Fluoridation delegations blocked; Questions not allowed; Residents left in the dark

March 30, 2017:

This morning the Region of Peel descended into even deeper water fluoridation darkness.  Fluoride Free Peel was prevented from delegating, via a motion introduced by pro-fluoridation Councillor Carolyn Parrish.

The motion, which was not published in the agenda and which she only read a small part of, prevents all delegations (from anyone) to Council pertaining to artificial water fluoridation (baby poisoning) for the present time, and diverts all fluoridation communications to the water fluoridation committee… which is indefinitely suspended from meeting and will only reconvene if/when 1) the pro-fluoridation province ever replies to Council’s recent admission that they are conflicted as to whether fluoridation even prevents cavities and that they have no toxicology studies on their mass-medication fluoride drug, or 2) pro-fluoridation Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Chair of the committee, decides to reconvene the committee.

Note that the committee has never allowed delegations from residents who are not considered ‘experts’… hence most residents are now barred from any fluoridation delegations whatsoever, even when the committee reconvenes.

As usual, Councillor John Sprovieri tried to inject some light into the situation by explaining that FFP wanted to ask Council how long they would wait for the province to reply to Council’s request for the province to take responsibility for fluoridation.  His colleagues did not support his efforts towards immediate public disclosure.

FFP’s blocked delegation contained a series questions pertaining to Council’s most recent fluoridation motion… questions about their plans to use a new fluoridation chemical (drug) and to (allegedly) reduce the level of neurotoxic fluoride in our drinking water – details Council has not made clear to the public, nor consulted with the public on.

At least one of these blocked questions (‘what standard?‘) was already posed by FFP to Council at their last meeting but received no response whatsoever.  Another ignored question from the last meeting was ‘how long do you intend to wait for the province to reply, while continuing to poison our water?’

Click here to see FFP’s blocked delegation slides:


Click here to see Parrish’s motion that muzzles fluoridation communications to Council: http://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/March-2017-Parrish-motion-re-fluoride.pdf

Reviewing Council’s March 9 meeting, up to the point where Council approved the previous minutes, we see that:
  • Dr. Mohanta, a ‘community health’ dentist funded by the Region and province, knows nothing about HFSA and is in denial of any ill effects from fluoridation even though even the uber-corrupt CDC and the ADA warn against using fluoridated water for mixing infant formula, and spoke of a 0.5 – 0.8 ppm concentration range
  • The totally clued-out Mississauga Mayor, Bonnie Crombie, talked about “calcium fluoride” which is nothing like the fluoride acid actually used to fluoridate our water, and stated that discussions of ‘fluctuations’ are only referring to ‘water fluctuations’ when in fact they refer to the inevitable fluctuations in fluoride concentration
  • Councillor John Sprovieri clarified that Toronto uses HFSA, not calcium fluoride
  • Dr. de Villa said Toronto uses a HFSA that is derived from calcium fluoride
  • Councillor John Sprovieri asked for clarification: how is HFSA derived from calcium fluoride?  No info has been provided on this.
  • Ras referred to ‘standards’ and said Council could leave it to Staff to figure out which ‘standard’ to use   [Note: only the Ministry of the Environment has jurisdiction to set drinking water ‘standards’ for large systems and their standards say absolutely nothing about adding fluoride to drinking water for the prevention of tooth decay!]
  • Ras said the new fluoride concentration will not allow for fluctuations    [Note: this is impossible and nonsensical]
  • Parrish said the new chemical will use the existing equipment, is a better form and that ‘staff supports this’ [implying that the choice had already been made behind closed doors without public consultation or even a discussion or vote by Council on the various alternatives]
  • Dr. de Villa spoke of a ‘targeted level’ within a recommended range and that there are fluctuations… she talked of non-existent provincial and Health Canada ‘standards’ and some ‘out there’ standard, said ‘we will aim to stay within the range’ [presumably the 0.5 – 0.8 range they kept referring to but she did not say this explicitly… note: if the plan is to stay within that range allowing for fluctuations, then we don’t see how the new ‘target’ can be 0.5ppm since fluctuations would go both above and below the target]
  • Crombie asked if this other chemical being discussed is safer, why didn’t we switch to that already?  [a sensible question that never received a clear answer!]
  • Dr. de Villa said that Toronto and Durham have switched to HFSA derived from calcium fluoride which is more expensive than the current HFSA but the reason had nothing to do with safety… then moments later she admitted she didn’t really know if it had to do with safety and that they should be asked about their reasons
  • ‘Expert’ Jeff Hennings said the new chemical will cost 10 to 15 thousand more per year, has less arsenic and lead (but provided no studies on the chemical and he did not address its levels of the many other powerful toxins that contaminate the current HFSA);  he didn’t name the new chemical (or the new target level or range or the ‘standard’), and claimed that pollution diluted into drinking water in low concentration is a ‘best industry practice’… but also that he ‘can’t comment’ on the long term chronic effects of drinking that pollution since he isn’t an expert on that and isn’t going to argue that there are no long term effects

So there was no explicit statement of what chemical Staff will switch us to (although reading between the lines we can see that they are planning on this HFSA derived from calcium fluoride), no explicit statement of Peel’s allegedly reduced target concentration or the range they will stay within, no explanation of what standard they were talking about (and is mentioned in the motion) as a basis for the new allegedly reduced target level… and apparently our bizarre Staff members (the same people who used the most deadly fluoridation chemical all these years) will just figure it out for themselves based on whatever ‘out there’ standard they conjure up.

And since FFP was blocked from asking our questions at this morning’s meeting, we are still in the dark.


April 3 update:

Note that the Region’s website now says this:

The level of naturally-occurring fluoride in Peel’s Lake-based municipal water supply is adjusted to an optimal concentration range to protect against tooth decay: 0.5 mg/L to 0.8 mg/L, as recommended by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines.

Council’s earlier motion to (allegedly) reduce the F concentration said it would do so in accordance with a provincial “standard” for the reduction of tooth decay.  To our knowledge the above-mentioned technical document is not a “standard” (and we don’t believe that there is any “standard” claiming that any particular level of F in drinking water will prevent tooth decay).  This technical document is not mentioned in the Safe Drinking Water Act or the actual drinking water standards, O. Reg. 169/03.


The sections on fluoride in this document give the MAC (maximum allowed concentration, which is not remotely safe) of 1.5ppm, and this blurb:


Where fluoride is added to drinking water, it is recommended  that the concentration be adjusted to 0.5 -0.8 mg/L the  optimum level for control of tooth decay. 

Just a recommendation for communities foolish enough to fluoridate, nothing legal, not a standard.  And there is no suggestion that it would be safe or wise to fluoridate at any level.

Also, on page 1 this document says:

Standards, objectives and guidelines are considered to be the minimum level of drinking-water  quality and in no way should be regarded as implying that allowing the degradation of a high  quality water supply to the specified level or range is acceptable.


So there is no implication that adding arsenic, lead, fluoride, etc (toxins contained in the fluoridation chemical) is even acceptable.