Peel Fluoridation News
Posted February 9, 2018:
Posted February 9, 2018:
Posted December 11, 2017:
Posted October 18, 2017:
Posted October 13, 2017:
Posted October 11, 2017:
Posted October 11, 2017:
Posted October 11, 2017:
Posted September 8, 2017:
Posted September 7, 2017:
Posted August 5, 2017:
Posted August 2, 2017:
Posted July 10, 2017:
Posted July 7, 2017:
Posted July 6, 2017:
Feb. 9, 2017 delegations to Peel Council: video (58 min mark); slides. Regional Council formally admitted uncertainty on fluoridation’s efficacy & the absence of toxicology studies; continued anyways.
Posted June 15, 2017:
Posted June 13, 2017:
Posted June 13, 2017:
Posted June 8, 2017
Posted June 2, 2017
Posted May 24, 2017
Posted May 3, 2017
Posted April 15, 2017
Posted April 11, 2017, noon
At this moment, fluoride-free Cedar Springs water is being delivered to Brampton City Hall so that city employees can have the choice of whether or not to ingest neurotoxic, endocrine disrupting, enzyme inhibiting, fluorosis-causing fluoride while getting hydrated. First our Regional tax dollars are spent on adding fluoride, then our city tax dollars are spent on avoiding fluoride.
Posted April 4, 2017
Posted March 30, 2017
Posted March 22, 2017
Posted March 16, 2017
Fluoridation chemical spilled on 401: Toronto Star confirmed
The Toronto Star has confirmed that it was HFSA (aka fluorosilicic acid), the same chemical that the Region of Peel uses to fluoridate our water, that spilled on the 401.
March 9, 2017
Posted Feb. 28, 2017
Posted Feb. 26, 2017
Peel Council’s latest motion concerning artificial water fluoridation:
Feb. 18, 2017
Feb. 18, 2017 Update on events of February 9th, 2017
Feb. 10, 2017
Feb. 10, 2017
Feb. 9, 2017
FFP delegation to Peel Council, Thursday December 8th, 2016
Dr. De Villa’s review of the literature on fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness
Dr. de Villa: You misled the Fluoridation Committee: Health Canada Guidelines do NOT ensure safety
Blacked-out: Every Single Word from 2 of the Region’s Pro-fluoridation “Experts”
Fluoride Toxicity Expert Paul Connett’s Commentary on Peel’s Illegallly Closed Fluoridation Meeting of January 21st, 2016
Region still violating MFIPPA and keeping residents in the dark regarding harmful artificial water fluoridation
The Region is Overdue on FOI #I23-16-317: Audio Recording of Illegally Closed-to-PublicFluoridation Council Meeting
A response to Dr. De Villa’s review of the literature on fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness By Paul Connett, PhD, Co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010)
A Question for Pro-Fluoridation Councillor Jim Tovey
FLUOROSIS AND ASSOCIATED HEALTH ISSUES: 2015 peer-reviewed study on fluorosis, by world expert Dr. A.K. Susheela
Region’s Supervisor of Water Quality and Compliance Confirms: Fluoridation Chemical is Not Graded for Purity
Region keeping residents in the dark regarding ‘deadly’ water fluoridation
Mississauga MPP Delaney muddies Peel’s fluoridated water even further with his latest statements to the media
Region Misses Deadline for FOI Request for Recording of Unlawfully Closed Meeting
‘Fluoride is a deadly poison’ Peel’s water fluoridation committee has heard
Peel MPP Bob Delaney on water fluoridation: wrong again
Peel MPP Bob Delaney belittles those who have spent years researching water fluoridation (experts and residents alike) and is behind this latest bit of healthcare tyranny… read more
You’re invited to attend this once in a lifetime important public
presentation with Honoured Guest Dr. A.K. Susheela from New Delhi, India
World Expert tells Region of Peel: Fluoride is INJURIOUS to human health, the LESS the BETTER
On October 13th, world-renowned fluoride toxicity & fluorosis Expert Dr. A.K. Susheela gave a long presentation to the Region of Peel’s water fluoridation committee, explaining that
1) Fluoride is INJURIOUS to human health,
2) the LESS the BETTER – PERIOD.
