLUORIDATION SHOULD BE STOPPED
AND NOT RESTARTED.
BUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AS AN AGENCY
IS A STRONG PROMOTER OF
FLUORIDATION.

THE DESIGNERS OF THAT
PROMOTION OF FLUORIDATION ARE
THE POLITICAL APPOINTEES AT THE TOP.
>> THANK YOU.
>> DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I GET LOST SOMETIMES.
>> YEAH.
YES, YOU DID, ACTUALLY. I WAS WONDERING HOW YOU CAME
TO THIS ISSUE, ALTHOUGH I WAS
UNAWARE THAT YOUR RESEARCH BACKGROUND WAS —
>> I SHOULD — I AM A
PHYSICIAN, AND I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF POLITICAL EXPERIENCE.
AFTER GRADUATING FROM MEDICAL
SCHOOL, I HAD ONE YEAR OF INTERNSHIP AND THEN I TOOK A
POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP TO DO
RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IN BERKELEY, AND
THERE I ENDED UP TAKING A
PH.D.

IN BIOPHYSICALICS. SO MY RESEARCH EXPERIENCE HAS
BEEN VARIED.
INITIALLY I WAS IN RADIO BIOLOGY BUT HAVE DONE WORK ON
BIOPHYSICALICS OF RED BLOOD
CELLS AND I'VE DONE SOME COLLABORATIONS, THEORETICAL
WORK, FOR PEOPLE IN OTHER
EXPERIMENTAL FIELDS AND ENDED UP MAINLY INVOLVED WITH FARM
CAL KINETICS.
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS ABOUT —
YOU MENTIONED LEAD LEVELS. >> WHAT?
>> LEVELS OF LEAD.
YOU'RE RELATING THAT TO FLUORIDE.
YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT
FLUORIDE CAUSES HIGH LEVELS OF LEAD.
IS THE RESEARCH TO SUPPORT
THAT OR IS THAT AN OPINION? >> YES, I HOPE I HAVEN'T SAID
ANYTHING THAT ISN'T SUPPORTED
BY RESEARCH. BUT I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT
THE DIFFERENCE.
I SHOULD HAVE FINISHED THIS WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE SOURCE OF
THE FLUORIDE WE GET BY ADDING WHATEVER IT IS TO WATER, TO
OUR CITY WATER.
THE NATURAL FLUORIDE GENERALLY, PERHAPS IN ALL CASES, THAT WE
GET, SAY, FROM WELLS OR FROM
RIVERS SUCH AS THE BOW RIVER AND ELBOW RIVER, COMES FROM
THE EARTH'S CRUST, FROM
MINUTEICALS IN THE EARTH'S CRUST.
IT IS USUALLY, OR ALMOST ALL,
CALCIUM FLUORIDE.

SO WHEN WE — THERE'S A
DIFFERENCE IN THE ABSORPTION
OF CALCIUM FLUORIDE THAN THERE IS FROM THE ABSORPTION INTO
THE BODY OF OTHER FLORIDES
LIKE SODIUM FLUORIDE. THE SODIUM FLUORIDE WILL
DISASSOCIATE INTO SODIUM IONS
AND FLUORIDE IONS ALMOST COMPLETELY.
CALCIUM FLUORIDE NOT SO
COMPLETELY. IF YOU GET YOUR FLUORIDE FROM
MOST SOURCES OF NATURAL
FLUORIDE, YOU WILL EXCRETE SOME OF IT IN THE FECES SO YOU
WON'T ABSORB AS MUCH INTO THE
BODY. ONCE IT'S ABSORBED INTO THE
BODY, GENERALLY WE SEQUESTER
50% OF IT IN A NORMAL PERSON, HEALTHY PERSON, AND ABOUT 50%
OF IT IS SECRETED THROUGH THE
KIDNEYS. THAT OTHER 50%, MOSTLY, IS
SEQUESTERED IN THE BONE.
BUT WHEREVER IT GOES, IT BUILDS UP THROUGHOUT YOUR
LIFE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE MUSN'T FORGET.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT OH,
WILL I GET SICK TOMORROW.

>> OKAY, I GUESS MY QUESTION
WAS AROUND THE LEAD.
I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE TALKING LOCAL FLUORIDE.
WE HAVE OLD HOMES THAT HAVE
LEAD — OLD PIPES. WE'VE GOT AGING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE HAVE KIDS' TOYS. I'M NOT SURE — BANT, ALL
KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE'VE
DISCOVERED THERE'S LEAD IN, AND I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS
YOU WERE MAKING THE POINT
ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLUORIDE AND LEAD AND I
JUST — I WASN'T CLEAR ON
THAT. MY NEXT QUESTION RELATES TO
SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND ALBERTA HEALTH
SERVICES BEING PRO-FLUORIDE.
HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HAVING A POSITION THAT YOU
WOULD FRAME AS BEING
PRO-FLUORIDE WHICH SOUNDS IN SOME WAYS UNREASONED AS
OPPOSED TO HAVING WEIGHED THE
EVIDENCE AND SAYING ON BALANCE I SUPPORT FLUORIDE FOR THESE
REASONS, AS A SCIENTIFIC
THING. AND THE REASON I ASK IS
BECAUSE THE TERM PRO-FLUORIDE
SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOADED, AND I'M WONDERING HOW
YOU'RE COMING AT THAT.
YOU ALSO TOOK SOME AIM AT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN PUBLIC
HEALTH, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO
KNOW WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THAT BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'VE
DONE AN AWFUL LOT OF WORK
AROUND THIS, SO I'M CURE CURE — I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW HOW YOU
TRIED TO RESOLVE THAT AND HAVE
COME TO THAT CONCLUSION.

