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 ITEMBEFORE WE HIT FLUORIDE.IT SHOULD BE A RELATIVELY QUICK ITEM.ON THAT NOTE, WE DO HAVE ASPEAKER’S LIST. WE’D LIKE YOU TO SIGN UP IF YOUWISH TO SPEAK ON FLUORIDE SO WECAN GO FROM THE LIST. YOU DON’T ALL HAVE TO RUSH ATONCE.OKAY. YOU CAN ALL RUSH AT ONCE.OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS ISTHE CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA. MOVED BY ALDERMAN STEVENSON.ARE YOU AGREED?OPPOSED? THAT’S CARRIED.NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS ISCONFIRMATION 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 THEGLENMORE BEARSPAW WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADES.IS THERE A REQUEST FOR APRESENTATION? NOBODY REQUIRES A PRESENTATION?IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FORADMINISTRATION? IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLICTHAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO UNE2011-01? ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THATWISHES 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 YOURREPORT.IT SAYS THAT THE MANAGEMENT TEAM WAS SUCCESSFUL IN MANAGING RISKSRELATED TO THE PLANT SHUTDOWNSAND TIE-IN ACTIVITIES. ANY LEARNINGS THAT CAME OUT OFTHAT PROCESS WOULD BE ONEQUESTION I HAVE. ANYWAY, THAT’S WHERE USUALLY WELIKE TO FOCUS ON.SO IF YOU COULD JUST COVER OFF THAT.>> THE PROGRAM MANAGER ANDINSTRUMENTAL IN THE WHOLE PROGRAM WILL SPEAK TO THAT.>> THANK YOU, SIR.>> DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROGRAM, OVER SEVEN YEARS, WEREQUIRED SHUTDOWNS AT BOTHPLANTS, BOTH AT BEARSPAW AND AT GLENMORE TO TIE IN THE NEWPROCESSES AND THE NEW PIPING.THIS WORK WAS COORDINATED WITH OPERATIONS, AND WE DEVELOPEDPLANS TO ENSURE THAT WATERSERVICE WAS NOT INTERRUPTED.SOME OF THE LEARNINGS THAT CAMEOUT OF THAT WAS WE DID LEARNTHAT THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES IN TRANSMITTING WATER FROM ONEPLANT TO THE OTHER.THERE WERE OCCASIONS WHERE THE CITY WAS BEING SUPPLIED BY ONEPLANT ONLY.AND WE PERFORMED SIX PLANT SHUTDOWNS, AND THEY ALL WENTVERY WELL.AND WE LEARNED AND GOT BETTER AT DOING THEM EACH TIME THAT WE HADTO 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 ANADVANTAGE IN GOING THROUGH THESEPLANT SHUTDOWNS. WE HAD A PARTNERSHIP WITH OURENGINEERING CONSULTANT AND THECONSTRUCTION MANAGER. AND BECAUSE WE WERE IN ALONG-TERM PARTNERSHIP, THELEARNINGS AND THE TEAM, THE CORE TEAM, WAS CONTINUOUS THROUGHOUTTHE PROGRAM.AND IT ALLOWED THE WHOLE CONSTRUCTION TEAM TO REALLYUNDERSTAND HOW THOSE PLANTSWORKED. BECAUSE WE’RE OPERATING ANDCONSTRUCTING 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 ISFLUORIDE. UN 2011-02.THERE IS NO PRESENTATION ON THISBY ADMINISTRATION FOR THE REASON BEING IT’S NOT AN ADMINISTRATIONRECOMMENDATION.IT’S A RECOMMENDATION MADE BY COUNCIL.AND I’D LIKE TO TELL — OR ASKTHE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE DAYTHAT WE’RE ANTICIPATING, WE DOTAKE A BREAK FROM NOON UNTIL 1:15 AND WE DO TAKE A BREAK AT3:15 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 GETTO THE DINNER BREAK, BUT WE MAY.YOU’RE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES TOSPEAK.WHEN YOU COME FORWARD WE WOULD ASK YOU TO GIVE YOUR NAME.ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKETO MENTION, IF SOMEBODY’S ALREADY SAID WHAT YOU PLANNED TOSAY, WE DON’T NEED TO HEAR ITOVER AND OVER AGAIN. BECAUSE IT BECOMES LIKE A FORMLETTER THEN.SO IF YOU’VE GOT SOMETHING NEW TO ADD, WE APPRECIATE THE FACTTHAT EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TOSPEAK AND WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEWTO SAY.BASED ON THAT MADAME CLERK COULD YOU GIVE ME THE FIRST PAGE OFTHE SPEAKERS’ LIST SO I CANSTART? ALDERMAN FARRELL.SO TO OPEN THIS, I’LL GO TOALDERMAN FARRELL SEEING AS HOW IT’S HER NOTICE OF MOTION.ALDERMAN FARRELL.YOU CAN REMAIN SEATED.>> THANK YOU.WELL, I OF COURSE BROUGHT THEMOTION FORWARD TO COUNCIL WITH NINE OF MY COLLEAGUES COSIGNINGTHE MOTION.BUT IT WAS EXPRESSED BY SOME NEW MEMBERS OF COUNCIL,PARTICULARLY, FOR THEIR DESIRETO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS MATTER.SO ALTHOUGH I HAVE AN OPINION, IWANT — FOR THE COURTESY OF MY COLLEAGUES, I THOUGHT THAT ITWAS IMPORTANT THAT THEY HEARFROM THE PUBLIC. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WAS TOREFER THIS TO COUNCIL TO PROVIDETHAT OPPORTUNITY. AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE DOING HERETODAY.THERE’S TWO PARTS TO THE MOTION. IT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF FLUORIDEAND I IMAGINE THAT WILL BE THETOPIC OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PRESENTATIONS.BUT ALSO THE QUESTION OF IF WEDO REMOVE FLUORIDE FROM OUR DRINKING WATER, WHAT WOULD BETHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITYIN PROVIDING SOME ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE OR FLUORIDETREATMENTS FOR PEOPLE OF LOWINCOME? AND SO THAT WOULD ALSO BE ATOPIC OF PRESENTATION, I’MHOPING. WHAT WOULD THAT GO FORWARD LOOKLIKE?AND THE MOTION IS FAIRLY SPECIFIC THAT WE ASK FORESTABLISHING A COMMITTEE TO LOOKAT THAT FURTHER. SO I GUESS WE’LL GET STARTEDTHEN.>> MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE, ADMINISTRATION HERE IS TO ANSWERANY QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.IF YOU HAVE NO QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION, I’M GOING TO LETTHEM 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 STEVENSONHAS A PRESENTATION?>> THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE WITH US TODAY A GROUPFROM THE AGAPE LANGUAGE CENTREAND THE TEACHER IS KAREN KAJORNEEN AND SHE HAS MAUREENNELSON AND CLAIRE GATES WITHHER. IF WE COULD GET THAT GROUP TOSTAND.ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT.[Applause]THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND WE HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR TIMEHERE 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 THEPUBLIC AND FOR MEMBERS OFCOUNCIL TO GET AN OPINION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON THELEGALITIES OF MOVING FORWARD,WHAT OUR CHOICES WOULD BE. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT CERTAINLYCOULD COME AFTER THE PUBLIC HAVEHAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. BUT I’M ASSUMING THAT WE’LL WANTTHAT INFORMATION.I’VE MET WITH THEM, BUT I’M NOT SURE IF ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCILUNDERSTAND THE OPTIONS IN GOINGFORWARD. >> ARE YOU DIRECTING THAT?>> NO, I’M JUST SUGGESTING THATIF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WANT TO DO THAT.THAT WOULD BE A LIKELY OUTCOMEANYWAY. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG.>> JUST SOME QUESTIONS FORCLARIFICATION FROM ADMINISTRATION WITH REGARDS TOCOSTS 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 COSTSARE ABOUT $750.000. OF THAT 750.000, IT’S ABOUT INTHE RANGE OF 600 TO 625 FOR THEACTUAL CHEMICAL ITSELF. THE REMAINDER OF THE COSTS AREOPERATING COSTS, ANDADMINISTERING THE FLUORIDE AT OUR TWO TREATMENT PLANTS.CURRENTLY, WE ALSO HAVE ANENGINEERING CONSULTANT, WHICH IS DOING AN ASSESSMENT OF OURFACILITIES AT BOTH PLANTS TO SEEWHERE WE ARE IN THEIR LIFE CYCLE AND WHAT UPGRADE IS NECESSARY TOBE DONE TO THE EQUIPMENT AT THEPLANTS.AND WE’RE HOPING THAT ASSESSMENTWILL BE DONE PROBABLY IN THEFIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR. >> OKAY.I’VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE ARELOOKING AT NEEDING TO UPGRADE THESE FACILITIES AND WE DON’THAVE AN ESTIMATE AS TO WHATTHOSE COSTS MAY WELL BE YET? >> WE HAVE A ROUGH IDEA RIGHTNOW.WE WILL BE RELYING ON OUR CONSULTANT TO COME BACK WITH AMORE 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 FRAMETHAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TO DO WITH THIS — WITH THESEUPGRADES?>> THAT’S ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL BECOMING THROUGH THE CONSULTANT’SREPORT AS TO THE TIMING OF THE UPGRADE, AND THAT’S BASED ON HISCONDITION ASSESSMENT OF WHAT’SREQUIRED TO BE UPGRADED.THESE WERE INSTALLED A NUMBER OFYEARS AGO AND HAVE THERE BEENANY INSTALLATIONS AT OTHER EXTREME PLANTS.>> IN THE SAME WAY YOU GAVE US AROUGH ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE COSTS ARE EXPECTING TO BE, IS THEREANY WAY YOU CAN GIVE US A ROUGHESTIMATE AS TO A TIME FRAME REQUIRED OR WHERE THESE REPAIRSMAY BE REQUIRED TO BE DONE?WHEN, RATHER? >> NOT RIGHT AT THIS TIME.I’D BE ESTIMATING WE’D PROBABLYBE LOOKING AT SOMETHING NEXT YEAR OR IN A TIME FRAME SHORTLYTHEREAFTER.PROBABLY IN THE 2012-14 BUSINESS CYCLE.>> THANK YOU.NO MORE QUESTIONS. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.>> JUST FOLLOWING UP ON ALDERMANDEMONG’S QUESTIONS, ARE THERE RESERVE FUNDS IN PLACE TO COVERTHOSE COSTS, OR WHERE WOULD THECOSTS OF THE UPGRADE COME FROM? >> THE COSTS WOULD BE COVEREDTHROUGH OUR CURRENT CAPITALPROGRAM. SO WE DO HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDSIN OUR CAPITAL PROGRAM TO COVERTHAT. >> SO THESE ARE ANTICIPATEDCOSTS?>> I BEG YOUR PARDON? >> THESE ARE ANTICIPATED COSTS.>> THESE ARE ANTICIPATED COSTSRIGHT NOW.AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, OURCONSULTANT WILL BE COMING BACKWITH A MORE ACCURATE ESTIMATE, AND THEN WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK ATWHERE IT FALLS WITH THEPRIORITIES OF OTHER CAPITAL INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE.>> I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS MOREIN RELATION TO — I’M NOT SURE HOW LONG WE’VE HAD THE EQUIPMENTBUT WE ANTICIPATED THISEQUIPMENT WOULD EVENTUALLY NEED TO BE REPLACED OR ENHANCED SOTHERE’S RESERVE FUNDS FOR THATAND 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 QUESTIONSFROM 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 VIBRANTCOMMUNITIES CALGARY.IT’S A NONPROFIT THAT WORKS ACROSS SECTORS TO TRY TO ADDRESSTHE ROOT CAUSES OF POVERTY INOUR COMMUNITY. I KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUTFLUORIDE.I KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT’S GOOD OR BAD FOR MY TEETH,AND I KNOW IF I STAYED FOR THEDAY, I WOULD BE MO CONFUSED AFTERWARDS THAN I AM NOW KNOWINGNOTHING AT THE BEGINNING.AND SO IT’S NOT MY PLACE TO RECOMMEND WHETHER FLUORIDE IS AGOOD IDEA OR A BAD IDEA INDRINKING WATER FROM A MEDICAL POINT OF VIEW.I TEND TO TRUST DOCTORS AS MUCHAS I CAN.AND IF WE COULD GET THEM TOAGREE, I’D ADVISE THAT.WHAT I DO KNOW, THOUGH, IS ABOUT POVERTY IN OUR CITY.IT MIGHT BE THE ONLY THING IKNOW ABOUT. AND IT’S BECAUSE I SPEND MY TIMETALKING TO PEOPLE THAT LIVE INPOVERTY IN CALGARY AND ASKING THEM WHAT THEY NEED.ASKING THEM WHAT OUR CITY CAN DOTO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES STRONGER, TO MAKE THEIR LIVESEASIER, TO EASE THE PRESSURES ONTHEIR FAMILIES. AND YOU KNOW THE ANSWER I’VENEVER 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 ISSUEOF HEALTH, AND WE CAN GET THE DOCTORS AND THE DENTISTS IN THEROOM TO SUGGEST THAT FLUORIDE ISABSOLUTELY THE BEST WAY TO PREVENT — OR TO MAINTAIN DENTALAND ORAL HEALTH FOR PEOPLELIVING 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 INTHE WATER, THEY TELL US ALL TOGO TO THE DENTIST.AND SO IF FLUORIDE WAS DOINGTHIS PREVENTIVE HEALTH WORK, IWOULDN’T NEED TO GO TO THE DENTIST.AND I ASSURE YOU IF THERE’S ONEPERSON IN THIS ROOM THAT WOULD GET OUT OF GOING TO THE DENTISTIF WE COULD, IT’S ME.HERE’S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IF WE WANT TO CARE FOR THE ORALHEALTH OF LOW INCOME CALGARIANS,LET’S DO THAT. I MEAN, LET’S REALLY DO THAT.AND MYSELF AND THE OTHER MEMBERSOF VIBRANT COMMUNITIES CALGARY WOULD BE HAPPY, EAGER TO HELP DOTHAT.WHEN WE LOOK AT THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR ANDTHREE OR FOUR MILLION DOLLARS TOUPGRADE FACILITIES, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE SOME AMAZINGUSES FOR THAT MONEY.WE COULD CHANGE THE NATURE OF THIS CITY FOR PEOPLE LIVING INPOVERTY WITH THAT AMOUNT OFMONEY.WE COULD FUNDAMENTALLY IMPROVEPEOPLE’S LIVES WITH THAT AMOUNTOF MONEY. AND I’M NOT CERTAIN THATFLUORIDE IS DOING THAT AS IT ISTODAY. AND SO THE MOTION BEFORE US ISAN INTERESTING ONE.THE AMENDMENT, THE SECOND BIT OF THAT MOTION FROM ALDERMANFARRELL AND HER COLLEAGUES ISTHE BIT I’D LIKE TO SPEAK TO. AND THAT’S THAT IF WE REALLY DOTHINK THAT THIS — IT’S THE WILLOF THIS COUNCIL TO LOOK AFTER THE ORAL HEALTH OF PEOPLE LIVINGIN POVERTY, THERE ARE MANY, MANYWAYS TO DO THAT. AND SOME OF THOSE WAYS DON’TINVOLVE FLUSHING MONEY ORANYTHING ELSE DOWN TOILETS. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU.IF I’M TO SUMMARIZE THE ASPECT OF WHAT YOU SAID, IT MAY BE MOREDIRECTLY BENEFICIAL IF WEACTUALLY HAD A PROGRAM THAT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED FUNDS TOTHOSE THAT NEED THE FLUORIDE INDENTAL 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 ISTHE BEST WAY TO PROVIDE DENTAL CARE TO PEOPLE LIVING INPOVERTY.I WOULD BE REMISS TO TRY TO COMMENT ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTSOF THAT QUESTION.HAWHAT I DO KNOW IS IF FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATERWAS DOING THE JOB, NONE OF USWOULD NEED TO GO TO THE DENTIST.AND THAT IF WE REALLY WANT TOCARE FOR PEOPLE LIVING INPOVERTY, ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTYTELL US ARE VERY, VERY, VERYIMPORTANT TO THEM, FLUORIDE’S NOT ON THAT LIST.AND SO I THINK IF ORAL HEALTHFOR PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY IS SOMETHING THIS COUNCIL WANTS TODO, LET’S DO THAT.BUT LET’S DO THAT IN THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF OUR TIME ANDMONEY.I’M NOT SAYING I KNOW WHAT THAT ANSWER IS, BUT I’D BE HAPPY TOWORK THROUGH THE PROCESS OFEXPLORING IT WITH THIS COUNCIL. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL.>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERETODAY Mr. MEADS AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON POVERTYISSUES.THAT’S OFTEN THE REASON THAT WE — THE PROPONENTS OFFLUORIDE, THE REASON BEHINDTHEIR SUPPORT OF THE SUBSTANCE IS IT HELPS PEOPLE IN POVERTYSITUATIONS.SPECIFICALLY CHILDREN. AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OFBRINGING FORWARD THE AMENDMENTALONG WITH Mr. KEATING. ALDERMAN KEATING.BUT WHAT — I DON’T PROPOSE TOKNOW 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 PASSESTODAY AS I’VE PRESENTED IT?>> CERTAINLY. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.WHEN WE THINK ABOUT POVERTY, THEFIRST WORD THAT NEEDS TO COME TO OUR MIND IS “COMPLEXITY.”IF THAT’S NOT THE FIRST WORD WETHINK OF WHEN WE THINK ABOUT HOW WE ADDRESS POVERTY IN CALGARY,WE’RE GOING TO GET IT WRONGEVERY TIME. AND SO HOW DO I SUGGEST THAT WETHINK THROUGH PEOPLE LIVING INPOVERTY AND HELPING THEIR LIVES? I THINK WE DO SO BY HONOURINGTHE COMPLEXITY OF THE SITUATIONAND 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 TIMETHINKING ABOUT ONE OF THEM, AND NOT THE REST OF THEM, WE’REGOING TO GET IT WRONG EVERY TIMEBECAUSE WE’RE NOT THINKING ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY.AND SO DO I THINK THERE’S ROOMFOR THIS CONVERSATION IN A BROADER MUNICIPAL POVERTYREDUCTION STRATEGY OR POVERTYPLAN? ABSOLUTELY.I THINK THE MUNICIPALITY HAS ARESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT AS DOES THE PROVINCE AS DOES THECOUNTRY.AND SO I DO THINK THAT THERE’S A PIECE OF THIS CONVERSATION THATCAN START HERE.AND I THINK THIS BIT OF MONEY THAT MAY BE SAVED BY A DECISIONTHAT’S MADE HERE IS A WONDERFULBIT OF MONEY TO START THAT PROCESS.OF THINKING THROUGH WHAT ITMEANS TO BE POOR IN CALGARY AND WHAT IT MEANS TO HELP PEOPLELIVING IN POVERTY IN CALGARY.>> THANK YOU. SO YOU’RE WILLING TO WORK WITHUS 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 YOUCORRECTLY, PART OF WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THAT THE MONEY COULDBE REDIRECTED AND PERHAPS BETTERSPENT ON DENTAL CARE FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES.IS THAT CORRECT?>> THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING, CERTAINLY.>> SO DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OR AVISION OF HOW — WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE?ARE YOU THINKING DENTALPROGRAMS? 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 ASSIMPLE AS I CAN.AND SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN PROVIDE DENTAL CARE TOPEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY, IWOULD SUGGEST THAT WE BRING THEM TO THE DENTIST.I MEAN, IT’S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.AND SO WE HAVE FREE DENTAL CLINICS IN LOW INCOMENEIGHBOURHOODS IN CALGARY AND WEMAKE SURE THAT EVERY CLIENT OF THE DROP-IN CENTRE AND THESALVATION ARMY CENTRE OF HOPEAND THE MUSTARD SEED, EVERY CLIENT OF CALGARY HOUSING HASTHE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THEDENTIST.BUT NOT JUST THE DENTIST.TO THE DOCTOR.AND TO SCHOOL. AND IDEALLY TO A PLACE WHERETHEY CAN WORK FOR A CIVILIZEDLIVING. AND SO WHEN WE THINK DIRECTLYJUST ABOUT DENTAL CARE, YES, THEANSWER IS FREE DENTAL CARE TO PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY.NO QUESTION.IF THERE WAS A REPLACEMENT FOR FREE DENTAL CARE, WE WOULDN’THAVE AS MANY DENTISTS IN THEROOM AS WE HAVE BECAUSE THEY’D ALL BE OUT OF BUSINESS.AND YOU THINK A MILLION DOLLARSA YEAR OR WHATEVER THE COST WOULD COVER –>> OH, I’D BE REMISS TO NOTRECOGNIZE THE COMPLEXITY OF THAT PROBLEM.I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH A MILLIONDOLLARS 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 THECOUNCILLOR, THE MAYOR AND OURNEW PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING OUR CITY HERE.I RAN FOR THE MAYOR’S JOB LASTTIME, AND I APPRECIATE WHO WE HAVE IN PLACE, AND I’D LIKE TOTHANK THE AUDIENCE FOR BEINGHERE ALSO. SHOWS INTEREST.AND I’M GOING TO START OFF WITHSAYING TO YOU PEOPLE DID I MY OWN SURVEY.I CALLED FOUR CITIES IN THISFINE CANADA OF OURS — >> CAN I INTERRUPT YOU JUST FORONE 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 GETALL BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME, ONEOUT OF FOUR, VANCOUVER, DOES NOT USE FLUORIDE BECAUSE WE HAVE ADIFFERENT TYPE OF WATER, FOLKS.I PHONED THE DENTIST ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO.THEY TOLD ME THEY’RE IN FAVOUROF FLUORIDE BECAUSE IT PREVENTS CAVITIES AND ALL THE SUGARS OURCHILDREN ARE GETTING FROMPARENTS 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 THISCITY, I WANT EVERYTHING TO GIVE THEM GOOD HEALTH.LIKE YOU ALL DO.MY CHILDREN ARE MY PRIDE. AND I FEEL Mrs. FARRELL HASSTEPPED OUT OF HER BOUNDSBECAUSE SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO HAVE — I DON’T THINK SHE HAS AHEALTH CERTIFICATE, HAS ADENTIST BACKGROUND, HAS NOTHING –>> WE DON’T TAKE PERSONALATTACKS. >> VERY APOLOGETIC.BUT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THISISSUE, AND WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT SOON.OKAY?IT’S IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY. IF IT’S GOT TO GO TO AREFERENDUM, SO BE IT.THIS IS PEOPLE’S HEALTH WE’RE DEALING WITH.I’VE BEEN ON FLUORIDE ALL MYLIFE.MY TEETH ARE EXCEPTIONALLY WELL.I’M 64 YEARS OLD.THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING, THEY SAY.IF ONE ROTTEN APPLE SPOILS THEBARREL, 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 APREVENTIVE WAY TO SAVE PEOPLE’STEETH 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 BELIEVEIT’S PATRICIA BROWNLY. >> DO YOU WANT ANY COPIES OFTHIS FOR FILING?>> SURE.MADAME CLERK?>> THANK YOU.I’M ALREADY ON TIME HERE. MY NAME IS PATRICIA BROWNLY ANDI WISH TO PRESENT TO THECOMMITTEE MY PERSONAL OPINION ON THE ISSUE OF FLUORIDATION OFPUBLIC DRINKING WATER.I’M ORIGINALLY FROM ONTARIO, AND ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES OFBRANTFORD WAS PART OF THEORIGINAL TESTING BACK IN 1945. CITY COUNCIL IN TORONTO HASPROVED ANOTHER ADDITION IN ’55.VIGOROUS PROTESTS DELAYED THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION FORSEVERAL YEARS.A STRONG OPPONENT TO FLUORIDATION WAS A RADIO ANDPERSONALITY NAMED GORDIANSINCLAIR — GORDON SINCLAIR. MAYBE YOU’RE ALL TO REMEMBERHIM.I DOUBT IT. HE OBJECTED TO BEING FORCED TOTAKE MEDICATION HE DIDN’T WANT,AND OFFERED HIM NO BENEFIT. Mr. SINCLAIR VIEWED THIS ISSUEAS ONE OF GOVERNMENT INFRINGINGON HIS BASIC RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN.I TOO TAKE THAT POSITION.THE ISSUE BECAME ENTANGLED IN YEARS OF LEGAL WRANGLING.UNTIL THE CITY FINALLY ORDEREDTHAT A PLEBISCITE BE HELD IN 1962.THE FINAL RESULT WAS APAPER-THIN VICTORY OF FLUORIDATION OF 50.1% IN FAVOURAND 49.9% OPPOSED.AND HERE WE ARE 50 YEARS LATER WITH PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THISPROCEDURE IN CALGARY.WHERE FLUORIDATION HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED IN COMMUNITIES FROMCANADA, THE FORMER EAST GERMANY,CUBA AND FINLAND, DENTAL DECAY HAS NOT INCREASED BUT ACTUALLYDECREASED.I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENS.THERE’S SOME REFERENCE IN MYMATERIAL THERE.THE CENTRES FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION FROM 1999 TO’01 HAS NOW ACKNOWLEDGED THEFINDINGS OF MANY LEADING DENTAL RESEARCH.THE MECHANISM OF FLUORIDE’SBENEFITS ARE MAINLY TOPICAL AND SYSTEMIC, THUS WE DON’T HAVE TOSWALLOW FLUORIDE TO PROTECTTEETH. AND A PIECE OF HISTORY WHICHREALLY DISTURBS ME IS THATDESPITE BEING PRESCRIBED BY DOCTORS FOR OVER 50 YEARS, U.S.FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION HASNEVER APPROVED ANY FLUORIDE PRODUCT DESIGNED FOR INGESTIONAS SAFE OR EFFECTIVE.RECENTLY, AS I HAVE LOOKED AROUND ON TOOTHPASTE WARNINGS, IHAVE FOUND ONES THAT STATE FORCHILDREN UNDER 6 YEARS, KEEP ONLY.SOME ARE FOR ONLY UNDER 12.AND DEFINITE WARNING, IF MORE THAN USED BY BRUSHING, WHICH ISA SMALL PEA-SIZED AMOUNTRECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN, HAS BEEN SWALLOWED, TO GET MEDICALHELP OR CONTACT POISON CONTROLCENTRE IMMEDIATELY.THATHAT KIND OF MAKES ME WONDERWHERE WE’RE AT.I DON’T KNOW WHETHER THAT DECLARATION GIVES THEM SOMEPROTECTION AGAINST LEGALLIABILITY. FLUORIDE IS A CUMULATIVE POISON.ON AVERAGE ONLY 50% OF FLUORIDEWE INGEST EACH DAY IS EXCRETED. THE REMAINDER IS IN OUR BONES,PINNIAL DAMAGE AND KIDNEYS.THERE WAS ISSUES ABOUT THE PLUROSIS WHICH I FIRST BECAMEAWARE OF BACK IN EARLY 1960s.MY CHILDREN HAD IT, TOOK THEM TO DENTISTS AND DOCTORS, THERE WASNO ANSWER OTHER THAN IT WAS ATRAUMA AND THE TEETH WOULD FALL OUT ANYWAY SO DON’T WORRY.I’VE SINCE LEARNED THAT THERE’SMUCH MORE TO IT THAN THAT.MY CURRENT ISSUE THAT CONCERNSME IS ABOUT SKELETAL FLUORISIS.IT WAS A FLUORIDE INDUCED BONE AND JOINT DISEASE THAT IMPACTSMILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN INDIA,CHINA AND AFRICA. I WOULD IMAGINE IT’S HERE ASWELL.IT MILLICS THE SYMPTOMS OF — MILLICS THE SYMPTOMS OFARTHRITIS.ACCORDING TO A REVIEW ON FLUORIDATION BY CHEMICAL ANDENGINEERING NEWS, BECAUSE SOMEOF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWOCLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETALFLUORISIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED.THAT’S MY CONCERN.ONE IN THREE AMERICANS NOW HAVE SOME FORM OF ARTHRITIS.IT COULD BE RELATED TO THEGROWING FLUORIDE EXPOSURE WHICH IS PLAUSIBLE.THE CAUSE OF MOST FORMS OFARTHRITIS IS UNKNOWN, EXAMPLE IS THE OSTEOARTHRITIS.IN SUMMATION I WOULD LIKE YOU TOCONSIDER THAT AS WE LIVE AND LEARN AND GROW AS AN INDIVIDUALOR A COUNCIL OR SOCIETY, WE CANADMIT OUR MISTAKES.I ACCEPT THAT FLUORIDE TOPICALAPPLICATION IS BENEFICIAL FORTEETH. HOWEVER, THIS SEEMS TO BE TOOMANY POSSIBLE HEALTH SIDEEFFECTS TO CONTINUE PUTTING FLUORIDATION IN OUR DRINKINGWATER.WHEN WE KNOW MORE, WE CAN MAKE WISE, INFORMED DECISIONS AND I’MSURE YOU’LL LEARN A LOT TODAYAND PERHAPS TOMORROW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.[Applause]NOT SUPPOSED TO APPLAUD. >> TO THE AUDIENCE, WE DON’TALLOW OUTBURSTS LIKE THAT OR WEHAVE TO CLEAR THE ROOM.DON’T DO IT AGAIN.ANY QUESTIONS?ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU.AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FORCOMING DOWN TODAY. I APPRECIATE THAT.AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME YOUTOOK 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 THEREADING THAT YOU’VE DONE OR –>> MANY, MANY YEARS OF RESEARCH. IT’S SO MUCH EASIER NOW WITHINTERNET.>> BUT YOUR BACKGROUND IS — LIKE, YOU’RE NOT A DENTIST ORHEALTH PROFESSIONAL.>> NO. JUST VERY INTERESTED CONSUMER OFMEDICAL ATTENTION.>> I KNOW YOU’VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMINGDOWN 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 PROTECTIONOFFICER, ALTHOUGH I’M HERE AS APRIVATE CITIZEN. THE BRIEF I’M BRING TO PRESENTHERE COMES FROM MY OWN PERSONALRESEARCH AND IT DOES NOT REPRESENT MY OFFICIAL CAPACITYAT ALL.THE FIRST THING I’D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT FLUORIDE IS ANINDUSTRIAL…[Indiscernible] PRODUCT FROM THE ALUMINUMINDUSTRY.FLUORIDE IS ALSO KNOWN TO BE ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE ELEMENTSKNOWN TO MAN.AND TOXIC LIKE MERCURY. IN THE LAST TWO DEBATES IN THECITY OF CALGARY ABOUTFLUORIDATION, I HAVE TO POINT OUT, WITHOUT BEING TOOINCHARITABLE, THE OFFICIAL OFTHE CALGARY HEALTH HAVE FAILED TO KEEP UP ON THE LATESTLITERATURE AND RESEARCH ON THEUNACCEPTABLE HEALTH RISKS CAUSED BY ANOTHER ADDITIONS OF POTABLEWATER.AND ALSO HAVE DISSEMINATE MISLEADING INFORMATION DURINGTHIS FLUORIDE DEBATE — THE PASTFLUORIDE DEBATE.THIS LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE ANDSUBSEQUENT MISINFORMATIONCONSTITUTE OFFICIAL-INDUCED ERROR.AND IS FLIRTING WITH MEDICALMALPRACTICE. THE LATEST STUDY HAVE CLEARLYDEMONSTRATED THAT WATERFLUORIDATION IS UNSAFE FOR INGESTION.THAT MEANS BY SWALLOWING.WHILE FLUORIDE AS DENTAL TREATMENT, TOPICALLY, HAVE SOMELIMITED 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 IMPOSINGMASS MEDICATION ON FLUORIDE ONTHE DRINKING WATER. WHERE MOST PEOPLE JUST SIMPLYCANNOT AFFORD BOTTLED WATER ONTHE DAILY USE. FLUORIDE, THE PROPONENTS OFFLUORIDE INCLUDINGDr. HAROLD… [Indiscernible]AND Dr. COX, THOSE ARE THEFIRST PROPONENTS AND LEADING DEFENDANTS FOR FLUORIDE –CLAIMING FLUORIDATION IS SAFE.THOSE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN INJECTINGJOURNAL WITTING PATIENTS WITHPLUTONIUM WITH Dr.HODGE WAS INVOLVED WITH THIS HUMANRADIATION EXPERIMENT.THESE ARE ALSO THE SAME PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH THE MULLININSTITUTE THAT WAS HIRED BY THEALUMINUM INDUSTRY. BUT BEFORE IT WAS FOUNDSUBSEQUENTLY TO BE PROFOUNDLYTOXIC TO HUMAN, Dr. PHYLLIS… [Indiscernible]IS A PHARMCOLOGIST AND ATOXICOLOGIST BY TRAIN, AND IN THE 1980s THE DOCTOR WAS HEADOF THE TOXICOLOGY DEPARTMENT OFTHE… [Indiscernible]DENTAL CENTRE, A WORLD RENOWNEDRESEARCH INSTITUTION AFFILIATED WITH THE HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL.SHE WAS INVITED TO START THE…[Indiscernible] TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT BECAUSE OFHER EXPERTISE.SHE IS PRESENTLY IN THE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL MEDICALCENTRE IN BOSTON.THE DOCTOR, ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT, PROFESSIONALPHYSICIAN HEALTH, TEACHINGEXPERIENCE, AWARD HONOUR AND MANY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARTICLETO HER NAME ARE NUMEROUS, ANDTHOSE ARE ALL READABLE FOR US TO LOOK AT.THE TESTS BY THE DOCTOR WASASKED TO PERFORM AT THE FORSYTHE DENTAL CENTRE WAS RELATED TOTHE…[Indiscernible] OF FLUORIDE.AND BY DOING RESEARCH ON HEALTHIMPACT ON FLUORIDE IN HUMANS, WHEN SHE COMPLETED HER REPORTSHE WAS PROMPTLY FIRED WHEN SHEREFUSED TO CANCEL HER PUBLICATION OF HER REPORT THATFOUND NEUROTOXICITY OF FLUORIDETHAT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE AMONG MANYOTHER HEALTH ISSUES.WHILE WE WILL SEE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE THEY HAVE CLAIMEDTHAT FLUORIDE IS SAFE, IF WETRACE BACK TO THE SOURCE, FLUORIDE IS INDUSTRIAL WASTEPRODUCED FROM THE ALUMINUMINDUSTRY.ANOTHER PERSON CONDUCT EARLYSCIENTIFIC SITES ON FLUORIDATIONIS GERALD COX — >> Mr. CHEN?HAVE YOU GOT A CONCLUDINGSTATEMENT? YOUR FIVE MINUTES IS UP.>> ALL RIGHT.THEN LET ME SKIP TO CONCLUSION THEN, Mr. JONES.BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE TALKINGABOUT HERE IS MASS MEDICATION WITHOUT CONSENT, AND BY ANY…(AUDIO DIFFICULTIES)I’M SORRY. AND AS FAR AS THE CONCERN ABOUTLOW INCOME CHILDREN THAT HAVE TOHAVE DENTAL CARE AND THEREFORE FLUORIDATION, THE ARGUMENT ISJUST NOT THERE.WE HAVE PLENTY OF FLUORIDE AND MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES.TOOTHPASTE ITSELF HAVE MORE THANENOUGH FLUORIDE CONTACT AS RECOMMENDED BY DENTISTS.SO THIS MASSIVE EXPENDITURE ISNOT ONLY UNNECESSARY, BUT IS UNSAFE AND IT’S EXTREMELYEXPENSIVE.AND IF WE WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF LOW INCOME CHILDREN,THE FRACTION OF WHAT WE SPEND ONFLUORIDATION COULD EASILY ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES BY JUSTIMPROVING THE NUTRIENT OF THECHILDREN, AND BY IMPROVING NUTRIENT THE IMPROVEMENT OFHEALTH — DENTAL HEALTH ARE JUSTAS GOOD AS USING FLUORIDE.SO IN CONCLUSION, I STRONGLYURGE ALL THE COUNCILLORS TO MAKEJUDICIOUS DECISIONS WHEN YOU COME TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION TODISCONTINUE FLUORIDATION OF OURPOTABLE 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 INSCIENCE?>> I DO. >> AND YOU’RE SAYING THATFLUORIDE IS UNSAFE TO INGEST.AT WHAT LEVELS IS IT UNSAFE? >> THERE IS NO LEVEL THATIMPROVEMENT IS CONCLUSIVELY BYANY SCIENCE STUDY TO SHOW THAT IT’S SAFE.WHAT IT SHOWS IS THE LOW DOSETHAT WE COMMONLY APPLY THROUGHOUT MUNICIPALITY IN NORTHAMERICA IS SHOWN THAT IT CANCAUSE HEALTH ISSUE. BUT THERE IS NO SCIENCE OUTTHERE TO PROVE THAT LOW DOSAGEAT A PROLONGED EXPOSURE IS SAFE. >> SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WESHOULD TAKE THE NATURALLYOCCURRING FLUORIDE OUT OF THE WATER AS WELL?>> I’M NOT AWARE THE NATURALFLUORIDE CONTENT IN THE WATER.WHAWHAT I AM SAY IS THIS THESCIENCE IN THE PAST THAT CLAIMAND DEFENDED THE FLUORIDATION IS SAFE, IF CORPORATE SCIENCE, IFTOBACCO SCIENCE, IF ASBESTOSSCIENCE, THEY ARE FRAUDULENT SCIENCE, THEY’VE BEEN ROUNDLYPROVEN BY PEER REVIEW, AND ALLTHIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE SITE AND I HAVE SENT THATINFORMATION TO ALL ALDERMENS BYE-MAIL. SO YOU CAN EASILY USE THAT AS AREFERENCE.>> OKAY, I’M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO MYQUESTION.SHOULD WE BE TAKING NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE OUT OF THEWATER?>> I’M NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY THAT.I’M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT NATURALFLUORIDE.BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ACHEMICAL FLUORIDE THAT ISACTUALLY INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCT THAT IS CURRENTLYINTRODUCED TO OUR POTABLE WATER.BUT I’M NOT HERE TO ARGUE ABOUT NATURAL FLUORIDE, AND I DON’TBELIEVE THE NATURAL FLUORIDECONTENT IS ACTUALLY OF ANY CONCERN.>> SO WHAT YOU’RE SAYING THEN ISTHAT THE NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE IS DIFFERENT THAN THEFLUORIDE THAT’S BEING ADDED?>> NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT. I’M SAYING HAVE I NO CONCERNABOUT IT BECAUSE I DON’T KNOWABOUT THE NATURAL CONTENT LEVEL OF FLUORIDE.BUT I DO KNOW ABOUT THE CHEMICALFLUORIDE THAT HIS CURRENTLY BEING INTRODUCED IN THE WATER.>> I GUESS I’M STILL CONFUSEDABOUT THAT. YOU MADE SOME VERY STRONGSTATEMENTS ABOUT THE PUBLICHEALTH OFFICERS ARE MISLEADING THE PUBLIC WITH INFORMATION ANDINTENTIONALLY DOING SO.CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT, PLEASE? >> WELL, THEY HAVEN’T USED THELATEST RESEARCH, SCIENTIFICRESEARCH, MATERIAL THAT’S AVAILABLE.THERE IS AMPLE BODY OFSCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AVAILABLE, INCLUDING THOSE THATCAN BE SENT BY Dr. JIM BECKWHO IS IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TODAY.>> SO IT’S YOUR OPINION THATTHERE’S NOT A DIVERSITY OF OPINION ON THE RESEARCH, IT’STHAT THEY’RE INTENTIONALLYIGNORING CURRENT RESEARCH.IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE SAYING?>> I’M SAYING THEY HAVE NOT KEPTUP 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 WILLBE THE SECOND TIME I’LL WARN YOU, YOU CANNOT APPLAUD IN HERE.SORRY.I’M GOING TO APOLOGIZE FOR SOMEBODY IF I CAN PRONOUNCE YOURNAMES OR NOT BECAUSE YOURWRITING IS ABOUT AS BAD AS MINE. ALDERMAN STEVENSON?>> THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN.I JUST WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE AND WELCOME SOMEONE THAT WE HAVEIN OUR AUDIENCE HERE TODAY, ANDTHAT 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 COLLEENCHAN.>> HI, I’M COLLEEN CRAN, SORRY FOR THE CHICKEN SCRATCH.THIS MORNING IN THE CALGARYHERALD, Dr. BRYCE ADAMSON IS QUOTED AS SAYING CHILDHOOD DECAYIS ONLY INCREASING SINCE I’VEBECOME A DENTIST. IT HASN’T DECREASED.SO DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE LAST20 YEARS THAT WE’VE BEEN SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARSADDING FLUORIDE TO OUR DRINKINGWATER THAT IT HAS HAD ZERO EFFECT IN REDUCING TOOTH DECAYIN THIS CITY?WHEN I WAS AT SAIT DOING THE DENTAL ASSISTING PROGRAM, THEYTAUGHT US ABSOLUTELY NOTHINGABOUT FLUORIDE EXCEPT THAT TOO MUCH CAUSES DENTAL FLUROSIS.WHEN I GRADUATED NOT ONLY DID INOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FLUORIDE BUT I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHATDENTAL FLUROSIS WAS.IN 1989 ALL THAT CHANGED.I FOUND OUT WHAT WAS WRONG WITHMY ADULT SON’S TEETH, PERMANENTDENTAL FLUROSIS FROM TOO MUCH FLUORIDE.TEETH THAT CANNOT BE REPAIRED,ONLY COVERED UP TO HIDE THE DAMAGE.POOR CHILDREN CAN’T AFFORDCOSMETIC DENTISTRY. I HAD TO LEARN ABOUT FLUORIDETHE HARD WAY.IF I’D HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE ASPECTS OF FLUORIDE, THIS NEVERWOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO MY SON.I WILL NEVER FORGIVE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PROMOTING THE USEOF THIS CHEMICAL, THE VERYPEOPLE WE RELY ON FOR INFORMATION ON GOOD DENTALHEALTH, ESPECIALLY TO OURCHILDREN. AFTER MY SON WAS BORN, IIMMEDIATELY STARTED HIM ONVITAMIN DROPS WITH FLUORIDE. WHEN HE WAS OLD ENOUGH ISWITCHED HIM OVER TO FLUORIDESUPPLEMENTS DISPENSED THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.FOR SIX YEARS I ONLY MISSEDGIVING HIM FLUORIDE FOR FIVE DACE.THIS INVOLVED WITH FLUORIDETOOTHPASTE, HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE IN HIS PABLUM AND BABYFORMULA AND OTHER FOOD ANDBEVERAGES.HE DRANK MORE WATER IN A DAYTHAN MY HUSBAND AND MYSELFCOMBINED AND THIS WATER NATURALLY FLOUR DATED AT 3 PARTSPER MILLION, HE NEVER HAD ACHANCE. WHEN I PULLED UP THE WEB SITETHIS WEEK AND DISCOVERED THEY NOLONGER ENDORSE FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS FOR CHILDREN BEFORETHEY GET THEIR PERSONAL TEETH, IWAS OUTRAGED. THIS POSITION BY THE CDA IS 25YEARS TOO LATE FOR MY SON.AND OTHER CHILDREN. THOSE PROMOTING FLUORIDE MADEABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT TODETERMINE HOW MUCH FLUORIDE WE ARE ALL INGESTING, ESPECIALLYCHILDREN, BECAUSE I THINK THISWOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. NOW THE CDA IS RECOMMENDING THEAVAILABILITY OF FLUORIDE FROM AVARIETY OF SOURCES MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE EMBARKING ONA SPECIFIC COURSE OF FLUORIDEDELIVERY.AGAIN, 25 YEARS TOO LATE FOR MYSON.HOW COULD SUCH A TOXIC CHEMICAL LIKE THE FLUORIDE THEY’REPUTTING IN OUR DRINKING WATERHAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH REDUCING TOOTH DECAY?THIS CHEMICAL IS SLOWLYACCUMULATING IN ALL OF OUR BODIES.IF YOU WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUTFLUORIDE IN OUR DRINKING WATER, DON’T BOTHER WITH THE CITY OFCALGARY WEB SITE.IT PROVIDES MISLEADING INFORMATION AND AVOIDS ALLASPECTS THAT MAKE WATERFLUORIDATION CONTROVERSIAL. FLUORIDE HAS INVADED ALL ASPECTSOF OUR LIVES FROM TOOTHPASTE TODENTAL FLOSS, TEETH WHITENING PRODUCTS, MOUTHWASH, DENTALOFFICE PRODUCTS, ALUMINUM TEFLONCOOKWARE, FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS, PESTICIDES SPRAYED ON OUR FOOD,GENERAL ANESTHETICS, WATERFLUORIDATION, PHARMACEUTICALS AND MANY OF OUR FOODS ANDBEVERAGES BECAUSE THEY DO NOTREMOVE 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 NORTHAMERICA AND THE WORLD, AND WHYMIGHT THAT BE? PEOPLE ARE GETTING EDUCATED ONTHIS ISSUE.AND REALIZING THAT WATER FLUORIDATION IS NOT WHAT ITAPPEARS TO BE.EDUCATION IS THE REAL ENEMY TO THE SURVIVAL OF WATERFLUORIDATION.HOW MANY PRO-FLUORIDE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SPENT TIME IN THELAST THREE WEEKS READING UP ONFLUORIDATION.IF THE ANSWER IS ZERO, HOW COULDYOU POSSIBLY MAKE AN INFORMEDDECISION ON THIS ISSUE? THERE’S ABSOLUTELY NOTHINGDEMOCRATIC ABOUT HOLDING ANOTHERPLEBISCITE ON WATER FLUORIDATION WHEN IT GIVES UNINFORMED PEOPLETHE RIGHT TO VOTE ON WHETHER ORNOT WE SHOULD CONTINUE DISPOSING THIS TOXIC CHEMICAL INTO OURDRINKING WATER.IT IS TIME TO STOP PASSING THE BUCK ON THIS ISSUE AND END WATERFLUORIDATION NOW LIKE MANY OTHERCOMMUNITIES HAVE DONE.ONE DAY WATER FLUORIDATION WILLBE BANNED AND I HOPE THAT ALLTHOSE INVOLVED IN THE PROMOTION OF THE USE OF THIS CHEMICAL WILLBE HELD LIABLE FOR ALL THE HARMTHEY HAVE DONE TO OUR ENVIRONMENT, OUR HEALTH AND OURTEETH.>> THANK YOU, MISS CRAN. ALDERMAN DEMONG.DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?[Inaudible] >> THANKS FOR COMING OUT TODAY.YOU MENTIONED YOU’RE A DENTALASSISTANT. >> I WAS.>> HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO WHATIT’S GOING TO COST TO HAVE THIS FLUROSIS CAPPED OR COVERED.>> I THINK THE DAMAGE TO MYSON’S TEETH IS TOO SEVERE ANDS COULANDCOSMETIC DENTISTRY IS ONNYEARS.SO YOU CAN GET VENEERS PUT ON BUT YOU WILL BE REPLACING THEMEVENTUALLY AND THE COST IS JUDGEHUGE. AND IT IS NOT A SOLUTION.>> YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU — IFYOU’D KNOWN ABOUT THIS YOU WOULD HAVE TAKEN OTHER METHODS TOAVOID USING THE ANOTHER DATEDWATER OR AT LEAST — FLOUR DATED WATER OR AT THE VERY LEAST STOPUSING THE DROPS.IS THERE SOME METHOD YOU WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY USING TO TAKETHE FLUORIDE OUT OF THE WATERTHAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DRINKING?>> I’VE BEEN BUYING BOTTLEDWATER SINCE THE WATER BECAME FLUORIDATED.MY DAUGHTER WAS 3 YEARS OLD WHENI FOUND OUT ABOUT FLUROSIS, SHE’S NOT USED FLUORIDATEDWATER.I DO NOT HAVE DENTAL FLUORISIS.I REALLY HAVE WORKED HARD TO TRYAND AVOID THOSE.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL.>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERETODAY, MA’AM. HOW MUCH DOES TO COST YOU TOPURCHASE BOTTLED WATER?>> WELL, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AT HOME THAT WEEK, ISPEND $4 FOR A FIVE GALLONBOTTLE. >> $4 A WEEK.>> $4 A WEEK.PLUS CARRYING IN A HEAVY BOTTLE BUT I PERSEVERE.>> NOW, I’VE RECEIVED PROBABLYOVER A THOUSAND E-MAILS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.AND I WOULD SAY THE VASTMAJORITY OF THEM ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT FLUORIDE OUT OF THE WATERSYSTEM.MANY OF THEM ARE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, AND I DON’T INCLUDETHOSE IN MY STATISTICS.BUT IT’S INTERESTING THIS REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL AROUND THEWORLD.BUT I’VE RECEIVED QUITE A FEW E-MAILS FROM DENTAL HYGIENISTS,AND I’M WONDERING, WERE YOU AHYGIENIST? >> I WAS AN ASSISTANT.>> THERE MAY BE HYGIENIST THATCOMES FORWARD.I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THEY’VELEARNED ABOUT FLUORIDE AND ABOUTBODY SYSTEMS. BUT –>> MY GUESS IS THEY’VE LEARNEDNOTHING, BECAUSE IF THEY HAD, THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE USEOF FLUORIDE IN OUR DRINKINGWATER. >> I CAN’T PREDETERMINE THAT.BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVIDKEEGAN.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. CHAIR, ALDERMEN AND FELLOWCITIZENS.I’M A FAMILY DOCTOR HERE IN THE CITY OF CALGARY AND AN ASSOCIATEPROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OFMEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY ALTHOUGH I’M HERESPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL NOT ONBEHALF OF THE FACULTY. I’M MARRIED AND WE HAVE THREEKIDS AND I’M HERE SPEAKING INFAVOUR OF FLUORIDATION. MY TAKE OF THE SITUATION OVERTHE LAST MONTH OR SO WHENEVERTHIS FIRST CAME OUT WAS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE TWO ISSUES:ONE A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGH NOTIN THE AMENDMENT BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE COUNCILLORS AND OTHERSTALKING TO MEDIA AND INCOMMUNICATION WITH MYSELF AND COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID THAT MAYBETHERE’S NOT EVEN A ROLE FOR ACITY TO BE INVOLVED IN PUTTING FLUORIDE IN THE WATER IN THEFIRST PLACE.MAYBE THIS IS AN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES ROLE OR SOMEBODY ELSE’SROLE.NUMBER ONE SOMEBODY THIS A CITY ROLE.NUMBER TWO IS THIS A GOOD THINGON BALANCE.I’D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE FIRSTTHING.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 AGREAT CITY.I’LL QUOTE ALDERMAN DREW FARRELL FROM HER WEB SITE, LETTER VISIONOF A GREAT CITY OF CALGARY.”A GREAT CITY IS ABOUT ADVANCING THE HEALTH, QUALITY OF LIFE ANDDIGNITY OF ITS CITIZENS WHILEALWAYS KEEPING AN EYE ON THE BOTTOM LINE.”I COULD NOT AGREE MORE.ONE OF THE REFERENCES SHE QUOTES IN HER AMENDMENT — HER PROPOSALIS THE CENTRE OF DISEASE CONTROLAND PREVENTION, AND THEY SAY QUITE CLEARLY WATER FLUORIDATIONIN THEIR EVIDENCE, IN THEIR TAKEAND CONTINUAL EXPLORATION OF THE LITERATURE, ONE OF THE TEN BESTADVANCES IN PUBLIC HEALTH IN THEWORLD.AND THIS IS ONE OF THE PRIMARYSOURCES THAT SHE QUOTES.AND I AGREE WITH DRUH FARRELL. I AGREE WITH HER ABOUT WHAT AGOOD CITY IS.EARLY YEARS AGO THE CITY AND ITS PARTNERED ENGAGED IN IMAGINECALGARY.THIS WAS A WORLD-LEADING CITIZEN INVOLVED VISIONING EXERCISE ONTHE 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 ANDCOLLABORATING GROUPS FELT THATHEALTH AND WELLNESS WAS A KEY THING FOR A CITY TO BE INVOLVEDIN.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 OFPREVENTIBLE DISEASE, INJURY ANDDEATH IS REDUCED.THE CITY HAS SINCE EMBRACED THEIMAGINE CALGARY PLAN AND HASCREATED AN OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY TO SUPPORTREACHING THIS VISION.I WOULD ARGUE CLEARLY THE CITY AND THE ALDERMEN AND THECITIZENRY FEEL THAT A CITYGOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE IN HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTIONFOR ITS CITIZENS.AND I’M GLAD. BECAUSE THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGSTHAT MAKES HA MAKES A CITY GREADTHAT’S ONE OF THEIR ROLES. IS WATER FLUORIDATION A GOODTHING?I’M NOT AN EXPERT IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND PROMOTION BUT I HAVELOOKED AT A GAZILLION — ABOUTEIGHT TO TEN SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS WHICH ARE REVIEWS THAT BRINGTOGETHER USING FORMAL METHODS TOLOOK AT WHAT DOES ALL THE RESEARCH SAY AND BRING ITTOGETHER.AND BRINGING TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION.VERY CLEARLY THE ANSWER IS THATWATER FLUORIDATION IS BETTER THAN EVERY OTHER METHOD OFFLUORIDATION AVAILABLE TOPEOPLE.IT’S BETTER THAN TOOTHPASTEALONE, IT’S BETTER THANFLUORIDATION DROPS AND SO ON. THE ANSWER IS WHY?BECAUSE YOU CAN CONTROL IT.IT’S A NATURALLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCE, AS ALDERMAN MacLEODHAS SAID, THE BOW RIVER WATERSUPPLIES A .1 TO .2 PART PER MILLION.THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS THATMOST EXPERTS AGREE IS 7 PARTS PER MILLION.WE’RE TALKING ABOUTSUPPLEMENTING, NOT MEDICATING THE WATER, TO A LEVEL THAT GETSSOME BENEFIT FOR DENTAL DISEASEPREVENTION WHILE NOT GETTING INTO THE RANGE OF CAUSINGSIGNIFICANT RISK AND INJURY.AND THIS IS NOT JUST ME SAYING IT, THIS IS SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS.THIS IS THE AUSTRALIANGOVERNMENT COMMISSIONED A MAJOR STUDY AND LOOKING AT ALL THERESEARCH THAT WAS UP TO DATE ANDBRINGING IT TOGETHER WITH A FINAL CONCLUSION.WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT WATERFLUORIDATION IS THAT IT’S CHEAP, FAR CHEAPER THAN FAMILIES TRYINGTO FIGURE OUT HOW IN THE WORLDDO I PUT FLUORIDE IN MY CHILD’S WATER IF THE CITY’S NOT GOING TODO IT.AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, WATER FLUORIDATION IS A GREAT WAY OFLEVELING SOCIAL INEQUITIES.IF YOU TAKE WATER FLUORIDATION OUT, IN BRITAIN IT WAS SHOWNDENTAL HEALTH DECLINED.DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR ANY OF THIS.YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THEPUBLIC DOESN’T KNOW THIS, THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE HAS OFFEREDTO DEVOTE ITS EXPERTS IN PUBLICHEALTH TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE ON BEHALF OF CITY.YOU RECEIVED THIS OFFER ONMONDAY.I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT COMINGOUT OF TODAY’S MEETING YOU AS ACOMMITTEE DECIDE TO DEFER THIS MOTION, TAKE THE MEDICAL SCHOOLUP ON ITS OFFER AND HAVE ITSEXPERTS, AND I WON’T BE ON IT BECAUSE I’M CLEARLY IN FAVOUR OFFLUORIDATION, HAVE ITS EXPERTSLOOK AT THE ISSUE AND COME BACK TO YOU WITHIS ANSWERS OF WHATTHE SUM KNOWLEDGE SAYS TODAY.THANK YOU. >> A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FORYOU.THE FIRST ONE IS ALDERMAN KEATING.>> THANK YOU, CHAIR PERFORM IAPPRECIATE YOU COMING BECAUSE PART OF THE WHOLE PURPOSE OFTHIS IS TRYING TO GET A TRUE ANDMEDICALLY AND ETHICAL STANCE ON WHERE WE ARE.SO DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE –BECAUSE ONE OF THE ISSUES IS WHETHER THEY’RE DRINKING WATEROR DRINKING OTHER SUBSTANCES.DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER OR NOT FLUORIDE IS INTHE POPS, JUICES FROMCONCENTRATE WHERE WE ADD WATER AND ALL OF THOSE SORTS OFTHINGS, IS IT STILL THERE ORALTEREDDOR 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 ALLMY PATIENTS NOT TO HAVE SOFT DRINKS SO I WOULD NOT BE LOOKINGAT THAT AS A FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTROUTE.IF THERE’S FLUORIDE IN THEWATER, IT WOULD ASSUME WHEREARTIFICIAL DRINKS WERE MADE SO IF THERE WAS FLUORIDE IN THEWATER WHEREVER IT WAS MADE, IASSUME 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 ARARE THING BUT THEY SHOULDN’T BEUSED AS A REGULAR SOURCE OF HYDRATION.>> ABSOLUTELY.AND I AGREE WITH YOU A HUNDRED PERCENT.THE ISSUE IS WHERE ARE THEYGETTING THE FLUORIDE AND HOW AND AT WHAT CONCENTRATE AND WHATDOSE.PART OF IT IS IF WE’RE NOT GIVING IT IN THE WATER, THEISSUE IS THEY’RE GETTING ITEVERYWHERE ELSE SO MAYBE IT’S TOO MUCH.BUT WE LOOK AT SLURPEES AND THEBIG GLUPS AND ALL OF THESE THINGS AND THAT’S WHERE I’MCOMING FROM.WHERE IS THE DOSE? DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OFTHE — AND WE HEAR MANY COMMENTSABOUT MEDICAL EFFECTS.DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ONWHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE CERTAININDICATIONS MEDICALLY WHERE THEY SHOULD NOT BE INGESTING FLUORIDESPECIFICALLY I’VE HEARD KIDNEYDIFFICULTIES, ANTIREJECTION DRUGS FROM TRANSPLANTS ANDINFANTS.>> I’M NOT AN EXPERT ON PUBLIC POLICY OR WATER FLUORIDATION.OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, AFAMILY DOCTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A WHOLE LOT OF MONTH BUT I HAVEDEVOTING TEEM TO THIS ISSUEWHENEVER I — TIME TO THIS ISSUE WHENEVER I COULD.IN THE AUSTRALIAN STUDY WHICH ISTHE MOST COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF WATER FLUORIDATION, I DID NOTSEE THAT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED.AGAIN, THOUGH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS COMMITTEE POSE THAT ASONE OF THE QUESTIONS TO ANEXPERT 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 RECENTQUESTIONS OVER SHOULD WE BEUSING FLOURIDATED WATER TO MIX INFANT FORMULA.WE RECOMMEND ALL BABIES AREBREAST-FED FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF LIFE AND CONTINUE FORTHE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR LIFE.FOR THOSE WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY HAVE TO HAVE FORMULATHERE MAY BE SOME QUESTION ABOUTSHOULD YOU USE FLOURIDATED WATER FOR THAT.I DON’T THINK THE JURY IS IN FORTHAT. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MANYQUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UPTODAY THAT WE DON’T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR.I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ANOFFER OF EXPERTISE TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS.AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE AHELPFUL THING FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU.TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE AS A DOCTOR,THERE ANY OTHER MEDICAL BENEFIT TO FLUORIDE OTHER THANTEETH, ORAL HEALTH OR IS ITSTRICTLY FOR TEETH? >> IT’S A GREAT QUESTION.THERE’S MAYBE SOME BENEFIT INPREVENTING 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 INLIFE THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THIS.DENTAL AND ORAL HEALTH IS THEMOST IMPORTANT THING.THE REASON WHY IS IF YOU PREVENTCHILDREN FROM GETTING A LOT OFCAVITIES IN THEIR MOUTH, YOU IMPROVE THEIR LIVES AND PREVENTTHEM FROM HAVING ISSUES RELATEDTO PAIN. YOU IMPROVE THE IMPACT ON THEIRFAMILY, THEY’RE NOT HAVING TOTAKE TIME OFF TO BRING THEIR CHILD TO MULTIPLE DENTALSURGERIES AND SO ON.YOU IMPROVE THEIR ABILITY TO SPEAK.AND YOU IMPROVE THEIR ABILITYFOR GOOD DICTION AND INTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY.GOOD ORAL HEALTH MEANS OTHERTHINGS TOO. IT HELPS A POPULATION’S CHILDRENTHRIVE BY HAVING NOT TO BEEMBARRASSED ABOUT BAD TEETH, BY BEING ABLE TO HAVE GOOD DICTIONIN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THEY’RENOT MISSING TEETH AND LESS IMPACT ON THE FAMILY THAT POORORAL HEALTH BRING.>> AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THERE’S FLUORIDE IN OUR BONESTHAT WILL HELP STRENGTHEN IT?>> YES. BONES TURN OVER AND, YES, THEREIS 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 NATURALLYOCCURRING FLUORIDE AND THEARTIFICIAL FLUORIDE? >> I HADN’T HEARD THAT CONCERNUNTIL TODAY BUT FLUORIDE IS ANELEMENT AND IT’S LIKE ANY OTHER ELEMENT THAT IF IT’S IN A PUREFORM WHETHER IT’S THROUGHINDUSTRIAL MEANS OR NATURAL MEANS, IT’S FLUORIDE.I THINK THOUGH THAT IT WOULDBEHOOVE YOUR COMMITTEE TO ASK YOUR CITY ADMINISTRATION TOCLARIFY THE QUALITY PROCESSESTHAT GO IN TO CHOOSING THE SOURCE OF FLUORIDE THAT GOESINTO THE WATER AND I’M SURETHERE’S VERY GOOD EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THAT IT’S A PURE FORM OFFLUORIDE.IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT BECAUSE FLUORIDE IS AN ELEMENT, ANATURAL SUBSTANCE.>> THANK YOU.>> ALDERMAN STEVENSON.>> THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN.TELL ME WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS THE — OR WHAT DO YOU HAVE ASPROOF THAT THERE’S BENEFIT TOCALGARIANS SINCE WE’VE ADDED THE FLUORIDE?WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE OF ANYBENEFIT? >> SO, I DON’T HAVE A STUDY TOPOINT TO.THERE MAY BE ONE DONE, BUT I’M NOT AWARE AFTER STUDY THAT WASDONE LOOKING AT CALGARY ASPREFLUORIDE VERSUS POST FLUORIDE.THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY POSTFLUORIDE MAY HAVE GOTTEN WORSE IS BECAUSE THERE’S SO MANY MOREPEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIESWHERE VARYING DEGREES OF DENTAL HEALTH.THEY MOVED TO CALGARY ANDBROUGHT WITH THEM LESS GOOD ORAL HEALTH AS A STARTING POINT.I DON’T THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWERHAS CALGARY BENEFITED.WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THERE ARENUMBERS OF NOT JUST STUDIES BUTSYSTEMATIC REVIEWS WHERE ALL THE RESEARCH IS PUT TOGETHER USINGFORMAL METHODS TO LOOK AT WHATTHE OVERALL BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION.THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION ISEVEN TODAY WATER FLUORIDATION IS A GOOD THING, NOT A BAD THING.I HEAR THE SORT OF SCENARIO THATOUR PREVIOUS SPEAKER HAD AND THAT SOUNDS VERY DIFFICULT, ANDSHE’S NOT HERE AT THIS MOMENT,BUT IT MAY HAVE BEEN AT THOSE TIMES THERE WERE TOO MANYSOURCES OF FLUORIDE.LIKE ANY SUPPLEMENT, YOU CAN HAVE TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING.BUT IN THE PROPER DOSE, THEPROPER TINY DOSE WELL CONTROLLED, THE SYSTEMATICREVIEWS IN THE WORLD TODAY SHOWTHAT 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 30YEARS.THE DATA SHOWS THAT FROM 1975 TO2005, OVER THAT 30-YEAR PERIOD,THAT WHEN THEY DO THE DATA AND THE STUDY ON 12-YEAR-OLDS ANDTHEIR TOOTH DECAY, THERE’S AHUGE DECLINE. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE UNITEDSTATES AND AUSTRALIA AND NEWZEALAND, THERE’S NO MORE IMPROVEMENT THERE THAN THERE ISIN BELGIUM AND FINLAND AND ITALYWHICH DO NOT FLOURIDATE. TELL ME HOW WE KNOW THEFLUORIDATION IS PLAYING ASIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THIS DECLINE.>> WHEN YOU SET UP A PROPERSTUDY, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU’RE COMPARING APPEARINGS TOAPPLES.WHAT WE EAT IN CANADA THE U.S. AND AUSTRALIA MIGHT BE MORE SOFTDRINKS, MORE CANDY BARS THANMAYBE WHAT THEY EAT IN ITALY. WE DON KNOW.WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU SET UP ASTUDY LIKE THIS IS COMPARE AREAS THAT HAVE FLUORIDATION VERSUSNOT AND YOU ENSURE THEY’REMATCHED SO YOU’RE COMPARING COMS TO APPLES AND YOU CHANGE ONEVARIABLE AND THEN YOU SEE THEOUTCOME. MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN THEY’REWELL DONE, CONTROLLEDEXPERIMENTS WHERE THAT’S THE ONLY KEY VARIABLE THAT CHANGES,THERE ARE LESS CAVITIES IN THEPOPULATION. IN ALL SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS BUTPARTICULARLY THE LOWERSOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS.>> SOME OF THE MAJOR STUDIES INTHE STATES TODAY, THERE’S REALLYA DENTAL CRISIS IN DETROIT, NEW YORK, AND YET THEY’VE BEENFLORIDATED FOR YEARS.>> IF THEY PULL OUT WATER FLUORIDATION IT WILL GET ONLYWORSE BECAUSE THERE’S OTHERTHINGS THAT ARE CAUSING IT. >> YOU’RE SAYING IT’S DIET FORTHE FLUORIDE.>> A COMBINATION OF THINGS. I’M IN CHARGE OF BRUSHING MYKIDS’ TEETH AT HOME.IT’S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. ONCE IT’S BECOME CLEAR TO ME, IASK MY PATIENTS, PARENTS,REGULARLY WHO’S IN CHARGE OF BRUSHING THEIR TEETH, IT’SUSUALLY THE CHILD.AND I THINK WOW IF I AS AN ADULT, A DOCTOR WHO KNOWS HOWIMPORTANT IT IS, I HAVE TROUBLEAND THE DENTAL HYGENIST SAYS THAT’S A PRETTY GOOD JOB YOU’VEBEEN DOING, JOHN’S DAD, BUT YOUCOULD BE DOING A LITTLE BIT BETTER.IF I HAVE TROUBLE, THEN HOW CANA 6-YEAR-OLD CHILD BE DOING GREAT DENTAL CARE TO THEMSELVES.THAT’S WHAT FLUORIDATION GIVESYOU.IT’S AN EXTRA SAFETY BUFFER ANDAS LONG AS IT’S DIALED DOWN TOTHE PROPER LEVEL SO THAT IT GIVES GOOD VALUE AT A VERY LOWRISK OF COSMETIC PROBLEMS, IT’SA VALUABLE SECOND BUFFER BECAUSE THERE’S A WHOLE LOT OF REASONS.FLOSSING, BRUSHING AND A DIETPEOPLE CONSUME, HOW FREQUENTLY THEY BRUSH, GRAZING OF FOOD.ALL SORTS OF THINGS THATCONTRIBUTE TO POOR ORAL HEALTH. >> YOU DON’T CONSIDER ITMEDICATION.>> NO. I CONSIDER THIS TO BE ASUPPLEMENT.SORT OF LIKE IODINE SALTS. SORT OF LIKE IRON IN BABYCEREAL, PABLUM, ONE OF THEGREATEST CANADIAN INVENTIONS OF ALL TIME.>> I TAKE INVIT TAKE VITAMIN C YBUT WOULDN’T FORCE IT ON EVERYBODY ELSE IN CALGARY.>> I WOULDN’T EITHER BECAUSE THERESEARCH ON VITAMIN C IS A BIT TRICKY.>> WE’LL DISCUSS THAT SOME OTHERDAY.THANK YOU.>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.>> THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THEPRESENTATION.ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE’VE HEARD IS THERE’S ALTERNATIVEWAYS OF GETTING FLUORIDE.HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT? >> MY UNDERSTANDING OF THESYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ARE CLEARLYTHEY’RE GOOD BUT NOT AS GOOD AS WATER FLUORIDATION.AND SO THE VALUE OF HAVING IT INTHE WATER IS THAT IT DOES GET INTO YOUR BLOOD AND SO YOU’RECONTINUALLY BATHING YOUR TEETHIN TOPICAL FLUORIDE BY YOUR SALIVA.THAT’S WHY WATER FLUORIDATIONWORKS WHEREAS BRUSHING YOUR TEETH TWICE A DAY WHILE A GOODTHING IS NOT ENOUGH.YOU SPIT OUT THE FLUORIDE BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT TO INGESTA BIG LUMP OF FLUORIDE AT ONCE.THAT’S ONLY A TWICE A DAY APPROACH.BY HAVING IN THE WATER THROUGHTHE SYSTEM YOU’RE CONSTANTLY BATHING AND THAT’S WHY IT’S ABETTER ROUTE — OR IT’S SUPERIORABOVE ALL THESE OTHER SYSTEMS.>> THANK YOU.YOU’VE TALKED ABOUT THESYSTEMATIC STUDY IN AUSTRALIA. SO I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, IGUESS.ONE IS WHEN WAS THAT DONE. BUT THE OTHER IS CAN YOU EXPLAINTO ME — LIKE, IF I’MUNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW IS YOU TAKEALL THE RESEARCH OUT THERE ANDGO THROUGH IT ALL? AM I ANYWHERE — YOU GO THROUGHIT ALL AND COME UP WITH ANON-BALANCE WHAT’S THE RISK AND WHAT’S THE BENEFIT.>> YES.I’M NOT A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EXPERT.HAVE I HAD MY COLLEAGUES WHO AREEXPERTS LOOK AT THE ONES THAT I COULD FIND AND THEY SAID THEYARE WELL DONE.YOU FIRST ESTABLISH CRITERIA. WHAT WOULD A GOOD STUDY LOOKSLIKE.A STUDY THAT RANDOMLY REPORTS THE DENTAL HEALTH IN DETROITWOULD IN THE BE INCLUDED BECAUSETHERE’S NO COMPARISON.A STUDY IN BRITAIN THAT COMPARESTWO TOWNS SIDE BY SIDE ONE THATHAS FLUORIDATION ONE THAT DOESN’T SIMILAR DEMOGRAPHICSIZEWOULD BE INCLUDED.YOU FIGURE OUT WHICH STUDIES DO YOU INCLUDE, WHICH DO YOU NOT.YOU SET UP OTHER QUALITY CONTROLMEASURES. AND YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT THEIRCONCLUSION WATT AND LINE THEM UPAND THERE’S SOME STATISTICS THAT GOES WITH THIS AND FIGURE OUTTHE POWER OF THE FINDINGS.AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A STUDY HERE OR A STUDY THERE THAT’S OUTOF KEEPING.BUT WHEN THE VAST MAJORITY LINE UP IN ONE SORT OF AREA, ONE SIDEOF THE BAR THAT SAYS IT’S A GOODTHING AND ONLY ONE OR TWO TO LINE UP TO SAY IT’S A BAD THING,THE OVERALL CONCLUSION WOULD BEIT’S A GOOD THING.IF THE REVIEW SHOWED THE IMPACTWAS IN A DIFFERENT SKEW AND YOUSET UP STATISTICS TO MEASURE ALL THESE THINGS, THEN THECONCLUSION WOULD BE DIFFERENT.NOW THERE’S NOT JUST BEEN ONE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, THERE’S BEENMANY.THE DATE OF AUSTRALIAN WAS TUITIOTUITIO2006OR 2007.IT WAS A MEGA REVIEW.SINCE THEN SOMEONE DID AN UPDATE AND I FORWARDED THAT PAPER TOMISS FARRELL’S OFFICE.THE ANSWER IS NOTHING REAL REALLY CHANGED, THE SCIENCE SAYSSO FAR ON AVERAGE IT’S A GOODTHING, NOT A BAD THING. >> THANK YOU.I GUESS IT’S GOO GOOD TO KNOW TTYOU’VE GOT CURRENT INFORMATION. I SAW THE LETTER ABOUT THISPANEL SUGGESTION THAT WAS MADE,AND I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT HAS A LOT OF APPEAL.BUT MY CONCERN ON IT IS HOW CANWE AS COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC BE CONFIDENT THAT THEPANEL IS NOT BIASED?>> THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION WHICH IS WHY I’VE SAID TO OUR DEAN IDON’T WANT TO BE ON THIS PANELBECAUSE I’VE COME OUT PUBLICLY IN SUPPORT OF WATERFLUORIDATION.HOW CAN YOU BE SURE IT’S NOT BIAS, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TOHAVE FAITH IN OTHER PEOPLE.IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE AS CITIZENS HAVE FAITH IN YOU ASALDERMEN THAT YOU WILL BE TRYINGTO BALANCE IT AND WITH THE RIGHT DOLLAR FIGURE.WHAT YOU DO IS ENGAGE INDISCUSSION WITH Dr.FEASBY AND SAY HERE IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKETO SEE.HOW CAN WE BE SURE? I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THATMAYBE YOURSELF ALDERMANMacLEOD JOIN THE COMMITTEE SO YOU CAN BE AN INSIDE PERSON TOBE SURE THAT THERE IS NOEVIDENCE OF BIAS, THAT — SO THAT YOU BECOME THEN AN EXPERTFRANKLY IN SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ONWATER FLUORIDATION. IT WOULD BE GOOD INSIDEKNOWLEDGE TO HAVE.I THINK THAT YOU ASK FOR WHATEVER MEASURES YOU NEED SOTHAT YOU AS A GROUP WILL FEELCONFIDENT THAT THIS WILL BE AN UNBIASED REVIEW AND YOU ASKSPECIFIC QUESTIONS.JUST LIKE ALDERMAN KEATING SAID, CAN YOU ANSWER THESE THREEQUESTIONS, AND THEN THEY’LL GETBACK TO YOU WITH THE ANSWERS. AT SOME POINT IF THE QUESTIONSARE 0 20, IT MAKES IT A LONGERREVIEW. THE EASIEST WAY TO PREVENT BIASIS HAVE ONE OF YOURSELVES ON THECOMMITTEE. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT WAYTO BRING FORWARD THE VISION OFIMAGINE CALGARY TOGETHER WHEREAS ORGANIZATIONS WORKING INCOLLABORATION TOGETHER TOACHIEVE COMMON GOALS, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY IS ONE OFTHE PARTNER GROUPS INIMAGINATION CALGARY — IN IMAGINE CALGARY.>> THANK YOU.THE THOUGHT OF SITTING ON THAT PANEL SORT OF MAKES ME HEARTSTOP A LITTLE.I’M NOT SURE I PAID GOOD ENOUGH ATTENTION TO PHYSICS IN HIGHSCHOOL TO FULLY UNDERSTAND ANDAPPRECIATE WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS.IF I’M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY,THOUGH, PART OF THE BENEFIT OR THE — HOW WE STRUCTURE THEPANEL WILL BE THE TERMS OFREFERENCE, WHAT QUESTIONS WE ASK THE PANEL WOULD BE JUST ASIMPORTANT AS WHO’S ON THE PANEL.>> I WOULD THINK BECAUSE THAT GIVES THE PANEL A CLEAR JOB TODO.AND THERE ARE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF WATERFLUORIDATION, OBVIOUSLY.WE’VE SEEN THEM IN THE FIRST SIX SPEAKERS HERE TODAY.THE PANEL WOULD NOT BE WEIGHINGIN ON THAT.THEY’D BE ANSWERING SPECIFIC ANDSCIENTIFIC ANSWERS.WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS THAT WOULD HELP YOU ASALDERMEN DO WHAT YOU DO EVERYDAY. I WOULD THINK THIS IS A HANDYRESOURCE, RATHER THAN HAVING MECOME UP AND IT’S GOOD AND HAVING SOMEBODY ELSE WHO IS A PROFESSORCOME UP AND SAY IT’S BAD, THISWOULD BE A GOOD THING. >> THAT’S PART OF THE APPEALBECAUSE AT SOME POINT YOU DOHAVE TO DEFER TO THOSE THAT ARE TRULY EXPERTS AND PAID BETTERATTENTION TO PHYSICS IN HIGHSCHOOL. I DON’T THINK I HAVE ANY MOREQUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.ALDERMAN FARRELL.>> THANK YOU. AND THANK YO THANK YOU FOR BEINETODAY.I KNOW WE DISAGREE ON THIS TOPIC, ALTHOUGH I THINK WEPROBABLY AGREE ON OTHER THINGS.AND ONE OF THEM IS THE ROLE OF HEALTH, ALTHOUGH NOT HEALTHCARE, BUT HEALTH FOR CALGARIANS.AND SO THAT’S THE SUBJECT OF PART 2 OF THE MOTION.THAT WAS A CONTROVERSIAL PART OFTHE MOTION.BECAUSE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUESBELIEVE IT’S NOT THE CITY’SRESPONSIBILITY. TO GET INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.I THINK WE’RE GOING TO — IF THEMOTION IS SUCCESSFUL, THE FIRST PART OF THE MOTION, THEN WE HAVEAN OBLIGATION TO LOOK AT THESECOND PART. AND THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF MYFIRST QUESTION.DO YOU THINK IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN REMOVING FLUORIDEFROM THE DRINKING WATER IN ITSENTIRETY WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO LOOK AT OUR OTHER CHOICES?>> WELL, I THINK PEOPLE SHOULDBE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. I THINK CITY DECISION MAKERSSHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.AND IF THERE’S AN INCREDIBLY WELL DOCUMENTED WAY TO PROMOTEORAL HEALTH PARTICULARLY INPEOPLE IN LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSES AND YOU AS A GROUP OFCITY ALDERMEN AND MAYOR AS AGROUP DECIDE TO ABANDON THAT, THEN YOU’VE CAUSED A PROBLEM, IWOULD SUGGEST.AND THEN IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THINK HOW CANYOU BEST ADVOCATE TO ENSURE THATTHOSE WHO WILL BE MOST HARMED BY THAT DECISION, AND THERE WILLBE, CAN BE BEST PROTECTED.FOR THE GENTLEMAN, Mr.MEADE, WHO TALKED EARLIER TALKED ABOUTDIVERTING THE MONEY FORFLUORIDATION TOWARDS SOM SOME ST OF DENTAL CARE PROGRAM, ANDWHILE THAT MAY SOUND ATTRACTIVEI’M QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW FAR THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLIONDOLLARS WILL STRETCH ACROSS ACITY THIS BIG AND IT WILL LIKELY BE EXHAUSTED IN NO TIME WITHVERY ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TOMEASURE BENEFITS DERIVED. IT WOULD BE A FAR MORE EXPENSIVEPROGRAM.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 INCREDIBLYEXPENSIVE.I DON’T KNOW IF THE CITY WANTS TO TAKE ON THAT BURDEN, BUT,BOY, YOU AS ALDERMEN WILL TAKEON THAT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HAVING MADE THIS DECISION THATAFFECTS THE ORAL HEALTH OF SOMANY PEOPLE.>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT SOME MAYTHINK BY FLOUR DATING WATER,WE’RE DEALING WITH THE POVERTY ISSUE.PERIOD.AND I THINK THERE’S EVIDENCE IN MANY, MANY CITIES THAT HAVE HIGHRATES OF POVERTY, THEIR TOOTHDECAY 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 CONTROLLINGTHE DOSE.AND CERTAINLY ONE OF THE CRITICISMS I’M HEARING FROMCONSTITUENTS IS WE CAN’T CONTROLTHE DOSE.PEOPLE DRINK VARYING AMOUNTS OFWATER.SOME PEOPLE DRINK VERY LITTLE. SO THEY — IF FLUORIDE’S ABENEFIT, THEY’RE NOT CONSUMINGTAP WATER. AND OTHERS DRINK COPIOUS AMOUNTSOF TAP WATER.SO THE DOSE ISN’T BEING CONTROLLED.AND THAT’S ONE OF THECRITICISMS. >> SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WOULDBE A GREAT QUESTION TO ASK ANEXPERT PANEL. HOW BIG AN IMPACT DOES THISVARIABILITY OF FLUORIDE IN THECITY HAVE. >> SO IF FLUORIDE IS REMOVEDFROM THE WATER AND WE HAVEN’TBEEN COMPARING — THERE WAS NO STUDIES IN CALGARY ON THEEFFECTS — OR BENEFITS OFFLUORIDE SPECIFIC TO THIS CITY, WHICH I WOULD SUGGEST IS ANETHICAL ISSUE PERSONALLY, IF WEDO REMOVE IT THEN SHOULD WE BE OLD GAITED TO REVIEW THE IMPACTSOF REMOVAL ON THE HEALTH OF THEPOPULATION? WATERLOO JUST REMOVED FLUORIDEFROM THEIR WATER.ONTARIO FLOURIDATES WIDELY.QUEBEC DOES NOT.THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEALTH –DENTAL HEALTH IS STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.SO WOULD WE BE THEN OBLIGATED TOSTUDY THE IMPACTS OF OUR DECISION.>> THE REASON FOR A DIFFERENCEIN DENTAL HEALTH BETWEEN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO COULD BE FOR AVARIETY OF REASONS, NOT JUSTWATER FLUORIDATION. I WOULD CAUTION PLEASE ASALDERMEN YOU DON’T MAKE ADECISION ON RAPID EASY COMPARISONS WHICH YOU DON’T KNOWWHY THE DIFFERENCES MAY BE.>> BUT I THINK WHAT WE’RE HEARING TODAY AND WHAT WE’LLCONTINUE TO HEAR ALL DAY IS ADIVERSITY OF OPINION. 60 YEARS INTO IT.WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ASFUNDAMENTAL AS OUR DRINKING WATER.AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEJURY’S STILL OUT. THAT CONCERNS ME WHEN IT’S MYTASK AS A DECISION MAKER WHENWE’RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING AS FUNDAMENTAL AS DRINKING WATER.>> I WOULD DISAGREE.THE JURY WORLDWIDE IS IN.MADAME FARRELL, THERE HAS NOTBEEN A SINGLE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWTHAT I COULD FIND THAT SAID WATER FLUORIDATION WAS A BADTHING.>> AND MY QUESTION IS THEN EVALUATION.WOULD IT BE OUR RESPONSIBILITYTO LOOK AT EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF OUR DECISION FROMTODAY OR IF WE CHOOSE TO REMOVEFLUORIDE, SHOULD WE THEN STUDY IT?AND LOOK AT THE IMPACTS OF OURDECISION IN THE FUTURE? >> I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE.I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AWELL-DESIGNED STUDY TO DO THAT BUT I THINK THAT WOULD MAKESENSE.>> NOW, THE LAST TIME WE WENT TO AN EXPERT PANEL, THE EXPERTPANEL RECOMMENDED LOWERING THEAMOUNT IN THE DRINKING WATER. THAT WASN’T MADE — THATRECOMMENDATION WASN’T MADE BYHEALTH CANADA. AND IT WASN’T MADE BY ALBERTAHEALTH SERVICES, ALTHOUGHALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES PARTICIPATED IN THE PANEL.BUT IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION TOREVIEW IT BY THE CITY OF CALGARY.THAT LOWER DOSE THEN HAS NOWBECOME MANY, MANY YEARS LATER THE NEW STANDARD, WHICH WAS VERYINTERESTING.SO PRIOR TO THAT, PEOPLE WERE CONSUMING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE.WHAT DO WE SAY TO THOSE PEOPLEWHO WE ASSURED AT THAT TIME THAT EVERYTHING WAS GREAT AND THENSINCE THEN LOWERED THEACCEPTABLE DOSE? SCIENCE CHANGES, AND WE SHOULDALWAYS BE REVIEWING SCIENCE.>> I WOULDN’T SAY THAT SCIENCE CHANGED IS THERE’S LIKE APENDULUM AND IT EVENTUALLYSWINGS RIGHT BACK TO THE MIDDLE SPOT.IT MAY BE IN THE PAST WHENFLUORIDE FIRST CAME OUT IT SWUNG TOO FAR AND THERE WERE A LOT OFSTUDIES THAT SHOW IT WAS TOOSUPPLEMENTED — >> WHEN FLUORIDE FIRST CAME OUT,IT WAS 50 YEARS OF FLUORIDE –OVERDOSING ON FLUORIDE.50 YEARS.THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS I’M SOCONCERNED IS IT TOOK US THAT LONG TO GET TO THAT POINT IN OURKNOWLEDGE 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’SONLY IN THE RECENT 40, 50 YEARSTHAT THE SCIENCE OF HOW TO DO THESE STUDIES HAVE BEEN FIGUREDOUT.YES, I THINK YES, YOU EVALUE AND MAYBE THE NUMBER SHOULD BE LOWERTHAN .7.MAYBE IT SHOULD BE .6.DO WHAT YOU DID BEFORE.YOU HAD GOOD SUCCESS IT SOUNDSLIKE. CALGARY DID THIS BEFORE AND HADA VERY GOOD SUCCESS WITH THATAND IN FACT WAS A TRAILBLAZER SO DO IT AGAIN.>> IT WAS A TRAILBLAZER BECAUSEOF CITY COUNCIL. IT WASN’T BECAUSE OF ALBERTAHEALTH 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 ONWITH YOU WAS YOUR COMMENT ABOUTPEOPLE WILL BE HARMED.CAN YOU DRILL DOWN ON THAT ANDBE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHICHPEOPLE, WHICH AGE GROUP AND WHAT THE HARM WOULD BE.>> OKAY.MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WATER FLUORIDATION BENEFITS PEOPLE BYPREVENTING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OFCAVITIES OR CARRIES OVER TIME. >> SO THE HARM?>> SO THE HARM IS THAT IF YOUSTOP DOING THAT, YOU WON’T GET AS GOOD PREVENTION.WHAT WILL HAPPEN — I’M NOT ANEPIDEMIOLOGIST WHO CAN SAY BASED UPON A HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLEWHAT THE HARM WILL BE.BUT BY LOWERING THE WATER FLUORIDATION OR REMOVING IT TOJUST AN ACTUAL LEVELS MYUNDERSTANDING THERE WOULD BE LESS CAVITIES, THEREFORE MORECAVITIES PREVENTED.>> WITH THE HOLE POPULATION? >> I UNDERSTANDING THAT AFFECTSTHE ENTIRE POPULATION.THERE WAS A STUDY IN BRITAIN WHICH LOOKED AT AREAS ON THEWEST COASTS OF BRITAIN,Dr. JIM DICKINSON HAS READ THIS PAPER IN DETAIL AND HE’S ABIT OF AN EXPERT ON SYSTEMATICREVIEWS AND THESE SORTS OF THINGS AND SO I CAN PUT YOU INTOUCH WITH HIM ON THE DETAILS OFTHIS.BUT WHEN THEY WITH DREW WATERFLUORIDATION AND STUDIED ITCAREFULLY, THEN THEY FOUND IN ALL AGE CATEGORIES AND ALLSOCIOECONOMIC CLASSES THERE WEREMORE CAVITIES AND IT AFFECTED PEOPLE AT THE LOWER END OFSOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSES MORE.THAT’S MY UNDERSTAND. >> WHAT OTHER HARM?>> OF REMOVING WATERFLUORIDATION? >> YEAH.>> THEN AS I SAID TO I THINKALDERMAN STEVENSON OR KEATING, THERE’S POSSIBLY A BENEFIT FORFLUORIDATION FOR FRACTURE RISKS.MAYBE TAKING POWER ADDITION OUT WOULD REMOVE — FLUORIDATIO FLUNOUT.THE HARM IS THE REMOVAL OF GOOD PREVENTION.THAT’S THE HARM.IF YOU TAKE WATER FLUORIDE OUT YOU LOSE ALL THE BENEFITS THATFLUORIDE BRINGS.WHATEVER FLUORIDE IS GOOD FOR, IF YOU REMOVE IT, YOU LOSE ALLTHAT.>> THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU.ALDERMAN PINCOTT.>> JUST TO DECLARE AN INTEREST. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG, QUESTION?>> YOU MENTIONED THE AUSTRALIASTUDY. I’VE GLANCED AT A FEW — WELL,QUITE A FEW OF THESE MYSELF ANDTHERE ARE STUDIES FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE SPECTRUM SAYINGTHAT IT’S GOOD AND IT’S BAD.WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT A STUDY DONE BY THE FACULTY OFMEDICINE IN CALGARY OVER A SIX,EIGHT-WEEK PERIOD IS GOING TO GIVE US A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ONEWAY OR THE OTHER WHEN STUDIESOVER THE LAST 50 YEARS SEEMS TO STILL, ALTHOUGH CONTRARY TO WHATYOU’RE SUGGESTING, LEAVE SOMEDOUBT IN THE MINDS OF APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THEPOPULATION?>> SO WHAT YOU WOULD BE ASKING THEM TO DO IS NOT TO DO AMASSIVE NEW — COMMISSION A NEWRESEARCH STUDY THAT WOULD TAKE THREE YEARS.YOU’D BE ASKING THEM TO REVIEWTHE AVAILABLE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT BYAGREED-UPON STANDARDS MEETCERTAIN LEVELS OF QUALITY OF HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED ANDLOOKING AT THOSE CONCLUSIONS ANDBRINGING THEM TOGETHER AND REPORTING BACK.AND IT MAY BE — I COULD HAVEJUST SIMPLY MISSED SOME SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS THAT SHOWEDTHAT THERE WATER FLUORIDATION ISNOT A GOOD THING.I DID FIND ONE THAT HAD SOMESLIGHT CAUTION.BUT IT WASN’T ABLE TO DECLARE CLEARLY THAT IT WAS A BAD THING.AND SO THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE ASKINGTHEM TO DO IS TO LOOK AT WHAT’S AVAILABLE OUT THERE.NOT TO CREATE NEW STUDIES ANDNOT NECESSARILY EVEN TO LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL STUDIES BUT TO LOOKAT PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES ARE TOREVIEW WHAT RESEARCH IS OUT THERE, TO PUT THEM TOGETHER ANDFIGURE OUT THE BOTTOM-LINEANSWER, TO LOOK AT THOSE DIFFERENT STUDIES AND PUT THEMTOGETHER.THAT’S THE PROBLEM. YOU’LL NEVER FIND A FULLAGREEMENT ON THIS.WE KNOW THAT.AT SOME POINT, YOU HAVE TO MAKEA DECISION, BUT I WOULD SUGGESTIT WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL IF YOU CAN GET GREATER CLARITY ON WHATTHE EVIDENCE MEANS, WOULDPROBABLY HELP YOU, ALDERMAN DEMONG, BE ABLE TO MAKE YOURDECISION BETTER.BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE, YOURSELF, STRUGGLING WITH THIS.I WASN’T SURE, AND THAT’S WHY IWENT IN. BUT I’M TRAINED IN HOW TO GO TOPUB MED, PULL OUT THE STUDIESTHAT ARE QUALITY STUDIES. >> WOULD THE FACULTY OF MEDICINEBE WILLING TO ACCEPT LEGALLIABILITY AS TO — WHEN THEY COME BACK WITH THEIR RESULT?>> I’M NOT AN AGENT ON BEHALF OFTHE FACULTY.I THINK THE FACULTY OF MEDICINEWOULD IF YOU ASK SOMEBODY TO DOTHEIR JOB PROPERLY AND THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY’VE DONETHEIR JOB PROPERLY, THEY’LLANSWER YOUR QUESTION. IT’S UP TO YOU AS ALDERMEN –THIS IS WHY YOU’RE ELECTED, ISINFORMATION AND FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH IT.NOT HERE AS ANAGENT OF THE FACULTY. THAT WOULD BE A SPECIFICQUESTION YOU’D HAVE TO ASK FORTHE DEAN BUT IF WE’RE TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS AS A COLLABORATIVECITY WHERE WE USE OUR PARTNERORGANIZATIONS TOGETHER, LET’S ASK THEM THE QUESTIONS THEY CANANSWER AND THEY’LL GET BACK TOYOU. >> FROM YOUR POINT OF REFERENCEMD, YOU’VE HEARD MANYPEOPLE SPEAK TO THE FLUORISIS OF THE TEETH.DO YOU CONSIDER THAT A CONCERNWHATSOEVER? >> THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION.HOW BIG IS THE PROBLEM OFFLUORISIS? ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES Dr. JIMDICKENSON HAS DONE QUITE A BITOF WORK, DELVED INTO THE LITERATURE ON IT, A LOT OFDENTAL ABNORMALITIES ARE LABELTHE AS FLUORISIS BECAUSE THEY’RE SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE.ALTHOUGH WHEN A DENTIST LOOKSLIKE IT, THIS IS DUE TO CHANGE.IF YOU ARE A TRAINED EXPERT YOUCAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEENLIKELY FLUORIDE-INDUCED CHANGES AND NOT.WE’VE HEARD FROM ONE PERSONTODAY WHO CLEARLY SAYS IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS A BIG BURDEN OFILLNESS FOR THEM IN SOMEFASHION. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT’S WHYYOU FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT AMOUNTOF PARTS PER MILLION FOR THE FLUORIDE TO GET IT TO THE SWEETSPOT OF THE CURVE AS WE SAY TOIT GIVES YOU REASONABLE BENEFIT WITH A VERY LOW CHANCE OF BADFLUORISIS.>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE SAYING WITH THAT.MY CONCERN COMES UP WITH AGAINTHE DOSAGE REQUIREMENTS.YOU SAY THERE’S A SPECIFICDOSAGE THAT IS A SWEET SPOT ASYOU SAY. YET I STRUGGLE TO COME UP WITHTHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ONEPERSON THAT DRINKS MAYBE A GLASS OF WATER A DAY AND THE ATHLETETHAT’S DRINKING 20 OR 30 GLASSESA DAY. HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE THAT THATIS THE RIGHT DOSAGE FOR THATPERSON VERSUS THAT PERSON HAD THERE IS NO SPECIFIC SAYING YOUSHOULD ONLY DRINK THIS MUCHWATER. >> THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION.THE NUMBER YOU PICK IS NOT THENUMBER THAT GOES IN PEOPLE’S MOUTHS.IT’S THE NUMBER IN THE WATERSUPPLY OF THE CITY THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO SHOW THATOVERALL THE POPULATION IS DOINGWELL WITH GREAT BENEFIT AND VERY LOW HARM.>> I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHATYOU’RE SAYING.YOU DECIDE WHAT — WE’RE TODECIDE THE ACTUAL QUANTITY INTHE SYSTEM. BUT YOU SPECIFICALLY SAY THERE’SA DOSAGE TO AVOID FLUORISIS ANDCAN STILL ASSIST IN DECAY SITUATIONS.HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THAT THEPERSON THAT IS ACTUALLY RECEIVING THIS MEDICATIONNUTRIENT WHATEVER YOU WILL ISGETTING THAT RIGHT DOSAGE? CAN YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE ORFORM CONTROL THAT?>> YOU CAN’T, BUT WHAT YOU CAN CONTROL IS — I’LL RETURN TO MYPREVIOUS STATEMENT IS WE KNOW1.5 PARTS PER MILLION IS TOO MUCH.AND THEY KNOW THAT BECAUSE WHENTHEY LOOK AT THE WHOLE POPULATION AND THEY SEE OHTHERE’S WAY TOO MUCH FLUORISISGOING ON FOR WHAT PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, FOR WHATEVERVALUE FLUORIDE BRINGS.THEN YOU DIAL IT DOWN TO THE NUMBER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS..7,THEN FOR AT THE END OF THE DAYIT EVENTS YOU THE FOR THE POPULATION.>> YOU’RE SUGGESTING THAT SOMEWILL GET NOT ENOUGH AND SOME WILL GET FAR TOO MUCH.>> YES, BECAUSE THAT’S THEPROBLEM — >> AND YOU’RE OKAY AS A DOCTORTO SAY AS LONG AS THE OVERALLAVERAGE IS OKAY FOR THE PEOPLE I DON’T MIND THAT SOME PEOPLE GETTOO MUCH AND SOME PEOPLE GET TOOLITTLE.>> WELL, WHEN YOU’RE TALKINGABOUT POPULATION HEALTH, YOUHAVE TO MAKE LARGE, BIG SWEEPING DECISIONS.IT’S LIKE IMMUNIZATIONS –>> I’M JUST ASKING YOU AS A DOCTOR TO SAY YOU’RE OKAY BYGENERALLY SAYING THIS I’M OKAYTHAT SOME ARE GETTING TOO LITTLE AND SOME ARE GETTING TOO MUCH,BUT BECAUSE THE OVERALL PEOPLEARE GETTING THE AVERAGE AMOUNT, I’M OKAY WITH THAT?