She explained that there are NO benefits to ingested fluoride, only HARM.
More to details about Dr. Susheela’s presentation will be shared in the days to come…. Here’s a teaser:
Know anyone with digestive complaints such as irritable bowel syndrome? It was revealed yesterday that TWO members of the F committee suffer from IBS. Not surprising given that it’s now one of the most common health ailments.
View the Affidavit that she provided for a court case in Wisconsin in which the court ruled that fluoridation was harmful but that it did not have the authority to end the practice:http://www.fluorideandfluorosis.com/Affidavit/Affidavit.html
Thank you to Peel resident Liesa Cianchino for organizing this week-long tour, to Councillor Sprovieri for being our safe-water hero (if more Peel Councillors had his integrity and courage to speak up, this atrocity would have ended long ago), and from the bottom of our hearts to Dr. Susheela for her immense generosity in sharing her time, energy and many decades of experience and expertise with fluoride’s effects on human health.
Region of Peel’s inaccurate reply to our latest fluoridation-related FOI request
Pro-fluoridation toxicologist David Juurlink
Pro-fluoridation Toronto toxicologist David Juurlink, who presented at the Region of Peel’s unlawfully closed fluoridation meeting of Jan. 21 2016, but apparently has a problem with his presentation being shared with the public, has ignored Fluoride Free Peel’s emails, which were perfectly polite, reasonable and respectful.Twice we requested a copy of his Jan.21st presentation (which the Region is currently withholding, along with all other materials from the closed meeting). His reply: silence.
Both Juurlink and Regional Staff portrayed him as having no prior opinion on the topic of fluoridation before being approached to review the issue for Council – an unbiased reviewer.
However, the results of our extensive internet search suggests otherwise. For starters, this pro-fluoridation piece (see page 126), published in the August 1991 Nova Scotia Medical Journal was authored by “David Juurlink, BSc, PhD”. (Note that Juurlink started his career as an MD, and like most MDs he would have been taught in medical school of the alleged wonders of water fluoridation. Now, as a toxicologist who claims to have researched the topic, he has no excuse.)
Further, Juurlink is the staff editor of a 2011 document (for University of Toronto medical students!) which in one breath says infants should be given fluoride, and in the next that fluoride should be spit out by children under the age of 3. There is also an (unsubstantiated) pro-fluoridation statement at the very end of this document. Click here to view it.
Next, we discovered this webpage of the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (ODPRN) indicating that “Core Academic Unit Member” David Juurlink is currently “a member of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Committee to Evaluate Drugs”: http://odprn.ca/about-the-odprn/core-academic-unit-members/
ODPRN itself receives funding from the province: http://caho-hospitals.com/the-case-for-evidence-based-policy-looking-at-the-impact-of-the-ontario-drug-policy-research-network-odprn/
ICES, where David Juurlink is a “Senior Core Scientist“, provided us the following information via email: “ICES is an independent not-for-profit corporation that receives core funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care…” (email available upon request)
And this June 2015 report states that “… David Juurlink received grant funding from the Ministry of Health and Long- term Care“:
Apparently David Juurlink has a long and close association with the province, which we have only started to explore. This is highly relevant given that the province is currently being sued over artificial water fluoridation and would obviously be displeased with Juurlink should he ever express anything other than “safe and effective” in regards to fluoridation.
He also has a history of endorsing fluoridation.
Yet none of this was disclosed to Council and the many Region Staff who attended the illegally-closed meeting in January, or to the Community Water Fluoridation Committee when he was put forth by the Medical Officer of Health as a potential presenter for the January meeting.