>> AMONG PEOPLE WHO ARE
AGAINST FLUORIDATION,
PRO-FLUORIDE MAY WELL BE A LOADED TERM.
BUT AMONG THOSE IN FAVOUR OF
FLUORIDATION, ANTI-FLUORIDE IS AN EVEN MORE LOADED TERM.
WE'RE DEFAMED EVERY DAY.
BUT THE — I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR OFF YOUR QUESTION
SPECIFICALLY IS HOW DO I WHAT
NOW? >> MY QUESTION IS HOW HAVE YOU
COME TO THAT CONCLUSION
BECAUSE — IF SOMEBODY'S WEIGHED EVIDENCE AND THEY COME
WITH A RESPECTED OPINION, HOW
IS IT YOU DIFFERENTIATE THAT AND HAVE YOU TRIED TO RESOLVE
THE DIFFERENCES?
YOU'RE MAKING ACCUSATION THAT IS THEY'RE NOT READINGS THE
RESEARCH.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'VE READ TONNES OF RESEARCH AND
DONE SYSTEMIC STUDIES ABOUT
THE RESEARCH ALL OUT THERE AND ON BALANCE HAVE COME TO THIS
CONCLUSION.
>> OKAY, I COME TO THIS CONCLUSION AS FOLLOWS:
I'VE TALKED TO THREE MEDICAL
OFFICERS OF HEALTH IN ALBERTA OVER THE YEARS.
THE OVERWHELMING IMPRESSION I
HAVE IS THEY DON'T KNOW WHO THE — WHAT THE LITERATURE IS
ON THIS, EITHER PRO OR AGAINST.
AND THAT'S OKAY EXCEPT AT SOME POINT IT'S THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW, BUT
WHAT'S NOT OKAY IS FOR OFFICIALS WITH — WHETHER
THERE ARE GOVERNMENTAL
OFFICIALS IN THE ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICE OR WHETHER
THEY'RE DEANS OF MEDICINE AND
HEADS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH SCIENCES DEPARTMENTS.
WHEN PEOPLE START TALKING
PUBLICLY FROM POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY THAT THE GENERAL
PUBLIC HAS RESPECT FOR, THEN
THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE A GOOD REASON FOR SAYING
WHAT THEY SAY.
AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TELL ME THOSE REASONS.
SO THAT'S ONE PROBLEM.
THE OTHER PROBLEM, AND THE STORIES HERE THAT SORT OF
SUPPORT THIS ARE MORE FROM THE
UNITED STATES THAN CANADA BUT SOMEBODY MENTIONED EARLIER
TODAY THE PRESSURE ON
EMPLOYEES OF AGENCIES THAT ARE PROMOTING FLUORIDE TO COME UP
WITH THE RIGHT ANSWERS.
AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CASES OF SCIENTIST WHO IS DID
LEGITIMATE, COMPETENT RESEARCH
THAT TURNED OUT TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF HARM AND THEY WERE
TOLD NOT TO PUBLISH THEIR
PAPERS BUT THEY DID PUBLISH THEIR PAPERS AND GOT FIRED.
THERE SEEMS TO BE ALSO A
TENDENCY OF SCIENTISTS, AT LEAST IN THE UNITED STATES IN
THIS AREA, TO FEEL THAT THEY
CAN'T GET SUPPORT FOR THEIR RESEARCH UNLESS THEY SAY
FLUORIDE IS A GOOD THING.
IT'S REALLY KIND OF BIZARRE SOMETIMES.
I'VE READ A NUMBER OF PAPERS
WHERE IN THE ABSTRACT IT SAYS THIS IS — FIND THIS EVIDENCE
OF HARM, THIS EVIDENCE OF HARM,
AND THEIR CONCLUSION IS THAT IT'S WONDERFUL.
OR THERE'S THE INTRODUCTION TO
THE PAPER THAT SAYS THE PURPOSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION
WAS TO SHOW THAT FLUORIDE IS
SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

WELL, THAT'S NOT AN
INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S THE ANSWER. AND IT'S AN ANSWER THAT IS
UNSUBSTANTIATED.
>> SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR ANSWER CORRECTLY, YOU'RE
SAYING THAT THEY'RE UNINFORMED
AND THE — AT LEAST STATESIDE THERE'S A CONSPIRACY TO — OR
WHATEVER.
SOME KIND OF PRESSURE NOT TO PUBLISH THE RESEARCH OR SOME
EXTERNAL PUSH NOT TO HAVE THE
RESEARCH. >> I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE
UNINFORMED.
I'M JUST SAYING IN OUR DISCUSSIONS THEY HAVEN'T SHOWN
ME TO BE INFORMED AND I WOULD
LIKE TO BE INFORMED ON THE STUDIES THEY SAY SHOW
FLUORIDATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IS
EFFECTIVE BECAUSE I KNOW WHO MANY PROPONENTS RELY ON THERE
AND THOSE STUDIES THAT THEY
RELY ON DON'T SHOW EFFICACY SO WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT AND
SEE WHO'S READING THE PAPERS
RIGHTS.

IF I'M MISUNDERSTANDING, I
WANT THEM TO STRAIGHTEN ME OUT.
SO THAT'S WHAT LED ME TO THESE REMARKS BECAUSE THESE
OFFICIALS OF ALBERTA HEALTH
SERVICES HAVE MADE STATEMENTS HERE TODAY THAT ARE PATENTLY
WRANG.
LIKE THE COMMENTS ON DOSE AND THE THINGS LIKE THAT, THE
COMMENTS THAT THERE'S NO
EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL HARM. THERE IS EVIDENCE.
>> WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT RESEARCH IN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT SOME
OF THAT DEBATE SHOULD BE HAPPENING AT A PROVINCIAL
LEVEL IF THEY'RE PERMITING IT
TO BE PUT IN THE WATER.

I REALIZE THERE'S A LEVEL AT
THE MUNICIPALITY HERE, BUT IT
WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES AND THE
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT ARE IN A
BETTER POSITION TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH THIS.
THAT'S JUST BE A OBSERVATION
BASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU JUST GAVE ME WHICH I
APPRECIATE.
I GUESS THE OTHER THING THAT YOU MENTIONED TO ALDERMAN
DEMONG'S QUESTION THAT I
APPRECIATED WAS A WILLINGNESS TO THINK ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE
AND HOW WE MIGHT STRUCTURE IT.
YOU EMPHASIZED SOME OF MY OWN CONCERNS ABOUT MAKING SURE
THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS — THE
RESULTS WERE NOT PREDETERMINED, THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS WORKING
WITH AN OPEN MIND, AND I THINK
THAT IS A CHALLENGE. I CONCUR WITH YOU ON THAT.
>> THAT WILL BE HARD TO DO.
>> YEAH. HARD TO DO WHAT I'M TRYING TO
DO RIGHT NOW TOO.
WHICH IS TRY TO FIGURE OUT ON BALANCE WHERE I SEE IT.
SO I APPRECIATE THE INPUT AND
THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN.
Dr. BECK, CORRECT? Dr. BECK.
>> YES.
I'M SORRY, THERE'S SOMETHING >> I'M SORRY, THERE'S
SOMETHING I DIDN'T FULLY
UNDERSTAND IN REGARDS TO A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BY
ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
SPECIFICALLY IN REFERENCE TO THE LEAD ISSUE.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING SOMEHOW
THAT FLUORIDE IMPACTS THE LEAD IN THE PIPES ON THE JOINTS,
MAYBE INCREASES THE LEVEL OR
SOMETHING? TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> THE FACTS THAT I CAN BACK
UP WITH THE STUDIES THAT I CAN QUOTE AND SEND YOU ARE A
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
FLUORIDATION AND THE LEVEL OF LEAD IN CHILDREN'S BROAD.
NOW, OF COURSE ONE OF THE
FIRST THINGS YOU ASK IS WHERE IS THAT LEAD COMING FROM AND
WHY IS IT MORE — WHY IS THE
LEVEL HIGHER IN SUPPOSEDLY COMPARABLE GROUPS OF CHILDREN
WHERE THERE'S FLUORIDATION
THAN IT IS WHERE THERE IS NO FLUORIDATION.
AND WHEN PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED AT
THIS, AND THIS I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE RESEARCH ON THIS, BUT
I THINK YOUR CITY OFFICIALS
CAN TELL YOU WHETHER — HOW YOUR PIPES ARE SOLDERED
TOGETHER AND SO ON, BUT THE
EXPLANATION FOR THIS DEMONSTRATED RELATIONSHIP THAT
I'VE HEARD IS THAT IT COMES
FROM PIPES EVEN THAT ARE NOT LEAD PIPES BECAUSE THE JOINTS
ARE CONSTRUCTED WITH
SUBSTANCES INVOLVING LEAD WHICH IS LEECHED OUT WITH
FLORIDATED WATER.
>> SO YOU'RE SAYING EVEN THE PVC HAS A LEAD COMPONENT IN
IT?
>> PVC WOULDN'T BE SOLDERED, SO THE MAIN INFRASTRUCTURE OF
A CITY LIKE CALGARY IS — WITH
WHAT, IRON PIPES? SO THOSE WOULD BE SOLDERED,
AND I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THAT
SOLDER CONTAINS LEAD.