>> WHAT I’M SAYING IS YOUSUPPLEMENT THE RIGHT LEVEL SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE AREGETTING INTO GOOD RANGES ANDTHERE’S A SMALL NUMBER AT MOST WHO GET INTO A BIT MORE ANDMIGHT END UP WITH COSMETICDEFECTS.I’M NOT SAYING IT EVEN.YOU ERR ON THE SIDE OF LOWERAMOUNTS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE SAID WE DON’T WANT TOO MUCH FLUORISISIN OUR COMMUNITY.THAT’S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO. >> I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTANDTHAT.IT DOES CONCERN ME THAT I’M SEEING STUDIES WHERE UP TO 30,40% OF UNITED STATES CITIES ANDDOCTORS, DENTISTS ARE SAYING THERE IS THAT MUCH FLUORISISHAPPENING TO PEOPLE IN THECITIES WHERE THEY HAVE FLOURIDATED WATER SUPPLY.AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY WE’VEGOTTEN TOO MUCH IN, WE HAVE 20, 30% FLUORISIS IN THE CITY WEHAVE TO DIAL IT DOWN.MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONCE YOU’VE GOT FLUORISIS, YOU CANNOT TREATIT.ONCE IT’S DONE, IT’S DONE. YOU CAN’T GO BACK AND SAY WE’LLFICTION 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 ATRATES OF AS HIGH AS 30 TO 40% INSOME U.S. CITIES. NOW THEY HAVE DECIDED WE’VE GOTTO DIAL IT DOWN.WHAT DO WE DO IN 15 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE REALIZE THAT .7 WASTOO MUCH?THE ENTIRE ATHLETICS, SUBSECTION OF OUR POPULATION, ARE COMINGDOWN WITH FLUORISIS, LET’S DIALIT DOWN AGAIN.IT’S TOO LATE FOR THEM NOW.AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY WE’VEDONE THE RIGHT THING? >> THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION.IT SOUNDS LIKE THOUGH YOU’REPRO-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 FLIPSIDE IS IF YOU REMOVE IT ALTOGETHER WHEN PEOPLE HAVECAVITIES AND DENTAL SURGERY ANDSO ON THEN YOU’VE MISSED THE BOAT ON THEM TOO.SO I THINK THAT THAT’S ONE OFTHE QUESTIONS THAT THE CITY SHOULD ASK, IS TODAY .7 THERIGHT NUMBER.MAYBE .6 IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. YOU ASK PEOPLE WHO ARE WATERFLUORIDATION EXPERTS ANDRESEARCH METHODOLOGY EXPERT. YOU ASK THEM WHAT IS TODAY’SRIGHT NUMBER.IT SOUNDS LIKE CALGARY WAS A TRAILBLAZER WHEN IT PICKED .7SOME TIME AGO.WHAT WE KNOW IS THE BOW RIVER HAS .1 TO .2 WHICH IS NOTSUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE GREATPROTECTION 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 INFAMILY MEDICINE AND IN THESPECIALTY OF COMMUNITY MEDICINE. AND I SERVE AS THE LEAD MEDICALOFFICER OF HEALTH FOR CALGARYZONE EVER ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES.I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITYTHAT YOU HAVE AFFORDED OUR COMMUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWSON FLUORIDATION.I HOPE THAT ALL OF US WILL HEAR AND LEARN SOMETHING NEW TODAYAND THAT WE’LL EACH LEAVE WITH AMORE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES AND THEIR MEANING TOCALGARIANS.I WILL FOCUS MY FEW MINUTES ON THE RELATED ISSUES OF RISK ANDMISPERCEPTION, AN AND THEN WILLMAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE INTENDED TO HELP US MOVE FORWARDTOWARDS A REASONABLE ANDDEFENSIBLE RESOLUTION. I’VE BEEN INTERESTED INFLUORIDATION FOR MANY YEARS BOTHAS A SAFE AND HIGHLY COST EFFICIENT PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURETHAT BRINGS A MEANINGFUL ORALHEALTH BENEFIT TO ALL WHO DRINK THE WATER AND AS A SOCIALPHENOMENON.MUCH OF THE CONTROVERSY THAT CONTINUES TO SURROUND THE ISSUEIN SOME COMMUNITIES CAN BEEXPLAINED BY VARIATIONS IN THE WAY EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY ANDCOLLECTIVELY MAKE DECISIONSABOUT WHAT WE PERCEIVE AS RISKS AND WHAT LEVEL OF RISKS WE AREPREPARED TO ACCEPT TO ACHIEVECERTAIN BENEFITS.WE ALL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT RISKEVERY DAY.WHETHER CONSCIOUSLY OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY, AND THOSEDECISIONS VARY AND EVOLVEDEPENDING ON OUR CIRCUMSTANCES AND LIFE STAGE.FACTORS THAT USUALLY AREINCLUDED IN THIS RISK ASSESSMENT INCLUDE THE SIZE AND MEANING OFTHE POTENTIAL HARM.AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE HAVE CONTROL OVER OUR EXPOSURE TOTHAT RISK.THIS NOTION OF CONTROL IS OF PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE IN THEDISCUSSION OF FLUORIDATION.WE ALL TRUST THAT THE CITY’S WATERWORKS DEPARTMENT HASFOLLOWED ALL THE CORRECTPROCEDURES TO CLEAN AND DISINFECT THE WATER SO THAT ITIS SAFE TO DRINK RIGHT OUT OFTHE TAP. FEW CHALLENGE WHETHER IT IS BESTTO CHLORINATE THE WATER AS ANEND POINT. WHY IS IT SOME CONTINUE TOQUESTION THE ADJUSTMENT OF THELEVEL OF FLUORISIS, A NATURAL CONSTITUENT?I THINK IT IS BECAUSE WE IN THEPUBLIC SERVICE HAVE NOT ALWAYS BEEN EFFECTIVE IN MAKING CLEARWHAT THE DECISION-MAKINGPROCESSES ARE. WHAT CHECKS ARE IN PLACE TOENSURE THAT POTENTIALLY HARMFULDECISIONS ARE AVOIDED AND WHAT RIGOR IS FOLLOWED TO ENSUREDECISIONS ARE TAKEN ON THE BASISOF THE BEST INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE.FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN ASKED PUBLICLYABOUT THE CLAIMS OF HARM MADE ABOUT FLUORIDATION HAVE IGENERALLY RESPONDED THATISOLATED FINDINGS ARE OF INTEREST BUT I PLACE GREATEREMPHASIS ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEWSWHICH HAVE CONSISTENTLY FOUND THERE IS GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THEEFFECTIVENESS FOR FLUORIDATIONAND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR HARMS OTHER THAN FLUORISIS.HAVE I NEVER TAKEN PAINS TOEXPLAIN HOW SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ARE CONDUCTED, HOW THEYDELIBERATELY INCLUDE ALLSUDDENIES SUGGESTING HARM IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ABOVE ALLELSE WE AVOID HARMING OURPATIENTS OUR IN PUBLIC HEALTH TERMS OUR COMMUNITIES.THIS IS A RESPONSIBILITY THAT IHAVE AS A MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH AND A PUBLIC SERVANT THATI TAKE SERIOUSLY.TO ENSURE THAT ALL OUR PROGRAMS AND OUR INVENTIONS ARECONTINUALLY UPDATED AND BASED ONTHE MOST RECENT AND CURRENT EVIDENCE.SO THIS LEADS ME TO SOMESUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT MOVE FORWARD TO A RESPONSIBLESOLUTION OR RESOLUTION OFWHETHER TO CONTINUE FLUORIDATION OF CALGARY OR NOT.WE’VE ALREADY HEARD NOW THISNOTION THAT PERHAPS THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY OR OTHERRESOURCES MIGHT BE AVAILABLE ORASKED TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS.WE DID THIS IN 1998 AND THATPANEL AS YOU KNOW DID DECIDETHAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO WARRANTDISCONTINUATION OF FLUORIDATION,BUT IT DID RECOMMEND REDUCING THE TARGET LEVEL TO THE .7 BASEDON EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS THE BESTTRADEOFF BETWEEN THE BENEFIT OF A REDUCTION IN CARRIES AND THERISK OF FLUORISIS.SO IF WE WERE TO ASK THE UNIVERSITY OFF OTHER BODIES TOASSIST US WITH IT NOW, I THINKTHAT’S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. BUT WE DO NEED TO BE CLEAR ONWHAT THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE –WE’D LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERED. AND IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO SEEKPUBLIC INPUT IN DEFINING THOSEQUESTIONS AS WELL. THE EXACT MECHANISMS FORRESPONDING SHOULD BE TAILORED TOTHE QUESTIONS. SO ANOTHER EXPERT PANEL MIGHT BEUSEFUL FOR REVIEW OF THE RISKSAND BENEFITS.WHILE A DIFFERENT GROUP MIGHT BEASKED TO EXAMINE THE ECONOMICSOF ALTERNATE MEANS OF IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH AND SO ON.IT MIGHT EVEN BE WORTHWHILE TOCLARIFY WHETHER CITIZENS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DIRECT INPUT ON THEFINAL DECISION THROUGH APLEBISCITE OR WHETHER THEY WILL BE COMFORTABLE WITH THECOLLISIONORS MAKING THE DECISIONON THEIR BEHALF. ONCE THE ANSWERS TO THESEQUESTIONS HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATEDTO THE CITIZENS OF CALGARY AND I MIGHT ADD OTHER COMMUNITIES SUCHAS AIRDRIE THAT ARE ON THECALGARY WATER SUPPLY, THEN WE SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO BECONFIDENT THAT A THOUGHTFUL ANDJUST DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU.ALDERMAN KEATING. QUESTIONS?>> YES.THANK YOU, CHAIR. AGAIN, I’M — GREAT THAT YOU’REHERE BECAUSE I’M LOOKING FORTHOSE SPECIFICALLY MEDICALLY SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION TO BEABLE TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION,AND THAT’S THE UNFORTUNATE PART IS EVENTUALLY WE HAVE TO MAKE ADECISION SO WE’LL GO DOWN THATLINE. I HAVE HEARD TALK ABOUT IODIZEDSALT AND I’M NOT SURE BUT IBELIEVE THAT’S ACTUAL IODINE.IS THAT CORRECT?>> IODIDE?>> COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT’S IN THERE?>> I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT’SADDED. IT’S IODIDE IS WHAT I UNDERSTANDBUT I HAVEN’T THOUGHT TO LOOK ATTHAT PRIOR TO COMING HERE. >> IT’S BEEN USED AS ACOMPARISON MANY TIMES.SHOULD WE TAKE IT OUT OF SALT AND I’M NOT SURE WHAT THEPURPOSE IS TO TELL YOU THETRUTH.I’M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT THECHEMICAL IS.WE KNOW IT’S THERE AND IT’S BEEN USED MANY TIMES IN THIS DEBATE.>> THE IODINE AGAIN IS — IODIDEIS A NATURAL ELEMENT IN OUR ENVIRONMENT.AND THE ISSUE — WHY IT WASINTRODUCED WAS SOME PARTS OF ONTARIO AND QUEBEC HAD A HIGHERINCIDENCE OF GOITER RELATED TOTHE THYROID. IT WAS RELATED TO INADEQUATEAMOUNTS OF IODINE SO THESOLUTION WAS PUT IT IN THE SALT SO WE ALL HAVE THE APPROPRIATEAMOUNT.>> THIS IS AN ACTUAL ADDITIVE THEY PUT IN SALT, IT’S NOTTREATMENT OR DO ANY SPECIFICS?>> IT’S TO SUPPLEMENT WHAT WE WOULD GET NATURALLY THROUGHOTHER SOURCES IN OURENVIRONMENT. THAT’S A PARALLEL TO FLUORIDE.>> MY QUESTION FOLLOWS DOWN THATLINE IS IF YOU HAVE TOO MUCH IODIDE, IS IT A PROBLEM?>> AGAIN, IT’S NOT SOMETHINGI’VE LOOKED AT.BUT IT’S NOT — I’M NOT AWARETHAT THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNSRAISED ABOUT HARMS BY THE IODIZED SALT.IT’S ALSO AVAILABLE IN UNIODIZEDFORM. >> MY POINT IS AND ONE OF THEREASONS I ASK IS THAT DECISIONHAS TO COME DOWN. SALT IN MY VIEW IS NOT A BASICUNIT OF HUMAN CONSUMPTION, WHEREWATER IS. WE CAN’T GET ALONG WITHOUT THEWATER.AND WE HAVE TO TAKE THE FLUORIDE WITHOUT QUESTION.SALT ON THE OTHER HAND WE HEARTHAT WE’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO USE AS MUCH SO I MIDDLE EASTERNTHAT’S BEING REDUCED.BUT — I MEAN THAT’S BEING REDUCED.AND I GUESS THAT’S MYUNDERSTANDING OR MY — WHERE DO WE GO FROM THIS?BECAUSE I IT IS A BASIC — I’LLJUST 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 CORRECTBECAUSE YOU CAN’T HELP BUT NOTTAKE WATER, BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY HAVE A CHOICE OF SALTAND YOU CAN PROBABLY GETUNIODIZED SALT I’M GUESSING AND ALL OF THAT SORT OF STUFF BUTPRESENTLY YOU CAN’T GET UNFLOURDATED WATER UNLESS YOU PAY FOR IT, WHICH WE PAY FOR SALTANYWAYS.>> I WOULD MAKE THE DISTINCTION THAT I HAVE NOT — I DIDN’TINTRODUCE THE NOTION OF IODIZEDSALT IN THIS, AND — IN FACT IN EUROPE, THAT IS ONE OF THE WAYSTHAT FLUORIDE IS DELIVERED.THEY — INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT IN THE WATER, THEY PUT IT IN THESALT, THEY PUT IT IN MILK.THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DELIVER THE BENEFIT OF FLUORIDE.>> AND I GUESS — I MEAN THAT’SA GREAT POINT, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF DOING IT AND THEN PEOPLEWOULD MAKE THAT CHOICE TO DO ITRATHER THAN PUTTING IT IN OUR BASIC UNIT.>> AND I AGREE WITH YOU ENTIRELYTHAT THE FACT THAT IT’S IN WATER, WHICH I BELIEVE IS AHUMAN RIGHT, A BASIC HUMANRIGHT, THE ACCESS TO GOOD HEALTHY CLEAN WATER, MAKES ITTHAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAT WEDO THE RIGHT THING.AND THAT JUST ADDS THE BURDEN TOALL OF US WHO ARE INVOLVED INMAKING THAT DECISION. AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THESCIENCE CONFIRMS, ALLOWS, ME TOREAFFIRM MY SUPPORT FOR FLUORIDATION AS AN EFFECTIVE ANDSAFE WAY OF GETTING THAT BENEFITTO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT DRINK THE WATER.>> PERFECT.THANK YOU. THE OTHER THING WE HEAR OFTENIS — AND I’VE HEARD THIS FROMINDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE TALKED TO ME THAT OUTSIDE OF WHAT I’VEHEARD HERE TODAY IS MYGRANDPARENTS — OR MY GRANDCHILDREN NEED IT IN THEWATER BECAUSE THEY’RE NOTGETTING THEIR TEETH BRUSHED BECAUSE THEY WON’T GET IT DONE.SO THAT COMES INTO PARENTING ANDWHERE WE GO FROM THERE. WHICH IS ANOTHER WHOLE THING.SO, AGAIN, IT COMES BACK TO THEIDEA OF PUTTING IT IN BECAUSE SOME DO NOT DO IT, AND WE CAN’TGET INTO THE IDEA OF PARENTINGEVERYONE WITHIN THE CITY.BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT INSOME ASPECT.I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU BECAUSE IT WAS RAISED TODAY, ANDI GUESS MY STATEMENT IS IT CAMEFORWARD THAT INFANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE FLUORIDE IN BASICALLYALMOST ANY SORT OF FORM AT THISPOINT. AND YOU RECOMMEND THAT YOUBREASTFEED FOR SIX MONTHS.BUT THERE ARE MEDICAL CASES, AND I’M SURE YOU CAN COMMENT ONTHIS, WHERE THE CHILD ISALLERGIC TO MILK, AS I HAPPEN TO HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO HAD TO GO ONFORMULA BECAUSE SHE WAS ALLERGICTO MILK, SHOULD THE CITY START PROVIDING BOTTLED WATER TO EVERYHOUSEHOLD WHERE THEY HAVE TO USEFORMULA BECAUSE THE PARENTS MIGHT NOT USE BOTTLED WATER TOMAKE THAT FORMULA?>> SO THERE’S A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVEBEEN MADE ABOUT THE USE OFFLOURIDATED WATER IN INFANT FORMULA.IN FACT WHAT THE BODIESINCLUDING HEALTH CANADA AND ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES AND CDCATLANTA AND THE AMERICAN DENTALASSOCIATION SAY IS THAT IT IS SAFE TO USE WATER THAT’SFLOIRIDATED IN THE .7 PARTS PERMILLION AS OUR WATER IS IN THE PREPARATION OF INFANT FORMULA.I WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY THINK THECITY SHOULD BE PROVIDING FOR AN ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE THEY DON’TNEED TO.>> OKAY.SO TO FOLLOW THAT UP, BECAUSE IDID ASK THE QUESTIONS AND I’VEHEARD STATEMENTS BECAUSE OF KIDNEY DIFFICULTIES ORTRANSPLANT OR ANTIREJECTIONDRUGS AND A NUMBER OF THESE THINGS, IS ANY OF THAT ALONG THESAME LINES AS WHAT YOU’RE SAYINGNOW? >> AGAIN, I KNOW OF NO REASONWHY A PHYSICIAN WOULD ADVISETHEIR PATIENT TO AVOID FLOURIDATED WATER.THE KIDNEY DISEASE INPARTICULAR, FOR PERSONS WHO ARE IN RENAL FAILURE AND ARE ONDIALYSIS, THE FLUID THAT’S USEDIN DIALYSIS IS FILTERED OF MORE THAN FLUORIDE.CHLORINE IS OUT AND SO ON ASWELL.SO THAT’S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.FOR SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ONDIALYSIS, THERE’S NO HARM IN DRINKING OUR FLOUR DATED WATER.>> THANK YOU.ARE THERE ANY STATISTICS OR STUDIES OUT THERE THAT TALKABOUT TOOTH DECAY WITH THE RESTOF THE WORLD? AND I RAISE THIS BECAUSE NORTHAMERICA OR HOWEVER ISUNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE A VERY HIGH SUGAR CONTENT, AND MANYOTHER AREAS OF THE WORLD DO NOTHAVE THAT SUGAR CONTENT THAT WE HAVE AND THEREFORE IN COMPARISONARE THERE ANY STUDIES OR THINGSTHAT TALK ABOUT TOOTH DECAY OUTSIDE OF THE SUGAR CONTENT?>> I THINK YOU’RE ASKING WHATARE THE INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AROUND TOOTH DECAY?>> OKAY.>> IT’S A VERY COMMON PROBLEM ALL AROUND THE WORLD.AND THERE’S DIFFERENT WAYSTHAT — MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAN’T TO THAT.AND ALSO MANY THINGS THATCONTRIBUTE TO AVOIDANCE OF TOOTH DECAY, AND FLUORIDATION ASALDERMAN FARRELL SAID, IS NOT APANACEA.IT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO INORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVEOPTIMAL ORAL HEALTH. >> MY LAST QUESTION, AND AGAINIT’S MORE OF AN OPINION THAN AQUESTION, BECAUSE I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE’RE GOINGFROM THIS, WE ALL KNOW THAT INMANY CASES SCIENCE WILL SAY THAT FLUORIDE IS GOOD AND THEREFORELET’S DO IT, WITHOUT QUESTION,WE KNOW IT’S GOOD FOR YOUR TEETH.THE ISSUE IS WHEN WE COME BACKTO IT IS MANY TIMES SCIENCE WILL NOT STATE THAT IT IS HARMFULWITHOUT CLEAR, CLEAR STUDIES ORDEFINITION THAT THIS IS HARMFUL, EVEN THOUGH WE DON’T KNOWWHETHER IT’S THERE OR NOT.>> WELL, YEAH, I WOULDN’T AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, AND THAT’S THEPOINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WITHTHE DESCRIPTION — BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE WAYSYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ARECONDUCTED.BECAUSE WE ARE — BECAUSE IT ISSUCH A RESPONSIBILITY THAT WEDON’T HARM, THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WE LEARNED IN MEDICALSCHOOL, 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 OFIDENTIFYING 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 DONECONTINUE TO STATE THAT THERE’SGOOD EVIDENCE OF A BENEFIT, NO GOOD EVIDENCE OF MEANINGFUL HARMOTHER THAN FLUORISIS.AND THAT’S THE DIFFICULTY THAT WE ALL FACE.IT’S ESSENTIALLY IMPOSSIBLE TOPROVE THE NEGATIVE. SO IT’S EASY TO SAY MAYBE ITCOST US THIS, MAYBE IT DOESTHAT; AND IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.SO WE HAVE TO MANAGE THATPERCEPTION. AND THAT’S WHY I FOCUSED ONTHAT.AND I THINK THE WAY TO DO THAT, ONE OF THE WAYS TO DO THAT, ISTO TRY TO MAKE IT AS CLEAR ASPOSSIBLE THAT WE’VE GOT AS ROBUST A PROCESS AS POSSIBLEAROUND HOW WE MAKE OURDECISIONS.AND HOW WE DETERMINE WHAT THATLEVEL OF RISK IS.AND WE NEED TO HAVE THE INPUT OF OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE IN SOMERESPECTS, RISK TOLERANCE IS ANEXPRESSION OF A COMMUNITY NORM. SO IF WE ARE ABLE TO COMPLETETHIS PROCESS, WHETHER OR NOT YOUDECIDE TO ENGAGE UNIVERSITY OR OTHERS TO HELP WITH ANSWERINGSPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOUHAVE, AND WE WORK AT GETTING THAT INFORMATION OUT TO THEPUBLIC, AND THEY STILL SAY ONBALANCE THAT’S NOT FOR US, OKAY, I ACCEPT THAT AS THE WILL OF THECOMMUNITY.THAT WOULD BE OUR COMMUNITY NORM.THAT’S OUR RESPONSIBILITY ASPUBLIC SERVANTS TO PROVIDE THE BEST INFORMATION WE CAN, MAKEDECISIONS AS WE CAN BASED ON ALLTHAT BEST EVIDENCE. SOMETIMES WE WILL MAKE ADECISION THAT ISN’T A POPULARONE, AND YOU DO THAT AND OTHERS WILL DO THAT AS WELL.THAT’S BEST ON YOUR BESTJUDGMENT OF THE EVIDENCE. AND YOU WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES.SOMETIMES THAT MEANS YOU LOSETHE NEXT ELECTION.BUT IT’S A MATTER OF WHAT DO WENEED TO DO, WHAT DOES THESCIENCE TELL US, AND I’M TELLING YOU WHAT I UNDERSTAND THESCIENCE TELLS US.WHAT IS THE REFLECTION OF THE COMMUNITY’S WILL IN TERMS OFRISK TOLERANCE.WE HAVE TO SORT THAT OUT AS WELL, AND I THINK THAT’S PART OFTHIS PROCESS AND HOW YOU MOVEFORWARD IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION.>> THANK YOU.THAT WAS FABULOUS BECAUSE IT DOES NAIL DOWN EXACTLY WHATWE’RE DOING, UNFORTUNATELY, ISWE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION WHETHER IT’S FAVOURABLE ORUNFAVOURABLE.AND EITHER WAY — I WAS GOING TO MAKE A KIND OF SILLY COMMENT.BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT MEDICALRESEARCH AND ALL OF THAT, AND I WASN’T GOING TO DO IT BUT AFTERYOUR COMMENTS I THINK I WILL,AND IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE’RE TALKINGABOUT.AND I ASK EVERYONE HERE TO TAKE ASIDE THE EMOTIONAL I GUESSCONCEPT OF WHAT I’M GOING TOSAY, BUT — AND I WATCH WAY TOO MUCH T.V., SO YOU CAN TAKE IT INTHAT CONTEXT, I ONCE SAW A SHOWWHERE THEY BELIEVED THE FELLOW’S ARTHRITIS WAS FROM BAD TEETH SOTHEY PULLED ALL HIS TEETH.WHEN WE LOOK AT MEDICAL I GUESS RESEARCH AND THEORY AND RISK,WHICH IS WHAT YOU’RE TALKINGABOUT, WE HAVE TO WEIGH OUT THAT RISK AND DECIDE WHERE WE’REGOING FROM THERE.NOW, I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S A MEDICAL ISSUE, IF THAT WASACTUALLY TRUE OR NOT, BUT IT WASON T.V.SO IT HAS TO BE TRUE. [Laughter]>> I MUST HAVE MISSED THATPROGRAM. >> BUT THEREIN LIES WHAT YOU’RETALKING ABOUT AND WHAT WE’RETALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU.ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> THANK YOU.I THINK WE’RE — A NUMBER OFYEARS AGO, THE DENTISTRY PROFESSION WAS VERY UNITED ONTHEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST TAKINGFLUORIDE 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 LIKELYAGREE AND A THE UNIVERSITY OFTORONTO IS NOT ANYWHERE COMPARABLE TO THE UNIVERSITY OFCALGARY, BUT THE UNIVERSITY OFTORONTO IS A WELL-RECOGNIZED UNIVERSITY AND HARDY LIMBACK WHOIS THE HEAD OF PREVENTIVEDENTISTRY PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STATES ANDI’LL QUOTE WHAT HE SAID”FLUORIDATION IS NO LONGER EFFECTIVE.”HE WENT ON TO ADD “BUT ADDINGTHE CHEMICAL TO THE WATER IS MORE HARMFUL THAN BENEFICIAL.”CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT?BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE THIS STRUGGLE TO TELL US THATEVERYBODY’S UNITED ON THIS, THATADDING FLUORIDE TO THE WATER IS BENEFICIAL AND THERE’S NO HARM.>> SO CERTAINLY I’M AWARE OFDr.LIMBACK AND HIS ROLE OF U OF T AND RESPECT HIS OPINION.HE REGULARLY IS INVOLVED INRESEARCH. IN FACT ONE OF HIS RECENT PAPERSLOOKED AT THE QUESTION OFWHETHER THERE WAS ACCUMULATION OF FLUORIDE IN BONE.AND THEY LOOKED AT — THEYACTUALLY SAMPLED BONE IN PEOPLE THAT WERE UNDERGOING SURGERY ANDFROM AREAS THAT WERE FLOUR DATEDAND NOT FLOURIDATED, IT WAS NOT BORNE OUT BY HIS OWN RESEARCH.>> DO YOU THINK HE’S CHANGED HISPOSITION? >> NO, I THINK IF YOU ASKED HIMTODAY, HE’D REAFFIRM THAT QUOTE.HE IS ONE THAT’S A VOICE THAT NEEDS TO BE HEARD AND THAT’S WHYWE NEED TO HAVE THE REGULAR ANDONGOING SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE WITH RA TOUR.LITERATURE.WHERE THE UNANIMITY COMES IN THAT I SAID AND OTHERS HAVE SAIDIS WHEN YOU DO THAT SYSTEMATICBROAD LOOK AT IT ALL, ALL OF THE BODIES HAVE COME TO THE SAMECONCLUSION.SO, YES, THERE ARE “OUTLIERS”. AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO FOLKS WHORAISE QUESTIONS.BUT THEN YO THEN YOU HAVE TO THEINTO THE SCIENCE AND TAKE THEBODY OF IT TO GUIDE OUR DECISION-MAKING.>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART.>> THANK YOU, DOCTOR, FOR BEINGHERE. ARE YOU AN EXPERT ON FLUORIDE ORFLUORIDATION?>> I’VE BEEN INTERESTED IN READING ABOUT FLUORIDATION FOR ALONG TIME.WHERE WOULD MY EXPERTISE BE? IT WOULD BE REALLY ACTUALLYAROUND IT AS A PUBLIC HELL HEALHMEASURE, SO, YES, I AM. I’M A PUBLIC HEALTH PHYSICIANAND THAT’S WHERE MY EXPERTISELIE. >> SO AS A MEASUREMENT ANDINFORMING YOURSELF THROUGHPROBABLY KEEPING CURRENT ON THE RESEARCH?>> I DO.AND I RELY ALSO ON OUR TEAM WITHIN HEALTH PROMOTIONS ANDDISEASE PREVENTION.ONE OF THE FOLKS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWING ME IS OUR PROVINCIALDENTAL OFFICER.HE WOULD BE MORE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN FLAGGING THINGS FORME 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 GETINTO SEMANTICS ABOUT — >> WE NEED TO KNOW BECAUSEEVERYONE CLAIMS TO BE.>> WELL, I DON’T KNOW. I HAVEN’T HEARD ANYBODY ELSE –I’M THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS SAID IHAVE EXPERTISE AROUND FLUORIDATION AS A PUBLIC HEALTHMEASURE BECAUSE MY EXPERTISE ISPUBLIC 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 SOCRITICAL AND SO IMPORTANT, WHYIS IT NOT A PROVINCIAL ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES POLICY, AND WHYARE RURAL ALBERTANS LEFT OUT OFHAVING FLUORIDATION IN THEIR WATER?I COME FROM SOUTHERN ALBERTA.THOSE RESIDENTS DON’T HAVE IT, AND I’M SURE IT’S THE SAME WAYACROSS RURAL ALBERTA.WHY THE DISCREPANCY? >> ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES DOESNOT OPERATE THE WATER TREATMENTFACILITIES, THAT’S A MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY.SO IT’S NOT OUR PLACE TO PUTTHAT IN THOSE COMMUNITIES.SO I DON’T UNDERSTAND YOURQUESTION.>> SO THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES, DOESN’TDEEM IT TO BE A MANDATORY HEALTHREQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH AND WELLNESS.>> WE NEED TO MAKE A DISTINCTIONBETWEEN ALBERTA HEALTH AND WELLNESS WHICH IS MAYBE WHOYOU’RE ASKING ABOUT AND ALBERTAHEALTH SERVICES. YOU’RE ASKING ABOUT ALBERTAHEALTH AND WELLNESS.>> BOTH. BOTH.I WOULD THINK THEY WORKTOGETHER. >> SO ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES ISTHE 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 OFFLUORIDATION AS A GOOD PUBLICHEALTH MEASURE. THAT MINISTER DOES NOT SETGOVERNMENT POLICY, CAUCUS DOES.SO I DON’T KNOW THE EXTENT WHETHER THEY’VE ASKED THAT.WE’VE ADVOCATED, AS YOU KNOW, INMANY — IN SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES FOR PROVINCIAL ACTION SUCH AS ONTOBACCO CONTROL AND SO ON, YETTHE CITY CHOSE TO BE AHEAD OF THE PROVINCE IN TERMS OFRESTRICTING ACCESS TO TOBACCO.SO THAT’S THE POLITICS OF OUR PROVINCE.>> HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT RURALALBERTA NOT HAVING ACCESS TO FLUORIDATION?>> WELL, I’M CONCERNED.SO SOME DO.WE DO — ALBERTA HAS I THINKIT’S ABOUT 70 ODD PERCENT OF OURPOPULATION IS COVERED BY FLOURIED WATER.THE BIGGEST POPULATIONS ARECALGARY AND EDMONTON. MANY RURAL COMMUNITIES DOFLOURIDATE, SOME DON’T.AND MANY ALBERTANS WHO ARE ON WELLS OF COURSE WILL NOT BEHAVING 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 OFFICIALSIS TO REVIEW THE WATER LEVEL INWELLS 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 — IWOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT IN FACTTHE PROVINCE TOOK ACTION ON IT AND MADE IT A MANDATORY POLICYACROSS 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 TAKEIT OUT, AGAIN, THEN YOU HAVE AMAJORITY WHO ARE NOT GETTING THE BENEFIT THAT THEY ASKEDYOU 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 ASDIRECTION, BUT NOT — BUT NOTBINDING DIRECTION, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO ALSO UNDERSTANDAND ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AS YOUARE NOW, AND POTENTIALLY WITH OTHER RESOURCES, LIKE THEUNIVERSITY, SO THAT YOU’RESATISFIED ABOUT THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF THE ISSUE.AND THEN YOU MAKE YOURDECISION.>> OKAY.THANK YOU.OH, MY LAST QUESTION… PEOPLE JUST CONFINE THEIRQUESTIONS ON FLUOROCIES TOJUST TEETH. SO, WHAT IN YOUR VIEW, IS THEIMPACT OF FLUOROCIES ON THEBODY? >> WHAT IS THE…?>> THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTSABOUT FLUOROCIES HAVE JUST BEEN CONFINED TO ITS EFFECT ONTEETH, SO COULD YOU COMMENT,PLEASE, ON THE EFFECT OF FLUOROCIES ON THE BODY?>> OKAY.EXCUSE ME. THE OTHER AREA WHERE PEOPLETALK ABOUT FLUOROCIES IS INBONE, AND THAT’S AT LEVELS THAT ARE JUST NOT SEEN HERE.SO IT’S NOT AN ISSUE IN ACOMMUNITY WITH OPTIMALLY FLUORIDATED WATER.>> THANK YOU.>>ALED ALDERMAN MARCH? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR.FIRSTLY, TO DECLARE ANYINTEREST, AND THANK YOU FOR COMING, DOCTOR.I DO APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENCE,BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, YOU CARRY A LOT OF WEIGHT IN THEPROVINCE OF ALBERTA AND IN THECITY OF CALGARY.SO, LISTENING TO YOUR COMMENTSAND THE QUESTIONS THAT I’MHEARING FROM MY COLLEAGUES, I HAVE A FEW VERY, VERY POIGNANTCOMMENTS REGARDING HEALTH OFCHILDREN, PARTICULARLY INFANTS.I’M ABOUT TO HAVE A NEW-BORNBABY, LITERALLY ANY MINUTE… WELL, NOT ME PERSONALLY, BUTJOELLA.I HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT, OR SO THEY TELL ME.SO MY CONCERN IS MY WIFE ISALSO UNABLE TO BREAST-FEED BECAUSE OF THE — SHE HAS SOMEOTHER HEALTH ISSUES AS WELL.SO THIS IMPACTS MY DECISION-MAKING TREMENDOUSLY,BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I AMAWARE OF ALL THE LATEST INFORMATION AND STUDIES THATARE SUGGESTING THAT WE — IFWE’RE GOING TO FEED OUR CHILD THROUGH BOTTLE, WHICH ISOBVIOUSLY THE ONLY WAY THAT WECAN NOW, THE STUDIES ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD NOTBE USING — AS ALDERMANCOMPETING SUGGESTED, WE SHOULD NOT BE USING MUNICIPAL TAPWATER BECAUSE OF THE FLOORRIDE, AND WE SHOULD ALSO REDUCE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OURCONSUMPTION OF THIS.AND THERE’S NO REAL WAY TO — TO CONTROL THAT IF ONECONSUMES 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, WOULDCONSUME 30 OR MORE.THIS WOULD DRAMATICALLY INCREASE AND INFLUENCE THEAMOUNT OF FLUORIDE THAT YOU’REBRINGING INTO YOUR SYSTEM.THAT’S SOMETHING THAT YOUCANNOT CONTROL.>> SO, I THINK THERE’S STILL QUESTIONS THERE.ONE IS AROUND YOUR CHILD, ANDCONGRATULATIONS. THAT’S WONDERFUL.>> THANK YOU.>> YOUR LIFE’S ABOUT TO CHANGE.>> THANK YOU.>> AND ACTUALLY, WHEN I WAS CUTTING — WHEN I FIRST WROTEMY COMMENTS, I DID ACTUALLYBRING THAT IN, ABOUT THE NOTION OF THE RISKS THAT –AND OUR RISK JUDGMENT THAT WEMAKE. IT VARIES THROUGH OUR TIMECOURSE, AND ONE OF THE BIGCHANGES IN YOUR LIFE COURSE IS WHEN YOU BECOME A PARENT ANDYOUR RISK TOLERANCE CHANGES.>> MM-HMM. >> AND YOU HAVE THISADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.THAT’S ALSO THE KIND OF ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY THATACCRUES TO YOU AS A PUBLICSERVANT AND ME IN PUBLIC HEALTH.SO WE TAKE THOSERESPONSIBILITIES VERY SERIOUSLY.THE EVIDENCE, INDEED, IN SPITEOF YOUR COMMENT, AND I’M SORRY TO CONTRADICT YOU, BUT — ISTHAT YOUR CHILD, IF YOU ARERECONSTITUTING FORMULA WITH CALGARY WATER OF.7 PARTS PER MILLION, THATWOULD BE ABSOLUTELY SAFE.>> OKAY.>> THE SECOND PART WAS ABOUTME. I’M NOT A RUNNER.I’M AN OLD-TIME HOCKEY PLAYERAND I DRINK LOTS OF WATER, AND I’M GLAD THAT I DO, BECAUSE –THE FACT THAT I’M AN OLD-TIMEHOCKEY PLAYER, IS MY GUMS ARE RECEDING AND MY ROOTS AREBEING EXPOSED AND I KNOW THATTHE FLUORIDE IN THE WATER IS CONTINUING TO PROVIDEPROTECTION 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 TOPICALBENEFITS OF HAVING IT ON YOUR TEETH FOR THAT FRACTION OF ASECOND THAT YOU’RE DRINKINGIT? >> WELL, AS WAS POINTED OUTEARLIER, IT’S BOTH TOPICAL ANDSYSTEMIC, AND THE SYSTEMIC, THERE’S THE SALIVA, AND IT’SIN OUR SALIVA AND IT THANCONTINUES THAT BATHE, IF YOU WILL, OF OUR TEETH IN THEAPPROPRIATE LEVEL OF FLUORIDE.>> Alderman John Mar: OKAY. SO FROM A GOVERNMENT’SPERSPECTIVE, AND I DON’T — IDON’T MIND YOU CONTRADICTING ME AT ALL.I’M A PUBLIC SERVANT AND THATHAPPENS QUITE WRECKLY, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE.SO MY COMMENT NOW IS IF WE ARELOOK AT THIS FROM A GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE AND WE’RE TRYINGTO DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN ASA MUNICIPAL, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS HEALTH INTERMS OF THE GOVERNMENTSTRUCTURE IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA?>> WELL, IT’S A SHAREDRESPONSIBILITY.EXCUSE ME.IT’S A SOCIETAL RESPONSIBILITYAND IT’S THE — IT’S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEINSTITUTIONS THAT WE CREATE INSOCIETY, BECAUSE HEALTH IS — THE HEALTH THEY FELT THAT WEENJOY OR THE ILLNESSES THATBEFALL 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 SOCIALDETERMINANTS, AS THE VERY FIRST SPEAKER TALKED ABOUT:INCOME AND HOUSING AND SO ON.THOSE ARE ALL VERY IMPORTANT. YOU HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY INTHOSE.I HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY AROUND THE HEALTH SERVICES PIECE.I ALSO HAVE A ROLE AS AMEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH TO ADVOCATE WITH YOU AND WITHOTHER GOVERNMENT LEVELS TOENSURE THAT WE ALL DO OUR PART, THAT WE HAVE — THAT WE CREATEAN ENVIRONMENT THAT CREATESOPPORTUNITIES FOR HEALTH FOR ALL OF THE CITIZENS.AND I BELIEVE FLUORIDATION ISONE THAT DOES THAT.>> Alderman John Mar: IAPPRECIATE THAT.I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT, IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS,THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS ABOUTBUILDING CITIES, AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE DOINGAS A WELLNESS PERSPECTIVE.AND IT IS HEALTH CARE AND IT IS ARTS AND IT IS SOCIALCONTRIBUTIONS FROM A VARIETYOF DIFFERENT AGENCIES. ALL WORKING TOGETHER, BUTMY — MY QUESTION SPECIFICALLYIS 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 ALBERTAHEALTH SERVICES NOTCONTRIBUTING FINANCIALLY TO THIS PROGRAM?IT IS $750.000 A YEAR.THAT’S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF CALGARY HAS HAD ARESPONSIBILITY THAT HAS, INEFFECT, BEEN DOWNLOADED ON TO IT BY THE PROVINCE, AND WEWOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IFTHIS IS A PRIORITY, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IT IS, FOR ALBERTAHEALTH SERVICES, WHY IS IT NOTCOMPENSATING THE CITY? >> SO, ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICESIS, IN FACT, CONTRIBUTING INMANY WAYS TO THE ORAL HEALTH OF THE POPULATION.SO, WE — ONE OF THE PROGRAMSTHAT WE DO, IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT FLUORIDATION ISNOT SUFFICIENT.IT’S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTES TO A REDUCTION INDENTAL CARE AND IMPROVED ORALHEALTH.WE HAVE TARGETED PROGRAMS TOSCHOOLS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED ASHAVING CHILDREN WITH — WHO ARE AT HIGHER RISK FOR DENTALCARRIERS AND WE HAVE STAFFTHAT ATTEND AND APPLY FLUORIDE VARNISHES, SO, IN FACT, WE ARECURRENTLY SPENDING MORE THANTHE AMOUNT — THE $750 ODD THOUSAND DOLLARS IN ORALHEALTH PROGRAMMING.SO IT’S A PARTNERSHIP. THAT WAS WE DO.YOU MANAGE THE WATER WORKS.THAT’S WHAT YOU DO. >> Alderman John Mar: NO, ANDI APPRECIATE THAT.I DO. AND SOME RECENT MATERIALS THATI’VE RECEIVED AND DO FEEL FREETO CONTRADICT OR INTERJECT WHERE NECESSARY…THAT APPROXIMATELY OUT OF ATHOUSAND DOLLARS THAT WE WOULD SPEND ON FLUORIDATING OURWATER, ABOUT 995 OF THOSEDOLLARS ARE LITERALLY FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET, USED TO WASHOUR CARS, USED TO WASH OURDISHES, USED TO WASH ALL OF THESE OTHER DAY-TO-DAY ITEMS,AND ONLY $5 IS ACTUALLYCONSUMED BY PEOPLE AS POTABLE WATER.FURTHERMORE, ALL OF THAT $5,REALLY, ONLY 50 CENTS OUT OF A THOUSAND DOLLARS — I’LL SAYTHAT AGAIN, ONLY 50 CENTS OUTOF A DLAU DOLLARS ACTUALLY GOES TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE,WHICH IS — WHICH IS CHILDREN,ISN’T IT? DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOUNDFINANCIAL SENSE?>> TO BROADEN THE CONVERSATION…WE — THERE’S MANY THINGSTHAT — WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, AND YOU’VE ALREADY DONE ONE OFTHE EXAMPLES THAT YOU — ITHINK CAME NEWSPAPER THE LAST CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, WHEREYOU WENT AHEAD OF WHAT THEPUBLIC WANTED WORKS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERMETERS.WE KNOW WE NEED TO BE WISER IN HOW WE USE OUR WATER, ANDTHERE ARE OTHER METHODS THATWE MIGHT DO TO TRY TO SEPARATE OUT THE USES OF THE WATER.THEY THEMSELVES HAVECOMPLICATIONS OR IMPLICATIONS AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHINGTHAT WILL BE OF FUTUREDISCUSSION THAT COUNCIL HAS TO DO, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTERIS EVEN THOUGH SO MUCH OF THATWATER IS USED IN THOSE OTHER WAYS, THAT IS STILL THE MOSTSUFFICIENT WAY, COST-EFFICIENTWAY 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, INCLUDINGALL OF YOU HERE, IF YOU DRINK THE WATER.THE ALTERNATIVE, AND THAT ISONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE POSED TO AN EXTERNALBODY, IS WHAT ARE THE — DOINGAN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE OTHER POTENTIAL WAYS OFDELIVERING IT.ANYTIME YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUALLY MOVING TO DENTALCARE.FIRST OF ALL, YOU’VE ALREADY MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY TOPREVENT.SECONDLY, YOU’VE GOT ONE-ON-ONE, YOU’VE GOT AHEALTH PROFESSIONAL WITH APATIENT.THAT’S WAY MORE EXPENSIVE.SO THAT THE ALTERNATIVES, INFACT, ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. WE NEED THEM.WE NEED THOSE OTHER SERVICES,AS I MENTIONED. WE ARE ALREADY INVESTINGADDITIONALLY TO TRY TO PROVIDEADDITIONAL BENEFIT TO CHILDREN AT HIGHEST RISK.SO IT’S NOT ONE THING ONLY.IT’S A COMBINATION OF — OF OUT OF EFFORTS AND THE THINGSTHAT YOU HOLD RESPONSIBILITYFOR AS CITY LEADERS AND WHAT I HOLD THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ASA HEALTH LEADER.>> Alderman John Mar: NO, AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT.MY JOB, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ISTO FOLLOW THE INITIATIVES AND THE DIRECTION FROM MYCONSTITUENTS.THUS FAR, AND THIS THING HAS BEEN LIT UP LIKE YOU WOULDN’TBELIEVE BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE.PROBABLY MORE THAN ANY OTHER ISSUE THAT I’VE COME ACROSS INMY THREE AND A BIT YEARS ONTHIS COUNCIL, IT IS ABOUT 400-1 TO SAY GET THIS OUT OFOUR WATER.AND THE ARGUMENTS THAT I’M HEARING, THERE’S FINANCIALARGUMENTS, OBVIOUSLY.THERE’S THE HEALTH ARGUMENTS ALSO, BUT FOR ME,FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT STRUCK METHE MOST WAS THE MORAL AND ETHICAL QUESTIONS THAT THISPRESENTS, BECAUSE ONE CANNOTREALLY OPT OUT OF THE WATER.CAN YOU?YOU’RE ACTUALLY, IN EFFECT –WE ARE, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, IN EFFECT, MASS MEDICINEINDICATING WITHOUT CONSENT.– MEDICATING WITHOUT CONSENT, AND TO HAVE SOMEBODYFROM A PLEBISCITE OR TO HAVEOUR COUNCIL DICTATING TO CITIZENS REALLY WHERE THEYHAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS IS –IT’S IMMORAL, ISN’T IT? >> WELL, SOME ETHICIST, INFACT, HAVE ARGUED THAT ITWOULD BE IMMORAL TO DO OTHERWISE.THAT IT WOULD BE I AM IMMORALTO DENY THAT BENEFIT TO CALGARIANS.I’M NOT GOING TO ARGUE THAT.THE MOST COGENT AND THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE ETHICS OFFLUORIDATION WAS CONDUCTED BYTHE COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS IN THE U.K. IN — A COUPLE OFYEARS AGO, AND THEY WERESPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC HEALTH ETHICS.SO MUCH OF THE ETHICS THATHAVE GOVERNED HEALTH PROFESSIONALS REALLY HAVE BEENAROUND DIRECT FACE-TO-FACECARE, 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 INTHE PUBLIC HEALTH REALM, BUTTHEY DON’T TRANSLATE PARTICULARLY WELL, BECAUSETHEY’RE — IF YOU LOOK ATAUTONOMY, FOR EXAMPLE, IT’S REALLY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTANDHOW AUTONOMY PLAYS OUT IN ACOMMUNITY. THERE ARE MANY DECISIONS THATARE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT AREUNKNOWN TO ME ABOUT WHAT PRODUCTS — WHAT THINGS AREPUT IN THE PRODUCTS THAT AREIN THEIR STORES. WHAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ME TOBUY.I DIDN’T DECIDE THAT. I CAN CHOOSE THE PRODUCTTHAT’S THERE, BUT I MAY NOTEXACTLY KNOW WHAT’S IN IT. IT’S — YOU KNOW, WE HAVERULES AROUND WHAT’S DISCLOSEDIN A PRODUCT. THEY’RE NOT AS CONCLUSIVE ORAS INCLUSIVE AS, PERHAPS, WEMIGHT WANT, SO THE ISSUE OF AUTONOMY IS ONE THAT THERE’S ALOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT.AND IT’S NOT AS CLEAR AS IT IS IN A MEDICAL KIND OFDECISION-MAKING.IN THE — IN THE REPORT — SO THEY DID A — THEY ADDRESSEDTHE ISSUE OF PUBLIC HEALTH”E.T.”ICS AND WHAT KINDS OF THINGS DO YOU NEED TO HAVE INPLACE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONSIN AN ETHICAL WAY FOR A WHOLE POPULATION AND THEN THEY DID ANUMBER OF CASE STUDIES, ANDONE OF THE CASE STUDIES, HAPPILY, WAS FLUORIDATION.AND THEY DID ADDRESS THEQUESTION OF IS — YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF PATERNALISM, IFYOU WILL, IN ANY STATEJUSTIFIABLE IN THIS SITUATION? IS THE BENEFIT — TO DO THEBENEFITS APPROPRIATELYOUTWEIGH ANY POTENTIAL RISKS? AND THEY DID END UP COMINGDOWN WITH — WITH, YES, THEQUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IS THE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE.DO PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITYTO EXPRESS THEIR WILL ON IT? SO THAT’S REALLY WHERE THEYLANDED.THEY THINK IT SATISFIED EVERY OTHER CRITERIA THAT THEY FELTNEEDED TO BE THERE AND THENTHE FINAL ONE IS IS THERE A GOOD PROCESS, AN OPEN AND FAIRPROCESS, FOR PEOPLE TO HAVEINPUT INTO WHETHER THAT IS APPLIED AT A POPULATION LEVEL?AND THAT’S THIS PART OF THATPROCESS THAT WE’RE INVOLVED IN NOW AND MAYBE WHAT YOU MIGHTCHOOSE TO DO BY ENGAGINGOTHERS TO HELP WITH ANSWERING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOUHAVE.>> Alderman John Mar: NO.AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT.THAT’S SOME — THAT’S VERYHELPFUL. MY LAST QUESTION…BECAUSE ALBERTA’S JUST ONESMALL CORNER OF CANADA. WHEN WE LOOK AROUND THECOUNTRY, OTHER PROVINCES ANDOTHER JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT — THROUGHOUTCANADA HAVE OPTED ALSO TOREMOVE FLUORIDE FROM THEIR WATER.SO, IF WE LOOK AT TWO OF OUREASTERN NEIGHBOURS — THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO AND THEPROVINCE OF QUEBEC — IF WELOOK AT THOSE TWO, ONE OF THEM HAS REMOVED IT COMPLETELY.WHEREVER AS THE OTHER HAS NOT,AND YET, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR — GENERALLY, THEIRRATES OF CAVITIES AND THINGSOF THAT NATURE, VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL.CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT WOULDBE? >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, QUEBECHAS NOT REMOVED FLUORIDE.THERE ARE STILL FLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES.THERE ARE STILL COMMUNITIESTHAT HAVE, OF COURSE, LIKE CALGARY, NATURAL LEVELS OFFLUORIDE IN THEIR WATER.SO — AND NOT EVERY COMMUNITY IN ONTARIO IS FLUORIDATEDOPTIMALLY.SO, IT’S NOT AN EITHER/OR.SO THE COMPARISONS — ANDTHERE HASN’T BEEN A SYSTEMATICCOMPARISON THAT LOOKS AT HOW LONG IS EACH PERSON LIVED INTHAT PARTICULAR COMMUNITY ANDIN THEIR HISTORY OF EXPOSURE. SO THAT HASN’T BEEN DONE, BUTIT’S NOT A PASS YEO EITHER/OR.>> Alderman John Mar: OKAY. WELL, THAT’S ALSO HELPFUL.ALSO, VARIOUS COUNTRIES INEUROPE. IN FACT, VIRTUALLY ALL OFEUROPE 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 ASTHE U.K.AND THERE ARE OTHERS THAT PROVIDE — HAVE OTHERMECHANISMS OF PROVIDINGFLUORIDE ON A MASS LEVEL.SO ADDED IT TO SALT.PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND THANK YOUIN THIS 4-IN MILK AND THEY MAY HAVE OTHER ADDITIONAL PUBLICHEALTH PROGRAMMING WHERECHILDREN ARE — HAVE FLUORIDE VARNISHES AND SO ON.>> Alderman John Mar: RIGHT.>> SO EUROPE IS NOT A FLUORIDE-FREE ZONE, BY ANYSTRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.>> Alderman John Mar: VERY WELL.BUT YOU CAN — YOU’RESUGGESTING THAT THEY HAVE THESE TOPICAL TREATNTS:VARNISHES.AND THEY’VE ADDED IT TO CERTAIN PRODUCTS.WHERE YOU CAN OPT IN OR OPTOUT, AS YOU WISH. IS THAT RIGHT?