Given the evidence above, we strongly suspect that Juurlink was in fact cherry-picked by the Region’s thoroughly biased Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Eileen de Villa, because he could be counted on to provide a pro-fluoridation point of view while maintaining a false impression of impartiality.
Our Latest Attempt to Elicit Accountability from Fluoridation-Defending Brampton Mayor, Linda Jeffrey
Watch Fluoride Free Peel speak at Peel Council regarding inaccuracies of fluoride information and FOI request issues
Sept 8th, 2016 Deputation to Peel Council regarding Inaccurate information provided by Staff to Councillors and the illegally closed fluoridation meeting of Jan. 21st, 2016
Region of Peel Waives Massive Fee on FOI Request for Audio Recording of Unlawfully Closed Fluoridation Meeting
2016 Emails: Public Health Staff Fail, Once Again, to Prove their Wild Claims of Fluoridation’s Safety
FOI Request – THE CLOSED MEETING OF PEEL REGIONAL COUNCIL HELD ON JANUARY 21, 2016
Dear Councillors Medeiros and Bowman,
Attached you will find a scanned copy of a letter I just received in the mail from the Region, regarding my request for the audio file of Council’s Jan. 21st session on fluoridation, which was closed to the public in violation of the Municipal Act (as confirmed by the attached investigation report).
As you may learn from the investigation report, an audio file of this closed meeting already exists and I have simply requested that it be made available to myself. (I have also pointed out that it should be made readily available to all members of the public by posting it along with meeting minutes on the Region’s website.)
Letters to Mayor Jeffrey regarding fluoridation of water supply
July 26, 2016
Dear Mayor Jeffrey,
Thank you for your reply to my query of June 29th.
And thank you for offering Dr. de Villa’s contact information. However, the newsletter I’ve referenced is your inaugural “Mayor Linda Jeffrey” newsletter, signed “Sincerely, Linda Jeffrey“, and not “Sincerely, Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Eileen de Villa“. Hence, it is incumbent upon you to address my queries.
I now have several more queries for you, below.
1. Mayor Jeffrey, am I to understand that the only source you replied upon as the basis for your“Cavity Protection for All“ statements is the word of Dr. de Villa? If not, kindly forward to me the scientific and legal materials that youreplied upon. To be clear, I am not asking for you to now contact Dr. de Villa and ask her for materials to substantiate your published statements, rather I am asking for you to list and provide the materials, if any, that you relied upon at the time your newsletter was published.
2. Mayor Jeffrey, when you published your statements, were you aware or not aware that Dr. de Villa is a Member of Ontario’s Association of Local Public Health Agencies (alPHa), which told its members, in writing, in February 2011:
3. Please note that my loved ones, fellow safe water advocates and I have never granted Dr. de Villa or the Region the authority to make health care decisions for us, and we certainly have never agreed to be mass-medicated without informed consent by anyone. My safe water colleagues and I made this perfectly clear to you during our meeting in March 2015, when we also screened for you Fluoride Action Network’s 10 Facts about Fluoride film.
4. Kindly forward to me your inaugural newsletter as an attachment so that I may have an electronic version, and please list all of the places that it was distributed either in hard copy or electronically.
5. Kindly advise whether you have reviewed the published papers that I listed for you in my email of June 29th, and whether any of them had already been provided to you at the time your newsletter was published.
6. Kindly advise whether you plan to publish a retraction of your published endorsement of the illegal mass medication of our community with toxic waste from the smokestacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry, and if the answer is ‘no’ please explain why.
7. When you published your statements, were you aware or not aware that:
- Mississauga resident Liesa Cianchino, on behalf of the Concerned Residents of Peel to End Fluoridation, retained a lawyer to prepare a legal opinion on the issue of fluoridation (it is posted online here), and,
- Lawyer Nader Hasan presented his legal opinion before Regional Council on June 26, 2014, and
- following his presentation, a Statement of Claim was issued on September 25th against the Region and the Province of Ontario based on many violations and illegalities regarding artificial water fluoridation?