>> INTERESTING.
I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION THAT
WE MAY HAVE TO FURTHER CLARIFY WITH ADMINISTRATION.
>> BY THE WAY, STUDIES JUST
PUBLISHED LAST YEAR WITH ANIMAL STUDIES, IT'S SHOWN
THAT IN THE PRESENCE OF
FLUORIDE, THE LEAD IS INCORPORATE INTO BONES AND
TOOTH 'UNANIMOUS HE WILL.
THAT WAS DONE IN RATS. IT HASN'T BEEN DONE, TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, IN CHILDREN.
BUT WE'RE A LOT LIKE RATS. >> SO I'M TOLD.
I JUST DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU HAD REFERENCED IN REGARDS TO THE LEAD AND THE
ASSOCIATION WITH FLUORIDE
SPECIFICALLY AS ALDERMAN MacLEOD HAD ASKED.
SO DO YOU HAVE SOME STUDIES
THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO ME, IF YOU COULD DO THAT I'M SURE
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
WOULD ALSO BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE RESULTS.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, Mr. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU.
I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
THE — I'M SURPRISED WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANYBODY IN
THE ENVIRONMENTALIST
PROFESSION.

I KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOMEONE
FROM NATURAL STEP WHO WAS
WANTING TO SPEAK. BUT LEFT EARLY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON
THE FLUORIDE AS IT GOES INTO THE WATER SYSTEM?
DOES IT TURN INTO — LOOKS
LIKE A NATURAL OCCURRING FLUORIDE?
I KNOW THERE'S CONCERN IN THE
EAST AROUND THE GREAT LAKES AREA ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF
FLUORIDE THAT'S GOING INTO THE
WATER SYSTEM BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEING CLEANED FROM THE SEWAGE
TREATMENT AND A LOT OF IT IS
COMING FROM TOOTHPASTE AS WELL.
>> SURPRISE, SURPRISE, I DON'T
KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. >> I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT
IT.
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES TO APPROVE A
SUBSTANCE BY HEALTH CANADA AND
WHAT IT TAKES TO REMOVE A SUBSTANCE BY HEALTH CANADA?
IF SOMETHING'S APPROVED YEARS
AGO, IF I HAVE SIS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE THOUGHT ABOUT
SCIENCE VERY DIFFERENTLY AND
THE SCIENTIFIC INTERVENTION AND MODERN, WHERE IS THE
BURDEN OF PROOF?
>> I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROCESS TO ANSWER THAT.
IT'S A LEGAL QUESTION.
I HAVE READ QUITE A BIT OF REGULATIONS DURING THE COURSE
OF MAKING THOSE — THAT
PETITION FOR INFORMATION FOR HEALTH CANADA, AND THERE ARE
MANY SECTIONS, SUBSECTIONS,
AND SO ON.

SOME OF THEM INCLUDE FLUORIDE
AS A TOXIN THAT HAS TO BE
CONTROLLED AND SO ON, THEN IN SOME SUBSECTION I CAME TO ONE
THAT SAID FLUORIDE IS OKAY.
NONE OF THAT STUFF APLIGS. >> I DIDN'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON
THE SPOT.
JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE
PARTICULAR TOPIC.
THE EXPERIENCE IN EUROPE, WE HEARD FROM ONE PRESENTER WHO
TALKED QUITE A BIT ABOUT HER
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN EUROPE AND HOW THEY WERE REMOVING
FLUORIDE FROM THE WATER SUPPLY
BUT PROVIDING IT THROUGH OTHER MECHANISMS.
AM I SPEAK TO GO SOFTLY?
I'LL SPEAK UP. THERE WAS A PRESENTER WHO
SPOKE ABOUT HER PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE FROM EUROPE AND HOW IN EUROPE THERE WERE — THEY
WERE MOVING FORWARD FROM THE
WATER SUPPLY BUT PUTTING IN IN OTHER SUBSTANCES LIKE SO THE.
SO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
THE — WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF OBTAINING FLUORIDE
THROUGH OTHER MECHANISMS,
INGESTING FLUORIDE THROUGHOUT OTHER MECHANISMS?
LET ME LET YOU ANSWER THAT ONE
FIRST.

>> I WOULD NOT DO IT TO MYSELF,
AND I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND
ANYONE ELSE DO IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK FLUORIDE INGESTED
HAS ANY BENEFICIAL EFFECTS, NO
SUBSTANTIAL LEVEL. >> MY SECOND QUESTION IS
EUROPE COMPARED TO NORTH
AMERICA. ONTARIO COMPARED TO QUEBEC.
CALGARY COMPARED TO VANCOUVER.
CAN WE SHOW — CAN WE DEMONSTRATE THAT FLUORIDE HAS
BEEN BENEFICIAL?
>> NO. IN THE CASE OF EUROPE, THE —
MOST COUNTRIES STOPPED
FLORIDATING. THEY WERE FLORIDATING DURING
THE SEVENTIES.
AND THE REASONS THAT WERE GIVEN FOR THAT BY THEIR
OFFICIALS WERE ACTUALLY THE
THREE REASONS I'VE GIVEN WHY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE IT.
SOME OF THEM JUST SAID WELL,
IT'S ETHICALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

IT'S FORCING MEDICATION ON
PEOPLE.
AND THAT WAS ENOUGH. THEY STOPPED.
AND OTHERS SAID WELL, DOESN'T
SEEM TO BE BENEFICIAL. AND SOME OF THEM — NOT ALL OF
THEM, BUT SOME OF THEM
MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY OF TOXICITY.
SO IN THE CASE OF EUROPE.
IN THE CASE OF — BY THE WAY, I SHOULD TELL YOU THIS MAY
SPUR YOUR SPIRITS AS
POLITICIANS VOTING ON AN ISSUE LIKE THIS, BUT OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL MONTHS DOZENS OF
COMMUNITIES AND JURISDICTIONS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED
STATES HAVE STOPPED
FLUORIDATION OR REFUSED TO START FLUORIDATION, AND I
THINK THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE
LEARNING THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE.
>> QUEBEC CITY STOPPED
FLORIDATING.

THE ISSUE OF POVERTY IS
SOMETHING THAT I CARE
PARTICULARLY ABOUT. AND YET WE'RE HEARING FROM —
WE HEARD FROM SOME POVERTY
GROUPS SUGGESTING THAT THERE'S BETTER WAYS TO USE THAT MONEY.
ANOTHER POVERTY GROUP WHO
ARE — WELL, NOT MAYBE POVERTY GROUPS BUT OTHERS ARE PEOPLE
ADVOCATING FOR THOSE IN
POVERTY THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.
FOR CHILDREN OF LOW INCOME
FAMILIES. >> WELL, FOR ME IT'S CLEAR
THAT THE INCIDENT DENSE OF
PREVALENCE OF DENTAL CARIES, OF CAVITIES, HAS DECREASED IN
THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD,
REMARKABLY OVER THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE DECADES.
THE INTERESTING POINT BEEN
THAT IS THAT'S HAPPENED WHETHER THERE'S FLUORIDATION
OR NOT.
AND IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WHILE WE STOPPED — LET'S
SEE, HOW DID IT GO?
THEY STOPPED FLUORIDATION IN ONE PLACE AND THEN ANOTHER AND
THE DECAY RATE CONTINUED TONNE
DECREASE OR SOMETHING.