>> SOME COUNTRIES, THAT’S THECASE, YES. >> Alderman John Mar: OKAY.NOW, I APPRECIATE THAT,BECAUSE IF YOU WANTED TO — IF YOU WANTED TO — YOU COULDDIRECT YOURSELF TOWARDS THESEPROGRAMS, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE YOU WITH THIS TYPE OF FLOORFLUORIDE 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 SAYINGTHAT THERE ARE PLACES WHERE IT IS FLOOR — THERE IS FLOOR AIDAVAILABLE.IT’S NOT A FLUORIDE-FROOEN ZONE, BUT YOU HAVE THEOPPORTUNITY TO JUMP IN OR JUMPOUT, AS REQUIRED.IS THAT WHAT I’M HEARING?>> CORRECT.HERE IN CALGARY. AS YOU WAVED YOUR BOTTLE OFWATER, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TODO IT. IT MIGHT BE ANOTHER QUESTION,IN FACT, YOU MIGHT WANT TOEXPLORE IF YOU ENGAGE OTHERS TO HELP WITH THIS REVIEW.YOU KNOW, I’M SURE, THAT WHENEDMONTON INTRODUCED FLUORIDATION BACK IN — ITHINK THE ’60s, THEY ACTUALLYDID SAO HAVE A TAP AVAILABLE WHERE PEOPLE COULD GO AFTERTHE TREATMENT OF THE WATER WASBEFORE THE FLOOR AID WAS ADDED SO THAT WAS AN OPTION THATTHEY MAINTAINED FOR A PERIODOF TIME AND THEN DISCONTINUED BECAUSE IT WASN’T BEINGACCESSED SO THAT MIGHT BESOMETHING YOU’D WANT TO EXPLORE HERE.AGAIN, THESE ARE THE QUESTIONSTHAT SHOULD BE ASKED AND BE PART OF YOUR DECISION.>> Alderman John Mar: OKAY.AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN HERE, BECAUSEOBVIOUSLY THERE’S ASIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF COUNCIL HERE.THERE’S A VERY LARGE AUDIENCE.AND THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT CALGARIANS AND ALBERTANS AREVERY, VERY INTERESTED IN.BUT — AND SORRY TO PULL A COLOMBO, BUT MY LAST THING WASTHAT OUT OF THAT $1,000, YOUDON’T DISPUTE THE NUMBER AND YOU DON’T DISPUTE THE FACTTHAT WE ARE, IN EFFECT,FLUSHING ABOUT $995 DOWN THE TOILET?>> I’M NOT REAL GOOD AT DOINGNUMBERS IN MY HEAD, SO…I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TOTHAT.>> Alderman John Mar: THANK YOU.>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD: THANK YOU.I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OFQUESTIONS. DO YOU — IN SOME OF THE MANY,MANY, MANY E-MAILS THAT I’VEHAD ON THIS, THERE WAS QUESTIONS IN ONE OF THEM ABOUTTHE ACTUAL RATE OF FLUOROCIESAND THE INDICATIONS WERE THAT — THAT THERE MAY BE SOMEMISDIAGNOSES, THAT SOME THINGS,DENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE BEING DIAGNOSED AS FLUOROSIS WERENOT, IN FACT, FLUOROSIS ORRELATED TO THE FLUORIDE. DO YOU KNOW OFF HAND WHAT THERATE OF FLUOROSIS IS AS ARESULT OF FLUORIDE? >> IN CALGARY?>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD: YES.>> I DON’T.I’M NOT SURE IF Dr. SCHWARZ ISGOING TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT ONTHAT 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 ISABOUT THE PERCENTAGE REDUCTION IN CAVITIES AS A RESULT OF THEFLUORIDE, IF WE’RE ABLE TOACTUALLY GET A HANDLE ON THAT. >> WELL, WE — WE HAVE DONESURVEYS AROUND DECAYED,MISSING, FILLED TEETH, AND SINCE WE — SINCE WEINTRODUCED FLUORIDATION, THERESULTS ARE MIXED. IT’S NOT A CLEAR ANDCONSISTENT DROP.WHICH IS NOT SURPRISING, BECAUSE OF — AS I’VEMENTIONED AND IT’S BEEN REPEATEDBY OTHERS, THERE ARE MANY FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THEDEVELOPMENT OR AVOIDANCE OFDENTAL CARRIES. FLUORIDATION IS ONE HELPFULMEASURE THAT CAN BE ACCESSIBLETO ALL OF US. IT’S NOT SUFFICIENT.IT’S NOT THE ONLY ONE.>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD: OKAY. YOU’VE TALKED ABOUT DO NO HARMAS BEING AN UNDERPINNING OFYOUR HIPPOCRATIC OATH.AND I’M WONDERING WHEN WE HAVECONFLICTING RESEARCH ANDTHERE’S THAT, YOU KNOW, OFF CHANCE THAT THERE IS SOMETHINGOUT THERE AND WE’VE HEARDPERSONAL EXPERIENCES FROM TWO COUNCILORS.HOW — HOW DO YOU BALANCE THATONE-OFF OR ANOMALY AGAINST THE DO NO HARM.LIKE, AT WHAT POINT DO YOU SAYTHAT THE BROAD PUBLIC BENEFIT IS BETTER EVEN THOUGH A FEWPEOPLE DROP OFF THE TABLE?I’M KIND OF PUTTING IT IN A BAD WAY THERE, BUT…>> WELL, YOU HAVE TO LOOK ATTHAT CLAIM, AND THEN YOU WEIGH IT AGAINST — WELL, DOES ITMAKE SENSE?IS THERE BIOLOGICAL PLAUSIBILITY?IS THERE A DOSE RESPONSE?IS THERE CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER RESEARCH?THERE’S A WHOLE LIFT OFCRITERIA CALLED BRADFORD HILLS IS ONE OF THE SORT OF COMMONSET OF CRITERIA BY WHICH WEEXAMINE CAUSALITY.SO YOU EVALUATE IT AND THENYOU PLACE IT AGAINST THE OTHEREVIDENCE F IT’S COMPELLING, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THATIT’S REPLICATED.INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, RICHARD DOLL, WHO WAS A PHYSICIAN INTHE — IN THE UNITED KINGDOM,WHO REALLY LED THE CHARGE AGAINST TOBACCO AS ACARCINOGEN, HIS FIRST PAPERTHAT LINKED CANCER — CIGARETTE SMOKING WITH CANCERWAS REJECTED BY “THE BRITISHMEDICAL JOURNAL” BECAUSE IT WAS A ONE-OFF.THEY DIDN’T ACCEPT IT UNTIL ITWAS REPLICATED IN ANOTHER STUDY.SO IT’S THAT LEVEL OF RIGORTHAT WE NEED TO DO BEFORE WE ACT ON SUPPOSITION ORPOSSIBILITIES OR WHAT-IFs.>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD: MM-HMM.I’VE HEARD IN THESE E-MAILSTHAT I’VE GOT, THAT FLUORIDE HAS — I THINK WE HEARDEARLIER ABOUT A CASE WITHARTHRITIS.IT SEEMS TO ME THAT FLUORIDEIS BEING BLAMED FOR EVERYDISEASE THAT DOESN’T HAVE A KNOWN CAUSE, AND CAN YOUCOMMENT ON THAT OR…?ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY RELATIONSHIPS TO ANY OF THESEISSUES?>> WELL, AGAIN, THERE ARE LOTS OF CLAIMS OF HARM BEING MADE,AND THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGSTHAT MAKES THE WHOLE ISSUE TROUBLING FOR YOU ASDECISIONMAKERS AND FOR THEPUBLIC, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WITH SEEMINGLYREASONABLE CREDENTIALS MAKINGTHESE CLAIMS. SO WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THEM,AND WE NEED TO STUDY THEM ANDWE NEED TO WEIGH THEM AGAINST THE OTHER EVIDENCE.IT’S DIFFICULT, AS I SAIDEARLIER, TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE.>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD:YEAH. >> SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ITALL TOGETHER AND THEN MAKE ADECISION ON THE BALANCE OF THAT INFORMATION.>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD:MM-HMM. THANK YOU.MY LAST QUESTION IS BACK TOTHIS IDEA OF HAVING AN EXPERT PANEL.DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTTO ADD ON THE QUESTION OF HOW WE ENSURE THAT THE PANEL ISUNBIASED GOING INTO THIS — IFWE DECIDE TO CREATE THIS? >> WELL, I THINK WHAT I WOULDADD IS THAT IT’S AROUND THETRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCESS.SO, IF YOU’VE HAD A GOODPROCESS TO IDENTIFY WHAT THEQUESTIONS ARE THAT YOU WISH TO HAVE ASKED, YOU ARE VERY CLEARIN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW ORWHAT PROCESSES ARE GOING TO BE UNDERTAKEN TO ANSWER THOSEQUESTIONS AND AN EXPERT PANELMIGHT — AS I SAID, MIGHT BE ONE OF THE WAYS THAT YOU DOTHAT.THERE MIGHT BE OTHER RESOURCE THAT IS YOU’D WANT TO TAPINTO.YOU MIGHT EVEN WANT TO COMMISSION A STUDY OF SOMEDESCRIPTION OR ANOTHER.BUT IF YOU’RE A PARENT — OR TRANSPARENT ABOUT THATTHROUGHOUT AND PEOPLE HAVE ANOPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT AROUND THESE CITE CRITERIA ORTHE RULES THAT YOU’RE GOING TOPLAY BY, THEN I THINK THAT OUGHT TO GO A LONG WAY ININCREASING OUR CONFIDENCE THATPEOPLE ARE BEING HONEST AND ETHICAL.AND, AGAIN, I WOULD REPEATWHAT WAS SAID ABOUT, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO TRUST.YOU KNOW.I TRUST YOU AS MY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO BE HONESTAND ETHICAL AND TO WORK HARD.YOU ARE WORKING HARD ON THIS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU PEOPLEHAVE MADE SURE THEY’RE WORKINGHARD 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 IWOULD LIKE TO EXPECT THAT YOUHAVE A SIMILAR FAITH AND TRUST IN ME, BECAUSE THAT’SESSENTIALLY FOR ME TO DO MYJOB WELL, THAT I HAVE CREDIBILITY WITH YOU AND THATYOU CAN TRUST WHAT I’M SAYINGTO BE BEST — BASED ON MY BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THIS OR ANYOTHER QUESTION THAT I MIGHTCOME BEFORE YOU.>> Alderman Gael MacLEOD:THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>> YOU MENTIONED IN THE RURAL COMMUNITIES, YOU FOUND WELLSWITH TOO MUCH FLUORIDE.HOW MUCH TOO MUCH? MAYBE I CAN SHORTCUT THATQUESTION A LITTLE BIT EASIERINSTEAD. WITH THE LAST PRESENTER, WEWERE DISCUSSING DOSE AND THESWEET SPOT OF WHAT THE DOSAGE, THE CORRECT DOSAGE IS, AND I’MSTILL TRYING TO WRAP MY MINDAROUND THAT.IF WE’RE PUTTING.7 MILLIGRAMS INTO THE WATER,THAT’S WHAT WE’RE DISCUSSING DOING, WHAT — HOW MANYLITRES — SO, THE AVERAGEPERSON GENERALLY DRINKS THREE LITRES A DAY?THAT’S CORRECT IS THATCORRECT? >> I DON’T THINK IT’S THATMUCH.>> I’M ACTUALLY LOOKING FEW FOR THE CORRECT ANSWER ONTHAT.>> LESS THAN THAT. >> TWO LITRES?>> A LITRE, A LITRE AND AHALF. >> SO WE SHOULD BE GETTING ONEAND A HALF MILLIGRAMS OFFLUORIDE A DAY, IS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS.AND THAT’S REALLY THE NUMBERI’M TRYING TO GET AT.SO THAT’S APPROXIMATELY THECORRECT DOSAGE?>> I THINK SO. >> OKAY.THANK YOU.IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT FLOOR FLUORIDE CAN BE ABSORBEDTHROUGH THE SKIN, THROUGHBATHS, SHOWERS, ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES?HAS THERE BEEN ANY STUDIESWHATSOEVER IN 60 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION TO SEE IF THERE’SANY EPIDERMAL SEEPAGE, SO TOSPEAK? >> I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TOTHAT.>> SO I CAN — AFTER 60 YEARS, YOU’D THINK SOMEBODY WOULDHAVE DONE THAT.>> I DON’T KNOW.IT’S — THERE’S AN AWFUL LOTOF 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 METHAT IT WOULD BE ABSORBED THROUGH THE SKIN AND SO — IMEAN, I’M QUITE HAPPY TO –>> WELL, IT’S JUST — I MEAN, WE REALIZE THAT THE SKINABSORBS PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHINGELSE, SO, WHY — >> IT DOESN’T, ACTUALLY.THE SKIN IS A VERY EFFECTIVEBARRIER FOR MANY THINGS. >> OKAY.FAIR ENOUGH.AFTER 60 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION, THE DEBATE STILL SEEMS TO RAGEON AN ONGOING BASIS.WHY, IN YOUR OPINION? >> WELL, THAT’S WHAT I TRIEDTO ADDRESS IN MY COMMENTS, SOI’M SORRY IF I DIDN’T EXPRESS MYSELF WELL ENOUGH.I THINK IT IS THIS ISSUE OFRISK AND RISK TOLERANCE. ALDERMAN STEVENSON MADE THEPOINT ABOUT, THIS ISSOMETHING — I HOPE IT WAS ALDERMAN STEVENSON.PERHAPS IT WAS ALDERMANCOMPETING.>> SOMEONE OVER THERE.IS IT DOESN’T MATTER.>> ABOUT WATER BEING THIS PRECIOUS THING THAT — AND ISAID THAT I BELIEVE IT’SSOMETHING THAT’S — IT’S A RIGHT TO US AS CITIZENS.SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS JUSTGIVE IT THAT MUCH MORE EMOTIVE IMPACT, AND THAT’S FINE.THAT’S LIFE, AND IT JUST MEANSTHAT WE HAVE TO BE — WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESSREGULARLY.WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT — THAT THOSE OF US IN OURRESPECTIVE ROLES, — IN HEALTHOR IN GOVERNMENT — WE DO STAY ON TOP OF THESE ISSUES.>> OKAY.>> SO THAT’S FINE. >> DO YOU CONSIDER STRESS –I’VE HEARD MANY TIMES THATSTRESS IS ONE OF THE LEADING CAUSES OF HEALTH PROBLEMS INTHE WESTERN WORLD.IS THAT A REASONABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT?>> STRESS IS A BIG THING INOUR LIVES.>> OKAY.WOULD THE CONCEPT THAT A VASTMAJORITY — A VAST MINORITY — A VAST NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN OURPOPULATION THAT BELIEVE THATFLUORIDE IS BAD AND HAVING IT IN OUR WATER CAUSES THEMSTRESS?>> 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 THATSTRESS — THAT THAT COULD BE A CAUSE OF STRESS?>> NO.>> THAT’S A SUPPOSITION? >> AND I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWERTO THAT.I KNOW THAT WHEN I HAVE — WHEN I WAS YOUNGER — AND ICAN’T SAY WHEN MY CHILDREN HADCAVITIES, BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T. BECAUSE WHEN MY PARENTS HADCARRIES, WHEN I HAD CARRIES ASA CHILD GROWING UP IN MONTREAL, WHERE THERE WAS NOFLUORIDATION, THAT WAS STRESS.LET ME TELL YOU. THAT PAIN:THE COST THAT MY PARENTS HADTO 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 YOURPRESENTATIONS.THEY’RE VERY THOUGHTFUL. I ALSO WANTED TO THANK YOU FORONE OF YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOUJUST MADE. SEVERAL COMMENTS I’VE RECEIVEDFROM CALGARIANS WHO WERE –DIDN’T AGREE WITH ME BRINGING THIS MOTION FORWARD SUGGESTEDTHAT WE’VE BEEN THROUGH ALL OFTHIS AND AREN’T WE DONE WITH THIS DISCUSSION?AND WHAT YOU SAID WAS THAT WESHOULD CONTINUE TO REVIEW THESE THINGS, AND I WANTED TOTHANK YOU FOR THAT.I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO — OTHERWISE WEWOULD STILL HAVE BISPHENOL AAS AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTANCE, THAT’S NOW UBIQUITOUS OR THEBIG DEBATE NOW IS PHTHALATES,SO WE’RE ALWAYS LEARNING AND WE SHOULD BE KEEPING ABREASTOF THIS NEW INFORMATION.>> THIS IS OUR PRIVILEGE TO BE IN A DEMOCRACY.>> Alderman Druh Farrell:THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU, DOCTOR.FOR THE AUDIENCE, ANYBODY THATHAS — THAT WISHES TO SPEAK THAT HAS NOT SIGNED THESPEAKER’S LIST THAT IS ON THESPEAKER’S PODIUM OVER THERE… WE ARE NOW RECESSED UNTIL1:05.CAPTIONING OF THIS MEETING IS PROVIDED AS A COMMUNICATIONACCESSIBILITY MEASURE AND ISNOT INTENDED AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.IF INACCURACIES OCCUR, IT MAYBE DUE TO HUMAN ERROR, TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIESOR AN INABILITY ON THE PARTOF THE WRITER TO HEAR OR UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEINGSAID.WHILE BEST EFFORTS ARE MADE TO DOCUMENT AS CLOSELYAS POSSIBLE WHAT IS BEINGSAID, THE CAPTIONS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS A CERTIFIEDACCURATE RECORD OFTHE PROCEEDINGS. >> OKAY.CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.THE NEXT SPEAKER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FORWARD — I SHOULDLET YOU KNOW WE’RE ON SPEAKERNUMBER EIGHT OF 41. SO WE GOT A LONG WAY TO GO.SO MY NEXT SPEAKER IS MICHELLEROBINSON. 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 CASEYOU’D LIKE ONE.I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR GIVING THE WHOLE PUBLIC A CHANCE TOSPEAK TODAY.I CAME HERE TODAY ADVOCATING FOR MY FAMILY.MY HUSBAND WANTED TO BE HERETODAY BUT HE HAD TO WORK.THERE IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TOPROVE THAT ADDING FLUORIDE TOOUR WATER IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO MAINTAIN OUR HEALTH.BOTH ORALLY AND OTHERWISE.WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR SCIENTIFIC DEBATE ONTHE RISKS AND BENEFITS OFFLUORIDATION, DESPITE OUR MEDICAL AND DENTAL ASSOCIATION’SOBJECTIONS.TO NAME AT LEAST ONE WHOLE BOOK DEVOTED TO THE SUBJECT IRECOMMEND “THE CASE AGAINSTFLUORIDE: HOW HAZARDOUS WASTE ENDED UP IN OUR DRINKING WATER,AND THE BAD SCIENCE AND POWERFULPOLITICS THAT KEPT IT THERE” BY THREE SCIENTISTS.Dr.PAUL CONET, Dr. JAMESBECK, AND Dr. PENNING MICKOLM. SORRY IF I MISPRONOUNCED.THAT THE MEDICAL AND DENTALASSOCIATIONS HAVE PLAYED POLITICS ON THIS ISSUE.IF THERE IS THAT MUCH EVIDENCETO ILLUSTRATE THE DOWN SIDES OF FLUORIDATION TO MAKE A BOOK, CANWE PLEASE STOP PLAYING POLITICSON THE CONCEPT THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO DEBATE.THERE IS A DEBATE AND WE NEED TOLISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE THAT HASN’T BEEN ADVOCATED FOR.NOT EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OFINGESTING THIS TOXIN. TO THOSE WHO HAVE LEGITIMATEHEALTH ISSUES, SPECIFICALLYKIDNEY ISSUES, WE ARE MAKING THEIR HEALTH ISSUES MUCH HARDERTO OVERCOME.FLUORIDE EXASPERATES CHRONIC KIDNEY ISSUES.IF FLUORIDATION IS WANTED FORTHE WILLING, THERE ARE OPTIONS.RATHER THAN MASS WATERCONSUMPTION.THOSE OTHER OPTIONS INCLUDE TABLETS, TOOTHPASTE, WITHFLUORIDATION.AND OR FLUORIDATION AT THE DENTAL OFFICES.EVEN FORMULA FOR BABIES HAVE AHIGH SOURCE OF FLUORIDE TO THE POINT OF CONCERN.I WOULD ASK THESE PEOPLE WHOSUPPORT FLUORIDATION TO CONSIDER THE RIGHTS OF THE UNWILLING.AS A CALGARIAN IN A FREE SOCIETYI SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION ON HOW TO APPROACH MYHEALTH AND HEALTH TO MY FAMILY.FORCING EVERYONE TO DRINK A CHEMICAL, DRUG OR TOXIN GOESAGAINST THE WHOLE IDEA OFFREEDOM AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.AS A PARENT I TRY TO ELIMINATEFOOD DYES, PROCESSED FOODS, PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES,CHEMICALS, CARCINOGENS AND MANYOTHER TOXINS FOUND IN OUR FOOD, WATER, AND SUPPLEMENT CHOICES.EVEN OUR AIR LOCALLY IS POLLUTEDWITH SILVER IODINE, CONSIDERED A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, A PRIORITYPOLLUTANT AND A TOXIC POLLUTANTBIT EPA ALL IN THE NAME OF HAIL SUPPRESSION.MANY OF THESE THINGS I DON’THAVE A CHOICE ON AND I WISH I DID.FLUORIDE IS ANOTHER TOXIN I’MTRYING TO HAVE A CHOICE ON AND TRYING TO ELIMINATE.I’M ASKING YOU AS A PARENT, AS AWIFE O, AS A PET OWNER, A NURSIG MOTHER, AND A CITIZEN WANTINGCLEAN WATER TO PLEASE TAKE THEFLUORIDE OUT OF THE CITY WATER.TO HAVE TAXPAYERS SPEND MONEY ONTHIS IS DISGRACEFUL ANDUNNECESSARY. TO FORCE THIS ON MY FAMILYWITHOUT OUR CONSENT ISUNETHICAL. PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND WHILEMAKING YOUR DECISION AND THANKYOU FOR YOUR TIME. PEACEFULLY, MICHELLE ROBINSON.>> THANK YOU.IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, MISS ROBINSONTHANKS FOR COMING DOWN AND DOINGYOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU.>> NEXT SPEAKER ON THE LIST ISSTAN NICOL. JUST HOLD ON A SECOND.ALDERMAN, CARRA, YOU DON’T HAVETO STAND.WE’RE IN COMMITTEE.>> I’D LIKE TO DECLARE ANINTEREST. IT’S HARD NOT TO STAND IN THISCHAMBER.>> Mr. NICOL. >> CHAIRMAN.MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS STAN NICOL.I’M A MEMBER FOR THE COALITIONOF SENIORS’ ADVOCATES’ ASSOCIATION AND ITS PASTVICE-PRESIDENT.I AM APPALLED THAT WITH THE INTELLIGENCE, EDUCATION ANDINFORMATION AVAILABLE BEINGPOSTED EVERYWHERE WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO INGEST ANDPROMOTE WATER TREATED WITH SUCHA DANGEROUS CHEMICAL AS FLUORIDE?MY WIFE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTIONTHE MEETING A– THE MEANING ACCORDING TO THE CANADIAN DIXARYOF FLUORIDE.FLUORIDE IS A BINARY COMPOUND OF FLORINE WITH ANOTHER ELEMENT.IT IS HIGHLY CORROSIVE,POISONOUS, GASEOUS, HALOGEN ELEMENT.THE MOST REACTIVE OF ALL THEELEMENTS. THIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE AND AMATTER OF ONE’S CHOICE WHICH ISBEING 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 ARIGHT TO EXPOSE US TO SECONDHANDSMOKE, SO SHOULD THOSE AGAINST FLUORIDE BE EXPOSED TO CHEMICALIN OUR WATER SUPPLY.CAN ALL THE FLUORIDE EXPERTS GUARANTEE THAT NONE OF THETHYROID, KIDNEY, HIP FRACTURES,BRAIN TUMORS, OSTEOPOROSIS, CANCER AND OTHER HEALTHCONDITIONS WERE NOT CASE ‘CAUSEDBY THE INGESTION OF FLUORIDE FROM OUR WATER SUPPLY OVER APERIOD OF YEARS?IT BUILDS UP IN OUR BODIES.WHAT ABOUT ALL THE COSTS TO OURHEALTH CARE ON THE ADVERSEEFFECTS CAUSED BY THE INGESTION OF FLUORIDE?ARE OUR LIVES BEING SHORTENED BYINGESTING FLUORIDE? WE DON’T EVER HEARD THE SIDEEFFECTS OF INGESTING FLUORIDEFROM THE PRO-FLUORIDATIONISTS. WHY?WE ARE KEPT BY ALL THE FOOD ANDDRINK MADE WITH FLUORIDATED WATER, EATING AND DRINKINGBEVERAGES IN RESTAURANTS WITHFLUORIDATED WATER ALSO PUTS US AT RISK.WE CAN’T ESCAPE FROM IT NOMATTER WHAT WE DO. ISN’T THAT OVERKILL?AND IRRESPONSIBLE?SERIOUSLY. I ONCE ENJOYED CALGARY WATER ANDBRAGGED ABOUT ITS GOOD TASTE.SHORTLY AFTER FLUORIDE WAS INTRODUCED TO OUR WATER SUPPLYMY STOMACH REACTED TO ITADVERSELY. TBIERSED TO BUY NON-FLUORIDATEDBOTTLED WATER AND DISPENSERS,COSTING ME THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OVER ALMOST 20 YEARS.AND I AM STILL PAYING FOR CITYWATER. AS ALDERMAN MAR WAS SAYING, WHATGOD IS FLUORIDE IN FLUSHING OURTOILETS, WASHING DISHES, CLOTHES, WATERING OUR LAWNS ANDGUARDNESS AND WASHING VEHICLES.WHAT WASTE OF OUR TAX MONEY TO WHICH I STRONGLY OBJECT.THEY ARE ALSO POLLUTING OURRIVERS WITH FLUORIDE.WHAT GOOD IS FLUORIDE TO PEOPLEWITH DENTURES?THEY DON’T NEED FLUORIDE. WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WITHALLERGIES?SHOULD THEY BE IGNORED? MOUTH RINSES CONTAIN FLUORIDE.TOOTHPASTE IS HEAVILYFLUORIDATED. DENTISTS GIVE FLUORIDETREATMENTS.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 THECITY WOULD BE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR ACTIONS, COSTING USEVEN FURTHER.WITH ALL THIS FLUORIDE BEING CONSUMED AND THE GOOD IT’SSUPPOSED TO DO, THEN DENTISTSSHOULD BE LEANING ON THEIR DRILLS WAITING FOR PATIENTS.INSTEAD YET THEY SEEM TO BE VERYBUSY AS OBTAINING AN APPOINTMENT TAKES LONG PERIODS OF TIME.OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE REMOVINGOR RESISTING FLUORIDATING THEIR WATER SUPPLY.WHY IS CALGARY SO BACKWARD INNOT DOING SO LIKEWISE? LOOK WHAT FLUORIDE –FLUORIDATION — FLUORIDE ISDOING TO THE DISPENSING EQUIPMENT.NOW IT WILL COST US MILLIONS TOREPLACE IF FLUORIDE, WHAT IT’S DOING TO THE DISPENSINGEQUIPMENT, THEN HOW IS ITAFFECTING OUR BODIES? NOW IT WILL COST US MILLIONS TOREPLACE THIS EQUIPMENT.NOT TO MENTION THE $750.000 PER YEAR FOR THE FLUORIDE.WE DO NOT NEED THIS COST TO OURTREASURY.NOR TO OUR HEALTH RISK.THE EVIDENCE AGAINST FLUORIDEHAS BEEN CONTINUALLY MOUNTING. WHY ISN’T THIS EVIDENCE ANDCOMMON SENSE PREVAILING HERE?TAKE FLUORIDE OUT OF OUR WATER. THE PAPERS WRITTEN BY Dr.RICHARD FOCUS, WHICH IS SOME OFIT HERE, THE LATE Dr. JOHN CAHOON “WHY I CHANGE MY MINDABOUT FLUORIDATION”, AND Dr.JIM BECK AS WELL AS OTHERS ARE PROFESSIONALS WHOSE EXPERTISEAND ADVICE SHOULD BE TAKENSERIOUSLY. WITH THE KIND OF DETERMINEDINFORMATION NOW AVAILABLE IDON’T SEE HOW ANY MUNICIPALITY DARES TO PUT FLUORIDE IN OURWATER 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 YOURPRESENTATION. THE NEXT SPEAKER ON MY LIST ISLUKE 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 HEALTHOFFICER FOR ALBERTA HEALTHSERVICES. I DRINK FLUORIDATED TAP WATEREVERY DAY.ORAL HEALTH IS A KEY COMPONENT OF GENERAL HEALTH.YOU CANNOT SEPARATE THE HEALTHOF YOUR MOUTH FROM THE HEALTH OF YOUR BODY.COMMON SENSE TELLS US THAT FEWERCAVITIES MEANS FEWER DAYS MISSED FROM SCHOOL, FEWER INSTANCES OFPAIN AND SWELLING.BETTER ABILITY TO CHEW FOOD. AND BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.THERE IS GOOD SCIENCE SHOWINGTHAT WATER FLUORIDATION WORKS TO REDUCE TOOTH DECAY.THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCEINDICATES THAT IT HAS TWO POSITIVE DENTAL EFFECTS.NUMBER ONE: IT INCREASES THENUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE NEVER HAD DECAY.I’M GOING TO SHOW YOU PAGETWELVE FROM THE BRITISH SYSTEMIC REVIEW.WHICH SHOWS 30 DIFFERENTRESEARCH METHODS IN CITIES THAT STARTED WATER FLUORIDATION WHERETHEY DIDN’T HAVE THEM.THE VERTICAL BLACK LINE SHOWS — AT ZERO MEANS THERE’S BEEN NOCHSM THE COLOURED BARS SHOW THEPERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE ZERO CAVITIES.MOST STUDIES SHOW THAT AFTERFLUORIDATION STARTS THE PROPORTION OF CHILDREN WITH NODECAY INCREASES.THEY’RE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE “NO CHANGE” LINE.THE SECOND EFFECT THATFLUORIDATED WATER HAS IS IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF DECAY INCHILDREN WITH CAVITIES.THE SECOND PAGE I’LL SHOW SU PAGE 16 FROM THE BRITISHSYSTEMIC REVIEW THAT SHOWS SEVENMEASURES OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN FLUORIDE WAS REMOVED FROM AFLUORIDATED COMMUNITY.THE VERTICAL LINE AT 0 AGAIN SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO EFFECT.THE COLOURED BARS ON THE LEFT OFTHE LINE SHOW THAT AFTER FLUORIDATION STOPS, CHILDRENHAVE MORE CAVITIES.CALGARY CHILDREN HAVE BETTER DENTAL HEALTH SINCE WATERFLUORIDATION 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 BOOSTAND CONTROL THE NATURAL LEVEL AT 0.7 PARTS PER MILLION.ENOUGH TO BENEFIT DENTAL HEALTH.FLUORIDATION IS SAFE EXPESKTIVE AND IMPROVES — AND EFFECTIVEAND IMPROVES HEALTH OF TEETH.YOU MAY HAVE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT DENTAL FLUOROSIS.AND HOW IT IS CAUSED BY WATERFLUORIDATION.FIRST OF ALL, FLUOROSIS IS ANAESTHETIC MARKING OF TEETH.NOT A HEALTH PROBLEM. IT IS TYPICALLY A WHITISHDISCOLOURATION OF ENAMEL.THE BIGGEST RISK FOR ENAMEL FLUOROSIS COMES FROM USING DROPSOR TABLETS OF FLUORIDE ORUNCONTROLLED AMOUNTS OF TOOTHPASTE.THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONSCALGARY HAD AN EXPERT PANEL REVIEW IN 1998.DENTAL FLUOROSIS RANGES FROMVERY MILD TO SEVERE.WE DO NOT FIND SEVERE LEVELS OFDENTAL FLUOROSIS IN CALGARY.AND IT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEVELS OF FLOOR AID THAT WEUSE IN — OF FLUORIDE THAT WEUSE IN WATER FLUORIDATION. CALGARY IS ALREADY AT THE LOWESTLEVEL OF WATER FLUORIDATIONRECOMMENDED BY HEALTH CANADA’S EXPERT PANEL.I’M GOING TO SHOW YOU A PAGETHAT SHOWS THE DENTAL FLUOROSIS RATES IN CALGARY AND ACROSS THEPROVINCE.THE BLUE LINE — THE HEAVY BLUE LINE SHOWS THE NUMBER OFCHILDREN WHO HAVE 0 DENTALFLUOROSIS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT’S ONTHE INCREASE.THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO BE HAVING.THE GREEN AND RED LINES SHOW THELEVELS OF DENTAL FLUOROSIS THAT ARE EITHER OF VERY MILD CONCERNOR MODERATE CONCERN.AND BOTH OF THOSE LINES ARE DROPPING OVER THE YEARS.AND THEN THE FINAL PAGE THATI’LL SHOW YOU IS THE LEVEL OF DENTAL FLOOR OWES NEWS CALGARYCOMPARED WITH THE PALLISERHEALTH REGION. I USE PALLISER HEALTH REGIONBECAUSE WHEN WE DID THE SURVEYTHERE WE HAD A SIMILAR CALIBRATOR.AND THE COMPARISON WITH WATERFLUORIDATION IS QUITE DIFFERENT. SO THE LEVEL OF COMMUNITIES INTHE PALLISER HEALTH REGION WITHOPTIMAL FLUORIDE WATER IS LESS THAN 10% THE POPULATION.YOU CAN SEE THAT THE LEVEL OFDENTAL FLUOROSIS IS ALMOST IDENTICAL.AND THAT’S JUST IN ANOTHER PARTOF OUR OWN PROVINCE.MANY THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN TOTHE DEVELOPMENT OF ENAMEL ONPERMANENT TEETH TO CAUSE THINGS THAT LOOK LIKE DENTAL FLUOROSIS,TAKING ANTIBIOTICS, HAVING HIGHFEVERS, HAVING AN ABSCESS ON THE PRIMARY TOOTH.FALLING AND BUMPING THE PRIMARYTOOTH. OFTEN ALL OF THESE THINGS ARELUMPED TOGETHER AND CALLEDDENTAL FLUOROSIS. SOME CHILDREN HAVE THESE EFFECTSON ENAMEL WITHOUT ANY GOODREASON. WE’VE BEEN ASKED WHY NOT JUSTGIVE TOOTHPASTE OR FLUORIDETREATMENTS TO AT-RISK PEOPLE? THERE IS NO SIMPLE WAY TO FINDAND REACH THE PEOPLE WHO AREMOST AT RISK OF TOOTH DECAY.BUT FLUORIDATED WATER ISAVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.IT DOESN’T STIGMATIZE OUR FELLOW CITIZENS WHO MIGHT NOT HAVEENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DENTALCARE OR PREVENTIVE SERVICES. OR MAY NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO BRUSHAT ALL.I WOULD SUGGEST MAKING THE EASY CHOICE A GOOD CHOICE.DRINK TAP WATER.BY FLUORIDATING THE COMMUNITY SAYS THAT IT VALUES THE DENTALHEALTH OF ALL ITS RESIDENTS.THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?ALDERMAN MacLEOD?>> SORRY. UM, I GUESS — IF I’M LOOKING ATTHIS CHART, AM I TO UNDERSTANDTHAT A RATE OF — ACTUALLY, YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT OUR RATE OFFLUOROSIS IS?THE PERCENTAGE IS? ROUGHLY?>> IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CHART,THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF DENTAL FLUOROSISIS 69%.>> RIGHT, SO — >> SO 31% MIGHT HAVE SOMEEVIDENCE OF DENTAL FLUOROSIS.>> AND THAT WOULD BE FLUORIDE RELATED AS OPPOSED TO OTHERISSUES THAT CAUSE TEETH TO LOOKLIKE FLUOROSIS? >> NO.IT WILL BE ALL OF THOSE THINGSROLLED UP TOGETHER.SO, HEALTH CANADA RECENTLY DID ACANADIAN HEALTH MEASURES SURVEYTHAT LOOKED AT DENTAL FLUOROSIS SPECIFICALLY WITH VERY CAREFULLYCALIBRATED OPERATORS.THEY LOOKED AT THE POPULATION ACROSS CANADA AND INCLUDED ABOUT1100 CHILDREN.10% OF THOSE CHILDREN WERE IN ALBERTA.AND THAT INCLUDED A SITE INEDMONTON AND A SITE IN RED DEER. BOTH OF THOSE COMMUNITIES AREFLUORIDATED.THE CANADIAN HEALTH MEASURES SURVEY DID NOT FIND ANY CHILDRENWOULD MODERATE DENTAL FLUOROSIS.SO SOME OF THESE NUMBERS THAT WE’RE GETTING IS JUST ON THEBASIS OF HOW OUR PEOPLE WERECALIBRATED. AND WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IUNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY.YOU’RE SAYING THEALT CANADASTUDY THAT WAS RECENTLY DONESHOWED NO DENTAL FLUOROSIS IN RED DEER AND EDMONTON FROM THEFLUORIDE WATER?>> FORGIVE ME. NO MODERATE DENTAL FLUOROSIS.SO THERE WAS VERY MILD AND MILDDENTAL 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 SAY31%, MEAN — MAY INCLUDE A LOTOF OTHER THINGS THEN. >> YES.>> WHAT ABOUT REDUCTION INCAVITIES? DO YOU HAVE ANY NUMBERS ON THAT?>> IF WE LOOK AGAIN AT THESYSTEMIC REVIEW — SO WE LOOK AT THE GOOD STUDIES THAT ARE ALLROLLED UP TOGETHER, THENUMBER — OR THE PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE NO DECAYWHATSOEVER PROBABLY INCREASES BYABOUT 15%. THAT’S GREAT, BECAUSE THESE AREKIDS WHO NEVER HAD A CAVITY.IF YOU LOOK AT THE STUDIES THAT SHOW, AND HOW MANY LESS — HOWMUCH LESS DECAY IS THERE ACROSSTHE POPULATION? SO IN THESE LARGE STUDY IT ISSHOWS THERE’S ABOUT TWO TEETHWITH LESS DECAY.AGAIN I’M ROLLING UP TOGETHERTHE 6-YEAR-OLDS, 12-YEAR-OLDS,AND THE 14-YEAR-OLDS. IT’S HARD TO GENERALIZE BUT WHENYOU DO A SYSTEMIC REVIEW THEYTRY AND MAKE A CASE FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.>> SO THE EVIDENCE DOES SUPPORTA REDUCTION IN CAVITIES FOR SURE THEN?>> YES.THE BEST STUDY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF WATER FLUORIDATION, HOW GOODIS IT AT ACTUALLY REDUCING DECAYWAS DONE BY THE AMERICANS. AND REPORTED IN 2001 BY THECENTRES FOR DISEASE CONTROL.THEY GIVE IT — THEY GAVE IT AN EFFECTIVE RATING OF 2 A.WHICH IS THE SECOND HIGHEST ON ARECOMMENDATION LEVEL OUT OF FIVE.>> OKAY.THANK YOU. AND MY LAST QUESTION IS ABOUTTHIS IDEA THAT IS BEING FLOATEDWITH THE EXPERT PANEL.DO YOU HAVE A VIEW ON THAT?AND DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE THATYOU MIGHT WANT TO GIVE US, IF WE DID A PANEL WHAT, KIND OFQUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD WANT TOASK? >> CALGARY HAS DONE AN EXPERTPANEL BEFORE.AND THIS ISSUE COMES UP ROUTINELY.AS YOU KNOW, THE IRISH DID AHUGE REVIEW THAT TOOK THEM A COUPLE YEARS AND REPORTED IN2002.AND ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE LEVEL OF FLUORIDATION BE AT 0.7.THE BRITISH DID A HUGE REVIEWTHAT TOOK AT LEAST A COUPLE OF YEARS AND REPORTED IN YEAR 2000.AND THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WATERFLUORIDATION — THERE WAS NO REASON TO CHANGETHAT AS AN EFFECTIVE PUBLICHEALTH MEASURE.THE AUSTRALIANS UPGRADED THEYORK REVIEW AND THEY REPORTEDTHAT IN 2007. AND THEY DIDN’T FIND THAT THEREWAS ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TOTHAT. HEALTH CANADA IN THE WAKE OF ITSRESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLEALSO DID AN EXPERT PANEL REVIEW WHICH INCLUDED Dr. LEVY WHOSEPROBABLY THE PRIME RESEARCHER ONFLUORIDE INTAKE IN THE WORLD. AND ALSO INCLUDED A TOXICOLOGISTON THEIR PANEL.AND LOOKED AT ALL OF THE RESEARCH TO SEE WHAT IS THE BESTRECOMMENDATION WE CAN MAKE FORCANADIANS. AND THEIR REPORT HAS STILL NOTBEEN FINALLY PUBLISHED.BUT IT HAS BEEN OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.THAT’S FINALLY CLOSED AND THEYARE NOW RESPONDING TO IT. SO THE EXPERT PANEL INCLUDEDBOTH HEALTH CANADA AND MINISTRYOF THE ENVIRONMENT. BECAUSE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADEABOUT THE SAFETY OF BOTH OFTHOSE. THAT REPORT WILL BE COMING OUTPROBABLY IN APRIL.AND THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THAT THE LEVEL OF FLUORIDATIONTHAT IS IDEAL IN CANADA IS 0.7PARTS PER MILLION. WHERE WE ARE IN CALGARY AND HAVEBEEN SINCE 1999.>> OKAY. SO IF WE HAVE A PANEL THAT LOOKSINTO THIS FROM THE UNIVERSITY,THEY’RE GOING TO FIND THE SAME INFORMATION?>> EVERY TIME THERE’S AN EXPERTPANEL 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 THELEADING CAUSE OF FLUOROSIS?>> EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF TOOTHPASTE.>> OF TOOTHPASTE ITSELF?>> YES. >> AND WHAT IN THE TOOTHPASTE ISCAUSING THE FLUOROSIS?>> THE FLUORIDE IN THE TOOTHPASTE, YES.>> OKAY SO, WHEN THEY SAY THATIT’S — THE PEA-SIZED AMOUNT ON TOOTHPASTE THAT THEY RECOMMENDFOR THE TOOTHBRUSH, THAT’S TOOMUCH? OR — HOW — WHAT DO YOU MEAN –I DON’T QUITE GRASP –YOU’RE SUGGESTING BRUSHING OUR TEETH IS CAUSING FLUOROSIS?>> DENTAL FLUOROSIS ONLY OCCURSWHILE THE TOOTH IS DEVELOPING. SO ONCE THE TOOTH HAS ERUPTEDTHERE IS NO LONGER ANY DANGER OFTHE TOOTH DEVELOPING DENTAL FLUOROSIS.THE LATEST RECOMMENDATIONS FROMHEALTH CANADA, AND THESE JUST CAME OUT LAST YEAR, IS IN FACTTHAT A PEA-SIZED AMOUNT OFTOOTHPASTE IS TOO MUCH FOR A VERY YOUNG CHILD.OUR LATEST RECOMMENDATION IS FORTHE 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 APEA-SIZED QUANTITY OFTOOTHPASTE? >> WELL IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZEOF THE PEA, BUT IT COULD BE UPTO MAYBE .75 MILLIGRAMS. >> .75 MILLIGRAMS.OKAY.NOW I WAS TALKING TO Dr. — I’M SORRY I CAN’T REMEMBER YOURNAME FROM EARLIER, WHO WASRECOMMENDING THAT 1.5 MILLIGRAMS PER LITRE IS THE RECOMMENDEDDOSAGE FOR AN AVERAGE PERSON TOTAKE FLUORIDE IN. IS THAT CORRECT?>> THE AVERAGE ADULT CONSUMESABOUT TWO LITRES OF WATER A DAY. SO IF THAT’S MILLION 7, THATWILL 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 AHALF OF WATER A DAY, AND IREALIZE THAT’S A GREAT DEAL FOR A 3-YEAR-OLD, THEY’RE AT RISK OFGETTING 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’RECONSUMING THAT MUCH WATER. >> OKAY.I WAS JUST LOOKING AT A STUDYTHAT WAS COMMENTING THAT MAJOR DENTAL RESEARCHERS CONCLUDE THATFLUORIDE IS INEFFECTIVE ASPREVENTING PIT AND FISSURE TOOTH DECAY WHICH 185% THE TOOTH DECAYEXPERIENCED BY — WHICH IS 85%OF THE TOOTH DECAY EXPERIENCED BY CHILDREN.IS THAT ACCURATE?>> ONE OF THE SYSTEMIC EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE IS TO ACTUALLYSMOOTH OUT THE LAYERS OF ENAMELIN THE PITS AND FISSURES.SO IT DOES HAVE SOME EFFECTTHERE, BUT THAT IS NOT ITS MAJOREFFECT. TOPICAL FLUORIDES WORK BEST ONSMOOTH SURFACES.SO THE FLUORIDES THAT YOU ACTUALLY APPLY TO THE TOOTH ASOPPOSED TO THE INGESTEDFLUORIDE. >> OKAY.JUST KIND OF REFERENCES THEIRISH STUDY THAT HU YOU HAD COMMENTED ON.THEY WERE COMMENTING THAT UP TO50% OF IRISH YOUTH ARE EXPERIENCING FLUOROSIS.ARE THEY ALL BRUSHING TOO MUCH?>> I CAN’T ANSWER THAT. >> BUT THAT WAS IN THE SAMESTUDY THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED.>> THE IRISH STUDY? ALL OF THE STUDIES LOOK ATLEVELS OF FLUOROSIS.>> YES, I KNOW. AND THAT STUDY SUGGESTED THAT UPTO 50% OF IRISH YOUTH AREEXPERIENCING FLUOROSIS. >> YES, AND SO THEY RECOMMENDEDTHAT THEY TURN IT DOWN TO 0.7.THE WATER FLUORIDATION LEVEL BE TURNED DOWN.>> SO, WHEN WE LOOK AT THEAMOUNT THAT WE’RE FLUORIDATING, AND YOU COMMENTED THAT.7 MILLIGRAMS –I THINK I’M DOING THAT RIGHT.IS THE LOWEST AMOUNT THAT HEALTHCANADA RECOMMENDS.>> CORRECT. >> AND THAT IS WHAT CDC ANDIRELAND HAVE JUST BOTH REDUCEDIT DOWN TO. CORRECT?>> CDC’S RECOMMENDATION CAME OUTEARLIER THIS MONTH. IT WILL BE APPROVED LATER THISSPRING.>> BUT IT IS RECOMMENDING TO LOWER IT TO .7 AS WELL?>> IT IS.>> OKAY, SO THAT MEANS FOR THE LAST — AGAIN, 60 YEARS WE’VEBEEN RECOMMENDING TOO HIGH OF ADOSAGE? >> IT MEANS THAT THE WORLD HASCHANGED SINCE 60 YEARS AGO.>> INTERESTING.OKAY.OKAY I’M GOING TO QUOTE ONE MORESTUDY. YOU REFER TO THE MAJOR STUDY.I’M LOOKING AT A STUDY FROM THEU.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE DENTAL RESEARCH.39.000 CHILDREN IN 84COMMUNITIES, DONE IN 1986 — NO, SORRY.FROM ’88-’89, COMMENTED THATTHERE WAS NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE OUT OF THE 1 F 8TOOTH SURFACE — 128 TOOTHSURFACES IN A CHILD’S MOUTH, .6 OF A CAVITY DIFFERENCE BETWEENTHE COMMUNITIES OF FLUORIDATEDAND NON-FLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES.>> TO GET AN ACCURATEMEASUREMENT OF THE DIFFERENCETHAT YOU HAVE IN DENTAL HEALTH, YOU HAVE TO DO A VERY INVOLVEDSTUDY.IF YOU’RE JUST DOING A GROSS LOOK AT: WHAT ARE THE PEOPLEHERE AND WHAT ARE THE PEOPLEHERE, WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE THEY MOVED FROM, WHERE THEY GREW UP,WHETHER THEY WERE ACTUALLYDRINKING THE TAP WATER, AND WHETHER THEY’RE BRUSHING WITHFLUORIDE TOOTHPASTE YOU’RE NOTGOING TO BE ABLE TO GET A GOOD ASSESSMENT OF WHAT EFFECT THEFLUORIDATION IN THE WATERACTUALLY GAVE YOU. >> AND YET ISN’T THAT THE BASISOF USING THE LARGE QUANTITIES?I MEAN 39.000 PEOPLE THERE’S AN AVERAGE THAT YOU START TO GET AGIST OF.>> YES. >> THAT’S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OFTAKING LARGE-SCALE STUDIES.>> YOU DO START TO GET A GIST FROM THAT.SO YOU CAN GET SOME INFORMATIONFROM THAT. I WOULDN’T CALL THAT A GOOD WAYTO MEASURE THE EFFECT OF WATERFLUORIDATION.>> BUT THE STUDY THAT YOU CITEDWHERE IT CAME ONE TWO CAVITIESDIFFERENCE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE? >> THAT WAS FROM THE SYSTEMICREVIEW.SO THAT IS LOOKING AT ALL OF THE STUDIES AND PULLING THE BESTQUALITY EVIDENCE.>> AND WHEN YOU SAY THE BEST QUALITY EVIDENCE, WHO DECIDESWHICH IS THE BEST QUALITYEVIDENCE? >> SO, WHEN THEY GO INTO ASYSTEMIC REVIEW, THEY SAYBEFOREHAND: WHAT IS THE QUESTION GOING TO BE?AS Dr.KEIGAN DESCRIBED, YOUHAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A PROPER CONTROL GROUP.>> WELL, NO.I REALIZE YOU LOOK AT THE STUDIES AND MAKE SURE THEY’RENOT BEING DONE BY Mr. JOE OUTOF HIGH SCHOOL. I GATHER THAT.BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I’M HAVINGDIFFICULTY GRAPPLING WITH THE FACT THAT THE PRO-FLUORIDE ANDANTI-FLUORIDE ARE — SEEM TO BEUSING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT METHODS OF STUDIES.AND I LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THATTHEY’RE DEALING WITH AND GO OKAY, WELL THESE ARE RESPECTABLEPEOPLE.THEY’RE DOING LITERALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THESESTUDIES.WHAT MAKES IT SO THAT YOU WOULD ACCEPT THESE STUDIES AND NOTTHESE THAT I CAN GRASP FROM ASIMPLE POLITICAL LAYMAN’S OUTLOOK?YOU LOOK AT THIS AND YOU SAYWELL, HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT A STUDY OVER 39.000 PEOPLE IN THISCOMMUNITY IS NOT A LEGITIMATESTUDY? >> IT IS A LEGITIMATE STUDY BUTNOT AN EFFECTIVE STUDY OF THEEFFECTIVENESS OF WATER FLUORIDATION.>> INTERESTING.OKAY, THANK YOU.>> AMENDERMAN PINCOTT.>> THANK YOU.I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING YOU SAID.IN YOUR OPINION, FLUOROSIS ISCAUSED PRIOR TO ERUPTION? OR IS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TOERUPTION?TOOTH ERUPTION? >> CORRECT.>> OKAY.AND FLUOROSIS IS CAUSED BY TOOTHPASTE, IN YOUR OPINION.>> OKAY, EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OFTOOTHPASTE, YES. >> ALL RIGHT.SO, IF THE TOOTH HASN’T ERUPTED,HOW DOES THE TOOTHPASTE CAUSE FLUOROSIS?>> CHILDREN OF COURSE HAVEPRIMARY TEETH. BUT THE PERMIT TEETH AREDEVELOPING.AND ERUPTING UNTIL ABOUT AGE 12 OR 13.>> OKAY, SO IT’S –SO MAYBE — SO YOU’RE SAYING IT’S THROUGHTHE INGESTION OF FLUORIDE IN THETOOTHPASTE? >> YES.>> THAT CAUSED FLUOROSIS IN THETEETH THAT ARE NOT ACTUALLY IN THE MOUTH YET, BUT THAT THE ONESTHAT ARE NOT ERUPTED YET.>> YES.>> OKAY.THERE HAS BEEN TALK ABOUT, YOUKNOW, AND YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH ALDERMAN DEMONG.TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPESOF CAVITIES AND HOW IT’S FLUORIDE ACTUALLY HELPS 85% OOF — OR DOESN’T HELP 85% OF THECAVITIES AROUND PITTING. BUT — BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BEAPPLIED TOPICALLY FOR THAT, THATINGESTION OF FLUORIDE DOESN’T WORK ON THAT.SO, IS INGESTED FLUORIDE HELPINGSMOOTH OUT THE ENAMEL, LIKE YOU TALKED, BUT ON TEETH THAT ARENOT ERUPTED YET?>> IT DOES HAVE THAT EFFECT. HAS A MINOR EFFECT, YES.>> OKAY SO IT’S MINOR BUT ITACTUALLY CAUSES FLUOROSIS ON THE TEETH THAT ARE NOT ERUPTED.>> IN EXCESSIVE DOSES, YES.>> RIGHT. WHICH WE HEARD IS MORE THAN ASAID.>> WELL THAT’S THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE AGRAIN 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.VALERIEFITCH. >> 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 THEPOPULATION.