I look forward to your replies to each of my 8 queries listed above.
August 2, 2016
Investigation Report finds the Region of Peel breached the open meetings requirement
Conclusion (found on page 8): “Amberley Gavel has concluded that Council for the Region of Peel breached the open meetings requirement of the Municipal Act when meeting in closed session under section 239.(3.1) of the Municipal Act on January 21, 2016.”
Do you think the public should be able to hear meetings discussing their health? Email your Councillor and let them know!
April 20, 2016
Dorota Wozny’s Letter to the Peel Community Water Fluoridation Committee
Dear Community Water Fluoridation Committee members:
Ms. Johanna Downey, Ms. Anette Groves, Ms. Carolyn Parrish, Ms. Karen Ras, Mr. Frank Dale, Mr. Michael Palleschi, Mr. John Sprovieri and Mr. Jim Tovey;
RE: Region of Peel Water Fluoridation
As a concerned resident of the Region of Peel I’m writing this letter to ask my councillors who make up the Community Water Fluoridation Committee to vote against municipal drinking water fluoridation; against adding fluorosilicic/ hydrofluorosilicic (HF(aq)) / hexafluorosilicic acids (H2SiF6)/ superphosphate fertilizer waste products, into our municipal drinking water, labeled as water fluoridation, which is the water that my family and I have no choice but to drink. The current practice of adding Sodium Fluoride (NaF) by-product compounds into our municipal drinking water is questionable in many ways and touches upon issues which the region has not yet addressed. As the region is conducting broader public consultation on this long standing controversial practice, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns.
As a resident and ratepayer in the Region of Peel, I have engaged in my own research on the subject of municipal drinking water fluoridation from an ethical, legal and health perspective. Since my research was very lengthy, I will simply express my opinion based on findings.
First of all, it is unethical to add industrial by-products to water supply. The concept of adding toxic substances to the public’s water without informed consent is completely unethical as well as criminal. The act of adding fluorosilicic acid into drinking water constitutes forced medication of unsuspecting public and violates medical ethics. In Ontario, capacity is defined by the Health Care Consent Act as understanding the information that is needed to make a decision and the ability to appreciate the consequences and/or risks of that decision. A person is presumed to be capable of making health care decisions unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect incapacity, meaning they are unable to make some or all of their care decisions. Hence, by forcefully medicating the residents of the Region of Peel, via adding unwanted fluoride into drinking water, the municipality is violating the Health Care Consent Act, and by doing so, it presumes that all residents are incapable of making their own health care decisions. Such presumption is incorrect, unethical and illegal.
Please note, that even if a resident of the Region of Peel would give consent to drinking fluoridated municipal water, the decision to drink uncontrollable amount of fluoride in tap water would be made based on misinformed consent. For consent to be informed, a person must have access to adequate and sufficient information on which to base their decisions. The Region of Peel has not, in any capacity, even remotely mentioned anywhere in its publications any negative health effects associated with ingesting fluoridated water. By failing to inform the public of any risks associated with drinking fluoridated municipal water, no matter how insignificant such risks might appear to be, the region has not done due diligence and it has failed to provide adequate and sufficient information on which residents base pertinent decisions.
Next, drinking fluoridated water is bad for human health. In the past, as well as now, research continues to illustrate the long-term damaging effects of adding this industrial by-product to water supply. Also, science continues to validate earlier claims about the adverse health effects of water fluoridation including water fluoridation being the cause of a variety of health problems. These problems include lowered IQs, hypothyroidism and increased risks for certain cancers. For years, scientists have warned leaders of the dangers of water fluoridation including Dr. Dean Burk PhD who was a well accomplished American biochemist, medical researcher and a cancer researcher at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the National Cancer Institute where he was a senior chemist and then the head of the cytochemistry laboratory. He taught biochemistry at the Cornell University medical school and was a research master at George Washington University; he published more than 250 scientific articles in his lifetime; he stated that fluoride causes more human cancer deaths and causes it faster than any other chemical. Dr. Dean Burk used his fifty years of cancer research experience to come to that conclusion. There are many other pertinent scholars whose work and findings should be studied in order to draw objective, scientific, influence free, conclusions on the issue of water fluoridation.