WELL, IT'S DECREASING FOR
REASONS OTHER THAN
FLUORIDATION. THAT SEEMS TO ME FAIRLY STRONG
CONCLUSION.
SO WHAT IS DOING IT? WELL, DENTISTRY IS NOT MY
THING.
I DON'T PRETENDS TO KNOW A LOT ABOUT DENTISTRY.
BUT THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE
REASON THIS HAS HAPPENED IS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN DIET,
IMPROVEMENT IN ORAL CARE,
DENTAL CARE. THAT COULD BE AT HOME,
BRUSHING YOUR TEETH AND NOT
DRINKING SUGARED DRINKS AND SO ON.
AND ALSO PROFESSIONAL DENTAL
CARE. AND IN THE CASE OF CANADA,
THOSE THINGS ARE PROBABLY
PRETTY UNIFORM ACROSS THE NATION.
AND WE DON'T HAVE DID THE, OR
NOT GOOD DATA, ABOUT THE INCIDENCE OF CAVITIES ACROSS
CANADA.
BUT I'M TOLD BUT PEOPLE, INCLUDING DENTISTS, THAT THE
ORAL HEALTH IN BRITISH
COLUMBIA, WHICH IS 10% OR LESS FLORIDATED, IS NO WORSE THAN
IT IS, PERHAPS A LITTLE BETTER,
THAN IT IS IN ALBERTA.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT
THOSE OTHER FACTORS.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE IN MIND WITH
THEIR AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION
AND I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GO.
>> THANK YOU.
WE HEARD FROM SOME MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TODAY THAT THOSE
WITH KIDNEY DISEASE SHOULD NOT
WORRY ABOUT — NOT INCLUDING THOSE ON DIALYSIS.
I IMAGINE THAT'S A FAIRLY
SPECIAL CASE. BUT THOSE WITH KIDNEY DISEASE
SHOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT
CONSUMING FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER.
I HAVE A VERY DEAR FRIEND WHO
HAS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT KIDNEY DISEASE WHO'S BEEN ADVISED BY
HIS DOCTOR OTHERWISE, AND I'M —
I FIND THAT CONFUSING. >> I WAS VERY SURPRISED TO
HEAR THAT FROM A PHYSICIAN.
AND THE AMERICAN KIDNEY SOCIETY, I THINK THAT'S THE
NAME OF IT, UNTIL A YEAR OR SO
AGO WAS A STRONG PROMOTER OF FLUORIDATION, AND THEY
REVERSED THAT POSITION.
THEY NO LONGER DO IT.

THE REASON THEY DIDN'T IS
BECAUSE PERSONS WITH KIDNEY
DISEASE ARE NOR SUSCEPTIBLE TO HARM FROM FLUORIDATION.
>> THANK YOU.
MY FINAL QUESTION, THEN, IS THE IDEA OF A PLEBISCITE.
WE HAD SIX PLEBISCITES WITH
FLUORIDE. FOUR OF THEM VOTED NEGATIVELY
TO INTRODUCE IT TO THE WATER.
TWO OF THEM HAVE VOTED FOR IT. NOW, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I'M
GETTING IS IF WE BROUGHT
SOMETHING IN WITH A PLEBISCITE, SHOULD WE NOT TAKE IT OUT WITH
A PLEBISCITE?
WE HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THE SAME VOTE NO BROUGHT IN FLUORIDE.
WE ALSO VOTED NOT TO DUE WATER
METERS.

YET COUNCIL, BECAUSE OF WATER
USE BEING SO HIGH, REVERSED
THAT DECISION WITHOUT A PLEBISCITE.
OUR POLICY FOR LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WANT TO REDO YOUR SIDEWALK
ON YOUR STREET, YOU NEED 66%
OF THE LANDOWNERS ON THAT STREET TO SIGN A PETITION IN
FAVOUR.
AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE SOMEBODY OPTING OUT OF THAT
VOTE T WOULD NEED TO BE 66% OF
THOSE LANDOWNERS. SO A PLEBISCITE AT A SIMPLE
MAJORITY DOESN'T REALLY MAKE
SENSE TO ME WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH
ISSUES.
BUT THE QUESTION THEN IS SHOULD — IS A PLEBISCITE THE
APPROPRIATE WAY TO DISCUSS
TOPICS OF THIS NATURE? >> NO, OF COURSE NOT.
IT'S AN ABSURD WAY TO SETTLE
SUCH A QUESTION.

IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT YOU CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN SIT AROUND
AND DECIDE WHAT I HAVE TO TAKE INTO MY BODY AND — BUT YOU
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
BETTER INFORMED TO GET ACCESS TO RESOURCES, TO VISORS, TO
ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE, TO SIT
AROUND AND REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, BUT THE GENERAL VOTER
DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME, PERHAPS
NOT THE ENERGY OR BACKGROUND, TO DO THAT.
AND SOME OF YOU, I'M NOT —
NOT MANY, I THINK, ANYMORE, WANT TO TURN THIS DECISION
OVER TO THOSE VOTERS WHO WILL
INEVITABLY BE LESS INFORMED AND PERHAPS FEEL LESS
RESPONSIBLE TO DECIDE WHETHER
A MILLION PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE THIS UNAVOIDABLE STUFF IN
THEIR WATER.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.
IF 99.9% OF THE VOTERS IN
CALGARY DECIDED ON WHAT MEDICINE I SHOULD TAKE, IT
WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN 50% OR 2%.

IT'S THE SAME THING.
I DON'T GATHER MY NEIGHBOURS
TOGETHER TO TELL ME WHAT MY MEDICAL CARE SHOULD BE.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY. >> THANK YOU, Dr. BECK.
SEEK NO FURTHER QUESTIONS,
IT'S TIME FOR ONE MORE SPEAKER. BRUCE MACKENZIE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I MADE A FEW NOTES HERE AND HOPEFULLY I'LL JUST TAKE LESS
THAN FIVE MINUTES.
THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW ME TO DISCUSS THE
FLUORIDATION.
I INTEND TO KEEP MY REMARKS WITHIN THE REALM OF THE
SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT. IN THE 1998 REPORT, FLUORIDE
TEETH AND THE ATOMIC BOMB, THE
SCIENCE OF FLUORIDE IN PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS HAS
BEEN FROM DAY ONE SHODDY AT
BEST. THE BASIS THAT HAVE SCIENCE IS
ROOT AND HAD PROTECTED IN U.S.
(INDISCERNIBLE) PROGRAM FROM LITIGATION.
FLUORIDE WAS THE KEY CHEMICAL
IN ATOMIC BOMB PRODUCTION.

MILLIONS OF TONNES WERE
ESSENTIAL FOR THE MANUFACTURER
OF URANIUM AND PLUTONIUM. ONE OF THE MOST TOXIC
CHEMICALS KNOWN, FLUORIDE
RAPIDLY EMERGED AS THE LEADING CHEMICAL HAZARD OF THE U.S.
ATOMIC PROGRAM FOR THE WORKERS
AND NEARBY COMMUNITIES. THE ORIGINAL SECRET VERSION OF
THE CLASSIFIED OPERATION
PROGRAM F WAS WRITTEN BY PROGRAM F SCIENTISTS AND
PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL THE
AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION IN 1948.
THE SCIENTISTS SHOW EVIDENCE
OF ADVERSE HEALTH AFFECTS FROM FLUORIDE WAS CENSORED BY THE
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION.
JUST AS AN ASIDE WITH TODAY'S PRESENTATIONS, WE TALKED ABOUT
50 YEARS.
I THINK THERE'S A CORRELATION BETWEEN 1948 AND 1998 IN THAT
A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION OF
FLUORIDATION IN THE UNITED STATES IS CLASSIFIED AND
MILITARY.
THE FIRST LAWSUITS AGAINST USA BOMB PROGRAM WERE NOT OVER
RADIATION BUT OVER FLUORIDE
DAMAGE.