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, ATLEAST THERE IS SOME DEGREE OFCONTROL OVER DOSAGE. SO, WHAT ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVETHINGS WE CAN DO TO PREVENTCAVITIES? AND I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK ATHEALTH IN A VERY DIFFERENT WAY.I DON’T THINK THAT ALBERTA HAS A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.WHAT WE HAVE A HIGH-TECHDIAGNOSTIC AND TREATMENT ILLNESS CARE INDUSTRY.WE SHOULDN’T BE FOCUSING ON THEMAGIC PILL OR THE MAGIC POTION TO PREVENT ILLNESS.IF YOU WOULD VISUALIZE A CLIFFWITH THE HEALTHY PEOPLE AT THE TOP THE CLIFF, AND THE PEOPLEWHO HAVE HEALTH CHALLENGES ORILLNESS AT THE BOTTOM THE CLIFF AND ASK THEM VERY BASICQUESTIONS: WHY ARE SO MANYPEOPLE FALLING OFF THE CLIFF? THE SUPPLY IS NOT ONLY TO DENTALCARRIES, BUT IT APPLIES TO HEARTDISEASE, 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, YOURHOSPITALS, 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 STAYHEALTHY?DO THEY CHOOSE NOT TO STAY HEALTHY?OR ARE THERE SO MANY DISEASESAROUND THAT NOBODY CAN STAY HEALTHY?I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS THEFIRST ONE. AND I DON’T THINK PEOPLE KNOWTHOU STAY HEALTHY.AND A LOT OF IT COMES — THESE ARE — ALL THESE ILLNESSES AREREALLY BASICALLY LIFESTYLEILLNESSES. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT LIFESTYLE,YOU NEED TO — WHEN YOU START TOMAKE LIFESTYLE CHANGES, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT FOOD CHOICE ANDNUTRITION.BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY BASIC THINGS THAT YOU NEED TOCHANGE.THE MORE PROCESSED FOOD YOU EAT, THE MORE DISEASE.THE MORE ANIMAL FOOD YOU EAT,THE MORE DISEASE.IF YOU’RE ON A HIGH PROTEINWESTERN DIET, YOUR BODY –THERE’S A GOOD CHANCE YOUR BODY IS GOING TO BE ACIDIC.TO COMPENSATE, THE BLOOD WILLDRAW FROM — DRAW CALCIUM FROM THE BONES IN ORDER TO BALANCE ITOUT.IF YOU CONTINUE TO EAT A HIGH PROTEIN DIET YOU’RE GOING TOSTAY IN NEGATIVE CALCIUM BALANCENO MATTER HOW MUCH CALCIUM YOU TAKE.AND IF YOU THINK THIS ISAFFECTING 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, THECAKES, THE COOKIES. THE HIGH FRUCTOSE DRINKS.EVEN THE PURE FRUIT JUICES.THESE ARE CONCENTRATED SUGARS. THESE I THINK ARE MOREIMPORTANT.AND THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WITH ALL THEPOPULATION.AND SPECIFICALLY WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DISADVANTAGED IN THE LOWINCOME GROUPS.BECAUSE WHAT’S THE GOOD OF HAVING A CHILD WHO ISDISADVANTAGED, WHO HAS REALLYGOOD TEETH, BUT THEY HAVE OBESITY BECAUSE THEY’RE EATINGALL THE WRONG FOODS?AND IT JUST SETS THEM UP FOR LIFE.SO INSTEAD OF FOCUSING MONEY ONTHE MAGIC PILL OR THE MAGIC POTION, IN CITY WATER WHICH ITHINK IS TOTALLY RIDICULOUS, WHYDON’T WE LOOK AT NUTRITION? AND SPEND THE MONEY ON THAT.IT WILL HELP THE POPULATION AS AWHOLE.AND IT WILL ALSO HELP THEDISADVANTAGED PEOPLE.AND LOOK AT SOME BASIC STUDIES LIKE COLIN CAMPBELL IN THE CHINAHEALTH STUDY.IN CHINA PEOPLE DON’T — IN RURAL CHINA PEOPLE DON’T TEND TOMOVE AROUND VERY MUCH.AND THEY COULD DO A REALLY GOOD STUDY ON WHAT THE PEOPLE ATE ANDTHE DISEASES THAT THEY GOT.AND, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT. SO DIFFERENT RESEARCH.YOU KNOW, LAST TIME I THINK CITYCOUNCIL RELIED ON THE AUTHORITIES IN CALGARY.AND I’M REALLY –WELL, I GUESS I FEEL MORE LIKE THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOOBECAUSE I’M REALLY QUITESUSPICIOUS OF ALL THESE LOCAL AUTHORITIES.BUT THE BASIC THING IS ETHICAL.I THINK IT’S REALLY UNETHICAL TO BE PUTTING THIS FLUORIDE IN CITYWATER.THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU.YOUR TIMING WAS RIGHT TO THESECOND ACTUALLY. PRETTY GOOD.ALDERMAN PINCOTT YOU HAVE AQUESTION. >> HI, VAL.>> HI.>> ONE OF THE THINGS I’M CONCERNED ABOUT IS AROUND DOSE.AND WE HEARD IT WITH SOME OF THEQUESTIONING AROUND THAT ALDERMAN DEMONG ASKED, YOU KNOW, HOW DOYOU CONTROL THE DOSE WHENSOMEBODY DRINKS ONE GLASS OF WATER OR 20 GLASSES OF WATER ORONE OF OUR POLITICAL COLLEAGUESWHO DRINKS 30 A DAY. HE HAS TO DRINK 30 A DAY.YOU CAN — I MEAN, YOU CAN THINKOF ANY OTHER KIND OF MEDICATION THAT WE MIGHT PRESCRIBE WHERE WEACTUALLY DON’T BOTHERCONTROLLING THE DOSE? >> I THINK WITH SOME DOSAGETHERE CAN BE A BIT OF A WIDERANGE. BUT I THINK WITH DRUGS ORCHEMICALS — WELL AND SUCH ISFLUORIDE, I THINK IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A CLOSE — TOMONITOR 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 PUTTINGIN 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 CANNOTCONTROL HOW MUCH SOMEBODY GETS.>> THAT’S RIGHT.AND MORE PEOPLE — AND MOREPEOPLE BECOME INFORMED ABOUTHEALTH I THINK THEY TEND TO DRINK MORE WATER.AND I JUST THINK IT’S TOTALLYWRONG 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 YOURNAME.>> 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 EARLIERWAS REALLY OVER THIS ETHICALQUESTION WHICH YOU’RE BRINGING AGAIN.WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS ASSOMEBODY THAT DOES NOT WANT FLUORIDE IN THE WATER?WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT OPTIONS TOLIMIT YOUR EXPOSURE TO IT RIGHT NOW IN THE CITY OF CALGARY?>> WELL, I SUPPOSE I COULD USEBOTTLED WATER.BUT I’M RELUCTANT TO DO THAT FORVARIOUS REASONS.A FRIEND OF MINE HAD BREAST CANCER.AND I ATTENDED A CONFERENCE INVANCOUVER AT INSPIRE HEALTH. THEY HAD BANNED ALL THE NUMBERONE AND THE NUMBER SEVENCONTAINERS IN THEIR FACILITY. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SORT OFBEFORE THE PLASTIC WAS CHANGED.BUT EVEN NOW IN CALGARY I KNOW OF A PLACE THAT HAD USED THESEBOTTLES — THE BOTTLES TO EMPTYOUT THEIR PHOTOGRAPHIC CHEMICALS.AND I AM — AND YOU KNOW, I’MREALLY RELUCTANT TO USE THESE BOTTLES BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOWWHERE THEY’VE BEEN.HOW WELL THEY’VE BEEN CLEANED.AND WHAT’S LEECHING OUT OFBOTTLE.SO I THINK THE BEST OPTION IS PROBABLY TO BUY WATER FILTER.BUT, YOU KNOW, THESE CAN BEQUITE EXPENSIVE. AND I THINK IT’S BEYOND THEMEANS OF A LOT OF THE LOW-INCOMEPEOPLE. SO THEY REALLY DON’T HAVE ACHOICE.YOU KNOW, ANY HAVE TO DRINK THE TAP WATER.MAYBE TRY TO GET SOME BOTTLEDWATER. I JUST THINK IT’S VERY UNFAIRFOR THE CITY TO BE HAVING PEOPLEJUMP 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 YOURPRESENTATION.NEXT SPEAKER.NIKKI McKINN.>> GOOD ARCH.I’M HERE TODAY — GOOD AFTERNOON.I’M HERE TODAY AS A GRANDMOTHERWHO WANTS HER GRANDCHILDREN TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF FLUORIDATEDWATER.WHEN I HEARD THAT IT WAS AT RISK I HAD TO COME TO BE A VOICE FORPROPONENTS.BECAUSE I KNEW WOULD YOU HEAR FROM THE OTHER SIDE.AND WE’VE HEARD TODAY THATYOU’VE HAD MANY ELECTRONIC MESSAGES, IF THEY’RE NOT HERE INPERSON, FROM THE OTHER SIDE.SO I’M HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU THAT ON THE BASIS OF THEENDORSEMENTS OF THEORGANIZATIONS THAT I TRUST FOR MY MEDICAL INFORMATION, ANDEVERYTHING FROM THE CDC TO THECANADIAN PEDIATRIC SOCIETY, CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES, I AMCONFIDENT THAT AT THE REGULATED RATE OF 0.7 PARTS PER MILLIONFLUORIDATION IS SAFE AND WILLPROTECT MY GRANDCHILDREN’S TEETH.AS OUR VERY FIRST SPEAKER THISMORNING SAID: MY GRANDCHILDREN ARE MY MOST PRECIOUS THING AND IWOULD NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHINGTHAT WOULD CAUSE THEM ANY HARM.I’M SPEAKING TODAY AS SOMEONEWHO HAD A SUBSTANTIAL DENTALDECAY AS A CHILD. I MISSED LOTS OF SCHOOL FORDENTAL APPOINTMENTS.AND I’M NOW FACED WITH FILLINGS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED.AND A MOUTHFUL OF SILVER ANDGOLD. I’D RATHER IT WAS ON MY WRIST.MY MOTHER TOLD ME THAT OURDENTIST SAID BACK IN THE ’30s THAT IF — IN THE 50s THAT IFWE HAD WATER FLUORIDATION IWOULD NOT BE IN THIS SITUATION. NOW IN MY SENIOR YEARS I REALIZEWHY CAVITY-FREE TEETH INCHILDHOOD ARE IMPORTANT.BECAUSE THEY’RE THE BEST TEETHTO TAKE US INTO OUR LATER YEARS.I GAVE MY OWN THREE CHILDREN WHO WERE RAISED IN CALGARY IN THE’70s AND ’80s FLUORIDESUPPLEMENTS. THOSE FLUORIDE DROPS THAT IADDED TO THEIR JUICE, AS DIDMANY OF MY FRIENDS WITH THEIR CHILDREN.THIS WAS A LONG-TERM UNDERTAKINGOVER MANY YEARS. TWELVE YEARS FOR EACH OF THOSECHILDREN.THAT REQUIRED A HUGE COMMITMENT TO OBTAIN THE FLUORIDE — OBTAINTHE SUPPLEMENTS.TO USE THEM REGULARLY. TO ENSURE THAT THE NUMBER OFDROPS WAS EXACT.AND TO MAKE SURE MY CHILDREN DRANK THEIR JUICE.ALTHOUGH I REALLY WAS A HIGHLYMOTIVATED MOTHER IN THIS AREA, I FREQUENTLY FELL OFF THE WAGON.AND MY CHILDREN HAD INCONSISTENTACCESS TO SUPPLEMENTAL FLUORIDE.I REGRET THAT THEY WERE NOTPRIVILEGED AS THEIR COUSINS WEREIN EDMONTON WHERE THERE WAS FLUORIDATION TO HAVE HAD THATBENEFIT.AND THEIR COUSINS ALL HAVE NO CAVITIES AND BEAUTIFUL TEETH.IDEALLY I WOULD ASK THISCOMMITTEE AND COUNCIL TO SUPPORT FLUORIDATION FOR MYGRANDCHILDREN.AND ALL CALGARY CHILDREN WHO WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TOGROW UP WITHOUT ANY CAVITIES.WHILE THIS MAY BE IDEALISTIC, I WOULD THEN ASK THAT THIS COUNCILREMAIN OPEN MINDED AND ESTABLISHTHE 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 FROMCAVITIES. THANKS VERY MUCH.>> THANK YOU.ANY QUESTIONS? ALDERMAN DEMONG?>> WHERE DID I PUT IT?THIS IS MORE IN A FECECIOUS MATTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE, BUTIN 1950, 19.223 DENTISTS ALSOADVISED TO YOU SMOKE VICEROY CIGARETTES.I’M JUST SAYING THAT AS TIMEGOES 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’VEHEARD TODAY OF THE QUALITY OF PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THEINVESTIGATION WHO ARE REVIEWINGDOING THE SYSTEMIC REVIEWS. AND I STILL FEEL THAT THEY AREBETTER EQUIPPED TO MAKE THOSEJUDGMENTS. COMING FROM A POSITION OF DOINGNO HARM THAN I AM AS A LAYPERSON.>> THANK YOU.DO YOU WANT TO WAIT.ONE MORE QUESTION. ALDERMAN STEVENSON.>> I WAS INTERESTED IN YOURCOMMENT ABOUT HOW MUCH — HOW DIFFICULT IT WAS TO MAKE SUREYOUR KID GOT THE PROPER DOSE OOF — HOW DID YOU MEAN — HUE TO MAKESURE THEY GOT THE RIGHT AMOUNTEVERY DAY? >> EXACTLY.HUE TO SQUEEZE IT OUT OF THISLITTLE BOTTLE AND YOU HAD TO COUNT THE DROPS.AND THE NUMBER OF NUMBER OFDROPS CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE CHILD.BELIEVE ME, IF YOU WERE IN AHURRY IN THE MORNING, A LITTLE EXTRA SQUIRT.>> SO TELL ME HOW PEOPLE TODAYARE ABLE TO GET THAT RIGHT AMOUNT.>> I DON’T KNOW — I’M NOT AWAREOF WHERE THEY’RE USING FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS ANYMORE.THEY’RE NOT IN CALGARY.>> I’M TALKING ABOUT FROM OUR WATER.HOW WOULD A PARENT KNOW TODAYTHAT 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 PARTSPER MILLION IS A SAFE AND EFFECTIVE DOSE.>> I’M FULLY AWARE THAT THAT’SWHAT’S IN THE WATER.AND I’M CONFIDENT THAT THEY’REREGULATING THAT TOO.WHAT I’M ASK YOU IS HOW WOULD A PARENT MAKE SURE THEIR CHILD GOTTHE RIGHT AMOUNT?BECAUSE ALL WE KNOW IS .7 IN THE WATER.BUT HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THECHILD GETS THE RIGHT AMOUNT NOW? >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.I THINK.AND THAT IS HOW ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENTAND NOT TOO MUCH FLUORIDE THATTHEY’RE DRINKING TO GET THAT REGULATED?>> RIGHT.>> WELL, I THINK THE STUDIES THAT INDICATE THAT FLUORIDE ATTHE REGULATED LEVEL IS IN FACTREDUCING DECAY, IS INDICATING THAT IT IS EFFECTIVE.AND SO PEOPLE MUST BE GETTING –CHILDREN MUST BE GETTING ADEQUATE FLUORIDE THROUGH THEWATER 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 TOTHE POINT WHERE YOU WERESUGGESTING BACK IN YOUR CHILDREN’S TIME THAT YOU WEREUSING A MEASURING DROPPER.WHERE YOU COULD CONTROL BY OPTING IN AT YOUR OWN CHOICE ASA MUCH PARENT TO DETERMINE HOWMUCH FLUORIDE YOU WERE GIVING YOUR CHILD.BUT TODAY I DON’T KNOW IF MYDAUGHTER IS SITTING AT THE WATER FOUNTAIN RIGHT NOW DRINKING ALITRE AND A HALF OF WATER, PLUSTHE 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’RECONSUMING, BASED ON, WE DON’TKNOW HOW MUCH THESE CHILDREN ARE CONSUMING AT ANY GIVEN TIME.YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU COULDCONTROL AS THREE DROPS PER GLASS OF WATER, YOU WOULD GIVE IT ONCEA DAY, MOVE ON.NOW WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING X AMOUNT OF PARTS PER MILLION, .7PARTS PER MILLION IN OUR WATER.AND IF YOU’RE DRINKING LET’S SAY THREE CUPS OF WATER A DAY AS ACHILD AND I’M DRINKING THREECUPS OF WATER AS AN ADULT, THE DOSE IS NOT PROPORTIONATE.SO WHAT I’M TRYING TO DETERMINEIS, IS THERE A WAY THAT PEOPLE CAN MEASURE AND CONTROL HOW MUCHIS BEING CONSUMED?>> I THINK THAT’S A QUESTION THAT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THETOLERABLE RANGE IS.AND I’M CONFIDENT THAT WITH FLUORIDATION AND THE AMOUNT OFWATER THAT WE’RE DRINKING WE’REWITHIN THE TOLERABLE RANGE FOR THE AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE.THE POINT I WAS WANTING TO MAKEABOUT THE FLUORIDE DROPS IS THAT IT’S NOT A GOOD ALTERNATIVE.BECAUSE IT REALLY TAKES A HIGHLEVEL OF COMPLIANCE.AND PEOPLE — IF WE’RE THINKING,NOT OF MY GRANDCHILDREN, BUT OFDISADVANTAGED CHILDREN TO HAVE PARENTS THAT WOULD BE ABLE,WILLING, CAPABLE EVER DOING THATMAY OR MAY NOT BE AN OPTION. >> THANK YOU.NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.>> THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE I THINKIT’S UNFAIR TO ASK A MEMBER OFTHE PUBLIC QUESTIONS THAT RELATE TO THINGS LIKE THAT.YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAVE IT FOR ACOUPLE 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 NICKETKUS.>> GOOD AFTERNOON, HONOURABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS.LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.MY NAME IS NICK ECHES. I’M A PHYSICIAN DOING SPECIALTYTRAINING IN INTERNAL MEDICINE.I’M HERE AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND I’M NOT REPRESENTING ANYORGANIZATION.TODAY I’D LIKE TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW MEDICALPROFESSIONALS MAKE DECISIONSREGARDING HEALTH. AND ESSENTIALLY THAT DECISIONSMADE BY HEALTH CAREPROFESSIONALS DERIVE THEIR FOUNDATIONATIONS FROM TWO MAIN SAS WE’VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY.SCIENCE AND ETHICS.SO, SCIENCE IN ITS ESSENCE ISTHE PURSUIT OF TRUTH.BEYOND OPINION, BEYOND CONJECTURE, BEYOND INTUITION,BEYOND BELIEF.SCIENCE ATTEMPTS TO SHOW IN A RELIABLE, REPRODUCIBLE FORM WHATWE CAN REALLY KNOW ABOUT THEUNIVERSE IN WHICH WE LIVE. HOWEVER, SCIENCE IS A WORLD OFPROBABILITY.NOTHING CAN EVER BE KNOWN FOR SURE BECAUSE SCIENTISTS AREALWAYS OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITYTHAT ANOTHER EXPERIMENT WILL SOME DAY DISPROVE WHAT ISCURRENTLY THOUGHT TO BE TRUE.SCIENCE IS A PART OF MEDICINE. WHAT CAN WE KNOW ABOUT WHATCAUSES A DISEASE?WHAT CAN WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT MAKES IT BETTER?HOWEVER, THE LIMITS OF OURKNOWLEDGE IN SCIENCE ARE ALSO THE LIMITS OF OUR KNOWLEDGE INMEDICINE.NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN FOR SURE. BUT THE MORE STUDIES THAT THEREARE, THE MORE CAREFULLY THATTHOSE STUDIES ARE DONE. AND THE MORE CONSISTENT THERESULTS ARE THE MORE WE CAN BESURE THAT WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN ALL LIKELIHOOD REPRESENTS THETRUTH.THE SECOND COMPONENT OF MEDICAL DECISION MAKING CONCERNS ETHICS.ESSENTIALLY: WHAT IS THE RIGHTTHING TO DO? SO LOOKING AT FLUORIDATIONTHERE’S TWO QUESTIONS WE NEED TOANSWER. NUMBER ONE: WHAT IS THE TRUTHTO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGEREGARDING THE BENEFITS AND THE RISKS OF FLUORIDATION?DO THESE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THERISKS? AND NUMBER TWO: IS FLUORIDATINGTHE WATER ETHICAL?IS IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO? TO ANSWER QUESTION NUMBER ONE:WHAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT WATERFLUORIDATION, WE MUST LOOK TO THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.TWO RECENT SYSTEMIC REVIEWS, ONECOMMISSIONED BY GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM IN THE YEAR2000, AND THE OTHER COMMISSIONEDBY THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA IN THE YEAR 2007 COMPILE THERESULTS OF ALL OF THE MOSTCAREFULLY CONTROLLED STUDIES.IN SHORT, THEY SUGGEST THAT IT’SLIKELY THAT FLUORIDATING THEWATER IS BENEFICIAL IN PREVENTING DENTAL CARRIES.AND UNLIKELY THAT IT CAUSESSIGNIFICANT HARM. IT IS LIKELY THAT THE BENEFITSOF FLUORIDATING THE WATEROUTWEIGH THE RISKS. AND IT’S ALSO LIKELY THAT ADECISION TO REMOVE FLUORIDE FROMTHE WATER WOULD CAUSE HARM. THIS IS THE MOST CERTAIN THATANYBODY CAN BE ABOUT THE TRUTHOF WATER FLUORIDATION. AND I’D SUGGEST BEING VERYCAUTIOUS WHEN LISTENING TOANYBODY WHO STATES THEIR CASE MORE STRONGLY THAN THAT.THIS ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THEBEST KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US TODAY.ANSWERING ETHICAL QUESTION ISMORE COMPLICATED. AS ARE MOST ISSUES OF RIGHTVERSUS WRONG.HOWEVER, IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ETHICAL QUESTION MUSTTAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE KNOWABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION. I’LL USE A CLEAR EXAMPLE.WE KNOW THAT IT’S LIKELY THATCAR BRAKES SAVE LIVES. AND UNLIKELY THAT THEY CAUSEANYBODY SIGNIFICANT HARM.SO, IT IS CONSIDERED ETHICAL TO REQUIRE EVERYONE TO HAVE BRAKESON THEIR CARS.EVEN THOUGH THAT RESTRICTS THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE WHO WOULDCHOOSE NOT TO OUTFIT THEIR CARSWITH BRAKES.WE ALSO KNOW THAT IT’S ALMOSTCERTAINLY MORE COST EFFECTIVE TOOUTFIT CARS WITH BRAKES THAN IT WOULD BE TO PAY FOR AWFULASSOCIATED HEALTH CARE ANDAUTOMOBILE REPAIR COSTS THAT WOULD GO ALONG WITH NOT HAVINGBRAKES.SIMILARLY, WE KNOW IT’S LIKELY THAT WATER FLUORIDATION PREVENTSDENTAL CARRIES.AND UNLIKELY THAT IT CAUSES SIGNIFICANT HARM.THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE FROMDr. JOHN HARRIS, AN INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZEDEXPERT IN MEDICAL ETHICS.HE STATES: WE SHOULD NOT ASK: ARE WE ENTITLED TO IMPOSEFLUORIDATION ON THE UNWILLINGPEOPLE, BUT ARE THE UNWILLING PEOPLE ENTITLED TO IMPOSE THERISKS, DAMAGE, AND COSTS OFFAILURE TO FLUORIDATE ON THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE?END QUOTE.SHOULD YOUR NEIGHBOUR HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE BRAKES OFF OFHIS CAR?IN SUMMARY, NUMBER ONE: WHAT IS THE TRUTH?THE TRUTH IS THAT THE BENEFITSOF FLUORIDE LIKELY OUTWEIGH THE RISKS.NUMBER TWO, IS IT ETHICALLYRESPONSIBLE TO FLUORIDATE THE WATER?BASED ON EVERYTHING WE CURRENTLYKNOW ABOUT FLUORIDE, YES.IT IS.I HOPE THAT THIS HAS HELPEDCLARIFY THE WAY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS MAKE DECISIONS ANDWILL HELP EVERYONE TO UNDERSTANDEXACTLY WHY HEALTH CANADA, THE CANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, THECANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SUPPORTFLUORIDATION AS DO OUR OWNMEDICAL 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 THEMETAPHOR, I THINK IT’S INTERESTING.THE CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROLIN THE UNITED STATES POINTS TO ADULT OBESITY AS A PANDEMIC ON ASCALE THAT, YOU KNOW, BEGGARS –THE PANDEMICS THAT THE CDC WAS SET UP TO ADDRESS: POLIO ANDTIE TYPHOID.AND DIRECTLY CONNECTS AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY AND THE OBESITYASSOCIATED WITH SPENDING TOOMUCH TIME IN YOUR CAR AND NOT OUGH TIME WALKING, WITHTHAT — WITH, YOU KNOW, THEHEART DISEASE AND THE DIABETES ASSOCIATED WITH ADULT OBESITY.WHAT THESE ARE ARE HUGEEXTERNALITIES.THAT FLOAT BACK TO THE QUESTIONOF: HOW DO WE MAKE CARS SAFERFOR PEOPLE TO DRIVE? WE PUT BRAKES ON THEM.PUTTING BRAKES ON CARS, YOUKNOW, MAKES IT MORE — MAKES IT EASIER FOR US TO RATIONALIZEUSING CARS AS A PRIMARY MODE OFTRANSPORTATION WHICH AT THE END OF THE DAY, AFTER A 70-YEAREXPERIMENT IN ABANDONING HUMANHABITAT CONSTRUCTION AND ABANDONING AUTOMOBILE HABITATCONSTRUCTION AS MAYBE HAVINGEXTERNALITIES THAT WE DIDN’T SEE.SO I THINK IT’S LIKELY THAT OURUNDERSTANDING OF FLUORIDE RIGHT NOW DOESN’T PREVENT THAT.BUT ARE WE — HOW LIKELY IS ITTHAT WE ARE EXAMINING THE FULL SUITE OF POTENTIAL EXTERNALITIESTHAT COME FROM THIS?AND I GUESS THAT’S WHAT I’D LIKE TO PUT OUT THERE.WE’RE MIXING OUR METAPHORS LIKEMAD PEOPLE HERE, BUT THE REALITY IS, IT COMES DOWN TO A QUESTIONOF: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLES.AND HOW MUCH HAVE THESE STUDIES, THESE SORT OF, LIKE, METASTUDIESTHAT HAVE LOOKED AT ALL OF THEINFORMATION REALLY EXPLORED QUESTIONS OF EXTERNALITY?>> SO, I THINK — ONE THING THATIS TRUE OF ANYTHING IS THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF VARIABLESIN THE WORLD.AND AN INFINITE NUMBER OF VARIABLES ESSENTIALLY AFFECTINGHEALTH.AND IT’S VERY DIFFICULT TO — I MEAN, THE FIELD OF MEDICINE ISVERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE, YOUKNOW, THE BODY AS A SYSTEM HAS, YOU KNOW, MILLIONS OF VARIABLES.AND SO THE DIFFICULTY IN SCIENCEIS DOING OUR BEST TO ISOLATE THOSE VARIABLES.AND THE BEST TO MEASURE THERELEVANT OUTCOMES.AND I THINK THAT IF THERE WERE,YOU KNOW, A LARGE NUMBER OFSIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSE EVENTS OCCURRING FROM FLUORIDE, THATLIKELY WOULD HAVE BORNE ITSELFOUT IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE TO THIS POINT.HOWEVER, YOUR POINT IS WELLTAKEN. YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THATIF PEOPLE HAVE BETTER TEETHTHEY’RE GOING TO EAT MORE AND BECOME MORROW BEES.BUT, I MEAN, AGAIN — BECOMEMORE OBESE.BUT TO ACTUALLY DRAW THECONNECTION THEREFORE BETWEENMORE FLUORIDE AND OBESITY, WOULD YOU HAVE TO MAKE THATCONNECTION.BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A LOT OF OTHER REASONS WHY PEOPLE IN ACERTAIN AREA WOULD BE BECOMINGOBESE. >> NO, FORGIVE ME.WHAT I WAS DRAWING THECONNECTION BETWEEN WAS, WE PUT BRAKES ON CARS.SO WE CONTINUALLY THINK THATCARS ARE A GOOD WAY TO GET AROUND.IF WE HAD NEVER PUT BRAKES ONCARS, WE MAY MAYBE WOULD HAVE SAID THIS ISN’T A GOOD WAY TOGET 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 TOEXTERNALITIES. LIKE, DO WE UNDERSTAND — WE’REWEATHER TRYING TO ISOLATEVARIABLES.BUT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HEREPROBLEMS OF ORGANIZEDCOMPLEXITY. THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, DIFFICULT TOPULL OUT WHEN WE’RE USINGSTATISTICAL ANALYSIS. >> AND I WOULD AGREE AND SAY THEDIFFICULTY IS THE NOTFLUORIDATING WATER. THE DECISION TO STOPFLUORIDATING WATER COULD HAVEJUST AS MANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT AS THEDECISION TO FLUORIDATE.THE POINT BEING THAT WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT ANY OFTHOSE ARE.BUT BASED ON WHAT WE DO KNOW, THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS.AND THAT’S THE WAY PEOPLE MAKEDECISIONS EVERYDAY.IS BASED ON WHAT WE DO KNOW.DOT BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS?YOU KNOW, AND THAT’S HOW PEOPLE GO ABOUT MAKING DECISIONEVERYDAY.MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE MEDICAL LITERATURE AND BASED ON,YOU KNOW, MEDICAL ETHICS THATTHIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, AN INTERVENTION THAT WOULD BEJUSTIFIED ON THE POPULATIONLEVEL. >> THANK YOU.>> ALDERMAN KEATING.>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. ON THAT NOTE I’M AWFULLY GLADTHAT WE DON’T PUT FLUORIDE ONCARS AND HOPE IT TRANSFERS. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A LITTLEDIFFICULT.BUT I’M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THAT GOT IN THERE, BUT THAT’S OKAY.UNFORTUNATELY WE DON’T HAVE THECAPABILITY OF COMING BACK AND ASKING ANOTHER QUESTION FROM ACOMMENT THAT WE’VE HEARD THATWE’VE ALREADY QUESTIONED ON.SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUTSOMETHING THAT WAS SAID EARLIER.TALKING ABOUT SALIVA IN THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE FLUORIDEBATHING THE TEETH FROM YOURSALIVA. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?>> I DON’T KNOW THE PRECISEMOLECULAR MECHANISMS, NOT TO BE FECECIOUS AT ALL.BUT ESSENTIALLY, I THINK THATYEAH THE FLUORIDE IS ABSORBED SYSTEMICALLY AND THEN HE ISCONCRETED IN YOUR A — AND THENSECRETED IN YOUR A LIE VAVMENT.>> THAT’S WHAT I WAS LOOKINGFOR.>> THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> SO ABSORBED BY YOUR BODY ANDTHEN GIVEN OFF.SO WE CAN ASSUME THERE IS FLUORIDE IN SWEAT AND ALL THOSESORTS OF THINGS AT THE SAMETIME, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON’T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.IF I HAD TO HAZARD I A GUESSWOULD 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 ISBEING INGESTED.AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT LITTLE PEOPLE, CHILDREN,INFANTS, NEED LESS FLUORIDE THANADULTS. OR CAN TOLERATE LESS FLUORIDE.AND I GUESS THAT’S PART OF MYQUESTION. BUT AS — HOW MUCH WATER DO WEHAVE TO DRINK BEFORE WE GET TO ATOXIC LEVEL? OF FLUORIDE?DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT?>> SO, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, FLUORIDE TOXICITY WHERE YOU’REGOING TO SEE SERIOUS ADVERSEEVENTS FROM FLUORIDE, YOU KNOW, BEYOND COSMETIC CONCERNS, I’MNOT SURE A IF THAT LEVEL EXISTSOR B WHAT, IT IS.IN TERMS OF CONTROLLING THE DOSEOF FLUORIDE — SO YOU COULD MAKETHE ARGUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, SMALLER PEOPLE ALSO PROBABLYDRINK LESS WATER.THE ARGUMENT THAT WOULD I MAKE ABOUT DOSAGE IS ACTUALLY ONETHAT NOT FLUORIDATING THE WATERDOES NOT GIVE YOU ANYMORE CONTROL OVER DOSAGE THANFLUORIDATING IT DOES.BECAUSE, I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY THERE IS FLUORIDE THAT NATURALLYOCCURS IN THE WATER.IT’S BEEN STATED IT VARIES BASED ON THE SEASON.IN FACT I THINK WOULD YOU HAVE AMUCH MORE DIFFICULT TIME KNOWING HOW MUCH FLUORIDE WAS GOING INTOYOUR BODY IF THE DOSAGE WAS –IF THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN THE WATER WAS UNCONTROLLED.BECAUSE ON ANY GIVEN DAY YOU’DHAVE 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, YOUKNOW, JUST A NATURALLY OCCURRINGSUBSTANCE THAT WE WANT TO ALTER THE LEVELS OF, THEN IF YOU’REAPPROACHING THE POLICY FROM THATPERSPECTIVE, THEN THE ETHICAL THING TO DO WOULD BE TO ACTUALLYPAY MONEY TO REMOVE ALL OF THEFLUORIDE FROM THE WATER.SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD KNOWEXACTLY HOW MUCH THEY’REGETTING. BUT THAT ON A POPULATION LEVELWOULD POSSIBLY PROBABLY NOT BEVERY GOOD FOR THE HEALTH OF ANYBODY.AND IT’S INTERESTING, BECAUSETHE 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 THEWATER THERE WAS 3-4 PARTS PERMILLION. OR SOMETHING QUITE HIGH.AND THE REASON A DENTIST FIRSTNOTICED IT WAS BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE GETTING FLUOROSIS AT THATHIGH LEVEL.BUT IT’S INTERESTING THEN, BECAUSE IF YOU WENT T TO THOSEPEOPLE AND IT’S KIND OF THEREVERSE 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 OFFLUORIDE IN OUR WATER SO PEOPLEDON’T GET FLUOROSIS.BUT THEN THE OTHER PEOPLE WHODIDN’T HAVE FLUOROSIS WILL SAYTHEN WE’RE GOING TO DEVELOP CAVITIES.GENT REVERSE.AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT’S SOMETHING THAT NATURALLY OCCURS IN THEWATER.SO WHAT STUDIES HAVE SHOWN US IS THERE’S A LEVEL WE CAN OPTIMIZEIN TERMS OF CAVITIES VERSUSFLUOROSIS. SO IF HUE A COMMUNITY THAT HAD ABUNCH OF FLUORIDE IN THE WATERTHAT WAS NATURALLY OCCURRING, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE DECISIONTO ACTUALLY BRING FLUORIDE DOWNETHICALLY WOULD PROBABLY BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE DECISION WE’RELOOKING AT TODAY IN TERMS OFOPTIMIZING 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 PROOFLIE?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’SIMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE DOING THE SCIENCE ARE ETHICAL ABOUT THEWAY THAT’S CONDUCTED.SO IT’S VERY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WERE TO BE A FACULTY OFMEDICINE COMMITTEE THAT WASAPPOINTED TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, IT’S THE BURDEN OF ETHICALRESPONSIBILITY LIES ON THEM TODOT BEST JOB THAT THEY CAN WITH THE TRAINING THAT THEY HAVE TOARRIVE AT THE ANSWER THAT’SCLOSEST TO THE TRUTH. AND THEN IT’S THE RESPONSIBILITYOF THE POLICY MAKERS TO TAKETHAT AND WEIGH IT AGAINST EVERYTHING ELSE, INCLUDINGPUBLIC OPINION.INCLUDING COST.INCLUDING EVERYTHING ELSE.AND COME TO A DECISION.AND I DON’T THINK YOU CAN REST RESPONSIBILITY ON ONE PARTY ORTHE OTHER.I THINK EVERYBODY HAS THE — ESPECIALLY INVOLVED IN — INPUBLIC INSTITUTIONS HAT THERESPONSIBILITY TO BEHAVE ETHICALLY IN ALL ASPECTS WHATTHEY DO.AND THIS IS, AGAIN, LIKE MOST THINGS IN OUR SOCIETY, THIS ISKIND OF MULTIFACTORIAL.SO EVERYBODY HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY.>> OKAY, SO ONCE THE ACTIVITY ISDONE, PER SE, FLOOR IDES IN THE WATER, DOES — FLUORIDES IN THEWATER, DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOFLIE WITH THOSE WHO ADVOCATE REMOVING IT OR THOSE THAT HAVEIT IN TO CONTINUE TO PROVE THATTHIS IS THE RIGHT QUANTITY.THAT IT IS STILL DOING WHAT IT’SINTENDED TO DO.OR THE REVERSE? >> SO, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANTFOR — I MEAN IN GENERAL IN ADEMOCRACY I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYBODY TO ADVOCATE FORWHAT THEY BELIEVE.>> COURSE. AND THIS IS JUST YOUR OPINION.I’M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I’MJUST 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 DOESTHAT BURDEN OF PROOF LIE?WITH THE PEOPLE THAT SAID IT SHOULD BE THERE, WE HAVE TOCONTINUE HAVING IT THERE ANDTHESE ARE THE REASONS? OR NOW THAT IT’S IN THERE DOTHEY GET TO RELAX SOMEWHAT ANDWAIT FOR THE OTHER SIDE TO SAY: NO, THESE ARE THE REASONS IT HASTO 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 TOWITH THE WHOLE, EVERYBODY NEEDS TO ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES IN ADEMOCRACY WAS NOT TO BRUSH THEQUESTION OFF.IT WAS REALLY TO SAY THAT REALLYIT’S UP TO EVERYBODY TO BECOGNIZANT OF OUR ONGOING, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE TAKE FORGRANTED IN SOCIETY THAT MAY ORMAY NOT BE THE RIGHT THING? THERE’S TONS OF THINGS THAT WEDO NOW THAT MIGHT BE THERIGHT — 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 THATSCIENTISTS ARE OFTEN — THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND SCIENCE IS TOBE CRITICAL OF WHAT’S ALREADYKNOWN.I MEAN, IF YOU DO A VERY, VERYWELL DESIGNED STUDY THAT SAYSHEY, 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 THE1950s, I MEAN IF WE HADN’T –IF SOMEONE HADN’T SAID HEY, MAYBE SMOKING IS A BAD THING.MAYBE IT’S CAUSING THESECANCERS, THEN NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.AND IF — AGAIN IF POLICYMAKERS, IF PEOPLE HADN’T LISTENED TO THAT I MEAN WHOKNOWS WHERE WE’D BE TODAY.SO I THINK IT LIES WITH BOTH PARTIES.AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT AGAIN, INTHIS SITUATION, IT’S NOT EVEN NECESSARILY — I MEAN, IT’SDIFFICULT TO SAY BLACK AND WHITEKIND OF FLUORIDE OR NO FLUORIDE.BECAUSE AGAIN, FLUORIDE OCCURSSNARLLY IN THE WATER SO IT’S ALEVEL ISSUE. AND I THINK THAT GETS A LITTLEBIT LOST IN THE DEBATE.AND PEOPLE ARE SAYING HEY, LIKE WE DON’T WANT FLUORIDATION.YOU SAY WELL, THE NORMAL LEVELIS .3 OR MILLION 4. SO WE ARE AGRICULTURE ADDINGMILLION 3 OR MILLION 4 TO THATAND CREATING .7. SO I MEAN YOUR POINT IS WELLTAKEN.BUT I THINK THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH EVERYBODY.AND ESPECIALLY, YEAH, IF YOUADVOCATE FOR HAVING IT AT A LEVEL OF.7 AND NEW DATA COMES OUT THAT ISSTRONG DATA AND SAYS HEY THAT’S NOT GOOD, THEN I THINK MOST –ESPECIALLY THE MEDICAL ANDDENTAL COMMUNITY WOULD BE THE FIRST PEOPLE TO SAY HEY, WHOA,LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AGAINAND FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON. >> THANK YOU.>> ALDERMAALDERMAN FARRELL.>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE JOININGTHIS DISCUSSION.THIS IS VERY HEALTHY DISCUSSION AND SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DOON A REGULAR BASIS.I CAN’T AGREE WITH YOUR CAR BRAKES ANALOGY.BECAUSE IF WE DIDN’T HAVE BRAKESI THINK WE WOULD HAVE MAYHEM.MAYBE THAT’S WHAT MY COLLEAGUETO MY LEFT WOULD LIKE.BUT THE — MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE ETHICS OF DELIVERING ASUBSTANCE THROUGH THE WATERSUPPLY. AND THAT SEEMS TO BE OFTEN WHERETHIS DISCUSSION COMES DOWN.IS WATER IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE. WE’VE GOT OTHER — I MEAN, THEREFERENCE TO SALT OR MILK ORFORTIFIED CEREALS COMES UP. BUT PEOPLE DO HAVE CHOICE WITHTHAT.BUT IF WATER IS SUCH A GOOD DELIVERY SYSTEM, FOR CERTAINSUBSTANCES, WE’VE BEEN HEARING ALOT ABOUT VITAMIN D SPECIFICALLY CANADIANS AND THEIR LACK OFSUNLIGHT.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 ONTO OTHERS AS A DELIVERY STHODFOR THINGS THAT WE — DELIVERY METHOD FOR THINGS THAT WE ALLNEED?>> YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN. I THINK SOME OF THE ETHICALISSUES REGARDING THAT IS, AGAIN,IT JUST GOES BACK TO THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, FLUORIDE IS INOUR WATER.FLUORIDE IS IN ALL THE FOOD THAT WE EAT.IT’S IN EVERYTHING THAT WEDRINK.FLUORIDE SEVER WHERE.AND WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HAVINGTHE — ABOUT KEEPING THE LEVEL. KEEPING, YOU KNOW, IMREAG UPO ANA LEVEL THAT PROVIDES THE MOSTBENEFIT WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME.AGAIN THERE’S COMMUNITIES THATHAVE MORE FLUORIDE THAN THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO.>> I KNOW.WE’RE INTERVENING IN THAT. SO WE’RE TAKING ACTION THAT’SSEPARATE FROM PROVIDING SAFE,CLEAN DRINKING WATER. THERE IS — IT’S A QUESTION WENEED TO ASK OURSELVES ON AREGULAR BASIS. THE THINGS WE DECIDED WERE FINEAND ETHICAL IN THE ’50s AREVERY — I MEAN, OUR VERSION AND VISION OF ETHICS IS VERYDIFFERENT.SO THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS TO BE ASKING OURSELVES: ISTHERE A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOINGIT? YOU SAID THAT IT’S LIKELY –VERY LIKELY THAT FLUORIDE ISHELPFUL.AND YET TEN YEARS AGO IT WASVERY LIKELY THAT MUCH HIGHERCONCENTRATION WERE HELPFUL. AND YET WE’VE LEARNED FROM THATBECAUSE WE ASKED THESE SAMEQUESTIONS. AND THE SAME QUESTIONS ARE BEINGASKED WITH SUBSTANCES HEALTHCANADA HAS DEEMED SAFE. IT TAKES A LOT LONGER TO GETSOMETHING OUT OF THE WATER.LYNVIEW RIDGE WE ALLOWED SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT INLYNVIEW RIDGE BECAUSE OURPREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF SAFE LEVELS OF LEAD CHANGED.AND THEN WE REALIZED WE ALLOWEDA 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 HERETODAY. >> ANDERMAN MAR.>> SORRY.THANK YOU, CHAIR.IN ALL THIS DEBATE, I’VE RATHERFORGOTTEN YOUR NAME.>> NICK. >> OKAY.WELL, Dr. NICK IS WHAT I’LLCALL YOU. BECAUSE I THINK YOU’VE EARNEDTHAT TITLE, DOCTOR.AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR CONTRIBUTING TODAY.NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEREIS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLUORIDE AVAILABLE TO ADD TOTHE WATER.ARE YOU AWARE OF WHICH KIND WE’RE USING HERE IN THE CITY OFCALGARY?>> NO, I’M NOT SURE WHICH ADDITIVE WE’RE USING.I THINK THE ISSUE OF CONCERN ORINTEREST IN THAT DISCUSSION WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE — I MEAN,FLUORIDE ITSELF IS AN ION.SO WHENEVER YOU HAVE FLUORIDE ADDED TO — FLUORIDE WOULDINITIALLY BE A SOLID AND ITWOULD BE ADDED TO THE WATER AND THEN IT WOULD DISASSOCIATE FROMWHATEVER THAT ION WAS BOUND TO.SO, FOR EXAMPLE IN SODIUM FLUORIDE IT WOULD BE SODIUM THATTHE FLUORIDE WAS BOUND TO.SO FLUORIDE ITSELF IN SOLUTION SHOULD — THE FLUORIDE IONEXISTS IN ISOLATION AND WOULDN’TNECESSARILY — THE ION IS INDEPENDENT THEREFORE WHAT ITWAS BOUND TO.BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE USE TO — WHAT COMPOUND THE FLUORIDEIS A PART WHEN WAS IT’S ADDEDI’M NOT SURE.SO IN TERMS OF, I GUESS, THEQUESTION WOULD BE WHATADDITIONALLY APART FROM FLUORIDE IS BEING ADDED TO OUR WATER.I DO KNOW THERE ARE SIX OR SEVENWAYS THAT IT CAN BE DONE. SO I’D IMAGINE THAT ANY WAY THATHAS BEEN CHOSEN WOULD LIKELYHAVE BEEN DEEMED TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE SAFEST, MOSTBENEFICIAL, CHEAPEST, WHAT HAVEYOU. AND THAT — I MEAN FLUORIDEAGAIN IT’S IN THE WATERNATURALLY AND IT WOULD COME IN A COMPOUND FROM A ROCK INITIALLY.YOU KNOW, FOR SODIUM FLUORIDE ORFLOORO CYLICATE OR WHATEVER.WOOPS.>> WELL — I’LL TELLISM THE ONEWE 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 — FOREXAMPLE, YOU KNOW THE INITIAL KIND OF VISCERAL RESPONSE FORMOST PEOPLE WHEN THEY HEARSOMETHING LIKE THAT IS, W WHOA, THAT SOUND KIND OF SCARY.I MEAN REALLY WE’RE TALKINGABOUT CONCENTRATIONS HERE. WE’RE TALKING ONE PART PERMILLION.AND AN ACID IS REALLY ONLY AN ACID DEPENDING ON ITSCONCENTRATION.SO ESSENTIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE PH OF WATER IT WOULDESSENTIALLY BE UNCHANGED BY THEADDITION OF THAT SMALL QUANTITY OF ACID.SO, I MEAN IT, IS AN ISSUE OFQUANTITIES.AND SO TO SAY THAT WE’REINGESTING ALL OF THIS HORRIBLEACID, 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’TSCARE ME SO MUCH AS THE METHOD IN WHICH THIS IS COLLECTED.BECAUSE IT IS ESSENTIALLYCOLLECTED FROM THE SCRUBBERS OF THE SMOKESTACKS IN CREATINGFERTILIZER.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 THATTHERE IS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT RATIONALS AS TO WHY WE WOULDSELECT X VERSUS Y.COST BEING ONE OF THEM.AND SAFETY ANOTHER.BUT, IF WE’RE TALKING ABOUT ANETHICAL PERSPECTIVE, AND WE DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THISFLUORIDE GOT TO US, HOW IT’SGOING TO AFFECT US, IN THE LONG-TERM.I’M NOT NECESSARILY TALKINGABOUT THE TEN YEARS OR 15 YEARS OR WHAT IT’S DOING TO OUR TEETH.BUT WHAT IS IT DOING TO OURBODIES OVER TIME FOR A MILLION, 1,000 PEOPLE.MY RESPONSIBILITY AS ONE OF THEELECTED OFFICIAL THIS WAS IS TO LOOK AFTER THE SAFETY ANDSECURITY OF THAT POPULATION.WHETHER OR NOT THERE MAY BE. >> Andrea: SILLRY BENEFIT TOFLOOR — MAY BE AN ANCILLARYBENEFIT TO FLUORIDATING WATER. AND IF IT DOES AND IF YOU CAN’TOPT OUT OF IT BECAUSE IT’S INYOUR WATER, WHICH NO ONE CAN GET OUT OF, THEN WE HAVE AN ETHICALPROBLEM HERE THAT CANNOT BEJUSTIFIED BASED ON. SO COMMENTS THAT YOU’VE HAD WITHREGARDS TO REDUCTION OFCAVITIES. IN MY VIEW, THIS IS — ETHICALPART COMES FROM: YOU CAN’T OPTOUT. 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 ISAVAILABLE, HOW CAN WE MAKE THISDECISION FOR 1.1 MILLION PEOPLE? AND HOW WOULD YOU HELP US MAKETHAT DECISION SOLELY ON THEBASIS THAT THE STUDIES THAT YOU’VE READ TELL US THAT IT’SNOT LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM?>> SO, I THINK — THAT’S ABSOLUTELY A VERY GOOD POINT.SO I THINK THERE’S A NUMBER OFPOINTS TO BE MADE ABOUT THAT.THE FIRST IS THAT I WOULD SAYYEAH, IF PEOPLE ARE TAKINGCOMPOUND OFF SMOKESTACKS AND DROPPING IS INTO WATER, THATWOULD BE A PROBLEM.I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT’S NOT ACTUALLY THE PROCESS THATOCCURS.BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, THE ISSUE IS THAT –WHEN IF COMES TO UNKNOWNS, IT’SALWAYS ASSUMED THAT ESSENTIALLY IF YOU ARE ADDING THIS SMALLAMOUNT OF SUBSTANCE TO A WATERFOR ALL THAT WE KNOW, THAT COULD BE — LIKE, THE HUMAN BODY ISSUCH AN INFINITELY VARIABLESYSTEM THAT WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THE EFFECTS OF THATTINY AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL ARE.BUT THEY COULD JUST AS LIKELY BE GOOD AS BE BAD.AND, YOU KNOW, AND THE POINTBEING — I MEAN IT’S AN ORGANIC COMPOUND AND YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELYNO IDEA OF SAYING, YOU KNOW,WHAT IF YOU TOOK IT OUT AND FOUND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GOT MORECANCER?THERE’S NO WAY OF KNOWING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.AND, YOU NEGOTIATION THE OTHERARGUMENT WOULD I MAKE IS THAT IF THERE WERE, YOU KNOW,SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE HEALTHOUTCOMES FROM THE COMPOUND THAT FLUORIDE A PART OF, WE’DPROBABLY SEE IT IN THE LONG-TERMWE’D PROBABLY SEE ALL KIND OF THESE — YOU KNOW, WE’D SEE ASTATISTICAL, SIGNIFICANT LARGENUMBER 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 YEAHINITIALLY YOU’D SAY OKAY, WE’RE SEEING LOFTS CANCERS HERE IN ALLTHESE FLUORIDATED AREAS AND IT’SSTATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND THE STUDIES DONE ARE GOODSTUDIES AND, YOU KNOW, LET’STAKE IT OUT.BUT THAT’S NOT THE CASE.AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN,YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC HEALTH PHYSICIANS WOULD BE COMING TOYOU SAYING LET’S GET THEFLUORIDE OUT OF THE WATER, IT’S CAUSING CANCER, BUT THAT’S NOTWHAT’S HAPPENING.THAT’S NOT WHAT THE LITERATURE HAS SHOWN US.