Recent research shows that about fifty percent of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in tissues such as teeth, bones and the pineal gland in the brain, according to Richard Wiles, co-founder of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a research organization based in Washington, D.C. One of the most recent studies documenting the adverse health effects of water fluoridation comes from the University of Kent, a public research university in the United Kingdom. Scientists studied data obtained from nearly every medical practice in England and discovered that fluoride may be increasing the risk for hypothyroidism, a condition in which the thyroid gland fails to produce enough hormones, resulting in symptoms such as fatigue, obesity and depression. Published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the study included the largest population ever analyzed in relation to the adverse health effects caused by water fluoridation. I believe that such pertinent scientific revelations should be mentioned in Region of Peel publications and your committee should address this issue in order to represent the public in an accountable and transparent manner as stipulated in the Municipal Councillor’s Guide.
Residents of the Region of Peel who are rate payers, hence pay for your salaries; who are also voters and vote for you to be fairly and adequately represented; these people assume that they are the ultimate stakeholders in the issue of municipal water fluoridation. As a resident of Mississauga and a business professional, I can’t help but view this issue from a business perspective. Mississauga, being a Corporation of the City of Mississauga has been partnering up with various industries and businesses and has been forming public and mutual benefit not-for-profit platforms in order to facilitate interaction and business transactions. Hence, new partners and their affiliates have now increased the municipal pool of stakeholders; their roles in resource interactions, as well as their economic, business and personal objectives.
The municipal decision making environment has now changed as these new stakeholders tend to exert economic influence. Who are the stakeholders in the issue of water fluoridation? How do these stakeholders influence your decision making process? How does your committee prioritize stakeholders when it comes to accountability and why? Residents need transparency on this issue as there seems to be a conflict of stakeholder interest when it comes to the issue of water fluoridation. Does your committee follow a social contract political concept to deal with stakeholders or is a strategic management approach utilized that looks at the principle of who and what really counts when analyzing stakeholders?
I think that these questions are very important because by answering them, the Community Water Fluoridation Committee will establish a precedent regarding the process involved when deciding whether or not to fluoridate the region’s drinking water, as per disclosed influences. The lack of transparency together with the closed door policy has left constituents in the dark on this issue. According to the Municipal Act, “municipal committees whose membership is made up of at least fifty 50per cent of people who also serve as members on a municipal council or a local board must conduct their meetings in accordance with the open meetings provisions in the legislation – including proper record keeping done by the appropriate officer. The municipal procedures bylaw would also apply to these committees.” Currently, the committee does not seem to be following that mandate. Consequently, the public is justified in suspecting a possible conflict of interest or moral hazard because there are no publicly available records, or minutes of meetings, available to prove otherwise. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that some civil servants, or the municipality as a whole may be involved in a conflict of interest situation, whether they know it or not and which has or has not been disclosed.
Further to public business conduct, according to the Municipal Councillor’s Guide: “The Act includes provisions related to the transparency and accountability of council as well as its local boards and committees, including the conduct of meetings and the public’s right to attend them. Transparent decision making processes may be seen as part of the foundation of the good governance of a municipality. A key transparency rule for municipalities is the requirement that most municipal meetings be open to the public. There are only a limited number of exceptions, for consideration of matters such as litigation, or personal matters about an identifiable individual.” What exceptions have been utilized by your committee to hold closed door meetings on the issue of water fluoridation?