HUMAN EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE HAS
MUSHROOMED SINCE WORLD WAR II.
DUE TO NOT ONLY FLORIDATED WATER AND TOOTHPASTE BUT
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION BY
MAJOR INDUSTRIES FROM ALUMINUM TO PESTICIDES, FLUORIDE IS A
CRITICAL INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL.
SPENCER WELLS WRITES IN HIS BOOK "PANDORA'S C 2010" MOST
OF OUR DIET IS BASED ON WHEAT,
RICE, CATTLE, POTATOES, ANY OTHER NON-AQUATIC ANIMAL, AND
PLANT PRODUCTS, HUMANS CONSUME
COMES FROM DOMESTICATED SPECIES.
WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN
PARTICULAR NOT ONLY APPLIES TOPICAL FLUORIDE TO TEETH BUT
INGESTS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF
FLUORIDE IN OUR FOOD SUPPLY. HE WRITES, IT TAKES 1,000
GALLONS OF WATER TO PRODUCE A
POUND OF BEEF. MORE THAN 500 GALLONS TO
PRODUCE A POUND OF RICE.
GEORGE GRACEIER WRITES IN HIS PAPER "NOR I'D AND PHOSPHATE
CONNECTION" EPA CHEMIST KEVIN
BIHIK WORKED OUT THE SOLUTION TO A MONUMENTAL POLLUTION
PROBLEM.
BECAUSE RECOVERED PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER (INDISCERNIBLE)
CONCLUDED THAT THE
CONCENTRATED SCRUBBER LIQUOR COULD BE A PERFECT WATER
FLUORIDATION LIQUID AND WAS
ALSO INEXPENSIVE. FOR THE PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY,
SHORTAGE OF SODIUM FLUORIDE
WAS A KEY TO TURNING RED INK INTO BLACK AND AN ENVIRONMENT
THE LIABILITY — SORRY, AN
ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY INTO A PERCEIVED ASSET.
WITH THE HELP OF THE EPA,
FLUORO CYCLIC ACID WAS TRANSPORTED FROM A
CONCENTRATED TOXIC WASTE INTO
A PROVEN CAVITY FIGHTER.

ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT THE —
YOUR QUESTIONS OF Dr. BECK AND
THE STATEMENT THAT SOME TYPE OF NATURAL FLUORIDE IS ADDED,
THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
ONLY CALCIUM FLUORIDE OCCURS NATURALLY IN WATER AND HAS
NEVER BEEN USED FOR
FLUORIDATION. THE CHEMICALS USED TO — THE
CHEMICALS USED TO FLORIDATE
90% OF OUR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER ARE INDUSTRIAL GRADE
HAZARDOUS WASTE CAPTURED IN
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SCRUBBER SYSTEMS OF THE
PHOSPHATE UTILIZER INDUSTRY.
THESE WASTES CONTAIN A NUMBER OF TOXIC CONTAMINANTS
INCLUDING LEAD, ARSENIC,
CADMIUM, AND EVEN RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES.
MICHAEL CONET IN MAY 2003
WRITES IN HIS PAPER THE PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY —
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY
AND ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW AND THIS IS PERHAPS HOPEFULLY I'M
BACK DOCTORING BECK UP INTO A
QUESTION.

IT IS QUITE REMARKABLE FROM
THE EPA THAT DESPITE 50 YEARS
OF WATER FLORDAIGS THE E — FLUORIDATION THE EPA HAS NO
CHRONIC HEALTH STUDIES AND
CYCLICAL FLORIDES. ALL SAFETY STUDIES ON FLUORIDE
TO DATE HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING
USING PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE SODIUM FLUORIDE, NOT
INDUSTRIAL GRADE SILICAL
FLORIDES. WE LEARNED ABOUT DIRTY
POLITICS INCLUDING IN THE
SCIENCE AND SELLING OF FLUORIDATION TO A TRUSTING
PUBLIC.
I MIGHT ADD THE DIRTY BUSINESS.
THANK YOU.
>> RIGHT ON TIME, MANY MACKENZIE.
QUESTIONS?
ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY, MR. MACKENZIE.
YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY READ A LOT ABOUT THIS TOPIC.
WHAT GENERATED THE INTEREST?
>> MY BACKGROUND IS MANAGEMENT AND I SPECIALIZE IN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
SAFETY FOR THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY.
I'VE HAD TO REALLY LOOK AT THE
ROOT OF THE SCIENCE'S STUDY SO I CAN MAKE INTELLIGENT
DECISIONS.
I FIND A LOT OF INFORMATION — I APOLOGIZE FROM THIS COMMENT
BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT OF
ALL THE MEDICAL EXPERTISE, I'M QUITE DISCOURAGED IN WHAT I'VE
HEARD TODAY.
I CAN FIND PROBABLY — IF YOU WANT TO PAY ME MY CONSULTING
FEE, I CAN FIND AS MANY
NEGATIVE COMMENTS TO DISCREDIT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING AS
Dr.

BECK HAS POINTED OUT.
BUT MY REAL PERSONAL INTEREST IS I WAS GIVEN THE STUDY THAT
I QUOTED REGARDING ATOMIC
ENERGY IN THE EARLY 2000 AND FROM A VERY CREDIBLE PH.D.
I'VE DONE A BIT OF WORK ON
THAT AND TO THE DATE I DON'T USE FLUORIDE WATER WHICH IS A
LIE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I'M
GOING TO HAVE A HERNIA OPERATION, I CAN'T CARRY THE
BOTTLES OF WATER SO I HAVE TO
USE CITY WATER UNTIL MY SURGERY MARCH 1st THEN I'LL GO
BACK AND CARRY THE BOTTLES OF
WATER. THE OTHER THING IS I DISCUSSED
MYDENTIST, AND I DON'T USE
TOPICAL FLUORIDE FROM MYDENTIST.
MY BIGGEST PROBLEM IS ARGUING
WITH HEALTH PROFESSIONALS BEING THE PEOPLE THAT CLEAN
AND DO MY TEETH PRIOR TO HIM
LOOKING AT IT SO TO ME IT'S MEDICATED — ALL THE THINGS
WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THAT ARE
NEGATIVE ABOUT FLUORIDE. THAT'S MY INTEREST.
I DON'T WANT SOMEONE TELLING
ME WHAT TO DO. I THINK THE MOST EMOTIONAL
THING THAT I CAN SAY IS THAT
HAVING BEEN A HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATOR AND HAVING BEEN
TERMINATED IN HEALTH CARE AND
FOUGHT A WRONGFUL DISMISSAL SUIT IN WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATOR THAT TERMINATED
ME WAS CHARGED BY THE R.C.M.P.