>> OKAY, THANK YOU.NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU DOCTOR FOR YOURTIME.NEXT SPEAKER ON MY LIST IS JEANETTE BOYD.>> HELLO.MY NAME’S JEANETTE BOYD. THANKS SO MUCH FOR HAVING USHERE TODAY.SOME GREAT INFORMATION I’M LEARNING A LOT HERE TODAY.INCREDIBLE BRAINS AND MIND ANDGREAT INSIGHTS. I AM FOR FLUORIDE.BUT I THINK ONE OF OUR BIGGESTISSUES IS EDUCATION. MY CHILDREN WERE ALL BORN INVANCOUVER AND THEY HAD NOFLUORIDE IN VANCOUVER. SO YES, WE DID HAVE TO GIVE THEFLUORIDE DROPS THAT PEOPLE HAVETALKED ABOUT HERE TODAY. IT HAD TO BE DONE ON A DAILYBASIS.WHEN MY SECOND CHILD WAS BORN SHE WAS TWELVE MONTHS OLD, ICAME HOME TO CALGARY TO VISIT MYPARENTS.I RAN OUT OF FLUORIDE DROPS.SO I WENT TO THE PHARMACY.WHEN I WENT TO THE PHARMACY, THE PHARMACIST GAVE ME SUCH A BLASTBECAUSE I WAS DOING SOMETHING SOTERRIBLE TO MY DAUGHTER BY GIVING HER FLUORIDE DROPS.THAT I STOPPED GIVING HERFLUORIDE DROPS. THIS PHARMACIST DID NOT KNOWTHAT I WAS LIVING IN A PROVINCETHAT HAD NO FLUORIDE IN THE WATER.I WAS A YOUNG MOM.THERE IS NO LITERATURE GIVEN TO MOMS — AT LEAST THERE WASN’T ATTHE TIME WHEN I HAD CHILDREN, ASTO ORAL CARE. FOR YOUR CHILD.SIX MONTHS AFTER I GOT HOME, INB.C., I HELD MY 18-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER AS SHE PASSED OUTSCREAMING IN PAIN.DUE TO ROTTEN TEETH. SHE WENT FOR FOUR YEARS WITHOUTFRONT TEETH.BECAUSE I DID NOT GIVE HER HER FLUORIDE DROPS.BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF TWOPROVINCES. AND NO EDUCATION.ONE THING PEOPLE DON’T SEEM TOREALIZE, AND I’M SURPRISED IT WASN’T MENTIONED EARLIER TODAYFROM THE PHYSICIANS AND THEDENTISTS IS: WHEN CHILDREN’S TEETH FIRST ARE FORMED AND FIRSTCOME OUT OF THEIR GUMS YOU CANLITERALLY TAKE YOUR FINGERNAIL AND ERODE IT TO NOTHING.THEY HAVE NO PROTECTION.ON THEIR TEETH.THAT’S WHY IT’S A NECESSITY THATTHEY HAVE FLUORIDE.PUTTING IN THE WATER, MASS MEDICATION, IS THE BEST WAY TOGO.THAT WAY IT’S AVAILABLE FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE.WHEN Mr. MEADE HAS MENTIONEDTHAT, YOU KNOW, HE’S WORKING WITH THE HOMELESS AND THEWORKING POOR, I WAS A SINGLE MOMOF THREE KIDS FOR YEARS. AND OF COURSE YOU’RE NOT HEARINGTHEM TALK ABOUT FLUORIDE AS ANISSUE HERE IN CALGARY. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT’S NOT ANISSUE.THEY ARE GETTING THE FLUORIDE. BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU, IF YOUTAKE THE FLUORIDE OUT OF THISWATER, Mr. MEADE IS GOING TO HEAR QUITE A BIT COMING FROMTHESE POOR PEOPLE WHILE THEIRCHILDREN’S TEETH ARE LITERALLY ROTTING OUT OF THEIR MOUTH.WHO’S GOING TO GIVE THE PARENTSTHE EDUCATION? WHO IS GOING TO ENSURE THAT OURCHILDREN HAVE HEALTHY TEETH?THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WILL BENEFIT BY TAKING FLUORIDE OUTOF THE WATER ARE DENTISTS.THEY WILL BE GETTING A LOT, A LOT OF WORK.SO I ASK YOU GUYS, THINK ABOUTIT.BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION WHATTHE RAMIFICATIONS ARE GOING TOBE. SAVING YOURSELF $750.000 A YEAR,THAT’S PEANUTS AS TO WHAT IT’SGOING TO COST PARENTS IN THIS CITY TO KEEP UP WITH THEIRCHILDREN’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 ISDENNIS 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 ENVIRONMENTALPUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAM.HERE IN CALGARY.AND I’M HERE TO TALK INTAIFT OFHYDRO FLOORO SILLIC ACID WHICH IS THE FLUORIDE PRODUCT BEINGUSED — BEING ADDED TO THECALGARY DRINKING WATER SUPPLY. (PLEASE STAND BY)THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS BYTHE MANUFACTURER FOR THIS PRODUCT ARE FORHYDROFLUOROSILICATE LESS THAN 1%AND SOME TRACE IMPURITIES TO 0.02% MAXIMUM.THE PRODUCT IS CERTIFIED INACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE ANDTHE NATIONAL SANITATIONFOUNDATION TO STANDARD 60 FOR DRINKING WATER CHEMICALS AND FORHEALTH EFFECTS.WHICH IS A STANDARD TO ENSURE PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION FORADDITIVES THAT ARE ADDED TOWATER AND ALSO PRESENT IN THE FINISHED DRINKING WATER.THE NEXT SLIDE I’M GOING TO SHOWYOU IS THE ANALYTICAL BREAKDOWN OF TRACE CONTAMINANTS IN THEPRODUCT RECEIVED BY THE CITY OFCALGARY PRIOR TO ADDITION TO THE DRINKING WATER.NOW, THIS TABLE SHOWS THECONCENTRATIONS IN THE CENTRE COLUMN OF IMPURITIES IN THEPRODUCT RECEIVED BY THE CITY.THE RIGHT COLUMN SHOWS HEALTH CANADA ACCEPTABLE DRINKING WATERGUIDELINES FOR THOSE SUBSTANCES.NOW, IN THE CONCENTRATED PRODUCT, PRIOR TO DILUTION, 16OF THE 18 SUBSTANCES ARE ALREADYBELOW GUIDELINE STANDARDS. THE REMAINING 2 SUBSTANCES AREALSO WELL BELOW THE HEALTHCANADA GUIDELINE WHEN THE PRODUCT IS ADDED TO THE DRINKINGWATER.NOW, DURING YOU’RE TREATMENT, APPROXIMATELY 430 FAMILIARS OFTHIS PRODUCT — GRAMS OF THISPRODUCT ARE ADDED PER 1 MILLION LITRES OF WATER RESULTING IN AVOLUMEETRIC DILUTION OF3 MILLION TIMES.CONCENTRATIONS YOU SAW IN THEPREVIOUS TABLE MUST BE DILUTEDBY 3 MILLION TIMES FOR THEIR FINAL CONCENTRATION IN THEFINISHED CALGARY DRINKING WATERSUPPLY. AND THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THESECONCENTRATIONS.AND AS YOU CAN SEE BY ALL THOSE ZEROS IN THE CENTRE COLUMN, THEFINAL CONCENTRATIONS OF THESEIMPURITIES IN CALGARY DRINKING WATER AFTER DELUSION RANGES FROM170.000 TO OVER 1 MILLION TIMESLESS THAN THE HEALTH CANADA AND DRINKING WATER QUALITYGUIDELINE.THESE ARE HUGE DILUTIONS. SO WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OFTHIS PRODUCT TO PUBLIC HEALTHAND SAFETY? REALLY, THERE ARE NONE.I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THEREARE NO HEALTH CONCERNS BASED ON THE EXTREMELY LOW CONCENTRATIONSPRESENT IN THE FINAL DRINKINGWATER THAT ARE 170.000 TIMES AT THE MINIMUM TO OVER A MILLIONTIMES IN THE LOWER THAN CANADIANDRINKING WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES.SO I THINK THIS CERTAINLY GIVESA 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 CALLYOU RIGHT AFTER HIM. >> THANK YOU.MY TED WYNILOWICZ.I’M A CITIZEN OF CALGARY SINCE 1975.I’VE — THE POINTS THAT I MADEHAVE BEEN MADE SO I’M GOING TO CERTAINLY HONOUR THE REQUESTMADE AND BE AS BRIEF AS I CANBE. AT ANY RATE, PUBLICPARTICIPATION PLAYS AN IMPORTANTROLE IN A DEMOCRACY, AND I’M PLEASED TO STAND BEFORE YOU TOOFFER MY POSITION AND EXPLAINWHY I SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF FLUORIDE FROM CITY WATER.I’LL GO BRIEFLY ABOUT IT BECAUSEIT’S BEEN MENTIONED. THE FIRST ONE WAS A 1991-2001CENTRES OF DISEASE CONTROLPREVENTION HAS ACKNOWLEDGE THE MECHANISM OF FLUORIDE’S BENEFITSARE MAINLY TOPICAL AND NOTSYSTEMIC. THE SECOND POINT ALSO MENTIONEDONCE FLUORIDE IS PUT IN THEWATER IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTROL THE DOSE THAT EACHPERSON RECEIVES.AND THE THIRD POINT IS THAT FLUORIDATION IS UNETHICALBECAUSE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOTASKED FOR THEIR INFORMED CONSENT PRIOR TO MEDICATION.THIS IS STANDARD PRACTICE FORALL MEDICATION.AND ONE OF THE KEY REASONS WHYMOST OF WESTERN EUROPE HAS RULEDAGAINST FLUORIDATION. FOR THOSE THREE OUT OF MANYDIFFERENT REASONS I OPPOSE THEFLUORIDATION. I AM NOT A SIGN TEST, NOT ANEXPERT ON THAT, BUT THAT DOESNOT PRECLUDE US FROM HAVING AN OPINION.ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVEIS THAT THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT’S VERY ABSOLUTE, AND ASVACLAV HAVEL ONCE SAID FOLLOWTHOSE WHO SEEK THE TRUTH BUT RUN FROM THOSE WHO HAVE FOUND IT.SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BECAUTIOUS IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE TAKE AND HAVE A DEBATE WHEREALL POSITIONS ARE LISTENED TO,BUT WITH A DEGREE OF SKEPTICISM. SO TO CONCLUDE, A CHOICE ON THISMATTER IS IMPORTANT, FROM MYVIEWPOINT. THOSE WHO WISH TO CONTINUE TOUSE FLUORIDE HAVE THAT RIGHT ANDTHERE COULD BE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DISPENSING THAT.FROM COULD BE FLUORIDE VOUCHERSOR WHATEVER. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINKTHAT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHOOPPOSE 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 GOODAFTERNOON.MY NAME IS SHEILA TAMYNSKI AND I AM A PUBLIC HEALTH DIETITIAN ANDMANAGER OF POPULATION AND PUBLICHEALTH NUTRITION IN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES.I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY SUPPORTFOR OUR PUBLIC WATER FLUORIDATION IN THE CITY OFCALGARY.FLUORIDE IS A NUTRIENT. THIS MEANS THAT ITS CONSUMPTIONIS ESSENTIAL FOR OPTIMAL HEALTH.THIS IS RECOGNIZED, IT’S RECOGNIZED AS A NUTRIENT BYEVERY CREDIBLE HEALTH ANDSCIENTIFIC BODY AROUND THE WORLD.INCLUDING HEALTH CANADA, THEINSTITUTE OF MEDICINE AND THE CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL.THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERSHAVE ESTABLISHED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REQUIREMENTS.FLUORIDE’S MAIN ROLE IS IN THEPREVENTION OF TOOTH DECAY, HAVING HEALTHY TEETH IS ANIMPORTANT PART OF OVERALL HEALTHSO PROTECTING OUR TEETH FROM DECAY CONTRIBUTES TO OUR HEALTHAND WELL BEING.THERE IS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE AVAILABLE NATURALLY INOUR 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 TEETHFROM DECAY.MAJOR HEALTH BODIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD HAVE UNDERTAKENEXTENSIVE AND EXHAUSTIVE REVIEWSOF THOUSANDS OF STUDIES AROUND THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OFWATER FLUORIDATION AND THERESULTS ARE CLEAR AND CONSISTENT.IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, NO ADVERSEEFFECTS TO HUMAN HEALTH WERE FOUND AND THERE’S WITH MODERATELEVELS OF CONSUMPTION.I’D ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT I’M THE MOTHER OF FOUR CHILDREN WHOARE GROWN UP.AND AS SOMEONE WHO WORKS IN THE FIELD OF NUTRITION AND ISFAMILIAR WITH THIS STUDY, MYCHILDREN HAVE ALWAYS DRANK FLUORIDATED WATER, TAP WATER.AS A MOTHER I WOULD NEVER HAVEDONE ANYTHING TO PUT MY CHILDREN IN HARM’S WAY.SO I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE FULLCONFIDENCE IN THE RESEARCH AND STUDIES TO PROVIDE MY KIDS WITHTAP WATER.AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO JUST ADD TO THE DIALOGUE HERE AROUNDTHE COUNT, NONE OF MY KIDS HAVEANY DENTAL CARRIES.ALL OF MY KIDS HAVE GOOD STRONGTEETH AND NONE OF THEM HAVE ANYSIGNS OF FLOUROSIS. FLUORIDE IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OFA HEALTHY DIET.THE JURY IS IN. WATER FLUORIDATION AS CARRIEDOUT IN CALGARY IS THE SAFEST ANDMOST EFFECTIVE WAY OF ENSURING THAT ALL OF OUR CITIZENS GETENOUGH FLUORIDE.THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?SEEING NONE, THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.THE NEXT SPEAKER I HAVE ISDr. BOB DICKSON. I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU DON’TLOOK LIKE A BOB.>> I’M PRESENTING Dr. BOB DICKSON WHO IS UNFORTUNATELYABSENT THIS WEEK, AND MY NAME ISSUZANNA NEDERO. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY –I’M READING HIS PRESENTATION.THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT BEFORE THE UND COMMITTEEAND IN ESSENCE TO CITY COUNCIL.MY PROFOUND APOLOGIES FOR NOT ATTENDING IN PERSON.AT THIS MOMENT, I’M MOST LIKELYSITTING UNDER THE UNFLUORIDATED WATERFALL IN COSTA RICA.HOWEVER, YOU CAN BE CERTAIN THECOMMITTEE AND THE PROCESS WILL BE CLOSE TO MY MIND AND HEART.I EXPECT THERE WILL BE MANYPASSIONATE PRESENTERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTENTIOUSDEBATE.I CAN ASSURE THAT YOU NONE HAVE RESEARCHED AND PORED THROUGH THELITERATURE AND PRESS TO THEEXTENT THAT Dr.BECK AND I HAVE.I WANT TO SAY THAT I BELIEVE INFLUORIDE. IT IS JUST THAT WE ARE USING ITABSOLUTELY WRONG.AND DANGEROUSLY. FLUORIDE AS ADMITTED BY MOST OFTHE WORLD INCLUDING THE OFTENQUOTED CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL WORKS ONLY TOPICALLY.THE HUMOROUS ANALOGY OFTENREPEAT IS THAT WE DON’T SWALLOW OUR SUNSCREEN SO WE SHOULDN’TSWALLOW FLUORIDE EITHERPARTICULARLY WITH ALL THE INHERENT PROBLEMS AND ASSOCIATEDDANGERS.YOU WILL LIKELY HEAR A LOT ABOUT PROPONENTS ABOUT THE SAFETY OFFLUORIDATION.I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW INGESTING ONE OF THE MOST TOXICSUBSTANCES ON THE PLANET WITHOUTCONTROL OF DOSE AND WITHOUT MONITORING OR FOLLOWUP COULDEVER BE CONSIDERED SAFE.THIS DEFIES THE OATH I HAVE TAKEN AS A PHYSICIAN TO DO NOHARM TO PATIENTS AND HUMANKIND.WE HAVE A SMALL AMOUNT OF NATURAL CALCIUM FLUORIDE IN OURBOW AND ELBOW RIVER WATERSUPPLIES, AND MANY OF US INCLUDING ME BRUSH WITHPHARMACEUTICAL GRADE SODIUMFLUORIDE. HYDROFLUOROSILICATE HAS CREPTOUT THE INDUSTRY SMOKESTACKS OFTHE FERTILIZER AND ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES.THEN BECAUSE IT IS SO TOXIC ANDVOLATILE, IT IS RIGIDLY CONTROLLED AND NOT ALLOWED TO BEDISPOSED OF IN YOUR STREAMS,RIVERS, LAKES, OCEANS AIR OR LAND.THE ONLY PLACE THAT INDUSTRY HASBEEN ALLOWED TO DISPOSE OF THIS VOLATILE WASTE ASIDE FROM TOXICWASTE DUMPS IS IN OUR OTHERWISEPRISTINE DRINKING WATER.HIGHLY LEVEL MEDICAL OFFICIALSIN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES HAVETOLD ME THAT THEY DON’T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT DOSE OR MASSMEDICATION AS FLUORIDE IS NOT AMEDICATION. WELL, IT DOESN’T NATURALLY OCCURIN THE BODY, AND IT IS NOTESSENTIALLY TO BODILY FUNCTIONS. AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADAIN 1958 RULED THAT FLUORIDE ISINDEED A MEDICATION. THEREFORE, ANY ETHICAL PHYSICIANIS BOUND TO OBTAIN INFORMEDCONSENT, CONTROL DOSE, MONITOR EFFECTS, BE VIGILANT FOR SIDEEFFECTS AND FOLLOW UP REGULARLY.NONE, I REPEAT, NONE OF THESE ARE DONE BY THE CITY OF CALGARY,ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES ORHEALTH CANADA. A SENIOR HEALTH OFFICIAL ALSOWAS QUOTED ON CBC NATIONAL RADIORECENTLY IN SAYING THERE IS NO MEDICAL JUSTIFICATION FORM.D.s TO TELL PATIENTS NOT TOTAKE FLUORIDE.THAT STATEMENT SIMPLY DEFIESCOMMON SENSE, RESPECT,RESPONSIBILITY, GOOD MEDICINE AND THE PRECAUTIONARYPRINCIPLES.WE SAY IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN, DON’T DO IT.HARM IS MOST CERTAINLY BEINGDONE SLOWLY AND INSIDIOUSLY TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN.BUT TAKE A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUTTHOSE 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 ADAGEINCESSANTLY REPEATED, FLUORIDATION IS GOOD FOR THEPOOR.THAT IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH.VERY GOOD STUDIES SHOW THAT ITIS POVERTY, NOT FLUORIDATION,THAT MAKE IT IS OR BREAKS IT FOR POOR KIDS.THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE INPARALLEL STUDIES. IN GROUPS OF DISADVANTAGED KIDSWHO ARE EITHER NOR DATED OR NOT.– FLUORIDATED OR NOT. MANY GRAPHS VERIFY IT IS BETTERDENTAL CARE, MORE BRUSHING ANDFLOSSING. FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE, BETTERDIET WITH INCREASED LEVELS OFCALCIUM AND OTHER ESSENTIAL NUTRITION THAT ARE CAUSING THEDECLINE OF DENTAL DECAY IN OURWORLD. NONFLUORIDATEED REGIONS INCOUNTRIES HAVE THE SAME DECLINEIN CAVITIES AS A NATURE OF FLUORIDATED AREAS SUCH ASALBERTA AND THE U.S.A.SOME QUICK POINTS TO FINISH. BRITISH COLUMBIA AND EUROPE ARE95% AND 98% UNFLUORIDATED.THEY’RE TEETH ARE AS GOOD AS OURS IN 75% FLUORIDATED ALBERTA.A NOBEL LAUREATE RECENTLY CALLEDFLUORIDATION THE BIGGEST FRAUD EVER PROPAGATED AGAINST SOCIETY.7,000 SCIENTISTS FROM THE EPAHAVE PETITIONED THE U.S. CONGRESS TO PUT A MORATORIUM ONFLUORIDATION.3,300 PROFESSIONALS WORLDWIDE HAVE SIGNED ONTO A CAMPAIGN TOHOLD FLUORIDATION –>> I HATE TO BREAK IN ON YOU BUT YOUR FIVE MINUTES IS UP.DO YOU HAVE A CONCLUDINGCOMMENT? >> AS A STATEMENT, PLEASE HAVETHE POLITICAL COURAGE TO REMOVETHIS VOLATILE TOXIN FROM OUR DRINKING WATER.THANK YOU.ON BEHALF OF Dr.BOB DICKSON. >> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?CAN WE GET COPIES OF YOURPRESENTATION? >> I HAVE MY PRESENTATION, YES.>> COULD YOU MAYBE GET — GIVEIT 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, NOTA SCIENTIST, NOT A CHEMIST. BUT AN ENTREPRENEUR AND ACONCERNED CITIZEN.THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT BEFORE YOU.I’M A NEW CALGARIAN AND MOVEDFROM SWITZERLAND ALMOST ONE AND A HALF YEARS AGO.WHEN I LEARNED THAT CALGARYSTILL FLUORIDATED THE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER, I WAS MORE THANSURPRISED THAT SUCH AN OUTDATEDAND POLITICALLY — POTENTIALLY HARMFUL PRACTICE IS STILL INUSE.SWITZERLAND IS A COUNTRY WITH ONE OF THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OFLIVING, WITH ONE OF THE BESTEDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, AND VERY IMPORTANTSWITZERLAND’S WATER IS NOTFLUORIDATED.THE ONLY CITY IN SWITZERLANDFLUORIDATED ITS WATER IN THEPAST FROM 1962 TO 2003. SWITZERLAND USES SALTFLUORIDATION AND USES IT UP TOTHE INDIVIDUAL TO USE SALT WITH OR WITHOUT FLUORIDE.ALSO OFFERS TOOTHPASTE WITH ORWITHOUT FLUORIDE. IN SWITZERLAND, FLUORIDE ISREGARDED AS INVENTION INTOPERSONAL FREEDOM. I BELIEVE IT’S A PERSONALATTRIBUTE THAT IS ALSO VERY DEARTO CANADIANS AND TO NORTH AMERICANS IN GENERAL.A BOARD MEMBER OF A HEALTH ANDSOCIAL COMMISSION SAID IT IS OF MOST IMPORTANCE THAT THEINDIVIDUAL HAS THE FREEDOM TOCHOOSE THE APPROPRIATE PROPHYLAXIS.THE MAIN REASON WATERFLUORIDATION STOPPED IN 2003 WHICH WAS THE ONLY CITY INSWITZERLAND ARE REPORTED AS LACKOF EVIDENCE THAT WATER FLUORIDATION IS MORE EFFECTIVETHAN SALT FLUORIDATION INREDUCING TOOTH DECAY. THE SECOND POINT, THEINEFFICIENCY OF WATERFLUORIDATION, AND SWISS LIKE TO BE VERY EFFICIENT.THE HEALTH COMMISSION PRESIDENTSTATED ONLY A MINIMAL PART OF SO-CALLED DRINKING WATER IS USEDFOR DRINKING AND COOKING.MORE THAN 99% OF THE WATER IS NOT DRINKING WATER BUT IS USEDFOR WASHING CARS, CLEANINGSTAIRS, SHOWERING TO POUR ON FLOWERS AND SO ON.FLUORIDE IS POISON THAT UNLOADSNECESSARY OUR RIVERS AND ENVIRONMENT SUPPORTED BY ADOCTOR, THE FLUORIDATION OFWATER HAD A MINIMAL EFFICIENCY AS MOST OF THE FLUORIDE WASBOILED.THE HEALTH COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO STOP WATERFLUORIDATION AND TO OFFER THEINDIVIDUALS FLUORIDATION SALT.AT THE CITY PARLIAMENTACKNOWLEDGED EFFECTS AND STOPPEDTHE CITY WATER FLUORIDATION IN 2003.AT A EUROPEAN MEET ONFLUORIDATION, CONCERNED ABOUT THE MEDICAL ETHICS WERE VOICEDQUITE STRONGLY BY THE RECENTNOBEL PRIZE RECIPIENT FOR MEDICINE, A DOCTOR FROM SWEDEN.CARLSON WHO LOCKED THESUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN TO STOP FLUORIDATION IN SWEDEN, THEPUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES ARE NOTTHE APPROPRIATE VEHICLE WITH WHICH TO DELIVERPHARMACALOGICALLY DRUGS TO THEPOPULATION. FLUORIDATION WILL BE CONSIGNEDTO MEDICAL HISTORY.THE ADDITION TO DRUGS TO THE DRINKING WATER MEANS EXACTLY THEOPPOSITE OF INDIVIDUALIZEDTHERAPY.NOT ONLY IS THAT THE DOSE CANNOTBE ADAPTED TO INDIVIDUALREQUIREMENTS, IT IS IN ADDITION BASED ON COMPLETELY IRRELEVANTFACTOR, NAMELY CONSUMPTION OFDRINKING WATER WHICH VARIES GREATLY BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL ANDIS MOREOVER VERY POORLYSURVEYED. CARLSSON’S VIEWS ARE SIMILAR TOTHOSE EXPRESSED BY RECENT EUROPEHEALTH AUTHORITIES, FOR EXAMPLE AN AUTHORITY IN BELGIUM.IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL POSITIONOF THE DRINKING WATER SECTOR THAT IT IS NOT ITS TASK TODELIVER MEDICINAL TREATMENT TOPEOPLE. THIS IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITYOF HEALTH SERVICES.ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF WATER AUTHORITY IN LUXEMBOURG, IN OURVIEW THE DRINKING WATER ISN’T ASUITABLE WAY FOR MEDICAL TREATMENTS, AND THAT PEOPLENEEDING AN ADDITION OF FLUORIDECAN BE DECIDED BY THEIR OWN TO USE THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY.AND GERMANY’S GOVERNMENT WASSAYING THE AUGMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTHAGAINST THE GENERAL PERMISSIONOF FLUORIDATION OF DRINKING WATER IS THE PROBLEMATIC NATUREOF COMPELSRY MEDICATION.AND IN FRANS, FLUORIDE CHEMICALS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OFCHEMICALS FOR DRINKING WATERTREATMENT.THIS IS DUE TO ETHICAL AS WELLAS 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 YOURLAST NAME.>> NEDERIL. >> SO YOU’RE NOT A HEALTHPROFESSIONAL.>> NO. >> YOU HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE INTHE DISCUSSION THAT HAS BEENOCCURRING IN EUROPE. AND WHEN DID THIS CHANGE –BECAUSE MUCH OF EUROPE DIDFLUORIDATE, OR — >> ABSOLUTELY.>> THEY DID.SO WHEN DID THIS CHANGE OF PROCESS HAPPEN?WHEN DID — AND WHATPRECIPITATED IT? I’M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.>> SO I CANNOT TALK FOR ALL THECOUNTRIES, FOR SWITZERLAND IT WAS ONLY BASIL WHICH FLUORIDATEDWATER AND ALL THE OTHERCOUNTRIES, THEY STARTED FLUORIDATING IN THE ’50s, BUTTHEN MANY STOPPED AFTER 20, 30YEARS BECAUSE IT WAS JUST NOT PROVEN — THE BENEFITS WERE NOTSTRONG ENOUGH THAT IT REALLYPREVENTS THE HEALTH OF THE DENTAL HEALTH, BECAUSE IT CAN BESUBSTITUTED AND IT’S ALSOMINIMIZES THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF THE PERSON TO CHOOSE OR NOTTO CHOOSE.>> SO THIS IS MOSTLY WESTERN EUROPE WHERE THIS IS OCCURRING?THIS CHANGE OF PROCESS?OR IS IT — >> A LOT OF COUNTRIES IN EASTERNEUROPE WHICH DON’T FLUORIDATE ASWELL.EVEN SOME NORTH AFRICANCOUNTRIES.SO IT IS CERTAINLY A STRONG TREND.>> AND SO ARE THOSE COUNTRIESMONITORING THE EFFECTS? >> VERY STRONGLY.I MEAN, BASIL DID EXPENSIVERESEARCH, IN SWITZERLAND LIKE ZURICH NEVER FLUORIDATED ITSWATER, SO THEY DIDN’T SEE ANYBETTER DENTAL HEALTH IN THE PEOPLE, CHILDREN AND OLDERPEOPLE THAN IN BASIL.SO THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THATFLUORIDATION IS NECESSARY OF THEWATER. >> OKAY.THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONTODAY. >> 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 SEEINGIT.>> I DON’T GO BY WHAT’S THERE, I GO BY WHAT’S HERE.>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THEPRESENTATION.I APPRECIATE THAT.YOU SAID THAT BASIL STOPPEDFLUORIDATING THE WATER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO — I CAN’T REMEMBEREXACTLY HOW YOU SAID IT, BUTNO — FLUORIDE WAS SHOWN NOT TO BE EFFECTIVE –>> THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THATWATER FLUORIDATION WAS EFFECTIVE.>> YOU ALSO SAID THAT AFTER THEYTOOK 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 SALTBUT THERE IS FLUORIDATED SALTAND SALT THAT IS NOT FLUORIDATED.SO I AS AN INDIVIDUAL CANCHOOSE. >> I SEE.BUT THAT MAY EXPLAIN WHY THEREWAS NO CHANGE IN THE DENTAL DECAY RATE.>> ABSOLUTELY.>> OKAY.THANK YOU.>> MY PLEASURE.>> THANKS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DANIELLAANDRE.>> HELLO, EVERYONE. I SALUTE THE ENTIRE AUDIENCE.>> COULD YOU MOVE CLOSER TO THEMIC? >> I SALUTE THE ENTIRE AUDIENCE.Mr. CHAIR, ALDERMEN, COMMITTEEAND FELLOW CITIZENS, I THANK EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE FORTAKING THE PASSION, THE CARE,THE EFFORT AND THE TIME TO PUT SOMETHING FORWARD THAT INTERESTSALL OF US PRESENT AND NOTPRESENT. I’M A CALGARY CITIZEN.I’M NOT A WATER, MEDICAL ORLEGAL EXPERT AND I’M NOT CLAIMING THAT.I JUST EXPRESS MY OPINION BACKEDBY RESEARCH AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RESEARCH.I LET YOU REVIEW, ANALYZE ANDDRAW CONCLUSIONS. I’M PETITIONING THE CALGARYMUNICIPALITY TODAY TO STOP WATERFLUORIDATION BECAUSE, ONE, NUMEROUS STUDIES SHOW THAT NOTONLY IS FLUORIDATION INEFFECTIVEAGAINST CAVITIES, BUT IT POSES SERIOUS HEALTH RISKS SUCH ASALTERING OF THE ENDOCRINEFUNCTION, CAUSING DENTAL FLUOROSIS IN YOUNG CHILDREN,LOWERING IQ, INCREASING RISK OFBONE FRACTURES AND OVEREXPOSURE OF FLUORIDE IN COMBINATION WITHTOOTHPASTE, MOUTH RINSE PRODUCTSAND FOODS.ARTICLES WITH SOURCES ON AUTHORSPUBLICATIONS AND STUDIES AREATTACHED AND I WILL PROVIDE THEM TO YOU.A COUPLE OF STUDIES TO CONTINUEWHAT THE OTHER FELLOW CITIZENS HAVE BROUGHT HERE, SO, ONE, THEWORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION HASCOMPILED A STUDY THAT SHOWS NO DIFFERENCE IN TOOTH DECAY INCOUNTRIES THAT USE FLUORIDATEDWATER VERSUS COUNTRIES THAT USE NONFLNONFLUORIDATED WATER.TWO, THE LARGEST DENTAL SURVEYEVER CONDUCTED IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND VIRTUALLY NODIFFERENCE IN DENTAL DECAYBETWEEN CHILDREN LIVING IN FLUORIDATED VERSUS UNFLUORIDATEDAREAS.THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTALRESEARCH.THREE. THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATIONAND THE AMERICAN CENTRE FORDISEASE CONTROL RECOMMENDS THAT INFANTS SHOULD NOT RECEIVEFLUORIDATED WATER FOR DRINKINGOR MAKING BABY FORMULA AS FLUORIDATED WATER CONTAINS 250TIMES MORE FLUORIDE THAN THEMOTHER’S MILK. FOUR.PROFESSIONALS ARE OF THE OPINIONTHAT WE ALREADY TAKE THE OPTIMAL 1 MILLIGRAM OF FLUORIDE FROMPESTICIDE RESIDUALS, FLUORIDATEDFOODS AND BEVERAGES AND FLUORIDE AIR POLLUTION.FIVE.IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE ARE TAKING FLUORIDEIN OUR BODIES NOT ONLY THROUGHDRINKING THE WATER, BUT ALSO WHEN WE SHOWER AND TAKE BATHS.FROM WHAT I READ, IT SEEMS LIKEOUR BODY CAN TAKE UP TO 1.5 LITRE OF WATER WHEN TAKING ABATH OR A SHOWER.AND THE THIRD AND VERY IMPORTANT, THE FLUORIDE ISEVAPORATING EASIER THAN THEWATER.SO WHEN WE SHOWER OR TAKE ABATH, WE ARE INGESTINGCONCENTRATED — A CONCENTRATED PORTION OF FLUORIDE WHICH IS NOTGOOD.SO THAT COMES TO THE FACT THAT BASICALLY WE ABSOLUTELY ARE NOTCONTROLLING HOW MUCH FLUORIDE WEARE PUTTING IN OUR BODIES THROUGH DIFFERENT WAYS.SKIN, INHALING AND ALSODRINKING — THROUGH THE DRINKING WATER.AND, SEVEN, WITH YOU ASKED ABOUTTHE QUANTITY OF FLUORIDE WHICH IS SAFE.NOBODY KNOWS THAT.BUT WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT 500-MILLIGRAMS OF FLUORIDE ISENOUGH TO KILL A CHILD.MY SECOND POINT IS THAT IT MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE TO SPEND 3,4 MILLION OR 6 MILLION OR MOREWHEN WATER FLUORIDATION IS INCREASINGLY REJECTED BYCOMMUNITIES WORLDWIDE.98% OF WESTERN EUROPE REJECTED WATER FLUORIDATION AND SO HAVEMANY COMMUNITIES IN THE UNITEDSTATES AND CANADA. IN CANADA, ONLY ALBERTA ANDPARTS OF ONTARIO ARE STILLFLUORIDATING WATER. THREE.WATER FLUORIDATION SEEMS ILLEGALTO ME. WATER FLUORIDATION IS BASED ONTHE CLAIM OF PREVENTINGCAVITIES, WHICH HAVE A MEDICAL CLAIM AND AS SUCH MAKING THESECLAIMS INSTANTLY ANDAUTOMATICALLY TRANSFORMS FLUORIDE INTO A DRUG.>> EXCUSE ME, MA’AM, YOUR TIMEIS UP. CAN YOU DO A CONCLUDING COMMENT?>> YES.THE FIVE MINUTES? >> YOU CAN ONLY GET ANOTHER FIVEMINUTES IF MEMBERS OF COMMITTEEGIVE IT TO YOU.NOBODY’S PUT THEIR LIGHT ON TOGIVE YOU EXTRA TIME SO I NEED ACONCLUDING COMMENT THAT’S LESS THAN A MINUTE.IF YOU WISH, YOU CAN LEAVE ACOPY OF YOUR PRESENTATION TOO. >> YES.SO BESIDES WHAT I HAVE PRESENTEDSO FAR, FLUORIDATING THE WATER IS VIOLATING CANADIAN LAWS,MEDICAL LAWS AND HUMAN RIGHTS.SO MY KINDLY REQUEST IS THAT YOU DO PULL OUT RESEARCHONE ENGINEER WHO HAS COME WITH A3, 4 MILLION COST SO WE NEED TO HAVE A FIRM NUMBER TO TAKE ADECISION.AND, THIRD, I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO BE ON THE PANEL THAT FURTHERDISCUSSES THE ISSUE ON FLUORIDEAND I THINK I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK TO HAVE A POINT FORTHAT.THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?SEEING NONE, THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.THE NEXT PRESENTER IS — NOTSURE 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 OFUS, NOW IT’S ONE. HELLO, MY NAME IS GRACE WRIGHT.I WORK FOR THE ABORIGINAL HEALTHPROGRAM WITH ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES.WHICH IS A PROVINCEWIDE PROGRAMCOMMITTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF HEALTHSERVICES TO IMPROVE THE HEALTHAND WELLNESS CAPACITY AND ACCESS OF SERVICES FOR ABORIGINALPEOPLE RESIDING IN ALBERTA.IN 2001, THERE WERE ALMOST 20.000 SELF-IDENTIFIEDABORIGINAL PEOPLE LIVING WITHINTHE CITY OF CALGARY.THE GROWTH RATE OF THEABORIGINAL POPULATION IN CALGARYIS THE FASTEST IN CANADA. IF CURRENT GROWTH RATESCONTINUE, THE ABORIGINALPOPULATION WILL NEARLY TRIPLE TO 65.000 IN 2017.CONSISTENT FINDINGS ACROSS MANYSTUDIES HAVE INDICATED THAT ABORIGINAL PEOPLE EXPERIENCEDSUBSTANTIALLY GREATER MORTALITYAND MORBIDITY RATES AND POORER SELF-RATED HEALTH COMPARED TOOTHER ALBERTANS.THE CONSISTENT POOR HEALTH IS A CONCERN ACROSS CANADA.ABORIGINAL POPULATIONS HAVETHREE TO FIVE TIMES THE DENTAL DECAY RATES OF OTHER CANADIANS,AND MANY OF THE CHILDREN REQUIREHOSPITAL CARE FOR DENTAL ABSCESSES.THE AVERAGE ABORIGINAL CHILD INALBERTA HAS MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY DECAYS, MISSING OR FILLEDTEETH AND IS TWICE AS LIKELY TOHAVE UNTREATED DECAY COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE NONABORIGINAL CHILD.FIRST NATIONS AND INUITINDIVIDUALS RECOGNIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HAVETREATY RIGHTS ARE ELIGIBLE ONLYFOR LIMITED ORAL AND DENTAL INSURANCE SERVICES.THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OFNONREGISTERED FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE AND METIS PEOPLE RESIDINGIN CALGARY WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLEFOR ANY BENEFITS FROM THIS PROGRAM.A MAJOR CONCERN, THEN, IS ACCESSTO ORAL AND DENTAL SERVICES WHICH IS SEVERELY IMPACTED BYLACK OF INSURANCE AS A RESULT OFINCOME INEQUITY.THE MAJORITY OF URBAN ABORIGINALPEOPLE IN CALGARY STRUGGLE WITHPOVERTY. IN 2006, THE MEDIAN INCOME FORABORIGINAL PEOPLE WAS $18.962.30% LOWER THAN THE 27.000 MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE REST OFCANADIANS.THE INCOME GAP IS $7,083 HIGHER IN URBAN SETTINGS.THIS MEANS URBAN ABORIGINALPEOPLE HAVE A 50% LESS MEDIAN INCOME THAN OTHER CANADIANS INURBAN SETTINGS.ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE POPULATION IN CANADA USUALLYTHOSE WITH LOW INCOMES GO TODENTISTS FOR LITTLE MORE THAN EMERGENCY CARE.THIS IS MIRRORED BY THEABORIGINAL COMMUNITY, ALBEIT A MUCH HIGHER RATE AND ALTHOUGHNOT DUE SOLELY TO LOW INCOME,THIS BEHAVIOUR DOES RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESS TO DENTALSERVICES GENERALLY.WE KNOW THAT WATER FLUORIDATION IS BENEFICIAL TO ALL.AS A MEASURE THAT IS EQUALLYACCESSIBLE TO ALL, FLUORIDATION REACHES THOSE IN GREATEST NEEDAND AT HIGHEST RISK BECAUSEEVERYONE HAS EASY ACCESS TO IT, WATER FLUORIDATION IS ANEFFECTIVE AND SOCIALLY EQUITABLESTRATEGY FOR REDUCING TOOTH DECAY ACROSS OUR COMMUNITIES.THERE ARE SEVERAL CAUSES FOR THEPOOR ORAL HEALTH OF URBAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE.TODAY, HOWEVER, WE HIGHLIGHTEDTHE OBVIOUS FOR URBAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE.INCOME INEQUITY, POVERTY ANDLACK OF ACCESS TO SERVICES.WATER FLUORIDATION IN THE FACEOF LACK OF ACCESS TO ORAL ANDDENTAL SERVICES BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLE CANNOT BE UNDERESTIMATEDAS AN EFFECTIVE PREVENTIVESTRATEGY AGAINST THE PERSISTENT POOR ORAL HEALTH OF URBANABORIGINAL PEOPLE RESIDING INCALGARY. 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 URBANABORIGINAL PEOPLE ARE IN ADESPERATE STATE FOR A WHOLE SERIES OF REASONS.YOU’RE NOT SUGGESTING THATFLUORIDE WILL SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS.>> NO, NOT SOLVE THEM.BUT IT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE DENTAL HEALTH OF THE URBANABORIGINAL PEOPLE.>> AND IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT?AS WE’RE SEEING, POVERTY — ALOT 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 WHOHAVE BEEN FLUORIDATING FOR MUCH, MUCH LONGER THAN WE HAVE, WHOARE STILL DEALING WITH A DENTALHEALTH CRISIS, FLUORIDE ISN’T A PANACEA.AND I FIND IT OFFENSIVE TO THINKTHAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT THINK IT IS.SO AS LONG AS WE CAN AGREE THATTHERE’S MUCH MORE WORK TO BE DONE IN THE ISSUE OF POVERTYTHAN SIMPLY FLUORIDATING THEWATER.WE DON’T JUST PUT FLUORIDE INTHE WATER AND THEN, WE’RE DONE.>> NO, THAT WAS NOT MY SUGGESTION.>> OKAY.THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN KEATING, YOU HAVE AQUESTION?>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THE STATISTICS, IS THATTODAY’S — OR IN REAL TIME SORTOF WHETHER I MEAN TODAY OR IN THE LAST WHILE?>> WHICH STATISTICS –>> THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT — >> THE INCOME?>> THE ORAL HEALTH OF URBANABORIGINALS 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 BETTERPROGRAM TO HELP THEM RATHER THAN JUST CONTINUING THE COURSE?>> THERE PROBABLY ARE MANYPROGRAMS THAT COULD HELP WITH DENTAL IF THEY HAD ACCESS TO ADENTIST REGULARLY, THAT WOULD BEBENEFICIAL.BUT FLUORIDATION IN THE WATER ISSIMPLY ONE POSITIVE STEP.>> BUT I GUESS GOING BACK TO THE SECOND PART OF THE MOTION IS IFWE MAKE THE DECISION TO REMOVEIT, AND TAKE THOSE FUNDS AND PUT THEM INTO A PROGRAM THAT ISGOING TO HELP THOSE IN MOSTNEED, WOULD THAT NOT BE BETTER THAN JUST LEAVING IT AS IT IS?>> IS THERE A PROGRAM NOW THATTHEY’RE PLANNING ON DOING? OR IS THIS JUST…>> WELL, THE SECOND PART OF THEMOTION SAYS LOOK INTO THE FACT OF TAKING THE MONEYS THAT IS NOWSPENT AND PUTTING IT INTO APROGRAM 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’MJUST STANDING BEFORE YOU AS A CITIZEN, NOT REPRESENTING ANY OFTHE ORGANIZATIONS THAT I WORKWITH IN THE COMMUNITY.FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THATI LOVE FLUORIDE.I HAVE BEEN — WHEN I GREW UP IN ONTARIO IN THUNDER BAY, WE HAD AFLUORIDATION PROGRAM AT OURSCHOOL WHERE EVERY FEW WEEKS WE WOULD GO LINE UP IN THE HALLWAYAND WE WOULD SWISH IT IN OURMOUTHS AND SPIT IT OUT, AND I DO HAVE FLUOROSIS OF MY TEETH ORWHAT APPEAR TO BE SOME OF THESYMPTOMS 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 ONOUR TEETH AND SOMETIMES THEPERCEPTION IS I HAVE POOR DENTAL HEALTH BECAUSE OF THAT.THAT IS NOT TRUE.I DO FLOSS AND BRUSH REGULARLY, ALWAYS HAVE.MY PARENTS INSTILLED THOSEVALUES IN US. YET I DO HAVE A PARTIAL GOLDTOOTH WHICH ACCORDING TO THESTOCK 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, MYDENTIST IS VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT USING THE LITTLE TRAYS AND YOUCAN PICK THE FLAVOUR, NASTY,NASTIER AND THEN THERE’S MINT WHICH IS THE ONLY ONE THAT SEEMSSENSIBLE TO PUT IN MY MOUTH.AND SO MY DENTIST USES THE PROPER DOSE.I HAVE NEVER BEEN TOLD BY MYDENTIST OR MEDICAL PRACTITIONER DRINK LOTS OF TAP WATER, DON’TDRINK BOTTLED WATER BECAUSE TAPWATER HAS FLUORIDE.NO DENTIST OR DOCTOR HAS EVERTOLD ME THAT IN MY LIFE.IF THERE ARE SO MANY BENEFITS, I’M CURIOUS WERE PROFESSIONALSARE NOT ENCOURAGING PATIENTS TODRINK TAP WATER DIRECTLY. MUNICIPAL WATER IS MADE TO SEEMSORT OF DIRTY AND IMPROPER.AND SO I’M ALL ABOUT THE PROPER DOSAGE AND I’M ALSO — I WASALSO GIVEN BY GOD WHEN I WASBORN A MIND AND A BODY. AND MY BODY TELLS ME WHEN IT’SNOT FEELING WELL BUT MY MIND CANINTERPRET THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND ME.THERE HAVE BEEN THE ASSERTIONTHAT THESE ARE FACTS, IT IS A FACT THAT FLUORIDATED WATER ISIN FACT BENEFICIAL FOR HUMANHEALTH.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 CONFLICTINGINFORMATION I’M CURIOUS FOR MORE FACTS AND WELCOMING THE CAUTION.BECAUSE I DON’T REALLY WANT TOBE 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 BASICFUNDAMENTAL 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 ATRESTAURANTS.BUT WATER IS NECESSARY TO LIVE.THERE’S A LOT OF CONFLICTINGINFORMATION THAT I’M OBSERVINGAND TODAY PROVED THAT EVEN FURTHER FOR MYSELF.POVERTY AND ACCESS TO DENTALCARE, I THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES TO POVERTY THE ISSUE IS LESSABOUT FLUORIDE IN WATER AND MOREABOUT THE FACT THAT I THINK EVEN FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INPOVERTY IN ALBERTA, WE DO HAVE AVERY, VERY HIGH COST TO PROPER AND DILIGENT DENTAL CARE IN THISPROVINCE.AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE DEREGULATION OF THE FEEGUIDE BUT I THINK ACCESS HASCREATED THE NECESSITY TO MASS MEDICATE PERHAPS THE POPULATIONAND I DON’T THINK THAT’S GOOD.I THINK IF WE WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO PROPER DENTALCARE, THEY SHOULD GET THAT FROMA DENTIST AND NOT FROM THEIR TAP.ESPECIALLY HAD THERE’SCONFLICTING INFORMATION REGARDING THE MERITS AND SAFETYAND THE BENEFITS OF WHAT COMESOUT OF OUR TAP WATER.I ALSO THINK THAT IT’S A LITTLEBIT CONTRADICTORY THAT WE EXTOLTHE VALUES OF FLUORIDE IN WATER WHILE AT THE SAME TIME KIDS ATSCHOOL FOLLOW THEIR GLASS OFWATER OR BOTTLE EVER WATER WITH A CHASER OF COKE OR PEPSI.I THINK THAT THAT’S A LITTLE BITCONTRADICTORY. IF WE REALLY HAVE A VESTEDINTEREST IN THE HEALTH OF OURKIDS, WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS FROM THE BIG PICTURE AND NOT SIMPLYFROM THE ISSUE OF FLUORIDE INWATER. THERE’S MANY OTHER WAYS TOPREVENT CAVITIES SUCH ASBRUSHING AND FLOSSING, NOT EATING TOO MANY SUGARS AND WHATNOT WHICH AS WE DISCUSSED TODAYALREADY ARE VERY PREVALENT IN OUR FOOD IN NORTH AMERICA.AND IF FLUORIDE WAS THE SOLUTIONTO THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.I’M NOT CONVINCED IT IS.THE CONFLICTING INFORMATIONTELLS ME THAT PERHAPS THERE IS FURTHER INVESTIGATION THAT NEEDSTO BE DONE.I WOULD ALSO QUESTION THE ROLE OF THE CITY IN FLUORIDATION.I DO FEEL SORRY THAT COMMITTEEAS WELL AS COUNCIL HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TASK OF HAVING TODECIDE THIS.IN MY OPINION, I HAVE AS I STATED A MIND AND I HAVE A BODY.MY MIND IS VERY CAPABLE OFAPPLYING COMMON SENSE TO THE INFORMATION THAT I SEE IN THEWORLD.AND MANY OF US HAVE THAT CAPABILITY.AND ARE PRIVILEGED TO HAVE THAT.HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THE ROLE OF HEALTH SERVICES IN THEGOVERNMENT SHOULD BE TOFACILITATE UNDERSTANDING SO THAT I CAN MAKE MY OWN CHOICES FOR MYBODY IN AN INFORMED MANNER ASOPPOSED TO SIMPLY STATING THAT REPORTS FROM EUROPE AND THESTATES ARE GOOD, THEREFORE INCANADA WE SHOULD PUT FLUORIDE IN OUR WATER.GIVE ME FACTS AND ALLOW ME TOMAKE THE DECISION.THAT’S WHAT I EXPECT FROM MYDOCTOR.I DON’T EXPECT MY GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME I NEED TO CONSUMEFLUORIDE.I EXPECT MY DOCTOR TO TELL ME I NEED TO CONSUME FLUORIDE.I SEE MY TIME IS UP ALDERMANJONES. >> IF YOU CAN DO A CONCLUDINGSTATEMENT.>> MY CONCLUDING STATEMENT IS THAT I’M CAPABLE OF MAKINGCHOICES WITH THE RIGHTINFORMATION. MY PERSPECTIVE IS THATGOVERNMENT AND MEDICALPRACTITIONERS, THEIR ROLE IS TO PROVIDE ME WITH THAT INFORMATIONSO I CAN MAKE AN INFORMEDCHOICE. AND FRANKLY IF PEOPLE WANTFLUORIDATED WATER, LET’S PUTTHAT IN BOTTLES BECAUSE I THINK THAT WATER SHOULD BE CLEAN WATERAND AS CLOSE TO THE SOURCE ASPOSSIBLE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL CALGARIANS AND ALBERTANS ANDWE CAN PUT THE OTHER STUFF INTOBOTTLES RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND WHICH IS WHAT WECURRENTLY HAVE.>> THANK YOU, Mr.HARPER. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?SEEING NONE, THANK YOU.COMMITTEE, WE ARE RECESSED TO 3:45.>> CALL THE MEETING BACK TOORDER. AND MY NEXT SPEAKER IS BRYCEADAMSON.BRYCE ADAMSON. HE’S RIGHT THERE.