As I researched pertinent civil servants, as well as municipal and regional partners to the issue of water fluoridation in the Region of Peel, I found numerous business and industry affiliations which create a concern that the interests of my group of stakeholders may not be adequately represented by council. There is a very likely possibility, as per my research and the closed door policy, that the objectives of citizens are being forgone in order to satisfy the mutually exclusive objectives of industry on the issue of municipal water fluoridation. As business partners have a vested interest in the Region of Peel, their main objective is to grow but that growth cannot occur at the expense of our health.
Industry, through personal and business affiliations has an objective to maximize profits and minimize costs by disposing of their chemical waste products in a profitable way. On the other hand, as residents of the Region of Peel and consumers of its drinking water, we would like to maximize our health status by, among other things, drinking fluoride – free water, and minimize our costs by not having to pay approximately $450,000 annually for a toxic chemical product that we don’t want or need in our drinking water. The Municipal Act states: “Generally, municipal decisions must not be based on fraud, oppression or improper motive. Courts may decide to quash a bylaw based on bad faith. The courts decide about good faith and other legal issues case by case. For example, while generally a bylaw passed by council in good faith cannot be quashed or reviewed by the courts because of unreasonableness of the bylaw (see section 272 of the Municipal Act), the courts have held that unreasonableness might be evidence of bad faith.”
As a resident and risk management professional, I see an urgent need for the Region of Peel to assess the risks to health of constituents who drink water that has been fluoridated by the municipality. An independent, influence-free, competent, risk assessment study should be conducted, using up to date technology and knowledge in order to determine all risks associated with the issue of water fluoridation in a municipal environment, as well as the implications and treatments. It’s time to make such results public and to update current municipal subjective opinions with objective scientific conclusions. Finally, municipal due diligence would be best achieved if councillors familiarized themselves with municipal risk management strategies in addressing public issues, including the issue at hand.
The Municipal Councillor’s Guide states, on the issue of risk management: “More and more, municipalities are adopting risk management strategies to address public liability. Generally, risk management strategies seek to minimize the effects and costs of public liability suits against a municipality. This involves identifying potential hazards and implementing the appropriate measures to reduce or eliminate them in your community.” Hence, a holistic risk management strategy should be embraced by councillors in order to achieve a broad view on the issue of municipal water fluoridation and all of the risks involved. When the occurrence of a risk is high and the consequences are severe, the treatment method is avoidance. I hope that this committee can recognize that the act of adding fluoride to our drinking water has severe health consequences on those dependent on that water and hence, water fluoridation should be avoided. Municipal decision makers who practice improper motives may and should be charged with fraud. I trust that this committee will render an educated, objective and influence-free decision on the issue of municipal water fluoridation.
Dorota Wozny, BBM CRM
PEEL FLUORIDATION COMMITTEE RESTRICTS PUBLIC DELEGATIONS TO INVITATION ONLY
Source: Mississauga News | April 1st, 2016 | By Roger Belgrave
The committee reviewing water fluoridation in Peel Region has decided it will hear public delegations by invitation only.
Councillors on the Community Water Fluoridation Committee met Thursday morning in Regional Council chambers to list some studies and data it wants gathered as part of the review.
This process is expected to culminate in a recommendation to council as to whether or not the Region should continue its longstanding practice of adding fluoride to the municipality’s drinking water.
The review has generated widespread comment from fluoridation supporters who see health benefits in the practice, as well as from opponents who believe the chemical additive is actually harmful to public health.
Water fluoridation critics, from all over Canada and outside the country, have been inundating the Region with comment since the review was initiated earlier this year.
Councillors fear an open policy on delegations would bog down the review process in hours of repetitive presentations on the benefits and evils of fluoridation.
“We’re going to end up with dozens of delegations,” said committee chair Carolyn Parrish.
The committee will go back to council to request designation as a study group – allowing committee members to determine who will make presentations as part of this review.
Members of the public would be free to make delegations on the issue once the committee submits its recommendations to council.
“There’s an opportunity when this goes back to council. They can have their delegation then,” pointed out Mississauga councillor Karen Ras.