FOR 13 COUNTS OF FRAUD DOESN'T
MEAN, AS Dr. BECK SAYS, YOU
GOT TO WHITE COAT, YOU'RE AN EXPERT.
I THINK YOU NEED TO REALLY
LOOK AT IS I'VE TRIED TO INDICATE HERE THE ROOT OF THE
SCIENCE.
WHERE DID THE SCIENCE COME FROM, WAS IT TRANSPARENT, WHO
PAID FOR IT.
AND THERE'S LOTS OF STUFF OUT THERE THAT ARE NOT PAID FOR BY
BEING INDUSTRY — BIG INDUSTRY
OR BIG GOVERNMENT THAT DISPUTE THE CLAIMS BEING MADE, THAT
ARE PRO-FLUORIDE.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, Mr. MACKENZIE.
>>> MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE, IS
EVERYBODY HERE FOLLOWING SUPPER?
WE HAVE ABOUT 12 MORE WHICH
WILL TAKE US TO ABOUT 9:30. BASED ON WHAT WE'VE DONE
TODAY.
THAT'S FINE. WE ARE RECESSED TILL 7:05.
THE CAPTIONS OF THIS MEETING
IS PROVIDED AS A COMMUNICATION ACCESSIBILITY
MEASURE AND IS NOT INTENDED
AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
IF INACCURACIES OCCUR, IT
MAY BE DUE TO HUMAN ERROR, Permanently lost this transcript
portion: firewire port error
on SHAW cable box. -Gord THEN OF COURSE THE RECOMMENDS
WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL FOR A DECISION.
>> I CAN'T REMEMBER THE FULL
DETAILS OF THE PREVIOUS PANEL AND IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT
Dr.

MUSTO WOULD RECALL OR
Dr. FREEZEN CAN RECALL MORE THAN I CAN BUT THE PROCESS FOR
DOING IT AS I RECALL
ADMINISTRATION WAS DIRECTED TO PUT TOGETHER A PANEL, AND WE
SOUGHT OUT EXPERTS WITH
DIFFERENT SKILL SETS AND ASSEMBLED THAT PANEL, AND THEY
WENT AWAY AND DID A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK. I RECALL IT TOOK A LOT LONGER
THAN IS BEING SUGGESTED BY THE
LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO US FROM THE UNIVERSITY.
I THINK MY SENSE IS THAT THE
PROPOSAL BY THE UNIVERSITY THAT CAME INTO THE MAYOR
RECENTLY IS A MUCH QUICKER
REVIEW.

IT WILL ASSEMBLE SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE
AND TRY TO, YOU KNOW, SUMMARIZE, GIVE A SYNOPSIS
WHAT'S OUT THERE, CURRENT
LITERATURE REVIEW IF YOU WILL. MY REX OF —
RECOLLECTION OF THE PANEL THAT
WAS PUT TOGETHER WAS SORT OF A MUCH LONGER PROCESS.
AND IT —
WITH MORE — AS I RECALL, WHEN THEY
SUBMITTED THEIR DOCUMENT, I
MEAN THERE WAS PAGES AND PAGES AND PAGES OF REFERENCE
MATERIAL THAT THEY HAD LOOKED
INTO.

SO THEY HAD LOOKED INTO
INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF RESEARCH
AS OPPOSED TO REVIEWING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS I THINK.
SO MY SENSE IS THAT THIS IS —
THIS PROPOSAL IS A QUICKER, LESS TIME CONSUMING PROPOSAL.
AND SO —
>> MAYBE NOT AS THOROUGH. THE CONCERN WE HEARD ABOUT
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IS THAT
THEY ARE OFTEN REVIEWS OF REVIEWS.
I DON'T KNOW.
WHAT ABOUT THE EUROPEAN — IT SEEMS TO BE CIRCULATED MORE
AROUND AN ETHICAL QUESTION IN
EUROPE. AND IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO
HEAR FROM SOME OF THE EUROPEAN
SIDES AND EVEN POLITICIANS WHO MADE THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS.
>> WELL, I MEAN JUST TO BE
CLEAR, WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP THE LAST TIME, IT WAS VERY
CLEARLY A REVIEW THAT WAS DONE
BY THE MEDICAL AND DENTAL COMMUNITY AND THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY.
IT WASN'T ANYTHING THAT WAS DONE BY THE WATERWORKS
DEPARTMENT OR THE WATER
INDUSTRY. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE
PROFESS TO HAVE ANY EXPERTISE
IN AT ALL FROM THE HEALTH RELATED ASPECTS OF FLUORIDATION.
FIRST, IN HOW TO APPLY THE
PROCESS AND DESIGN IT AND RUN IT AND OPERATE IT.
BUT IN TERM OF THE ACTUAL
BENEFITS OR THE MEDICAL BENEFITS, DENTAL BENEFITS OR
OTHERWISE, THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO COMMENT ON.
SO, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER GOING TO EUROPE OR ANYWHERE ELSE, AUSTRALIA OR
NEW ZEALAND FROM THE POINT OF
VIEW OF A HEALTH BENEFITS REVIEW WOULD BE A GOOD THING
OR NOT.
WE COULD TELL YOU OPERATIONALLY WHAT THEY ARE
DOING AND WHAT THE PLANTS ARE
DOING AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT DOING AND SO ON, BUT I CAN'T
REALLY COMMENT ON THE HEALTH
SIDE OF IT.

>> OKAY.
MAYBE WE SHOULD GET AN OPINION
FROM Mr. INLOW ABOUT THE LEGALITIES OF THE COUNCIL'S
DECISION.
YOU HAVE BEEN HERE ALL DAY. WE THOUGHT WE WOULD ASK YOU AT
LEAST ONE QUESTION TO JUSTIFY
THE TIME COMMITMENT. >> YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THAT
BUT …
>> Mr. INLOW, QUESTION OF IF THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE US
PASSES BY COUNCIL, THEN WHAT
WOULD BE THE NEXT STEPS? AS FAR AS THE CITY IS
CONCERNED?
AND THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS? >> WELL, THERE ARE SEVERAL
STEPS, AND CERTAINLY
Mr. PRITCHARD CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THEM, BECAUSE THEY
INVOLVE HAVING TO AMEND —
IF COUNCIL SIMPLY MAKES THE DECISION AND SAYS WE ARE NO
LONGER GOING TO FLUORIDE, THEN
THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURES THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN WITH THE
OPERATING LICENSE FROM ALBERTA
ENVIRONMENT.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THE
KIND OF LEGAL ISSUE YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT OR WHETHER YOU ARE REFERRING TO SOMETHING
ELSE.
>> NO. THAT WOULD BE THE QUESTION.
>> YEAH.
I MEAN, IT IS IN SOME RESPECTS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE, BUT
ODDLY COUNCIL ISN'T REALLY THE
PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITY. IT REALLY COMES TO COUNCIL
BECAUSE WE ARE THE OPERATOR OF
THE WATER SYSTEM. AND THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN GOING
ON FOR DECADES AND DECADES AS
TO WHETHER OVERALL THERE IS A BENEFIT OF CARRYING THIS TO
THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE WATER
SYSTEM AND WATER SYSTEM CLEARLY HAS LIMITATIONS IN THE
SENSE THAT IN TODAY'S
TECHNOLOGY WE CAN REALLY ONLY DELIVER ONE KIND OF WATER.
IT'S NOT AS IF WE GOT SIX
PIPES COMING INTO EVERY HOUSEHOLD SAYING, WELL, YOU
CAN PICK THESE OPTIONS.
IT'S REALLY A PUBLIC INTEREST ISSUE FOR COUNCIL TO SAY
HAVING LISTENED TO THE SCIENCE,
IN SOME RESPECTS MAYBE THE QUASI SCIENCE OF WHAT'S BEING
SAID, WHAT IS IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST? AND IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT
SHOULD BE IN OR OUT, AND I
WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT
DEFLORNATURING THE WATER.
WE ARE SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT NO LONGER ADDING ADDITIONAL
FLUORIDE TO THE WATER, WHICH
IS NOT THE SAME THING.