>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILLORSOF THE CITY OF CALGARY. I’M HERE AS THE PAST PRESIDENTOF THE CALGARY AND DISTRICTDENTAL SOCIETY. AT OUR JANUARY MEETING, 140DENTISTS VOTED IN FAVOUR OF AMOTION TO WRITE A LETTER TO COUNCIL WHICH I HAVE HERE ANDSPEAK TO YOU IN PERSON WITH THEOPINION THAT FLUORIDATION SHOULD REMAIN.FLUORIDATION BUYS TIME.TIME TO EDUCATE, PROVIDE DENTAL TREATMENT AND REDUCE THE PAINAND SUFFERING CAUSED BY EARLYCHILDHOOD DECAY. I WILL SHOW YOU THE HUMAN COSTOF THIS ENTIRELY PREVENTIBLEDISEASE AND THE ROLE FLUORIDATION PLAYS IN IT.IN HIGH SCHOOL, I LEARNED TWOTHINGS: ONE, I WAS GOOD AT SCIENCE, AND, TWO, I WAS BAD ATCARDS.THE PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS HAS FLUORIDE ON THE TOP RIGHTCORNER.AND THAT IS THE MOST REACTIVE ELEMENT.FLUORIDE IS THE ANTIION OFFLUORENE.I’M NOT PARTICULARLY GOOD ATCARDS SO WHEN I’M PLAYING I LIKEGAMES WHERE THERE’S A JOKER OR WILD CARD.IF THE PERIODIC TABLE OFELEMENTS WERE A DECK OF CARDS, FLUORIDE WOULD BE THE JOKER.WHAT DEFINES A TRUE DENTALEMERGENCY? FOR ME A TRUE DENTAL EMERGENCYIS A PHONE CALL FROM A PARENTWITH A CHILD WHO IS UP AT NIGHT, A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 5 WHOIS UNABLE TO SLEEP BECAUSE OFTHE SEVERE PAIN CAUSE BID ONE OR MORE SEVERELY DECAYED AND NOWINFECTED TEETH.THAT ALONE IS TRAGIC.BUT SOMETIMES THE TRAGEDYDOESN’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 ANDTHE SLEEPINESS IS MAKING THEMIRRATIONAL. IRRATIONAL ENOUGH THAT A HUSBANDWOULD STRIKE HIS WIFE.WHAT FOR? FOR ALLOWING THEIR CHILD TOCONTINUE TO SCREAM ROBBING HEMOF HIS SLEEP MAKING HIM FEAR OF LOSING HIS JOB.IRRATION ENOUGH FOR THE WIFE OFTHAT HUSBAND TO START PUTTING ALCOHOL IN THE CHILD’S FORMULAOR JUICE IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEMTO SLEEP AND TO AVOID YET ANOTHER BEATING.OR WORSE YET, EITHER PARENT WHOWOULD PICK UP AN INCONSOLABLE CHILD AND SHAKE THEM UNTIL THEYARE UNRESPONSIVE IN A FIT OFFRUSTRATION AND RAGE. THIS IS NOT HYPERBOLE.THIS IS A SCENARIO THAT DOES ANDCAN OCCUR. AND IT CAN BE PREVENTED BY THREETHINGS: EDUCATION, CARE ANDTIMELY ACCESS TO IT, AND FLUORIDATION.FLUORIDE ALONE WILL NOT PREVENTTOOTH DECAY.OUR MODERN DEET DIETS ARE INSIDICOULDN’T TELLLY HARD ON OURTEETH. FLUORIDE SLOWS DOWN TOOTH DECAY.IT GIVES ME TIME TO WATCH ASMALL CAVITY ON A YOUNG PERSON FOR SIX TO 12 MONTHS TO SEE IFTHE BODY CAN HEAL ITSELF WITHIMPROVED BRUSHING AND DIET AT HOME.TIME FOR CHILDREN WITH MULTIPLECAVITIES TO IDLE PATIENTLY ON A WAITING LIST FOR THREE OR FOURMONTHS FOR HOSPITAL TIME TO BETREATED BY A PEDIATRIC DENTIST SAFELY UNDER SEDATION SAFELYFICTION ALL THE TEETH AT — FIXALL THE TEETH AT ONCE. IT GIVES US TIME TO TREAT THESETEETH MORE CONSERVATIVELY ANDTHUS LESS EXPENSIVELY. VANCOUVER HAS NEVER HAD FLUORIDEIN THEIR WATER.MY COLLEAGUES THERE CANNOT WAIT TO SEE IF THAT SMALL CAVITY WILLGET BETTER.THEY MUST CUT SOONER AND THEREFORE THEY MUST CUT MOREOFTEN.AND TOO OFTEN, THEY MUST CUT DEEPER.DEEPER INTO THE CHILD’S TOOTHAND DEEPER INTO THOSE PARENTS’ WALLETS.I DO NOT NEED A JOKER TO PLAYCARDS.I WANT A JOKER BECAUSE ITIMPROVES MY ODDS OF WINNING.YOU DO NOT NEED FLUORIDATION TO HAVE A SAFE DRINKING WATERSUPPLY.YOU WANT FLUORIDATION IN YOUR WATER IF YOU PUT A CHILD’SWELLNESS BEFORE YOUR OWN.AS A DENNIST I FEEL THE REAL JOKER HERE IS ME.I AND MY COLLEAGUES WOULD BECONSIDERABLY BUSY WITHIN A SHORT FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS WITHOUTFLUORIDATION.THAT IS NOT WHY I AM HERE. I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE I AMBETTER AT SCIENCE THAN I AM ATCARDS. SCIENCE HAS SHOWN FLUORIDATIONTO REDUCE THE IMPACT, COSTS ANDSOCIETAL PAIN THAT IS CAUSED BY EARLY CHILDHOOD DECAY.WHEN I DRINK CALGARY WATER, IWANT FLUORIDE IN IT. I WANT FLUORIDE IN IT FOR MY TWOSONS AGES 3 AND 2 MONTHS OLD,AND IF YOU CARE ABOUT DOING YOUR PART IN THE PREVENTION OF THEMISERY 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 VANCOUVERCOLLEAGUES WHEN DISCUSSINGDENTAL DECAY.WE’VE HEARD HERE AND SEENSTUDIES THAT THE DENTAL RATE ORDENTAL DECAY RATE IN VANCOUVER AND/OR B.C. IS NO MAJOR VERYLITTLE DIFFERENCE IN DENTALDECAY BETWEEN A NONFLUORIDATED LOCATION AND US BEINGFLUORIDATED.DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS WITH REGARDS TO THIS?>> I’M HERE AS THE MAN IN THETRENCHES. THE PERSON WHO’S DEALING WITHDECAY AND HELPING MY PATIENTSTOWARDS BETTER ORAL HEALTH. AND AS THAT, I DO TALK TO MYCOLLEAGUES.AND ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IS A PEDIATRIC DENTIST IN HOPE, B.C.,AND THE MAJORITY OF HISPOPULATION — HIS PATIENT POPULATION BEING FROM VANCOUVER.IF I’M ALLOWED TO TELL A STORYHE SHARED WITH ME.Dr. JOHNSTON WAS ONCE HEAD OFTHE PEDIATRIC DENTAL DEPARTMENTAT SICK KIDS IN TORONTO AND SUBSEQUENTLY MOVED TO VANCOUVER.WHEN Dr. JOHNSTON FIRST BEGANWORKING, HE KIND OF FELT HIS COLLEAGUES WERE OVERTREATING THEPATIENTS.HE WONDERED WHY THEY WERE INTERVENING SO EARLY.SOMETHING HE WOULD NORMALLYWATCH TO SEE IF IT WOULD CHANGE OR GET WORSE.IN TORONTO, THEY WERE TREATINGIN VANCOUVER. AND A YEAR LATER HE UNDERTSOODWHY.BECAUSE THE THINGS HE DID WATCH BLEW UP ON HIM.DECAY JUST MOVED MOREAGGRESSIVELY IN VANCOUVER COMPARED TO HIS EXPERIENCE INTORONTO.>> OKAY. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE –I CAN’T REMEMBER THE CONFERENCETHAT YOU WERE MENTIONING, 140 VOTED IN FAVOUR OF KEEPINGFLUORIDE 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 INATTENDANCE AT THAT MEETING THAT DAY.THE CALGARY DISTRICT DENTALSOCIETY 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 JACQUELINEVAN MALLSON. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OFCOUNCIL.MY NAME IS JACQUELINE VAN NELSON AND I’M A DENTAL HYGENIST WITHMOSAIC DENTAL CARE NETWORK.WE WORK TOGETHER TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE.MY ROLE WITHIN MOSAIC PCN IS TOIMPROVE THE ORAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN IN EAST CALGARY.WE’VE CHOSEN TO FOCUS ON EASTCALGARY RECOGNIZING THAT THIS POPULATION HAS HIGHER LEVELS OFDENTAL DISEASE.AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE IS THE IMPORTANCE THAT A CHILD’S ORALHEALTH HAS ON THEIR OVERALLHEALTH.DENTAL CAVITIES AS A RESULT OF ABACTERIAL INFECTION.IF CAVITIES ARE NOT TREATED THE INFECTION CAN SPREAD TO OTHERPARTS OF THE BODY, CAUSE FEVER,PAIN AND SWELLING. IN SEVERE CASE, THE INFECTIONCAN ENTER THE BLOOD STREAM ANDCAUSE SEPSIS. EVERY DAY IN CALGARY, THERE ARECHILDREN WHO CANNOT PAYATTENTION IN SCHOOL, WHO CANNOT FALL ASLEEP AT NIGHT BECAUSETHEY HAVE TOOTH PAIN.RESEARCH HAS LINKED DENTAL DECAY IN BABY TEETH WITH MANY IMPACTSON A CHILD’S OVERALL HEALTHINCLUDING PROBLEMS WITH NUTRITION, SPEECH DEVELOPMENT,LEARNING AS WELL AS EFFECTS ONTHE CHILD’S ADULT TEETH. SEVERE DENTAL DECAY HAS BEENLINKED WITH FAILURE TO THRIVE.EARLY CHILDHOOD CARRIES HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE MOST COMMONCHRONIC 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 CHILDRENEXPERIENCE DENTAL DECAY BEFORE AGE 5.MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS DISEASEIS LARGELY PREVENTIBLE.SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF WATERFLUORIDATION SUPPORT ITSEFFECTIVE FEST A SAFETY TO REDUCE CAVITIES.SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS LOOK AT AWFULTHE RESEARCH INCLUDING STUDIES ABOUT THE BENEFITS AND THEPOSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS OFFLUORIDATION AS WELL AS THE QUALITY AND THE QUANTITY OF THELITERATURE WITH THE DELIBERATEINTENT TO ELIMINATE INVESTIGATOR BIAS AND DETERMINE BESTEVIDENCE.SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IN PREVENTS CAVITIES LOOK AT BOTH THE IMPACTON DENTAL DECAY WHERE WATERFLUORIDATION HAS BEEN INSTITUTED AND WHERE IT’S BEEN REMOVED.THE RESULTS SHOW THE SAME THINGTHE INTRODUCTION OF WATER FLUORIDATION IS STRONGLYASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASE INTHE PERCENTAGE OF CAVITY-FREE CHILDREN BY APPROXIMATELY 15%.ANOTHER DENTAL INDEX CALLED DMFTIS USED TO DESCRIBE THE PREVALENCE OF DECAY IN ANINDIVIDUAL BY LOOKING AT THENUMBER OF DID HE KAYED MISSING AND — DECAYED MISSING ANDFAILED TEETH PERFOR.ON AVERAGE, 2.3 FEWER TEETH ARE AFFECTED ACCORDING TO SYSTEMATICREVIEWS.INDIVIDUAL STUDIES CONTINUE TO SHOW THAT WATER FLUORIDATION ISCOST-EFFECTIVE.THE CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION REPORTS THAT FOREVERY DOLLAR SPENT ONFLUORIDATION, ON AVERAGE SAVES $38 IN ASSOCIATED DENTALBILLS.OVER A LIFETIME, THE COST OF FLUORIDATION IS TYPICALLY LESSTHAN THE COST OF A DENTALFILLING.PROPONENTS OF REMOVING WATERFLUORIDATION HAVE SUGGESTEDALTERNATE METHODS OF DELIVERY FOR DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS.ALTERNATE METHODS MAY NOTMITIGATE THE RISK OF DENTAL DECAY AS EFFECTIVELY ASFLUORIDATION.LITERATURE RECOMMENDS FLUORIDATION IN COMBINATION WITHADJUNCTIVE TOPICAL FLUORIDE SUCHAS FLUORIDE VARNISH. AT-RISK POPULATIONS MAY FAIL TOUTILIZE ALTERNATE METHOD OFFLUORIDE BECAUSE OF LANGUAGE, ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS.PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OFFLUORIDATION IN CALGARY, FLUORIDE DROPS WERE MADEAVAILABLE AS AN ALTERNATIVE.PARTICIPATION IN THE FLUORIDE DROP PROGRAM WAS ESTIMATED TO BELESS THAN 20%.CAN BE ASSUMED THAT MANY AT RISK CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATECHILDREN TO THE FLUORIDE THROUGHTHESE PREVENTIVE PROGRAMS. FLUORIDE IS PROVEN TO BE ANEFFECTIVE PREVENTIVE MECHANISMTO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF CAVITIES.WHILE THE BENEFITS OFFLUORIDATION ARE ACHIEVED FOR THE POPULATION IN ITS ENTIRETY,THE EFFECTS ARE MOST IMPACTFULFOR DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS.MY CODE OF ETHICS REQUIRES THATTHE ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OFMY PATIENT. I FEEL URGED TO ASK COUNCIL TORETAIN 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 ISCAUSED BY BACTERIA IN THE MOUTH OR AROUND THE TEETH.FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, HOW DOESFLUORIDE INHIBIT THAT BUILDUP OR CAN YOU ANSWER THAT?>> THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION.DECAY IS A MULTIFACTOR DISEASE. IN ORDER TO HAVE A CAVITY, YOUNEED TO HAVE A TOOTH.YOU NEED TO HAVE A SOURCE OF BACTERIA, YOU NEED TO HAVE ASOURCE OF FERMENTABLECARBOHYDRATE. IN LOOKING AND — THE APPROACHTHAT WE TAKE TO PREVENTINGCAVITIES IS AS WELL MULTIFACTOR. WE WANT TO KEEL MOMS HEALTHY SOTHAT THE BACTERIA ISN’TTRANSFERRED TO BABY. IT’S FLUORIDE THAT OFFERS APROTECTIVE EFFECT IN TERMS OFMAKING THE ENAMEL CRYSTAL MORE — LESS SOLUBLE TO ACIDSCAUSED BY THE BACTERIA.IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS, THERE’S LITERATURE THAT SUGGESTS THATTHERE IS A BACTERIACIDAL EFFECT.>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.>> I’M NOT SURE I UNDERTSOODTHAT LAST PART, THE BACTERIALSIDE EFFECT? >> THAT IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS,WHICH IS LESS RELEVANT FOR THECONVERSATION AROUND WATER FLUORIDATION, AND MORE SO AROUNDADJUNCTIVE TOPICAL SUCH AS AFLUORIDE VARNISH THAT IT REDUCES THE LEVEL OF BACTERIA.AFFECTS THE PLAQUE TO REDUCE THELEVEL OF BACTERIA. >> I WANT TO GET BACK TO]p THEQUESTION OF INFANTS AND YOUNGCHILDREN AND THE DOSAGE. BECAUSE YOU WORK WITH THISSPECIFICALLY.WHAT ADVICE DO YOU GIVE FAMILIES, GIVEN THAT FLUORIDE ISIN THE WATER AND HOW DO YOURECOMMEND THEY CONTROL THAT? >> THE — IN TERMS OF YOUNGINFANTS, WE LOOK AGAIN,REGARDLESS OF AGE, TO DIETARY REFERENCE AND INTAKING FORFLUORIDE.THEY EXIST FOR MANY NUTRIENTS, VITAMIN A, VITAMIN D ANDINCLUDING FLUORIDE.FOR CHILDREN AGE 1 TO 3, THE RECOMMENDATION IS 1.3 MILLIGRAMSPER DAY.SO IN DISCUSSION WITH PARENTS, WE LOOK TO THE RECOMMENDATIONSFROM ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES,HEALTH CANADA, CANADIAN DENTAL INSTITUTION — OR CANADIANDENTAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICANACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY WHICH ARE MANDATED TO PROVIDESAFE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC.WITH RESPECT TO INFANTS, THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION AROUNDFORMULA, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH HASCOME UP IN DISCUSSION TODAY, IS THAT WITH THE WATER LEVEL AT .7PPM, RECONSTITUTING INFANTFORMULA IS SAFE.THE RECOMMENDATION AS WELLAROUND TOOTHPASTE, BECAUSECHILDREN MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SPIT OUT TOOTHPASTE AT A YOUNG AGEAND THE CONCERN WAS SWALLOWINGEXCESS TOOTHPASTE IS ALSO VERY TRUE AND VERY REAL.SO WITH PATIENTS, WE’D AGAINARTICULATE THE AMOUNT OF TOOTHPASTE MUST BE CONTROLLEDFOR YOUNG INFANTS.DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> YES, I THINK IT DOES.I’M THINKING ALSO THOUGH OFJUICES AND POP. NOW, WE’VE HEARD THAT THERE’SSOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS RELATEDTO THIS, AND THAT’S WHY YOU’RE SPECIFICALLY WORKING IN THE AREATHAT YOU DO.BUT FOR THAT POPULATION, A LOT OF TIMES WE HEAR — I DON’T KNOWIF IT’S FACT OR NOT, THATTHERE’S A TENDENCY TO USE CHEAP JUICES OR RECONSTITUTED JUICESOR WATER.SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU FACTORING IN WHAT’S IN THOSEPRODUCTS AS WELL IF THEY’RE MADEIN CALGARY, THEY’VE GOT FLUORIDE IN THEM TOO?>> DEFINITELY.A DOCUMENT PUBLISHED FROM HEALTH CANADA RECENTLY — LET ME JUSTPULL UP THE TITLE SO I’MREFERENCING IT ACCURATELY FOR YOU.FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER WHICHIS A DOCUMENT THAT WENT OUT TO PUBLIC FOR COMMENT, ITRECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE OTHERSOURCES OF FLUORIDE, AND IN MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS RELATEDTO THE DOSE FROM WATER LOOKEDAND CONSIDERED THAT THERE WERE ALTERNATE SOURCES IN FRUITJUICES, IN THE FOOD, FLUORIDETHAT FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE.>> SO YOU’RE NOT CONCERNED ATALL THAT THESE CHILDREN AREGETTING 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 ISTHE ONLY ADVERSE EFFECT OFFLUORIDE. >> THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU.SEE NOTHING FURTHER QUESTIONS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GRAHAMGREEDS.GRAHAM GREEDS. NEXT SPEAKER IS Dr. BRENTFRIESEN.>> 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 OFHEALTH WITHIN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENTALPUBLIC HEALTH.I HAVE PAST HISTORY IN TERMS OF BEING A STRONG ADVOCATE FORPROTECTION OF WATER SUPPLIES INTHE PROVINCE AND IN PARTICULAR PROTECTION OF THE WATER SUPPLYFOR THE CITY OF CALGARY THROUGHADVOCACY AROUND THE — BOTH THE BOW RIVER AND ELBOW RIVER TOPROTECT THE QUALITY OF THE RAWWATER THAT’S USED FOR OUR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY.FLUORIDE IS RECOGNIZED AS A KEYFACTOR IN ORAL HEALTH.AND THAT RESEARCH CONSISTENTLYSHOWS COMMUNITIES WITH WATERFLUORIDATION HAVE BETTER ORAL HEALTH THAN COMMUNITIES WITH LOWWATER FLUORIDE LEVELS.DOCTOR ANDRE CORRIVEAU, THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTHFOR THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTASTRONGLY ENDORSES WATER FLUORIDATION.I KNOW THAT YOU’VE HEARD FROMOTHERS ABOUT THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, BUT, AGAIN, JUST WANTEDTO REENFORCE THOSE SYSTEMATICREVIEWS WITH YOU. AND HIGHLIGHT THE CURRENT NATUREOF THOSE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS.SO, AGAIN, THERE’S BEEN THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS THROUGH THEWORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION IN2006. THE AUSTRALIAN REVIEW IN 2007.HEALTH CANADA’S REVIEW IN 2009.AND THEN MORE RECENTLY REVIEWS IN THE U.S. BY THE CENTRES FORDISEASE CONTROL AND THE U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. AND, AGAIN, THE REVIEWS BY ALLOF THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ORSCIENTIFIC GROUPS THAT HAVE DONE THESE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAVEREACHED A SIMILAR CONCLUSIONTHAT FLUORIDE AT A CONCENTRATION FOUND IN DRINKING WATERREGARDLESS OF THE FORM OFFLUORIDE AGENT USED DOES NOT POSE ANY HEALTH CONCERNS TOCONSUMERS.WE’VE HAD DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF THE LEVEL OF FLUORIDE, AND THATBEING BENEFICIAL.HEALTH CANADA’S CURRENT RECOMMENDATION IS THE FLUORIDELEVEL IN DRINKING WATER BE.7 MILLIGRAMS PER LITRE.THIS LEVEL WAS ARRIVED AT BY ARISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS THATTAKES INTO ACCOUNT TOTAL FLUORIDE INTAKE AND INCONSIDERING FLUORIDE FROM OTHERSOURCES SUCH AS THE FOOD AND DENTIFRICES THAT PEOPLE WOULDUSE.IT DOES REFLECT A BALANCE IN TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE EFFECTOF FLUORIDE ON ORAL HEALTH WHILEMINIMIZING THE RISK OF FLUOROSIS.ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WEHAVE IN CALGARY AND IF THE CITY WERE TO MAKE A DECISION TOREMOVE FLUORIDE OR DISCONTINUEFLUORIDATION IS THE WIDE VARIATION THAT EXISTS BETWEENTHE GLENMORE WATER TREATMENTPLANT AND THE BEARSPAW WATER TREATMENT PLANT.THE NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDEOUT OF THE GLENMORE PLANT RANGES FROM .2 TO OVER .3 DEPENDING ONTHE TIME OF THE YEAR, THEBEARSPAW PLANT IT RANGES FROM .1 TO .2.IF THERE WAS A DECISION TODISCONTINUE WATER FLUORIDATION, THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE A MUCHWIDER VARIATION IN THE EXPOSUREOF RESIDENTS IN CALGARY TO FLUORIDE THROUGH THE WATERSUPPLY THAN CURRENTLY EXISTSWHERE IT IS CONTROLLED AT .7 PARTS PER MILLION.TO SUMMARIZE THE IMPORTANCE OFWATER FLUORIDATION IS REALLY ESSENTIAL FOR CHILDREN WITH POORSOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND.THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION HAS IDENTIFIED THAT IT CAN BE AKEY FACTOR IN REDUCING THEINEQUITIES IN DENTAL HEALTH.JUST IN MY CONCLUDING REMARKS,IT’S INTERESTING APPEARINGBEFORE YOU HERE TODAY IN THAT DENTAL CARRIES AND THAT WAS ONEOF THE ISSUES THAT CAUSED ME TOBECOME INTERESTED IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND UNDERTAKE SPECIALTYTRAINING IN COMMUNITY MEDICINE.AS A GENERAL PRACTITIONER, WORKING IN CHURCHILL AND IN THENORTHWEST TERRITORIES, ONE OFTHE THINGS THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN WAS GIVING ANESTHETICS TOYOUNG INUIT CHILDREN AND THATFOR TREATMENT OF MASSIVE DENTAL DISEASE.AND SO SITUATION OF GIVINGTHESE — PULLING THESE CHILDREN OUT OF THEIR HOME COMMUNITIES TOFLY THEM DOWN INTO ANOTHERPROVINCE FOR THEIR TREATMENT, THE DISRUPTION FROM THAT ANDTHEN SEEING THEM WITH A MOUTHFULOF STAINLESS STEEL AS TREATMENT OF THEIR UNDERLYING DENTALDISEASE.I THINK FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE, I WAS EXTREMELYPLEASED AND PROUD IN TERMS OFWHEN CALGARIANS MADE THE DECISION FOLLOWING A PLEBISCITEFOR WATER FLUORIDATION, AND ITHINK IT’S ESSENTIAL FOR, AGAIN, MAINTAINING THAT BENEFICIALEFFECT FOR ORAL HEALTH ANDRECOGNIZING THAT DENTAL DISEASE IS A SIGNIFICANT ILLNESS, THATWE CONTINUE WATER FLUORIDATION.THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS AFTERNOON.>> ALDERMAN KEATING.>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.ONE OF THE BEST DESCRIPTIONSI’VE HEARD TONIGHT OF ALL OF THESCIENCE IS IT’S LIKELY THAT IT IS A BENEFIT.IT’S NOT LIKELY THAT IT’S AHARM. BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT,THE QUESTION WE STILL HAVE ISTHIS THE BEST WAY TO GO AHEAD. AND SO COMING BACK TO THE NUMBEROF STUDIES THAT YOU’VEREFERENCED, DID ANY OF THEM TALK ABOUT IF THERE WAS A SEPARATEPROGRAM TO TARGET THOSE IN MOSTNEED, WOULD WE SEE THE SAME RESULTS OF — OR EVEN BETTERRESULTS IF WE REMOVED FLUORIDE?>> ONE OF THE MAJOR CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE WITH ANY PROGRAM,WHEN YOU MOVE FROM WHAT WOULD BEA UNIVERSAL PROGRAM WHICH IS WHAT WATER FLUORIDATION IS INTERMS OF BEING UNIVERSALLYAVAILABLE TO ALL TO A TARGETED PROGRAM, IS THE DIFFICULTY OFACTUALLY IDENTIFYING THOSE MOSTAT RISK.AND SO THERE ARE STRATEGIES THATYOU CAN DO FOR THAT.LIKE TO PUT THOSE PROGRAMS TOGETHER.I THINK, AGAIN, I’D WANT YOU TOREMEMBER THE COMMENT FROM ONE OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS THAT THEOTHER TARGETED INTERVENTIONPROGRAMS FOR HIGH RISK, AND WE HAVE SOME OF THEM ALREADY INPLACE IN CALGARY, ARE INTENDEDOR BUILT ON WATER FLUORIDATION AS A BASE.IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT ATARGETED PROGRAM, IT WILL BE MUCH MORE COSTLY AND IT WILL BEAN ONGOING CHALLENGE TO ENSURETHAT IT’S REACHING THE — THOSE MOST AT RISK TO PROVIDE THEMWITH CARE.AND WE JUST KNOW THAT EVEN DATING BACK TO THE SUPPLEMENTPROGRAM THAT WAS DONE INPARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF CALGARY PRIOR TO WATERFLUORIDATION IS THAT WE HADINCONSISTENT USE OF THE DROPS AT OUR VARIOUS CLINICS ACROSS THECITY AND OFTEN THE UTILIZATIONOF THE FLUORIDE DROPS WAS HIGHEST IN THE HIGHER INCOMENEIGHBOURHOODS COMPARED TO THELOWER INCOME NEIGHBOURHOODS.IT’S HARD FOR A SINGLE MOM THATMAY BE WORKING TWO JOBS ANDWORRYING ABOUT PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE AND WHERE THEPAYMENT’S GOING TO COME FOR NEXTMONTH’S RENT TO BE THINKING THAN ABOUT PUTTING THE FLUORIDE DROPSINTO THEIR CHILDREN’S JUICE.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, ANDI THINK THEY’RE CLEAR AS WELL.I GUESS I’LL REPHRASE MY QUESTION BECAUSE YOU’VE ANSWEREDALL THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OFGOING DOWN THAT ROUTE, BUT NEVER REALLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION.HAS THERE EVER BEEN A STUDYTHAT’S LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF REMOVING FLUORIDE AND SETTINGUP A SEPARATE PROGRAM TO HELPTHOSE IN MOST NEED? >> THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEMATICREVIEW LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONSSUCH AS FLUORIDE IN SALT, FLUORIDE IN MILK PROGRAMS SOTHEY DID LOOK AT OTHERAPPROACHES.SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONIS, YES, DEPENDING ON THEPARTICULAR QUESTIONS, CHARGES THAT WERE MADE TO THOSESYSTEMATIC REVIEW COMMITTEES,SOME OF THEM LOOKED AT ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, AND THAT ISPART OF THEIR PROCESS.THOSE THAT DID FOUND THAT WATER FLUORIDATION WAS STILL THESAFEST, MOST COST EFFECTIVEMEANS OF PROVIDING THE PROTECTIVE EFFECT OF FLUORIDEFOR DENTAL CARRIES.>> THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG.>> IN ANY OF YOUR STUDIES HAVEYOU LOOKED AT WHAT ANY OF THE CUMULATIVE BUILDUP OF FLUORIDEWHETHER IT BE IN THE BODY, INTHE ENVIRONMENT, IN THE PLANTS, AND WHAT THE RESULTS OF THATMIGHT HAVE BEEN?>> YES.THE STUDIES HAVE LOOKED AT THAT.AND, AGAIN, THE FINDING OF THOSESTUDIES IS THAT THE LEVEL THAT IS USED IN WATER FLUORIDATIONTHAT THERE IS NOT A CONCERN WITHREGARDS TO ANY OTHER SYSTEMATIC — OR, PARDON ME,SYSTEMIC HUMAN EFFECTS IN THATTHE ONLY EFFECT NOTED IS DENTAL FLUOROSIS.BUT THERE’S NO CONCERN WITHREGARDS TO SKELETAL FLUOROSIS OR OTHER ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS.SIMILARLY, THE STUDIES THAT HAVELOOKED AT ADDING WATER, WATER FLUORIDATION AND THAT HAVE NOTIDENTIFIED ANY ADVERSE EFFECTSON ACQUATIC LIFE AS A RESULT OF COMMUNITIES THAT FLUORIDATE THEWATER.>> THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD?>> THANK YOU.MY QUESTION WAS JUST TOUCHED ON, ACTUALLY, A MINUTE AGO, BUTWHAT — SO, WE’VE HEARD ABOUTTHE FLUORIDE STRENGTHENING THE TEETH, AND WE’VE HEARD THATFLUORIDE MIGHT CAUSE BONEDENSITY LOSS OR BONE STRUCTURE.I’M WONDERING IF YOU CAN COMMENTON THAT, BECAUSE I’M NOT CLEAR,TEETH AND BONES SEEM DIFFERENT TO ME, AND I’M NOT CLEAR ON WHATTHE EFFECT IS ON YOUR BONES.>> WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND, AND THIS HAS BEEN NOTED IN CERTAIN AREASOF THE WORLD WHERE THERE AREVERY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF FLUORIDE OCCURRING IN THE WATER,THAT YOU CAN GET WHAT IS CALLEDSKELETAL FLUOROSIS. WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT HEALTHCONDITION.AND IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO AVOID AND NOT HAVEOCCUR.THE CONCENTRATIONS THAT — WHAT YOU’D BE CONCERNED ABOUT FORTHOSE ARE CONCENTRATIONS OVER 10PARTS 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 AMAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LIMIT OFFLUORIDE IN WATER — NATURALLY OCCURRING WATER OF 4 PARTS PERMILLION.AND THAT’S INTENDED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST THATCONDITION ARISING, TAKING INTOCONSIDERATION OTHER ESSENTIAL SOURCES OF FLUORIDE.THE STUDIES — THIS IS A HEALTHISSUE THAT, AGAIN, THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAVESPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT BECAUSEIT IS A CONCERN THAT IS RAISED WITH REGARDS TO WATERFLUORIDATION, AND, AGAIN, THOSESYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT IN FINDING THAT THEREIS NOT A CONCERN WITH SKELETALFLUOROSIS AT THE CONCENTRATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR WATERFLUORIDATION.>> THANK YOU.I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION — I’MNOT SURE IF YOU CAN ANSWER THISOR NOT, BUT I STILL HAVE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCEBETWEEN WHAT’S ADDED TO OURWATER AND WHAT NATURALLY OCCURS IN OUR WATER.YOU’VE COMMENTED THAT THERE’SNATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE. I’VE HEARD THAT FLUORIDE THAT’SADDED HAS TO HAVE A — BEBONDED? I’M NOT SURE WHAT THE WORD WAS.BUT IT COMES WITH SOMETHING ELSEIN ORDER TO GET INTO THE WATER. >> WELL, THAT’S — YOU KNOW,FLUORIDE IS AN ION AND BY NATUREOF AN ION IT MEANS IT’S BOUNDED WITH ANOTHER COMPOUND AND THERECAN BE DIFFERENT COMPOUNDS THATIT’S BOUNDED WITH. SO IT DEPENDS WHAT THE SOURCE OFTHE FLUORIDE IS AS TO THE TYPEOF COMPOUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN BOUNDED WITH.BUT THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE AS FARAS THE CLINICAL EFFECT OF THE FLUORIDE ION, DEPENDING ON THESOURCE OF THE — PARTICULARSOURCE THAT’S USED.AND, AGAIN, THE SYSTEMATICREVIEWS, THIS IS OFTEN AQUESTION — OR HAS BEEN A QUESTION/CONCERN RAISED IN THEPAST THAT IT’S NOT NATURALLYOCCURRING FLUORIDE. AND SO THAT — IT’S — IT HASBEEN A FOCUS OF THE REVIEWS.AND, AGAIN, THE REVIEWS HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED THAT AS A CONCERN FORWATER FLUORIDATION AS TO THENATURE OF THE SOURCE. OF FLUORIDE THAT IS USED FORFLUORIDATION.>> SO WE’VE HEARD THAT THEY GOT THE FLUORIDE BY SCRUBBING OUTSOME CHIMNEYS OR SOMETHING.IT DOESN’T REALLY MATTER WHERE THE FLUORIDE COMES FROM, IT’SSTILL FLUORIDE.>> WELL, WHAT’S CRITICAL IS THE ISSUE IS FLUORIDE LcBx IS PRESENROCK AND MINERAL.SO THE WAY THAT IT GETS INTO OUR WATER, THE WATER GOING INTO THEBOW AND THE ELBOW IS THROUGH THEGROUND WATER THAT ENTERS INTO THOSE RIVERS.AND THE REASON WHY IT’S HIGHERIN THE ELBOW THAN THE BOW RIVER IS THAT GROUND WATER HAS A MUCHGREATER IMPACT IN TERMS OF — ORIS A GREATER CONTRIBUTOR TO THE FLOWS IN THE ELBOW COMPARED TOTHE BOW RIVER.SO, AGAIN, WITH THE PRODUCTION OF FLUORIDE IF IT COMES THROUGHVARIOUS MINING OPERATIONS ANDTHAT WHERE THE ROCK IS BEING PROCESSED IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVEFLUORIDE GENERATED.WHAT’S REALLY CRITICAL IS WHAT Mr.STEFANI PRESENTED TO YOUEARLIER IS THAT THE SOURCE THATTHE CITY OF CALGARY IS USING FOR FLUORIDE HAS THE APPROPRIATEQUALITY CONTROL MEASURES INPLACE AND MEETS THE STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR FLUORIDE THAT ISUSED IN DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS.WHICH IS IN FACT THE CASE FOR THE CITY OF CALGARY, THESOURCING OF FLUORIDE FOR THECITY OF CALGARY. >> JUST TO MAKE SURE I’MUNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY, ITDOESN’T MUCH MATTER WHERE THE FLUORIDE COMES FROM, IT’S STILLFLUORIDE.THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN FLUORIDE OR DIRTY FLUORIDE, IT’SJUST FLUORIDE.>> YES. WHAT’S CRITICAL IN TERMS OF THESOURCE OF THAT FLUORIDE IS THATTHERE IS THE APPROPRIATE QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES IN THERE, SEEPHYSICIAN THERE IS CONTAMINANTSPRESENT. IF THERE ARE TRACE CONTAMINANTSPRESENT, THAT THEY ARE AT ALEVEL THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE AND THAT, AND WOULDN’T EXCEED INTERMS — EXCEED THE CANADIANDRINKING WATER GUIDELINES. >> I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION FORYOU.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’VEACCUMULATED DATA AND RESEARCHFROM ALL OVE ALL OVER THE WORLD. OILSANDS JUST WANTED>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU TOCOMMENT ON CHILE. IN 1985 THEY PUT IN FLUORIDATIONAT THAT POINT.IT DECREASED FROM 6 DOWN TO 5.3 IN SIX YEARS.BUT THEN BY THE TIME TEN YEARSWENT BY, 1995, IT WAS UP TO OVER 6.7.SO THEY DISCONTINUED FLUORIDEAGAIN.HAVE YOU — ARE THOSE FIGURESRIGHT OR HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THATAT ALL? >> I’M SORRY, I’M NOTSPECIFICALLY FAMILIAR WITH THEDATA FOR CHILE, SO I CAN’T COMMENT ON THAT.WHAT I CAN REFERENCE BACK IS TOTHE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND YOU MAY RECALL ONE OF THE PRESENTERSAGAIN PRESENTED STUDIES LOOKINGAT THE PROTECTIVE EFFECT THAT YOU SEE FROM WATER FLUORIDATION.AND WHAT HAS BEEN SEEN OVER TIMEIS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DECREASE IN THE OVERALLEFFECTIVENESS OF WATERFLUORIDATION AS FAR AS THE EXPECTED IMPACT FROM IT.BUT THAT NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETEDWITH CAUTION BECAUSE FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE POPULATION, WEMAY NOT BE GETTING AS MUCH OF ABENEFIT FROM WATER FLUORIDATION BECAUSE OF OTHER FACTORS SUCH ASTHE PRESENCE OF FLUORIDE INTOOTHPASTE AND THAT, OTHER SOURCES THAT WE’VE GOT FOR BEINGEXPOSED TO FLUORIDE SUCH ASDRINKING BEVERAGES THAT MAY BE FLUORIDATED.BUT THERE IS SIMILAR EVIDENCESHOWING FOR THE DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS THAT THERE IS STILLA SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE BENEFITFOR THEM FROM WATER FLUORIDATION.SO IN TERMS OF WHAT’S OCCURRINGIN CHILE, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FACTORSTHAT WERE IMPACTING TO SEE THATRESULT AS FAR AS THE DENTAL CARRIES.AGAIN, AS ONE OF THE OTHERPRESENTERS INDICATED, THERE’S OTHER FACTORS THAT INCREASE THERISK OF CARRIES OR DECREASES THERISK OF CARRIES SUCH AS THE NATURE OF THE DIET THAT WE’RECONSUMING.>> WELL, IN IRELAND IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE — THE LAST DATAI SAW IT WAS THE MOST HEAVILYFLUORIDATED OR 66% I THINK WAS THE NUMBER THAT WERE FLUORIDATEDTHERE.BUT IN NORTHERN EUROPE AND THE NORDIC COUNTRIES, THERE’S — ITHINK THERE’S FIVE OR SIXCOUNTRIES THAT HAVE LITTLE OR NO FLUORIDATION, AND YET THEY’RELESS TOOTH DECAY THAN WHATIRELAND HAS.THESE ARE THE CONFUSING THINGSFOR US BECAUSE EVERYBODY’SPRESENTING US WITH DATA, BUT THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT I HAVE ISTHE DOSAGE.AND HOW WE — BECAUSE NO ONE’S QUESTIONING THE FACT THAT THERECAN BE OVERDOSAGE OF FLUORIDE.EVERYBODY’S ADMITTING THAT CAN HAPPEN.BUT HOW DO WE AS A COUNCIL FORTHIS CITY OF A MILLION PEOPLE, HOW DO WE JUSTIFY HAVING THIS INTHE WATER WHEN THERE IS NOCONTROL ON DOSAGE? AND THERE’S A NUMBER OF PEOPLETHAT DO NOT WANT IT AND CAN’TTAKE IT. >> THERE WAS CONVERSATIONSEARLIER ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE SOMEOF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU’D ASK OF COMMITTEE OR PANEL THAT — IFYOU WERE TO DECIDE TO CREATEONE.THAT MIGHT IN FACT BE ONE OF THEQUESTIONS YOU PUT TO THEM.BECAUSE I HEARD FROM SOME OF THE COMMENTS OF OTHERALDERMEN/COUNCILLORS, I’M NOTSURE WHERE WE ARE — >> WE’RE STILL ALDERMEN UNTILTHE NEXT ELECTION.>> FROM SOME OF THE OTHER ALDERMEN THAT TALKING ABOUT THEAMOUNT OF WATER DIFFERENT PEOPLEWOULD DRINK OR CONSUME DURING THE DAY.IF YOU MAKE THE DECISION TODISCONTINUE WATER FLUORIDATION WITH THE VARIATION IN NATURALOCCURRING FLUORIDE AND THAT, ITMEANS THAT POTENTIALLY SOMEBODY IN NORTHEAST CALGARY COULD BEGETTING WATER IN TERMS OF AT .1PART PER MILLION.SOMEBODY DOWN IN SOUTHWESTCALGARY WOULD BE GETTING .3PARTS PER MILLION. AND SO — AND THEN IF THEY’REWORKING IN DOWNTOWN CALGARY,THEY’RE GETTING A BLEND BETWEEN THOSE TWO.>> Dr. FRIESEN, I UNDERSTANDTHAT. I’VE HEARD YOU SAY THAT BEFORE.BUT I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW, WITHTHIS METHOD OF ADDING THE FLUORIDE IN THERE, HOW WEINCORPORATE ALL THE OTHERSOURCES OF FLUORIDE. BECAUSE THERE’S A LOT OF THEM.AND SOME PEOPLE ARE BRUSHINGTHEIR TEETH THREE TIMES A DAY WITH FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE.SOME ARE DOING IT WITHOUTFLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE. I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CANEVER COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING OFWHAT DOSAGE PEOPLE WOULD BE GETTING.[Please Stand By]THE CAPTIONS OF THIS MEETING — THAT HAVE OCCURRED.THOSE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, EVENTHOUGH THEY’RE BEING DONE AS RECENTLY AS — BEING CARRIEDOUT IN TERMS OF 2010, ARESUPPORTING THE POINT 7 PARTS PER MILLION THAT THE CITY OFCALGARY IS AT.SO I THINK YOU CAN TAKE COMFORT –>> FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON WITHTHE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF WATER?>> THAT’S CORRECT.>> OKAY.THANK YOU.Mr. CHAIRMAN.>> ALDERMAN PINCOTT. >> THANK YOU.SO MY QUESTION, I STATED THISBEFORE, IS AROUND HIGH CONTROL AND I ACTUALLY WOULD TAKE YOURARGUMENT ABOUT REMOVING IT ASSUPPORTING — ALSO SUPPORTING NOT HAVING IT IN BECAUSE YOURARGUMENT AROUND REMOVING ITWAS PEOPLE WOULD BE GETTING DIFFERENT DOSAGES AND YOUCAN’T CONTROL IT AND YET WITHIT IN, WE CAN’T CONTROL HOW MUCH PEOPLE — HOW MUCH WATERPEOPLE DRINK.SO ASSUMING — AND YOU TALKED ABOUT OSTEOFLOROWES SIS AND ITHINK YOU SAID TEN PARTS PERMILL.IS THAT THE SAME AS 10MILLIGRAMS?OKAY. AS SORT OF 10 PARTS PERMILLION BEING KIND OF THATTHRESHOLD AROUND OSTEOFLUOROSIS?>> I’D ASKED YOU — SKELETAL.IF THE AVERAGE PERSON IS DRINKING TWO GLASSES OF WATERA DAY OR I DON’T KNOW WHAT –WHAT’S THE DOSAGE, THE IDEAL DOSAGE?AS POINT 7 MILLIGRAMS PERLITRE, WHAT’S THE IDEAL DOSAGE IN — THAT’S 2 LITRES.>> SO THE>> COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION.>> GHEN, YOU’RE SAYING THEPOINT 7 IS BASED ON THE AVERAGE PERSON DRINKING THEAVERAGE AMOUNT OF WATER.HOW MANY GLASSES OF WATER IS THAT, ARE WE — IS THE SWEETSPOT FOR THAT DOSAGE?>> WITHIN THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE ISONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DO,ALL OF THEM DO, IS LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE THAT ISCONSUMED BY DIFFERENTPOPULATION AGE GROUPS.SO THEY LOOK IN TERMS OF THEDIFFERENT SOURCES SO WHAT IS ANORMAL RANGE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE DRINKING.NORMALLY SEEN IN TERMS OFCHILD, AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF FLUIDS THEY WOULD BE DRINKING.WHAT ARE THE TYPE OF FLUIDSTHAT THEY WOULD BE EATING. AND COMING OUT WITH A TOTALDOSE, EXPECTED DOSE, OFFLUORIDE THEY WOULD BE EXPOSED TO.WITHIN THOSE SYSTEM — SOTHAT’S HOW THOSE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAVE LOOKED AT, TAKENTHE LITERATURE, LOOKED AT THEDOSAGES THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING EXPOSED TO, LOOKING AT THEVARIOUS EFFECTIVENESS, LOOKINGAT THE RISK, AND THAT’S WHERE THEY’VE LANDED IN TERMS OF ONTHE POINT 7 PARTS PER MILLIONAS A LEVEL FOR WATER FLUORIDATION WHICH WILLPROVIDE A PROTECTIVE EFFECTAGAINST DENTAL CARIES, WITH MINIMAL RISK OF DENTALFLUORDOSIS.>> YOU’RE SAYING THEN THAT THERE’S NO RISK SO FOR THEPERSON WHO’S DRINKING TWOGLASSES OF WATER OR 20 GLASSES OF WATER, THERE’S NO RISK?>> OF SKELETAL NOR OWES SIS?YEAH. — I JUST CANNOT CONCEIVE OFANY WAY IN WHICH SOMEBODYDRINKING FLORIDATED — CITY OF CALGARY FLORIDATED WATER COULDDEVELOP SKELETAL FLOROWES SIS –FLUOROSIS BECAUSE IT’S NOT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO CONSUMETHE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WOULDGIVE RISE TO THOSE PROBLEMS.>> IT’S NOT MUCH OF A LEAP FORME TO GOTEN PARTS PER MILL. IS THAT THE SAME AS 10MILLIGRAMS?OKAY. AS SORT OF 10 PARTS PERMILLION BEING KIND OF THATTHRESHOLD AROUND OSTEOFLUOROSIS?>> I’D ASKED YOU — SKELETAL.IF THE AVERAGE PERSON IS DRINKING TWO GLASSES OF WATERA DAY OR I DON’T KNOW WHAT –WHAT’S THE DOSAGE, THE IDEAL DOSAGE?AS POINT 7 MILLIGRAMS PERLITRE, DOSAGE >> THEYOU REPEAT YOUR>> GHEN, YOU’RE SAYING THE POINT 7 IS BASED ON THEOFRSON DRINKING THEOF IS THAT, ARE WE — IS THE SWEETSPOT FOR THAT DOSAGE?>> WITHIN THE SYSTEMATIC BEEN DONE ISBEEN DONE ISTHEM TO CONSUME THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WOULD GIVE RISE TOTHOSE PROBLEMS.>> IT’S NOT MUCH OF A LEAP FOR ME TO GO FROM 7 PARTS PERMILLION TO 10 PARTS PERMILLION — >> 0.7.>> ASKED YOU IF IT WAS THESAME MEASUREMENT AND YOU SAID IT WAS THE SAME.WE’RE OVER 10 PARTS PERMILLION AND THAT AND AGAIN THE COMMUNITIES IN INDIA WHERETHIS HAS BEEN NOTED ANDREPORTED, WHAT WOULD BE FOUND THERE AS FAR AS THECONCENTRATION IN THE WATER IS40 PARTS PER MILLION.SO IT’S SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHERSO THERE’S — I JUST DON’TTHINK IT’S FEASIBLE FOR SOMEBODY TO DRINK THAT AMOUNTOF WATER.>> SORRY, I WAS GETTING THE SWITCHING BETWEEN MILLIGRAMSAND PARTS PER MILLION.ONE LAST QUESTION. IS THIS ANY OTHER MEDICATIONTHAT YOU WOULD PRESCRIBE WHEREYOU WOULD SAY TO THE PATIENT TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU WANT?>> I’M NOT SAYING THAT FORFLUORIDE AND THAT. WHAT I’M SAYING IN TERMS OFFOR FLUORIDE IS THAT POINT 7PARTS PER MILLION IN DRINKING WATER IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.WHAT I WOULD ALSO BE SAYINGAND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING TO PARENTAL IS YOU NEED TO BEMONITORING THE AMOUNT OFDENTISMTS FRICE THAT IS BEING USED AND THAT TO MINIMIZE,FURTHER MINIMIZE, THE RISK OFDENTAL FLUOROSIS. AGAIN, AROUND THE SAFETY OFPOINT 7 PARTS PER MILLION INTHE WATER, I HAVE INTO CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO THESAFETY AT THAT LEVEL.>> THANK YOU. >> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTIONFOR YOU.A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, MY FATHER WAS TOLD THAT HECOULDN’T DRINK THE WATERBECAUSE OF THE FLUORIDE.HE HAD KIDNEY PROBLEMS AND HEHAD DIABETES AS WELL.WHAT DO YOU TELL THOSE PEOPLE? >> I THINK Dr. MUSTO TOUCHEDON THIS PREVIOUSLY.I’M NOT AWARE OF RECOMMENDATION FOR PEOPLE WITHRENAL DISEASE TO NOT DRINKFLORIDATED WATER. NOW, THERE’S SERGERECOMMENDATIONS THAT GO TOPEOPLE WITH RENAL DISEASE AROUND THEIR DIETARYRESTRICTIONS AND THAT RELATEDTO THE OVERALL KIDNEY FUNCTION, BUT I’M NOT AWARE OF THATBEING IDENTIFIED AS A CONCERN,AND CERTAINLY FOR DIALYSIS MACHINES, DIALYSIS EQUIPMENT,THERE’S SPECIALIZED WATERSYSTEMS THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE FOR THOSE, AND THAT’S BECAUSEOF CONCERNS FOR A NUMBER OFDIFFERENT — TO WANT TO ENSURE A VERY SAFE SOURCE OF WATERTHAT IS BEING USED FORDIALYSIS.>> SO HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THECITY OF CALGARY WOULD YOU SAYWOULD FALL UNDER THAT CATEGORY?DO YOU HAVE ANY BALLPARKIDEAS? >> NO, I CAN’T GIVE YOU THATINFORMATION.I CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ONDIALYSIS AND THAT, BUT COMINGBACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE WITH KIDNEYDISEASE, YOU KNOW, BEINGADVISED NOT TO DRINK OR BEING A REGISTERS NOT TO DRINKFLORIDATED WATER, THAT’S NOTBEEN AN ISSUE, AND I THINK Dr. MUSTO FOLLOWED UP WITH THEDIRECTOR OF INTERNAL MEDICINEOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL MEDICINE AND THAT WAS NOTIDENTIFIED AS AN ISSUE.AND Dr. MUSTO IS INDICATING AFFIRMATIVE THAT AGAIN THEYDID NOT IDENTIFY IT AS AHEALTH CONCERN WITHIN THE INTERNAL MEDICINE NEPHROLOGISTSTHAT LOOK AFTER PEOPLE WITHKIDNEY 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 ALITTLE BIT — Dr. FRIESEN –WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT DURING THE BREAK.WHY DO YOU THINK THISCONTINUES TO BE SUCH A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE?AND ARE YOU PRIVY TO THEDISCUSSIONS THAT OCCURRED IN EUROPE WHEN THEY MADE SOMEALTERNATE DECISIONS TO NORTHAMERICA? >> I’M NOT PRIVY TO THOSEDISCUSSIONS THAT OCCURRED INEUROPE. SO I CAN’T COMMENT ON THOSE.AS TO WHY DOES THIS CONTINUETO BE A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE IN CALGARY AND SOME OTHERCOMMUNITIES, IT’S NOT CLEAR TOME.I THINK Dr. MUSTO TOUCHED ONSOME OF THE ISSUES.I DO FIND IT INTERESTING THAT WATER FLUORIDATION HAS EXISTEDIN EDMONTON SINCE THE EARLYSIXTIES, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN THE SAME DEGREE OFDISCUSSION OCCURRING IN THATCOMMUNITY AS OCCURRED IN CALGARY.I THINK, AGAIN, HAVING THISDISCUSSION TAKE PLACE DOES PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TOREVIEW AND PRESENT THESCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF WATER FLUORIDATION,REASSURE PEOPLE AROUND THESAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF IT, BUT I CAN’T GIVE ANY INSIGHTIN TERMS OF AS TO WHY IT’SPERSISTED OR RECURRED AS AN ISSUE HERE.>> AND IT’S THE SAME WITHWATERLOO WITH THEIR DECISION, VERY SMALL MAJORITY, I THINKIT WAS POINT 3 OF A PERCENT,TO REMOVE IT AFTER MANY, MANY YEARS OF HAVING IT IN.SO EVEN IN PLACES THAT HAVEHAD IT FOR DECADES, IT REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL, AND THEPOPULATION IS SPLIT.IT’S A FASCINATING DISCUSSION, AND IT MAY BE THAT THE METHODOF DELIVERY.