The Region has already been criticized for shutting out the public on this issue when it held an education session for coucillors behind closed doors last January.
This is the second time Peel council has dived headfirst into the water fluoridation debate.
In April 2011, debate ended with council voting unanimously to continue to the practice. But the anti-fluoride lobby has refused to let the issue die and have even launched an ongoing court challenge.
Let MPP Bob Delaney know the dangers of water fluoridation:
Bob Delaney @BobDelaneyMPP
Moving forward on our plan to ensure every Ontario citizen is protected by municipal drinking water fluoridation… http://fb.me/21wAz5Juk
Lawsuit to Stop Water Fluoridation in Peel (24:00)
March 6, 2016 Brampton Focus host Michael A. Charbon interviews Liesa Cianchino and her lawyer Nader Hassan to ask why they are suing Peel Region to stop Fluoridating water. Special guest interview with John Sprovieri, Peel Regional Councillor for Wards 9 & 10 in Brampton.
City of Brampton Staff are drinking fluoride free water: seeking a response from Mr. Esplen, Ms. Smith and Dr. de Villa
Dear Mr. Esplen, Ms. Smith and Dr. de Villa,
Below are questions I submitted to Mr. Espen, a City of Brampton Manager, on Feb. 11, 2016, re-phrased to make it more apparent for Mr. Esplen that they pertain to the City of Brampton rather than the Region of Peel.
Mr. Esplen kindly advised me to forward these questions about the City of Brampton to you, Ms. Smith and Dr. de Villa, and so I have followed his advice, although the questions are not about Health Services at the Region of Peel in any way whatsoever. Are you able to answer any of these questions regarding the City of Brampton’s spending, research and other actions?
Mr. Esplen, while we await a reply from Ms. Smith and/ or Dr. de Villa, if you would kindly review the re-phrased questions below, I am quite certain you will agree that they pertain to the City of Brampton and not the Region of Peel. As such, I will look forward to your reply. Kindly recall that 13 days have already passed since I first submitted these questions to you.
1. Why are City of Brampton Departments providing tap water alternatives for staff members at additional expense to taxpayers?
2. I understand the City of Brampton paid approximately $7,276.00 for Cedar Spring water (which has has 0ppm Fluoride, 0pmm Lead and 0ppm Aluminum) in 2015.Are City of Brampton Departments not concerned that staff drinking this water will be adversely affected by not having 0.5 – 0.8 ppm Fluoride, which according to Public Health authorities is the ‘optimal concentration’ necessary for good health?
Have City of Brampton staff been advised at any time that Cedar Springs water is Fluoride-free?
3. By what authority do City of Brampton Departments spend taxpayers’ money on tap water filters and other alternatives for staff? Any documentation would be helpful in understanding who authorized such an expense at the cost of the tax payers.
4. Please provide the City of Brampton’s last 10 years of expenses from all tap water alternatives and related expenses (bottled water, filters, water services, surveys, etc.) and the names of the various companies that have been used?
5. You’ve indicated that the City of Brampton is currently gathering feedback from City of Brampton users to determine if the filtration pilot project will be continued. Please provide the details of this City of Brampton feedback gathering process. Please provide surveys, questions, and any other tools that are being used to gather this feedback. Please also provide the details of the feedback gathered thus far. Please provide the cost of this feedback-gathering process, as indicated in #4 above.
6. Please provide any additional information regarding this City of Brampton pilot project that is currently in effect regarding the installation of the water filters in the Brampton City Hall kitchenettes that are undergoing renovations, in order that I may better understand the reasoning behind this pilot project.
7. Which filters are being considered for this City of Brampton pilot project? Please provide the make and model numbers.
Open Letter to Dr. Hoskins, Ontario Health Minister
Dear Dr. Hoskins,Your recent written and televised endorsements of artificial water fluoridation have been observed by safe water advocates around the world with great concern.In making these endorsements, were you aware or not aware of the following?