AND SO I THINK IT'S JUST A
MATTER OF COUNCIL MAKING A
DECISION BASED ON THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVIDENCE
AND THE SCIENCE, AND WHAT'S
THE BENEFIT HERE VERSUS WHAT'S THE PERCEPTION OF A DETRIMENT
THERE, AND OVERALL, IN THE
BALANCE OF THINGS, WHAT'S OVERALL IN THE BEST PUBLIC
INTEREST?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
WELL, COMMITTEE, I THINK I WILL PUT FORWARD THE MOTION
THAT WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL
AND ANY NUMBER OF THINGS COULD HAPPEN AT COUNCIL.
WE COULD MAKE A DECISION TO
REFER THIS MOTION TO A BODY OF EXPERTS FOR THEIR OPINION, OR
WE COULD PASS IT, OR IT COULD
FAIL AND WE COULD CONTINUE WITH THE STATUS QUO OR WE
COULD MAKE A DECISION TO GO
WITH A PLEBISCITE. I THINK IT HAS BEEN A VERY
HEALTHY DISCUSSION.
AND I DON'T THINK I'M SURPRISED BY ANY OF IT.
WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE
PASSIONATE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DISCUSSION AND CARE DEEPLY
ABOUT THEIR POINT OF VIEW, AND
THE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS THAT SPOKE FEEL VERY PASSIONATELY
THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING A
PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFIT, WHILE THERE ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE,
MANY CALGARIANS WHO ARE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR WATER SUPPLY AND A FEAR WHETHER IT
IS BASED IN REALITY OR NOT,
THE — IT CONCERNS ME DEEPLY THAT WE
HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE
WORRIED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THEIR WATER SUPPLY.
THAT IN ITSELF I THINK IS
SOMETHING WE CANNOT IGNORE.

ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS
POSSIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES.
AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE LOOKED AT THEM ENOUGH AS A
SOCIETY.
SO I'M GOING TO PUT THIS MOTION FORWARD AND THEN WE'LL
SEE WHAT COMMITTEE DOES.
AND I WANT TO URGE COMMITTEE TO VOTE FOR THE SECOND PORTION
OF THE MOTION.
BECAUSE I DO THINK WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS A
MUNICIPALITY, ALTHOUGH SOME
MAY ARGUE THAT'S NOT THE CASE, TO LOOK AFTER THE HEALTH OF
OUR CITIZENS, THE MOST
COMPELLING ARGUMENT TO ME, OF COURSE, IS THE ISSUE OF
CHILDREN IN POVERTY
SITUATIONS. BUT I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE
RESPONSES TOWARD POVERTY AND
THE ARGUMENTS FOR FLUORIDE ARE VERY SIMPLISTIC, THAT WE THINK
WE ARE DONE, AND WE ARE NOT.
OF COURSE WE ARE NOT. SO I THINK PERHAPS THIS WOULD
BE A WAY TO ADDRESS THAT MORAL
CONCERN. SO I WOULD URGE MEMBERS OF
COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT THAT.
THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> IT'S GETTING LATE I THINK.
THAT'S MY NEW EXCUSE ANYWAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION
TO REFER THIS TO THE EXPERT
PANEL THAT'S SUGGESTED IN THE LETTER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALGARY FACULTY OF MEDICINE,
AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
THEY HAVE GOT A NEW RESEARCH
CENTRE THAT THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN THIS LETTER, AND THEY
WANT TO CRITICALLY REVIEW THE
MOST UP TO DATE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, SCIENTIFIC
LITERATURE, AND PROVIDE CLEAR
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT RISKS AND
BENEFITS.
AND IT'S THAT CLEAR EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWERS THAT
I'M LOOKING FOR.
WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION PRESENTED TO US.
AND A LOT OF RESEARCH REFERRED
TO. BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT IS
SUBSTANTIVE RESEARCH THAT'S
BEEN PRESENTED TO US? AND WHAT IS LESS RIGOROUS?
ON EITHER SIDE OF THE
ARGUMENT. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT PUBLIC
HEALTH EXPERTS.
AND I WORRY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ —
I HAVE NOT READ THE RESEARCH
MYSELF, AND I'M RELYING ON OTHERS TO INFORM ME ABOUT THE
OUTCOMES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME,
I THINK THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY AGREEMENT, AND SO IN MY
OPINION, I THINK WE NEED TO
LOOK AT REFERRING IT TO THE EXPERTS.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
COMPOSITION OF THIS PANEL.

I THINK WE NEED PUBLIC HEALTH
EXPERTS ON IT, MEDICAL AND
DENTAL, PERHAPS SOME PEOPLE WITH —
I THINK ALDERMAN FARRELL HAS
TALKED ABOUT THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE, PERHAPS THERE IS
SOME DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES,
DIFFERENT WAYS OF SEEING THE WORLD, AND PERHAPS SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT Dr. BECK HAS
REFERRED TO NEED TO BE EXAMINED SO WE CAN GET THE
EVIDENCE, WHEN THERE IS CLAIMS
MADE ABOUT THIS OR CLAIMS MADE ABOUT THAT, THAT WE ACTUALLY
CAN SEE WHO IS SAYING THIS AND
WHAT ARE THEY BASING IT ON? HOW SUBSTANTIVE IS IT?
HOW BIG IS THE RISK?
AND THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION THAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO
MAKE.
SO I ALSO ADD THAT THE LAST PANEL, THE LAST TIME WE
REFERRED THIS TO A PANEL, THAT
PANEL MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT
IT'S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION
THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE.
I THINK IF WE SELECT THE PANEL
CAREFULLY THAT WE GET CREDIBLE PEOPLE, THAT WE WILL IN FACT
BE ABLE TO CREATE A GROUP OF
PEOPLE, BRING TOGETHER A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT CAN
INDEPENDENTLY LOOK AT ALL THE
RESEARCH OUT THERE AND GIVE US SOME INFORMATION TO MAKE AN
INFORMED DECISION.
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR MOTION.
CITY CLERK JUST INFORMED ME
THAT WE CAN'T REFER IT TO A PANEL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A
PANEL TO REFER IT TO.
SO WHAT WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO DO IS REFER TO THE MAYOR'S
LETTER AND ASK THE MAYOR TO
GET A HOLD OF THE PROPONENTS TO FORM THE COMMITTEE.
RATHER THAN THE WAY YOU SAID
IT.