- The most commonly used fluoridation chemical in Ontario is hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA), which is unregulated, man-made toxic waste from the pollution control devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry, never approved as a drug, dietary supplement or food additive, identified as a dangerous good under Canada’s Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations, classified as a Class 8 corrosive substance, and contaminated with radionuclides, arsenic, lead and other heavy metals.
- The EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for arsenic, for lead and for the radionuclides that they regulate in drinking water is zero. An MCLG is the maximum level in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse human health effects would occur.
- The World Health Organization states that “There is no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe.”
- Health Canada’s advises: “Because arsenic can cause cancer, every effort should be made to keep arsenic levels in drinking water as low as possible“.
- Health Canada admitted in a 2014 FOI reply that they do not have any controlled toxicology or double blind experiments done anywhere in the world, at any time, on HFSA.
- Many Ontario children have already been harmed by over-exposure to fluoride, as proven by their dental fluorosis. For example, in fluoridated Peel Region, in 2001/2002 the prevalence of fluorosis among surveyed children was 13% (3% with moderate fluorosis, 1% with severe).
- Canadians have a constitutionally protected right to be free from forced medication; in 1957 Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that fluoridation is mass medication.
- If you had not done your due diligence prior to your endorsements of artificial water fluoridation and were unaware of the above, kindly retract your dangerously inaccurate statements and issue an alert advising Municipalities of the above.
If you were aware of the above facts prior to your endorsements, kindly do the only appropriate thing and immediately resign from your position as Minister of Health.
Transport Canada’s 2012 Emergency Response Guidebook, see page 38 for Hydrofluorosilicic acid
A certificate of analysis from Lakeview Water Treatment facility in Mississauga, ON, for a shipment of Peel’s fluoridation chemical (HFSA) shows both arsenic (As) and lead (Pb) (also attached).
EPA’s MCLG for Arsenic, Lead and radionuclides
WHO fact sheet on Lead
Health Canada on Arsenic in Drinking Water
Health Canada FOI reply (also attached)
Material Safety Data Sheet for HFSA (also attached)
The Region of Peel’s 2003 Children’s Dental Health Report (also attached), see page 14
Supreme Court of Canada Judgment in Metropolitan Toronto v. Forest Hill (Village)
Fluoride Free Peel
cc: Peel Council, Peel Medical Officer of Health, Peel Chapter of Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, Ontario Premier
Water Fluoridation Communications – Region of Peel Council Agenda
Thank you to the following experts for contributing letters of concern towards the continued fluoridation of the drinking water in Peel Region:
Henry Rodriguez, Founder and Executive Director, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Lois Marie Gibbs, Founder and Stephen Lester, Science Director, Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ)
Karen Spencer, Resident, Glouchester, Massachusetts
Dr. Oksana M. Sawiak, Wellness Counsellor, Author, Lecturer
Christine Massey, Resident, City of Brampton
Peel to form a water fluoridation advisory committee
Council will now waste more time and taxpayer’s money, in further consideration of their illegal and costly program of dumping 460,000 kilograms of toxic waste, annually, into our tap water in blatant violation of Canada’s Superior Law.
“That a Committee be established to report to Regional Council with terms of reference and recommendations for next steps, including public consultations, on the issue of fluoride in drinking water; And further, that Regional Chair Dale and Councillors Downey, Groves, Palleschi, Parrish, Ras, Sprovieri and Tovey be appointed to the committee.”Click to view Council minutes from the January 28th meeting.
None of Peel’s mayors attended the entire closed-door fluoridation education session of Jan. 21, 2016 that cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. Click to view Council minutes from the January 21st education session.
Legal arguments against artificial
Click to view the June 2014 legal opinion explaining that fluoridation violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter and Rights and Freedoms, s. 20 of Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act, and Canada’s Food and Drugs Act.
Appended to the brief is an affidavit from a fluoride toxicity expert explaining that water fluoridation has in fact never been proven safe or effective, and that the available data do not support community water fluoridation.