BECAUSE WE CAN'T REFER TO A
PANEL THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
SO IT WOULD BE IN REFERENCE TO THE MAYOR'S LETTER AND LET THE
MAYOR DO THAT AND REPORT BACK
TO COUNCIL, RATHER THAN TO COMMITTEE.
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL GOOD.
I WOULD LIKE THE COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL TO HAVE INPUT ON THE
PANEL MEMBERS.
>> SO IT WOULD GO STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL.
>> WELL, IS THAT —
>> IT HAS GOT TO GO TO COUNCIL ANYWAY FOR THE REFERRAL
SUPPORT.
>> OB. >> OKAY.
>> ALDERMAN STEPHENSON.
>> I'M READY TO DEBATE THE MAIN MOTION.
I WILL SPEAK TO IS THIS A
REFERRAL MOTION WE ARE DEALING WITH THEN?
>> YES, IT IS.
IT IS NOT THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY —
>> I WON'T SUPPORT THE
REFERRAL MOTION. I THINK THAT THAT DECISION HAS
TO BE DONE, SHOULD BE DONE BY
COUNCIL. SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE
LEAVING THAT UNTIL WE GET TO
COUNCIL.

WE'LL SEND THIS TO COUNCIL AND
AT THAT POINT IF THEY WANT TO
REFER IT, THEY CAN. BUT I WON'T SUPPORT IT AT THIS
POINT.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
SEEING NONE ON THE REFERRAL TO
COUNCIL TO APPOINT A PANEL, ARE YOU AGREED?
OPPOSED?
CALL THE ROLL. >> ON THE REFERRAL ALDERMAN
DEMONG.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL?
>> NO.
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> NO.

>>> CHAIR JONES?
>> YES.
>> THAT'S LOSS. >> ON THE MAIN MOTION,
ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> THANK YOU. I WILL, OF COURSE, NOT SUPPORT
THE MOVEMENT TO COMMITTEE WHEN
IT GOES TO COUNCIL EITHER. THE REASON IS BECAUSE I
BELIEVE WE HAVE ALL THE
RESEARCH THAT WE NEED AND HAVE HAD FOR SOME TIME.
I GOT TO SAY THAT I HAVE BEEN
OPPOSED TO FLUORIDE FOR 30 YEARS, BUT I KEEP LISTENING,
THINKING SOMEONE IS GOING TO
COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE ME TO
RECONSIDER MY POSITION ON IT.
AND I HAVE LISTENED ALL DAY TODAY AND HEARD NOTHING THAT
WOULD CHANGE MY MIND ON IT TO
THIS POINT. I WILL LISTEN TO THE DEBATE
HERE AND IN COUNCIL, AND THEN
I WILL MAKE MY FINAL DECISION ON HOW I VOTE.
BUT I WILL NOT SUPPORT A
PLEBISCITE EITHER BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE PLEBISCITE IS
NOT THE WAY TO GO WHEN YOU ARE
DEALING WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
NOW, I'M GETTING A LOT OF
E-MAILS AND I'M SURE ALL OF YOU ARE, LETTERS, AND SO ON,
AND THEY ARE COMING IN FOUR TO
ONE AGAINST FLUORIDIZATION, FOUR TO ONE IN FAVOUR OF US
REMOVING IT.
IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS THAT I HAVE OPPOSED FLUORIDATION
I HAD A LOT OF RIDICULE AND I
CAN'T IMAGINE THE AMOUNT OF RIDICULE THAT SOME OF THE
PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN FIGHTING
THIS THAT ARE IN POSITIONS OF MEDICAL DOCTORS OR DENTISTS
AND THE AMOUNT OF PEER
PRESSURE THAT THEY ARE GETTING.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY
SURPRISES — IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME BUT IT
SURPRISES ME THAT IT ISN'T
RECOGNIZED MORE IS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE CHANGED
THEIR POSITION.
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WERE IN FAVOUR OF IT, WERE
ADVOCATES OF IT THAT ARE NOW
AGAINST IT, AND I HAVE NOT TO THIS POINT COME ACROSS ANYONE
THAT'S GONE THE OTHER WAY.
IT SEEMS WHEN PEOPLE DO ENOUGH STUDY ON IT, THEY REALIZE THAT
IT'S THE WRONG THING TO DO.
AND THE REASON I WOULDN'T SUPPORT A PLEBISCITE IS
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK, EVEN IF
IT'S 53%, AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE LAST VOTE WAS, 53%
OF 30% WHO ACTUALLY COME OUT
TO VOTE MAKE A DECISION ON MEDICATING 100%, AND I
STRONGLY AGREE WITH —
DISAGREE WITH THAT, EVEN IF IT WAS 50, 60% OF THE TOTAL
POPULATION.
I DON'T AGREE THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MEDICATE THE
REST.
EVEN IN THE CASES AS ALDERMAN FARRELL POINTED OUT, IN THE
CASE OF OUR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
BYLAWS, WE HAVE 66% IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR PAVING AN
ALLEY.
AND THAT'S 66% OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN PROPERTY.
NOT THE ONES THAT HAVE THE
INTEREST TO COME OUT AND VOTE.

IT'S 66% OF EVERYBODY WHO OWNS
WHO HAS TO SAY YES TO THAT,
SIGN THEIR NAME, OR ELSE WE CAN'T GO AHEAD AND DO IT.
AND HERE WE GO AND SAY WE CAN
DO SOMETHING AS SIGNIFICANT AS THIS WITH SUCH A SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLE
MAKING THE DECISION FOR THE REST OF US.
NOW I KNOW THAT THERE IS A LOT
OF PEOPLE DISMISS CLAIMS OF HARM AND WE HEARD HERE TODAY
THAT PROFESSIONALS, PEOPLE WHO
I RESPECT A GREAT DEAL HAVE SAID THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF
HARM BUT HOW CAN WE DISMISS
ALL OF THE CLAIMS ABOUT HARM WHEN WE HAVE SEEN POSITIONS
CHANGE, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE,
THE CHANGE NOW IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS IS THAT THEY
SAY INFANTS CANNOT BE GIVEN
FLUORIDE IN THEIR WATER. CHILDREN, THEY ARE NOW SAYING
YOUNGER CHILDREN, EVEN IF IT'S
NOT AN INFANT, THEY SHOULDN'T BE HAVING IT BECAUSE THERE IS
A POSSIBILITY OF HARM.
WE HAVE SEEN THEM REDUCE THE LEVELS OF THE AMOUNT OF
FLUORIDE IN THE WATER.
THE REASON THEY ARE DOING THOSE IS BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE
OF HARM OR POTENTIAL HARM.
SO — EVERYONE THE DOCTORS THAT WE
HEAR, THEY DON'T DISPUTE THAT
THE DOSAGE CAN'T BE CONTROLLED.
NOBODY DISPUTES THAT.
THERE IS FLUORIDE IN FOOD, IN BEVERAGE AND TOOTHPASTE, AND
IN OUR WATER, AND I HEARD IT
SAID THAT THERE IS A DANGER — LESS DANGER OF PEOPLE NOT
BEING ABLE TO CONTROL IT IF WE
LEAVE IT IN THERE.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
IT JUST MEANS THAT MORE PEOPLE
HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO GET TOO MUCH WHEN WE ARE PUTTING
THAT MUCH IN THE WATER.
SO THERE IS A CONCERN. AND IF WE ARE GOING TO ERR IS
NEEDS TO BE ON THE SIDE OF
CAUTION. NOBODY HAS COME UP WITH
ANYTHING, PROOF THAT THERE IS
A BENEFIT TO CALGARIANS.

I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS.
WE KEEP ASKING FOR IT BUT IT
IS NOT THERE. AND THERE IS NO QUESTION IN MY
MIND THAT SOME CALGARIANS ARE
BEING HARMED BY IT. (PLEASE STAND BY).

As found on YouTube

PEOPLE – SERVICES – IMPACT