>> WELL, I THINK ANOTHER FACTOR IS AROUNDLISTICCOMMUNICATION AND NO, AND IT’SRELATIVELY EASY FOR ALLEGATIONS TO BE MADE INTERMS OF A PARTICULAR ADVERSEEFFECTS OR IMPACTS RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION.AND IT’S MUCH MORE DIFFICULTTO REFUTE THOSE ALLEGATIONS IN TERMS OF — SOMEBODY CAN SAYSOMETHING NEGATIVE, AND IT’SOUT THERE VERY QUICKLY.BUT THEN TO GO IN AND PROVIDETHE SCIENTIFIC DETAIL ANDREASON WHY THAT IS NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT OR THATIT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDTHE CONTEXT IN WHICH THAT PARTICULAR STUDY OR RESEARCHWAS CARRIED OUT TAKES A MUCHLONGER PERIOD OF TIME. AND THAT PEOPLE, IN THE30-SECOND BIT, REALLY DOESN’TLEND TO THAT TYPE OF INFORMED DISCUSSION FOR PEOPLE.SO I THINK THAT’S ONE OF THEOTHER FACTORS THAT EXISTS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WATERFLUORIDATION.>> THANK YOU, Dr.FRIESEN. >> THANK YOU.>> OUR NEXT PREVENTER IS ELKIEBEVIAK. >> HI, THERE, IT’S BEEN A LONGDAY.(INAUDIBLE) >> THANK YOU.I WAS INVOLVED IN THEFLUORIDATION ISSUE A LONG TIME AGO.I HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM OFDENTISTRY (INDISCERNIBLE) NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE.I HAVE RUN THROUGH THE FIRESOF HELL WHEN I GOT MERCURY POISONING AND EXPERTS TOLD METHAT THERE’S NOTHING WRONG –THIS WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH MERCURY IN MY MOUTH.I WAS INVITED BY HEALTH CANADATO PARTICIPATE IN STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS FOR MERCURY AMALGAM.WE DIDN’T GET THEM BANNED BUTWE DID GET MAJOR CONCESSIONS. SO I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITHDENTISTRY FOR WELL OVER 25YEARS. I WORK WITH DENTIST WHO IS AREOPPOSED TO FLUORIDATION ANDWHO DO NOT USE FLUORIDE IN THEIR PRACTICES.THEY ARE HARASSED, THEY CANNOTCOME DPOORD BECAUSE THEY ARE IN TROUBLE WHEN THEY DO BYTHEIR DENTAL ASSOCIATION.THAT’S WHY YOU DIDN’T GET A DISSENTER.THE DISSENTERS ARE NOT ATTHOSE MEETINGS.I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I HAVEPULLED BACK A LITTLE BIT, ANDTHE REASON I DID IS BECAUSE I WENT OUT AND GOT A JOB.I AM NOW WORKING FOR CIRREALTY. IT’S REALLY INTERESTINGBECAUSE AS A REALTOR NOW FORCIR, AND I’M A BUYER SPECIALIST, SO AS A BUYERSPECIALIST I TAKE A LOT OFFIRST TIME HOME BUYERS OUT, AND I HAVE SHOWN HUNDREDS OFHOMES IN THE CITY.ALL OVER THE CITY.IN AFFLUENT AREAS AND LESSAFFLUENT AREAS.AND WHAT I FOUND IN THE AFFLUENT AREAS IS THAT MOSTPEOPLE DRINK EITHER FILTEREDWATER OR BOTTLED WATER, AND EVEN IN THE LESS AFFLUENTAREAS, THERE ARE A LOT OFPEOPLE WHO ARE DRINKING BOTTLED WATER.AND BOTTLED WATER HAS BECOMEVERY POPULAR LATELY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT TASTES BETTER THANTAP WATER AND IT’S SIEGE ASBEING HEALTHIER THAN TAP WATER.TO GIVE APERSPECTIVE ON DOSE,THIS IS MY FORCE, SO THIS IS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF LITRES OFWATER.I’VE HAD FOUR CUPS OF COFFEE. BEFOREGY TO BED TONIGHT I WILLHAVE ANOTHER 2 LITRES OFWATER. SO DOSE IS VERY IMPORTANT WHENYOU’RE TALKING ABOUT WEIGHT,SO MYSELF, I WOULD GET MUCH MORE FLUORIDE IF I WASDRINKING FLORIDATED WATER THANMY FRIEND OVER THERE WHO IS 50 POUNDS HEAVIER THAN I AM, ANDTHAT IS WHAT DOSE IS ALLABOUT. AND THAT IS WHY KIDS GET VERYMUCH FLUORIDE FOR HOW MUCHTHEY WEIGH, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT ARE VERY SLIGHT INWEIGHT S AND IT’S VERY SIMPLE.EVERY TIME SOMEBODY HAS ASKED ABOUT DOSE HERE AND WHAT IS ASAFE DOSE, SOMEBODY TALKSABOUT CONCENTRATION OR LEVEL.DOSE IS VERY SIMPLE.SOMEBODY LIKE MYSELF IS GOINGTO GET MUCH MORE BECAUSE I DON’T WEIGH AS MUCH THAN AFULLY GROWN MAN DOES.SO EVERY PERSON, DEPENDING ON WATER INTAKE, IS GOING TO GETA DIFFERENT AMOUNT OFFLUORIDE. AND BECAUSE I DRINK A LOT OFWATER AND I DON’T DRINK NORDATED 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 TOSIX LITRES, AT LEAST, WHEN YOU’RE TRAINING.MY TRAINER RECOMMENDS AT LEAST3 TO 4 LITRES OF WATER A DAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IWANTED TO MENTION AS I AM –HAVE NOTICED HOW MANY PEOPLE DRINK BOTTLED WATER ISBASICALLY I WANT TO ASK SOMEQUESTIONS, AND THOSE QUESTIONS ARE WHO HAS MEASURED THEDECLINE IN DENTAL CARIES INCALGARY SINCE CALGARY STARTED FLORIDATING?CAN WE TRULY CLAIM THERE IS ABENEFIT TO FLORIDATING OUR CITIZENS IF NO ONE HASBOTHERED TO DO A FOLLOW-UPSTUDY? IN THE 1980s, THEY FOUND NOSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCESBETWEEN UNFLORIDATED CALGARY AND FLORIDATED EDMONTON, ANDYET WE STILL FLORIDATED OURWATER SUPPLY.WHO IS LOOKED FOR POSSIBLEEVIDENCE OF HARM IN CALGARY?HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY SAY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HARMWHATSOEVER IF NOBODY HERE HASLOOKED FOR IT? AND I DON’T LOOK AT REVIEWS BYFLUORIDATION PROPONENTS.CALGARY ALREADY WENT THERE IN 1998.AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSEPANELISTS WAS IN FAVOUR OF NOR ADDITION EXCEPT FOR ONE.SO HOW CAN YOU GET AN UNBIASEDREVIEW WHEN YOU’VE GOT A PANEL FULL OF FLUORIDATIONPROPONENTS?THE OTHER THINGS, AS FAR AS FLUORIDATION COSTS THAT HAVENEVER BEEN DISCUSSED ISBECAUSE THIS IS A BI-PRODUCTS OF FROS FATE FERTILIZERMANUFACTURING.CALGARY’S COST TO FLORIDATE IS ALWAYS GOING TO GO UP.THE USE OF PHOSPHATE ISDECLINING WORLDWIDE, AND THEY THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE ASIGNIFICANT DECLINE IN THENEXT 20 YEARS.YOUR COST, BECAUSE THERE WILLBE LESS PHOSPHATE BYPRODUCTAND LESS FLUORIDE BYPRODUCT PRODUCED, WILL KEEP GOING UP.>> Ms. BABIAK, YOUR FIVEMINUTES IS UP. CAN YOU GIVE ME A CONCLUDINGCOMMENT.>> MY MOST IMPORTANT THING WHEN I FIRST GOT STARTED INTHE FLUORIDATION ISSUE WASFREEDOM OF CHOICE. YOU CANNOT CONTROL THE DOSEHERE AND IT IS ABSOLUTELYUNETHICAL TO FORCE SOME PEOPLE TO DRINK FLUORIDE AND OTHERPEOPLE NOT.>> ALDERMAN DEMONG, QUESTIONS? >> I’M JUST TRYING TO FIGUREOUT 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 WESEND THIS TO A PANEL OFPROFESSIONAL MEDICAL EXPERTS TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THATWE CAN LOOK FOR.CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR OPINION ON WHAT YOUR OPINION OF THATIDEA MIGHT BE.>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DETERMINE THAT THOSE MEDICALEXPERTS ARE UNBIASED?YOU’VE HEARD A NUMBER OF PROPONENTS HERE FORFLUORIDATION.WHO YOU DON’T HEAR FROM IS THE DENTISTS THAT ARE OPPOSED TOFROR ADDITION — TOFLUORIDATION BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID AND ALSO A LOT OFDOCTORS WILL NOT SPEAK OUT.THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARANTEE WHETHER THAT PANEL IS GOING TOBE UNBIASED OR NOT.THE CITY OF CALGARY TRIED TO HAVE A PANEL IN 1998.IT TURNED OUT TO BE VERYHEAVILY BIASED IN FAVOUR OF FLUORIDATION, YET DESPITE THAT,WE LED NORTH AMERICA AS A CITYIN SAYING WE WERE GETTING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE.WE WERE 12 YEARS AHEAD OF THEAMERICANS WHEN WE REDUCED TO POINT 7 AND NOW THE AMERICANSARE SAYING POINT 7.WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.LET’S BE AHEAD OF THEM AGAIN.LET’S TAKE IT OUT OF OUR WATERFLY WE ARE GETTING WAY TOO MUCH.>> I CAN’T EVEN BEGIN TOSTART… YOU WERE COMMENTING ABOUT THECOST OF THE FLUORIDE TO THECITY OF CALGARY AND THAT THAT’S GOING TO BE GOING UP.WHERE EXACTLY WERE YOU GOINGWITH THAT, WHAT WERE YOUR COMMENTS?>> THE USE OF PHOSPHATEFERTILIZER HAS GONE DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE LASTNUMBER OF YEARS, AND THEDECLINE PREDICTED IN THE NEXT 20 IS THAT IT WON’T BE USEDTHAT MUCH ANYMORE.AS FAR AS STRIP MINES GO, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE’S LESS AND LESSSTRIPE MINES THAT ARE GETTINGPERMITS TO MINE PHOSPHATE ROCK BECAUSE IT IS ENVIRONMENTALLYDISASTROUS.SO YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A SHORTAGE OF CHEMICALS AS ARESULT.YOU’RE NOT USING PHOSPHATE IN DETERGENTS ANYMORE SO THE USEOF PHOSPHATES ARE GOING WAYDOWN.WHEN THE USE OF PHOSPHATES GODOWN, YOUR INDUSTRIAL WASTEBYPRODUCT WILL ALSO GO DOWN. THE REASON WE HAD A SHORTAGETHE LAST TIME, AND CALGARYEXPERIENCED THAT, IS BECAUSE THE MINES WERE OUT OFPRODUCTION WHEN KATRINA HIT.AND SO WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, THOSE MONIESARE GOING TO BE — THOSE MINESARE GOING TO BE LESS AND LESS. WHERE IS THE COST OF THECHEMICAL GOING?>> OKAY. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER QUESTION I SHOULD HAVE ASKED ALONG TIME AGO TO REALLYUNDERSTAND IT ‘CAUSE WE’RE TALKING DOSE AND I THINK ALLOF THE OTHER STUFF SET ASIDECOMING DOWN TO MAKING A DECISION ON — ‘CAUSE I THINKWE’RE ALL IN AGREEMENTFLUORIDE IS GREAT FOR TEETH. WHERE THE DISAGREEMENT COMESIS HOW MUCH AND HOW AND WE GOFROM THERE. AM I CORRECT THAT POINT 7PARTS PER MILLION IS THE SAMEAS 7 MILLIGRAMS? >> NO.>> NO?OKAY. >> POINT 7 PARTS PER MILLIONMEANS YOU’RE GETTING POINT 7OF A MILLIGRAM IN 1 LITRE OF WATER.>> POINT 7 OF 1 MILLIGRAM.>> YES, EXACTLY.POINT 7 PARTS PER MILLION ISPOINT 7 MILLIGRAMS IN 1 LITREOF WATER. AND SO HOW MUCH YOU’RE GOINGTO BE GETTING IS HOW MUCHYOU’RE DRINKING. SO I’M GOING TO BE DRINKING 4LITRES OF WATER PER DAY.SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE DRINKING NONE AT ALL OR 1LITRE OF WATER A DAY SO EACHONE OF US GETS A DIFFERENT DOSE OF FLUORIDE IF WE DRINKFLORIDATED TAP WATER.THAT’S NOT AN EFFECTIVE DELIVERY METHOD.>> IF WE LOOKED ON AVERAGE –THEY KEEP SAYING YOU SHOULD DRINK EIGHT GLASSES OF WATER ADAY, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY ITHINK MANY PEOPLE DO NOT DO, AND THEY SHOULD.IF I BREAK THAT DOWN, THATWOULD BE ROUGHLY 2 LITRES OF WATER.>> APPROXIMATELY, YES.>> SO I WOULD BE GETTING 1.4 MILLIGRAMS OF FLUORIDE OUT OFTHAT.>> YEAH. >> NOT COUNTING ANY OF THEOTHER WAYS I WOULD BE GETTINGFLUORIDE ON A DAILY BASIS. SO I WOULD GO WITH THE 1.4WHICH IS PROBABLY FAIRLYCOMMON AND MAY BE EVEN LESS THAN THAT BECAUSE WE DON’TDRINK WATER BUT THEN ON TOP OFTHAT I WOULD ADD ALL OF MY TOOTHPASTE AND ALL OF THESEOTHER THINGS AND EVERY NOW ANDTHEN THE DENTIST DOES PUT THOSE THINGS IN MY MOUTH BUTNOT AS MUCH LATELY AS BEFORE.MAYBE THAT’S ‘CAUSE I’M GETTING OLDER, HE’S SAYING TOHECK WITH YOU, I’M NOT SURE,BUT ANYWAY, WE’LL GO FROM THERE.WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ISWHAT IS THE RECOGNIZED HARMFUL AMOUNT IN MILLIGRAMS?>> THAT WILL VARY FROM PERSONTO PERSON DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO FLUORIDEOR NOT.>> AGAIN WE’RE LOOKING FOR YOU FOR KIND OF AN AVERAGE.IF I’M CORRECT, I THINK I’VEHEARD SOMEWHERE AROUND 4 MILLIGRAMS, BUT I DON’T KNOWIF THAT’S RIGHT BECAUSETHERE’S BEEN A LOT OF INFORMATION AND I TRIED TOTAKE AS MANY NOTES AS –>> THE HARMFUL EFFECTS FOR CHILDREN ARE OBVIOUS, RIGHT,AND SOME CHILDREN ARE GOING TOBE DRINKING MORE WATER.SOME CHILDREN NOT.DENTAL FLUOROSIS IS A GIVEN INFLORIDATED COMMUNITIES. IT’S LIKE 41%.THAT TELLS US THEY’RE GETTINGWAY TOO MUCH FLUORIDE. AS FAR AS THE ABSOLUTEMILLIGRAM DOSE THAT IS HARMFUL,IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO FLUORIDE, A HALF A MILLIGRAMIS ENOUGH.A HALF A MILLIGRAM IS ENOUGH. IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE TOFLUORIDE.THAT’S NOT VERY MUCH. THAT’S NOT VERY MUCH.>> IF ANYONE ELSE HAS VERYSPECIFIC INFORMATION ALONG THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE THATAT A LATER TIME.THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN.I’M SORRY, I DIDN’T CATCH YOURNAME. >> ELKA.>> THAT’S WHAT I HAD WRITTENDOWN BUT I WASN’T SURE IF IT WAS CORRECT.FLIRS DECLARING AN INTEREST.THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN. FIRST OF ALL I’D LIKE TO THANKYOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION ANDYOUR DILIGENCE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OVER MANYYEARS, OBVIOUSLY.AND I DON’T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR YOU.I CERTAINLY DID HEAR WHAT YOUHAD TO SAY AND I HAVE BEEN TAPING THE PROCEEDINGS TODAYSO I’LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TOREVIEW THAT AT MY LEISURE.I KNOW THERE’S BEEN A LOT OFGOOD ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES.I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ANY THE MAIN ISSUE IS THEETHICAL ONE.ANYWAY, I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENCE AND YOUR PRESENTATIONHERE TODAY.IF I MAY, TO THE CHAIRMAN, THERE’S BEEN APPEAR LOT OFSUBMISSIONS THAT HAVE BEENMADE TODAY AND I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD PUT IN A REQUESTTHAT ALL OF THE SUBMISSIONSTHAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED HERE TO THIS COMMITTEE BE FORWARDEDON TO COUNCIL WHEN THIS REPORTGOES TO COUNCIL. >> WELL, WE HAVEN’T HAD A LOTOF 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’READD 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 INFORMATIONTHAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO US,WHETHER YOU SEND IT TO ME DIRECTLY OR TO OTHER MEMBERSOF COUNCIL, I’D APPRECIATETHAT.THANK YOU.>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS HELENMOORE. 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 ANDPROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR AND CONCERNED CALGARIAN.I HAVE LIVED IN CALGARY FORCLOSE TO FOUR DECADES. I WAS BROUGHT UP ANDENCOURAGED TO BE A DISCERNINGAND CARING PERSON. I LEARNED AS A CHILD TO FOLLOWTHE GOLDEN RULE OF DOING UNTOOTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.I AM A GENERALIST AND HAVE AMASTERS DEGREE IN EDUCATION. I EXPECT ACCOUNTABLE, OPEN,FAIR GOVERNMENT.I ALSO FEEL THAT UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS SHOULD NOT FORCEDECISIONS ON THE PUBLIC BASEDON QUESTIONABLE SCIENCE. IN THE 1970s, I WASBRAINWASHED FROM AND DID NOTQUESTION AUTHORITIES, OFFICIALS, OR EXPERTS.CALGARY REGIONAL HEALTHAUTHORITY, CRHA, RECOMMENDED CHILDREN BE GIVEN FLUORIDEDROPS TO HELP WITH TOOTHDECAY.IN 1989, CRHA CONDUCTED ANIMPROPER PLEBISCITE WITHOUTGIVING CITIZENS ALL THE FACTS AND LIKEWISE IN 1998 CRHASPENT 250.000 OF THAT MONEY –OF TAXPAYERS MONEY PROMOTING THIS UNEVIDENT CAL METHOD OFMEDICATING EVERY CALGARIAN.READING HISTORY I FOUND OUT FLUORIDE WAS GIVEN TO THE MASSINSIDE GERMANY DURING THEHOLOCAUST TO KEEP THE PRISONERS PASS SICH.IT IS ALSO KNOWN THAT FLUORIDEIS A COMPONENT IN DRUGS LIKE PROZAC.SINCE THE 1950s, MANYKNOWLEDGEABLE AND ETHICAL CALGARIANS FOUGHT NOT TO HAVETHIS POISON PUT IN OURDRINKING WATER BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD HISTORY, THEYVALUED THE RICH RESOURCES OFPURE, CLEAN MISSOURI WATER, FLUORIDE WAS KEPT OUT OFCALGARY’S DRINKING WATER INTHE FIFTIES, SIXTIES, SEVENTIES, ALONG WITH SIXPLEBISCITES.FINALLY THE POLITICIANS MADE THE DECISION TO PUT THE POISONINTO OUR DRINKING WATERWITHOUT LEGITIMATE SCIENCE NOR PROPER PUBLIC CONSENT IN 1989.AFTER A SLIM MAJORITYPLEBISCITE WHERE ONLY 17% OF CALGARIANS VOTED.THIS WAS A SCAM AND RACKETRIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING.ONE HAS TO ASK WHO WASPROMOTING AND PROFITING FROMIT. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU LOOKAT SOME OF THESE WEB SITES.THERE ARE MANY BOOKS AND STUDIES WHICH HAVE PRESENTEDFLUORIDE HISTORY AND CONCERNS.THOSE ARE GOOD WEB SITES. NEXT IS SOME BOOKS.AND BY Dr. JAMES BECK IS ACONCERNED CALGARIAN IS HERE AND HE WROTE THE CASE AGAINSTFLUORIDE, HOW HAZARDOUS WASTEENDED UP IN OUR DRINKING WATER AND HOW BAD SCIENCE ANDPOWERFUL POLITICS HAVE KEPT ITTHERE. FINALLY, THEN THERE CAME ASLIDE ABOUT THE CHRONOLOGICALORDER OF — ABOUT FLUORIDE AND IT EVEN STARTED THE DEBATESINCE 1901.AND I’LL LET YOU JUST READ THAT.IT GOES TO Dr. MACKAY, ADENTIST, NOTICED IT ON HIS PATIENT’S TOOTH AND HAS STAINSON HIS TEETH AND WENT TO THECOLORADO STATE DENTAL ASSOCIATION, AND ARE NOTHINGTOO MUCH WAS DONE.THEN Dr.HILL, A CITY COUNCILOR, ASKED THAT THECOUNCILORS MOVE CAUTIOUSLYBECAUSE HE SAID THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES HAVEN’T BEENFULLY DETERMINED.NEXT, 1953, THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION DECLAREDTHAT WATER FLUORIDATION WASTHE GREATEST STEP IN PREVENTION OF DENTISTRY THATHAS OCCURRED DURING THISCENTURY. FINALLY IN 1966, THE ALBERTAGOVERNMENT AMENDED THE PUBLICHEALTH ACT TO PERMIT A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE ON FLUORIDATIONINSTEAD OF THE TWO-THIRDSMAJORITY PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED. TODAY THERE ARE NO LEGITIMATESCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT FLUORIDEEVEN HELPS TOPICALLY WITH TOOTH DECAY.MANY CREDIBLE STUDIES SHOWTHAT IT DELETERIOS EFFECTS ON THE SKELETAL SYSTEM.OTHER PEER REVIEW STUDIES SHOWIT HORS EYE IQ, NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS, THYROID PROBLEMS,AND EVEN CANCER.Dr.CARLSON WON A NOBEL PRIZE IN MEDICINE IN 2000 FOR HISWORK ON THE BRAIN, NEUROLOGY,PLAYED A VERY IMPORTANT, PROMINENT ROLE IN BANNINGFLUORIDE IN SWEDEN.OPER HEIMER OF GERMANY WHO PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN THEINVENTION OF THE ATOMIC BOMBQUOTES THESE WORDS FROM A SPIRIT 50U ANCIENT TEXT:NOW I AM BECOME DEATH.THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS. DID YOU KNOW THAT FLUORIDE ISONE OF THE MOST TOXICCHEMICALS STILL IN NORTH AMERICA?IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST — ITWAS ONE OF THE TOXIC COMPONENTS EVALUATED FOR USEIN THE PRODUCTION OF THEATOMIC BOMB IN WORLD WAR II. Dr. McCOLA STATES WATERFLUORIDATION IS BASED IN ANABSURD AND UNETHICAL BECAUSE STUDIES SHOW THIS CHEMICAL CANDAMAGE YOUR BRAIN, IMMUNE, GASROW INTESTINAL SYSTEM AND SKELETAL SYSTEM.IT’S SO DANGEROUS A FAMILYSIZED TUBE OF NOR I’D TOOTHPASTE IS TOXIC ENOUGH TOKILL A 25 POUND CHILD.AS A MOM, WHEN I SAW THIS PICTURE OF MY SON, CRAIG, IWAS WORRIED AND CONCERNED.I ARRANGED APPOINTMENT AT THE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL TO SEE ANEUROLOGIST.SADLY HE DIDN’T MAKE ANY CONNECTIONS AND NOR DID HEGIVE ME ANY ANSWERS TO THEPROBLEM.TAKE NOTE OF MY SON’S RIGHTLEG AND RIGHTNAND THESE TWOPICTURES. TO ME THIS DOES NOT SEEMNORMAL.HOWEVER, WITH HOME LINE THINKING AND A MOM’S INTUITIONI PUT THE PUZZLE PIECESTOGETHER AND FEEL IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE FLUORIDE DROPSI GAVE HIM WHENERS A LITTLEBOY. TODAY I HAVE LEARNED TOQUESTION THE OFFICIALS, THEEXPERTS, AND WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY BECAUSE OF MY MANY LIVEDEXPERIENCES.MANY HISTORICAL ATROCITIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED IN THENAME OF SCIENCE.TODAY I KNOW THAT SELF-INTEREST IS MOREIMPORTANT TO POLITICIANS,BUREAUCRATS, AND CORPORATIONS.MY PASSION WAS TEACHING.TODAY IF SOMEONE TOLD ME YOUJUST HAVE A LARGER AUDIENCE. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE WATERPIPES AT THE BEARSPAW WATERTREATMENT CENTRE SHOWING (INDISCERNIBLE) TOXIN, TOXICWASTE EATING THROUGH THEPIPES. IT’S NOT A PRETTY SIGHTS.WHY ARE CALGARIANS — SUM ITUP? >> PLEASE.>> WHY ARE CALGARIANS BEINGDECEIVED IN I’M NOT OPPOSED TO HONEST SCIENCE OR THE USE OFSCIENTIFIC METHODS.HOWEVER COMMONLY SENSE MUST ALWAYS RULE.IT IS MY OPINION THE POLICIESOF FLUORIDATION IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FRAUD AND THAT ISTHE IMPLEMENT — AND THIS –AND THAT ITS IMPLEMENTATION IS CRIMINAL.IT’S NOT EFFECTIVE, NOT SAFE,AND UNETHICAL.FOR UNELECTED AND ELECTEDEDOFFICIALS TO FOIST THEHAZARDOUS WASTE UPON CALGARIANS.FLUORIDE IS AVAILABLE INTOOTHPASTE. I WILL TRUST THAT CITY COUNCILWILL MAKE USE — WILL USECOMMON SENSE AND STOP FLUORIDATION NOW.THANK YOU.>> THE NEXT SPEAKER AND COMMITTEE (INDISCERNIBLE)CONFORM SO ALL MEMBERS OFCOMMITTEE WILL NEED TO KEEP THEIR SEATS UNTIL WE HAVE(INDISCERNIBLE) MEMBERS.THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JAMES BECK.>> WHAT I HEARD THUS FAR TODAYHAS PRESENTED ME WITH ADILEMMA. YOU HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH ALOT OF TESTIMONY, AND I THINKTHAT TESTIMONY COMES FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO — WITHPERSONAL EXPERIENCE ANDEFFECTS ON THEIR OWN LIVES HAS TO BE LISTENED TO ANDRESPECTED.YOU’VE ALSO HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY FROM OFFICIALS FROMALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES, ANDQUITE A LOT OF THAT TESTIMONY HAS OMITTED MUCH EVIDENCECOUNTER TO THEIR CONCLUSIONSAND HAS MISREPRESENTED SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT ISINDICATION OF HARM OFFLUORIDATION. SO I HAVE ABOUT THREE BEIGESHERE — THREE PAGES HERE OFNOTES OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE SUSTAINED OUT BUT I GUESS IMUST NOT DO THAT.FIVE MINUTES ISN’T MUCH TIME. HERE, BY THE WAY, I HAVECOPIES OF WHAT I’M ABOUT TOSAY, IF YOU WANT THOSE, AND I’M TELLING ME CIV SELF I CANREAD THIS IN THREE MINUTES SOI’LL GIVE IT A GOOD SHOT. SOME OF YOU ON THE COMMITTEEHAVE HEARD ME BEFORE ONFLUORIDATION. I HAVE IN THE PAST FOCUSED ONQUESTIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS INPREVENTING CAVITIES AND ON THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF FLUORIDEAND OF HEXAFLUORAL ACID.THERE ARE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE INSIDE HOW YOU PUT FLUORIDEION INTO CITY WATER, WHETHERYOU USE HEXA FLUORAL ACID OR SOMETHING ELSE.THAT WAS DISMISSED BY THEMEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH AND IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED.I HAVE GIVEN REASONS BASED ONPEER REVIEWED RESEARCH PAPERS PUBLISHED INCREDIBLE JOURNALSFOR CONCLUDING THEFLUORIDATION IS AT BEST MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE ANDDEFINITELY HARMFUL TO SUBGROUPS OF THE POPULATION AND QUITE POSSIBLY HARMFUL TO ALLOF US.SO IN THESE FEW MINUTES I’LL COMMENT ONLY ON THE ETHICALISSUES.IN 1957, THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULED THAT FLUORIDATIONIS “COMPULSORY, PREVENTIVEMEDICATION”.THE COURT’S RULING ISSIGNIFICANT BECAUSE ITLEGITIMIZES THE COMMONSENSE CONCLUSION THAT WE ARE BEINGMEDICATED, AND IT PUTS THEMATTER CLEARLY IN THE REALM OF MEDICAL ETHICS.AND MEDICAL ETHICS IN TURN ISEMBEDDED IN HUMAN RIGHTS. NOW, HERE’S HOW FLUORIDATIONVIOLATES THE CODE OF MEDICALETHICS: IT IS ADMINISTRATION OF A DRUGWITHOUT CONTROL OF DOSAGE,CONTROLLING CONCENTRATION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EXCESSIVELY,NOT CONTROL OF THE DOSE OR THEDOSAGE. IT IS ADMINISTRATION OF DRUGWITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT OFTHE RECIPIENT. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE MONITORINGOF THE EFFECTS OF THE DRUG ONTHE RECIPIENT. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THERECIPIENT TO STOP RECEIVINGTHE DRUG. MANY CANNOT GET NON-FLORIDATEDWATER AND NONE OF US CAN AVOIDEXPOSURE FROM FOODS AND DRINKS PROCESSED WHERE TAP WATER ISFLORIDATED.THE DRUG HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE SAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.ALL OF THOSE POINTS DISQUALIFYFLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES AS A MEDICALLYETHICAL PROCEDURE.THE FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY IS NOT ONLY ANETHICAL OFFENCE AGAINST US ALL,IT IS CLEARLY A MORE SERIOUS OFFENCE AGAINST THOSESUBGROUPS OF OUR POPULATIONWHICH ARE PARTICULARLY AT RISK OF HARM FROM FLUORIDE.THESE GROUPS INCLUDE INFANTSBEING FED WITH FORMULA RECONSTITUTED WITH TAP WATER,DIABETICS, PERSONS DEFICIENTIN EYE FINE INTAKE, PERSONS WITH KIDNEY DISEASE, BOYSDOING THE 8-YEAR-OLD GROWTHSPURT, AND OTHERS.IT IS AN OBLIGATION OF CITYCOUNCILS AND OF ALBERTA HEALTHSERVICES TO PROTECT NOT ALL — PROTECT ALL, NOT JUST THEAVERAGE AND NOT JUST THEMAJORITY. SEVERAL COUNCILORS HAVERIGHTLY BEEN CONCERNED ABOUTTHE DENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES.IT IS SAID THAT FLUORIDATIONIS A PARTICULAR BENEFIT TO POOR CHILDREN.WELL, THAT QUESTION HAS BEENINVESTIGATED WITH STUDIES THAT WERE DESIGNED TO ANSWER THATQUESTION.IT IS FOUND THAT THE FLORIDATED POOR GROUPS HAVE NOBETTER CAVITY EXPERIENCE THANDO THE NON-FLORIDATED POOR GROUPS.FURTHERMORE, IT IS FOUND THATTHE PREVALENCE OF CAVITIES INCREASES AS FAMILY INCOMEDECREASES.IT’S NOT FLUORIDE THAT WOULD BENEFIT POOR CHILDREN.IT’S A HIGHER STANDARD OFLIVING. PROBABLY A BETTER DIET ANDBETTER ORAL HYGIENE.WHAT KIND OF AN ETHICAL CONSCIOUSNESS ALLOWS ONE TOCONTINUE TO APPLY A POSSIBLYHARMFUL PROCESS TO UNWILLING PEOPLE UNTIL THERE IS ABSOLUTEPROOF IT IS HARMFUL.I HAVE SEEN THIS BACKWARD APPROACH TO SAFETY ANDGOVERNMENT REPORTS ONFLUORIDATION. IT GOES LIKE THIS.THIS STUDY THAT SHOWSASSOCIATION OF FLUORIDATION WITH THIS HARMFUL EFFECT ISNOT A PERFECT STUDY.THIS ARE WEAKNESSES. THEREFORE WE WILL CONTINUE THEPROCESS UNTIL IT IS SHOWN WITHCERTAINTY THAT IT IS HARMFUL.AND AT THE SAME TIME IN THESEREPORTS NO FURTHER RESEARCH ISRECOMMENDED. NO RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPORT ABETTER STUDY IS ACCEPTED.AND THE PRESENCE OF A SMALL AND DUBIOUS BENEFIT, SUCH ACONCLUSION –>> DOCTOR — >> — MORE THAN BEINGIRRESPONSIBLE IS OUTLANDISH.SO I WILL END BY SAYING YOU DON’T HAVE THE MORAL RIGHT TODO THIS TO US, TO 1 MILLIONPEOPLE. YOU SHOULD STOP IT NOW.>> THANK YOU FOR YOURPRESENTATION. WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.ALDERMAN DEMONG.>> YOU SAY THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN SAFE FOR HUMANCONSUMPTION.COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT FOR ME, PLEASE.>> THERE HAVE — PRINCIPALGOVERNMENTS NOW INVOLVED IN THE WHOLE WORLD IN TERMS OFFLUORIDATION ARE THE UNITEDSTATES AND CANADA. THE UNITED STATES, IT HAS BEENSAID BY THE FEDERAL DRUGAGENCY THAT IT’S NOT BEEN EXAMINED FOR SAFETY FOR HUMANCONSUMPTION, AND IT’S NOT ANAPPROVED DRUG. IT’S WHAT’S CLASSIFIED AS ANUNAPPROVED DRUG.IN THE CASE OF HEALTH CANADA, HEALTH CANADA APPROVES OF IT,BUT IT’S VERY DIFFICULT TOFIND OUT WHY.I AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLEHAVE SUBMITTED PETITIONS TOHEALTH CANADA THROUGH THE FEDERAL AUDITOR’S OFFICE,WHICH IN THE LAW REQUIRES THATHEALTH CANADA ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS WITHIN A CERTAINPERIOD OF TIME AND SO ON.WE GOT ANSWERS BACK. WE ASKED FOR THE EVIDENCE THATTHEY HAVE FOR SAFETY AND THEEVIDENCE THEY HAVE FOR EFFICACY AND THEY JUST DON’TANSWER.THEY DON’T GIVE US ANY CITATIONS AND SO I PERSONALLYGAVE UP THAT PURSUIT.I DIDN’T CONTINUE BECAUSE I DON’T EXPECT IT TO PAY OFF.I IN FACT FRANKLY EXPECT TOYOU STOP FLORIDATING CALGARY IN ANY WAY LONG BEFORE COULD IGET AN ANSWER OUT OF HAURND.PETER COONY, THE FEDERAL OFFICER OF DENTAL HEALTH, HEHAS NO WAY TO SUPPORTFLUORIDATION. HE DOESN’T SEEM TO RESPOND INA KNOWLEDGEABLE BEYE WAY, ANDHE HAS CONTRIBUTED IN ONE MEETING, INTERNATIONAL MEETING,ABOUT FLUORIDATION THAT HESAYS HE WALKED DOWN YOUR HIGH STREET, AND I HAVEN’T SEENPEOPLE WITH HORNS.AND THAT’S HOW SERIOUSLY HE TAKES THE PROBLEM.IT’S JUST BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TOGET SATISFACTORY RESPONSES FROM THAT KIND OF LEADERSHIP.>> SO YOU’RE SUGGESTING –YOU’RE TELLING US THAT THERE’S BEEN NO FDA TESTING ONFLUORIDE AS A DRUG OR FLUORIDEIN GENERAL? >> RIGHT.AND ALSO UNAPPROVED DRUG — IDON’T THINK THAT INCLUDES HEXA FLUORALACILIC ACID AND THEREWERE SOME MISLEADING COMMENTSMADE EARLIER TODAY ABOUT THE CHEMISTRY INVOLVED.IT WAS DOES MATTER WHERE THATFLUORIDE COMES FROM.THAT IS WHAT’S ADDED TO THEWATER.IT COULD MATTER VERY MUCH. FOR ONE THING IT’S TRUE THATALMOST ALL THE FLUORIDE ISASSOCIATED FROM THE HEXA FLUORAL ACID IN VERY DILUTESOLUTION IN WATER BUT THESICI — SILICATES ENTER YOUR BODY WHEN YOU DRINK THE WATERAS DOES THE FLUORIDE ION IN AVERY ACIDIC ENVIRONMENT SUCH AS IN THE STOMACH, PH OF 1.2OR SO.THE FLUORIDE REASSOCIATES WITH SILICATES AND THIS ISN’TCERTAIN BUT WE DO KNOW THATINGESTION OF THE ACID HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH LESIONS IN THEMUCOSA OF THE INTESTINES ANDIT MAY BE BECAUSE OF THIS RECOMBINATION OFFLUORALSILICATES AND THE OTHERPOINT IS IT OF INTEREST ON A CITY-WIDE SCALE BECAUSE THEFLUORIDATION IS ASSOCIATEDALSO WITH HIGHER LEAD LEVELS IN THE BLOOD OF CHILDREN.AND THE PROBLEM EXPLANATION OFTHAT IS LEAD IS LEECHED OUT OF THE JOINTS IN THE PLUMBINGSYSTEM.I KNOW WE DON’T USE LEAD PIPES ANYMORE, BUT WE SOLDER JOINTSWITH A FLUX THAT HAS LEAD INIT.AND THIS HAS BEEN DEFINITELYDEMONSTRATED AND QUANTIFIEDTHAT THAT ASSOCIATION — WE KNOW THAT WITH VERY RECENTRESEARCH THAT CAME AFTER SOMEOF THE VERY GOOD STUDIES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE NATIONAL RESEARCHCOUNCIL 2006 REPORT WHICHINTERESTED TO SEE OUR COLLEAGUES FROM ALBERTA HEALTHSERVICE MENTION AMONG THEIRSYSTEM — SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, BUT THIS HAS SHOWN THAT THEREIS — IN LABORATORY ANIMALSYOU’VE GOT HIGHER LEVELS IN THE TOOTH ENAMEL OF LEAD ANDHIGHER LEVELS OF LEAD AND BONEAND HUMANS AND CHILDREN YOU DO OBSERVE HIGHER LEVELS IN THEIRBLOOD AND FLORIDATED AREAS,HIGH LEVELS OF LEAD NOW, AND THERE’S NO DISPUTE HERE, I’MSURE, OUR COLLEAGUES WOULDAGREE WITH ME, THAT LEAD A WELL-KNOWN NEUROTOXIN.AND THAT’S NOT SOMETHING WEWANT OUR CHILDREN TO BE EXPOSED TO.>> SPEAKING OF THE SYSTEMATICREVIEWS THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT TODAY, YOU’REREFERENCING SEVERAL THINGS,THEY’RE REFERENCING OTHER THINGS.HOW IS THE LAYMAN SUPPOSED TOKNOW THAT THEIR REVIEWS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE STUDIESTHAT YOU’RE PUTTING FORWARDAND TO SAY WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT WE SHOULD BE RELYING ON?>> WELL, I’VE MENTIONED ONLYONE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND THAT’S THE NATIONAL RESEARCHCOUNCIL 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 AGAINSTFLUORIDATION, AND SOME OF WHOMHAD NO POSITION ON THE MATTER.THEY STUDIED THE PROBLEM FORTHREE YEARS.THEY LOOKED AT 1100 PRIMARY RESEARCH PAPERS.I’LL MAKE A DISTINCTION IN AMOMENT. AND THEY BASED THEIRCONCLUSIONS AND THEIR ANALYSISON PRIMARY RESEARCH. NOW, PRIMARY RESEARCH ISRESEARCH WHERE DATA ISGATHERED AND ANALYZED AND EVALUATED IN A PROPER MANNER,WHEREAS SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ORNON-SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ARE JUST REVIEWS OF HOPEFULLY OFPRIMARY RESEARCH.BUT IN MANY CASES IN THE FLUORIDATION CASE, WE HAVESORT OF AN INVERTED PYRAMIDWHERE ALL THESE PANELS, THIS DENTAL ASSOCIATION AND THATMEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND SO ON,SAY FLUORIDE IS WONDERFUL BECAUSE THIS REVIEW SAID ITWAS.AND THIS REVIEW SAID IT WAS BECAUSE SOME OTHER REVIEWSSAID IT WAS.AND SOMETIMES WHEN YOU GO DEEP ENOUGH, YOU COME DOWN TO THEPOINT OF THIS UPSIDE-DOWNPYRAMID AND IT’S A GROUP OF GOVERNMENT APPOINTED(INDISCERNIBLE) — GOVERNMENTAPPOINTED PRO-FLUORIDATION PEOPLE AND YOU CAN’T REALLYCREDIT THAT KIND OF REVIEW.IT HAS TO BE DONE BETTER THAN THAT.ANOTHER REVIEW ASIDE FROM THENRC 2006 REVIEW, THERE WAS WHAT’S CALLED THE YORK REVIEWWHICH CAME OUT IN THE YEAR2000 FROM GREAT BRITAIN AND THE CHAIR OF THAT REVIEW PANELHAS SINCE THEN BEENCOMPLAINING THE PROPONENTS ARE USING THE YORK REVIEW TOSUPPORT THEIR CONCLUSION THATFLUORIDATION IS WONDERFUL.AND THAT’S NOT WHAT THE REPORTSAYS.THIS REPORT — I THINK THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THEY START THEOUT, LOOKED AT A 214 OR 220 ORSOMETHING, MAYBE LUKE SCHWARTZ KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THATBECAUSE HE TALKED ABOUT ITONCE TO A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THIS COMMITTEE.AND THEY LOOKED AT THESE 2HUNDRED DOLLARS AND-SOME-ODD STUDIES AND CLASSIFIED THESTUDIES IN THREE LEVELS:GRADE A, B, AND C AS TO THE COMPETENCE OF THE STUDY.THEY FOUND NO GRADE A ANDAMONG THE B AND C THEY MANAGED TO GET 12.AND THE CONCLUSION OF THEREPORT IS WE HAVE NO WAY TO SAY WHETHER THIS IS GOOD ORBAD.SO HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT THAT MADE FLUORIDATION GOOD ISBEYOND ME.SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT SYSTEMATICREVIEWS AND YOU HAVE TO ASKTHE QUESTION WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE YOU’RE CITING?WHEN I TALK TO YOU MEMBERS OFCOUNCIL IN THE PAST, I TRIED TO EMPHASIZE THIS POINT FROMBOTH THE PROPONENTS ANDOPPONENTS. YOU MUST ASK WHAT IT IS — THEBASIS OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS.AND I THINK WHEN YOU’VE ASKED Dr.DIXON OR ME ABOUT THATOVER THE LAST YEARS, WE HAVEGIVEN YOU — MENTIONED, ANYWAY.WE HAVEN’T READ THEM TO YOU,OBVIOUSLY. BUT WE’VE GIVEN YOU CITATIONSOF PRIMARY RESEARCH, NOT TOJUST REVIEWS. >> A LOT HAS BEEN DISCUSSEDABOUT A POSSIBLE MEDICALREVIEW THROUGH THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE, UFRTD OF CALGARY,AND THAT WOULD BE A WONDERFULWAY FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND TELL US WHETHER WE SHOULDCONTINUE TO FLORIDATE ORDISCONTINUE FLORIDATING. CAN YOU GIVE ME YOUR VIEWS ONWHAT THAT MAY LOOK LIKE,WHETHER YOU WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT OR DISCOURAGE THAT.WHAT WOULD YOUR VIEWPOINT ONTHAT? >> MY FIRST REACTION IS ITHINK YOU SHOULD JUST STOPFLUORIDATION AND THAT WILL SETTLE THE PROBLEM BECAUSEWE’VE HAD A LOT OF REVIEWS ANDDISCUSSIONS AND SO ON.I’M NOT AGAINST THE FACULTIESOF MEDICINE HOSTING OR EVENORGANIZING SUCH APPEAR REVIEW, BUT I WOULD CAUTION YOU AGAIN,JUST BECAUSE THERE’S SOMEBODYWEARING A WHITE COAT, DOESN’T MEAN SHE OR HE IS RIGHT.OR EVEN KNOWS WHAT SHE OR HEIS TALKING ABOUT. I’LL GIVE YOU THE EXAMPLE THEDEAN OF MEDICINE AT THEUNIVERSITY OF CALGARY WAS SAYING HOW THE DOSE ISCONTROLLED, HOW THERE’S NOEVIDENCE OF HARM. NOT ONLY HE BUT THE HEAD OFTHE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYHEALTH SCIENCES. THEY JOINTLY WROTE AN OP ED INTHE HERALD SAYING THESETHINGS. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THEHUNDREDS OF ARTICLES I HAVESTUDIED DON’T EXIST, BUT THAT’S WHAT THEY SAY.AND I SINCE HAVE HAD AFRIENDLY TALK WITH THE DEAN OF MEDICINE AND HE NO LONGERFEELS THAT CONTROLLINGCONCENTRATION IS CONTROLLING DOSE AND HE NO LONGER DENIESTHE EXISTENCE OF EVIDENCE OFHARM. SO IF THE FACULTY OF MEDICINEWANTS TO DO THAT, FINE.WHOEVER WANTS TO DISCUSS IT AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED ISWELCOME AS LONG AS THEY DO ITRESPONSIBLY.>> 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 SHOULDHAVE MENTIONED THIS OR THE CHAIR SHOULD HAVE MENTIONEDTHIS –>> 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 STANDTHROUGH LONG QUESTIONING,THERE IS A STOOL, AND WE CAN LOWER THE PODIUM IF IT’S MORECOMFORTABLE.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 VERYMUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.>> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN MacLEOD.>> I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONSFOR YOU. I GUESS I’D LIKE TO START ONWHAT — YOU DIDN’T REALLYTOUCH ON THIS, WHAT YOUR CREDENTIALS ARE FOR THIS.YOU’VE GOT A PRETTY STRONGBACKGROUND AS A RESEARCHER AND A PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY.CAN YOU JUST TELL ME A LITTLEBIT ABOUT YOUR RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND HOW YOU CAME TOTHE ISSUE OF FLUORIDE.>> MY RESEARCH BACKGROUND? >> YES.>> MY RESEARCH BACKGROUND HASHAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FLUORIDE OR FLUORIDATION.MY OBJECTION NOW — I SHOULDMAKE IT CLEAR. MY OBJECTION IS THEFLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC WATERSUPPLIES. TO SAY I’M AGAINST FLUORIDE ISKIND OF SILLY.IT’S THERE, IT’S IN THE PERIODIC TABLE, IT’S IN OURWATER NATURALLY.BUT WHAT HAPPENED — WHAT BROUGHT ME TO THIS POSITION –I DON’T PARTICULARLY ENJOYDOING THIS.IS ABOUT 10 OR 11 YEARS AGO, IWAS INVITED TO JOIN ACOMMITTEE OF KNIFE DENTISTS AND ONE FAMILY PRACTITIONERWHO WERE OPPOSED TO FLUORIDETO SEE WHETHER WE COULD ADVANCE THAT EFFORT.AND I HADN’T REALLY THOUGHTABOUT FLUORIDATION BEFORE THAT. BUT WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT THEISSUE, THE THING THAT APPALLEDME WAS THE ETHICS OF IT OR THE LACK OF ETHICS OF IT.BUT IN ANY CASE, IT MADE METHINK THAT YES, SOMEBODY OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS.AND THEN I BEGAN TO STUDY THESCIENCE ON IT. THE SCIENCE INVOLVES THEQUESTION OF EFFICACY.DOES IT REALLY PREVENT CAVITIES.AND THE OTHER ASPECT OF THESCIENCE IS DOES IT DO HARM.IS IT TOXIC.AND SO I’VE SPENT THE LAST TENYEARS LOOKING INTO THAT. AND I’VE COME TO THECONCLUSION THAT OF THOSE THREEQUESTIONS ON EFFICACY AND TOXICITY ALL HAVE TO BEANSWERED NO.IN ADDITION, I SHOULD COMMENT THAT A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE WESEE IS UNCERTAIN.THAT’S SOMETHING I SUPPOSE WE COULD AGREE ON WITH SOME OF MYCOLLEAGUES.BUT SOME OF IT IS NOT SO UNCERTAIN.THERE ARE SOME VERY STRONGRESULTS THAT INDICATE PARTICULAR TOXICITIES, BUTASIDE FROM THAT, IF THERE’SEVEN DOUBTY DOUBT AND IF THE POSSIBLE BENEFIT IS MINIMAL,THEN WE SHOULD STOP DOING ITUNTIL WE KNOW IT’S OKAY.INSTEAD OF THIS BACKWARDPOSITION I DESCRIBED THAT IREAD ABOUT IN GOVERNMENT REPORTS THAT WELL, WE DON’TKNOW SO WE’LL KEEP DOING IT.SOME YEARS AGO, THERE’S SEVERAL UNIONS OF WITHIN THEENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES, UNITS OF A SCIENTIST,SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 7,000 AND11.000 PEOPLE. THEY PETITIONED THE CONGRESSOF THE UNITED STATES TODECLARE A MORATORIUM ON FLUORIDATION UNTIL IT’S SHOWNTO BE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.WHAT’S INTERESTING HERE IS THAT THE SCIENTIFIC STANCE OFTHE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY IN GENERAL THINKS FLUORIDATION SHOULD BE STOPPEDAND NOT RESTARTED.BUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AS AN AGENCYIS A STRONG PROMOTER OFFLUORIDATION. THE DESIGNERS OF THATPROMOTION OF FLUORIDATION ARETHE 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 CAMETO THIS ISSUE, ALTHOUGH I WASUNAWARE THAT YOUR RESEARCH BACKGROUND WAS –>> I SHOULD — I AM APHYSICIAN, AND I DON’T HAVE A LOT OF POLITICAL EXPERIENCE.AFTER GRADUATING FROM MEDICALSCHOOL, I HAD ONE YEAR OF INTERNSHIP AND THEN I TOOK APOST-DOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP TO DORESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IN BERKELEY, ANDTHERE I ENDED UP TAKING APH.D. IN BIOPHYSICALICS. SO MY RESEARCH EXPERIENCE HASBEEN VARIED.INITIALLY I WAS IN RADIO BIOLOGY BUT HAVE DONE WORK ONBIOPHYSICALICS OF RED BLOODCELLS AND I’VE DONE SOME COLLABORATIONS, THEORETICALWORK, FOR PEOPLE IN OTHEREXPERIMENTAL FIELDS AND ENDED UP MAINLY INVOLVED WITH FARMCAL 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 THATFLUORIDE CAUSES HIGH LEVELS OF LEAD.IS THE RESEARCH TO SUPPORTTHAT OR IS THAT AN OPINION? >> YES, I HOPE I HAVEN’T SAIDANYTHING THAT ISN’T SUPPORTEDBY RESEARCH. BUT I SHOULD POINT OUT THATTHE DIFFERENCE.I SHOULD HAVE FINISHED THIS WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT THEIMPORTANCE OF THE SOURCE OFTHE FLUORIDE WE GET BY ADDING WHATEVER IT IS TO WATER, TOOUR CITY WATER.THE NATURAL FLUORIDE GENERALLY, PERHAPS IN ALL CASES, THAT WEGET, SAY, FROM WELLS OR FROMRIVERS SUCH AS THE BOW RIVER AND ELBOW RIVER, COMES FROMTHE EARTH’S CRUST, FROMMINUTEICALS IN THE EARTH’S CRUST.IT IS USUALLY, OR ALMOST ALL,CALCIUM FLUORIDE. SO WHEN WE — THERE’S ADIFFERENCE IN THE ABSORPTIONOF CALCIUM FLUORIDE THAN THERE IS FROM THE ABSORPTION INTOTHE BODY OF OTHER FLORIDESLIKE SODIUM FLUORIDE.THE SODIUM FLUORIDE WILLDISASSOCIATE INTO SODIUM IONSAND FLUORIDE IONS ALMOST COMPLETELY.CALCIUM FLUORIDE NOT SOCOMPLETELY. IF YOU GET YOUR FLUORIDE FROMMOST SOURCES OF NATURALFLUORIDE, YOU WILL EXCRETE SOME OF IT IN THE FECES SO YOUWON’T ABSORB AS MUCH INTO THEBODY. ONCE IT’S ABSORBED INTO THEBODY, GENERALLY WE SEQUESTER50% OF IT IN A NORMAL PERSON, HEALTHY PERSON, AND ABOUT 50%OF IT IS SECRETED THROUGH THEKIDNEYS. THAT OTHER 50%, MOSTLY, ISSEQUESTERED IN THE BONE.BUT WHEREVER IT GOES, IT BUILDS UP THROUGHOUT YOURLIFE.THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE MUSN’T FORGET.WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT OH,WILL I GET SICK TOMORROW. >> OKAY, I GUESS MY QUESTIONWAS AROUND THE LEAD.I’M NOT SURE IF WE’RE TALKING LOCAL FLUORIDE.WE HAVE OLD HOMES THAT HAVELEAD — OLD PIPES.WE’VE GOT AGINGINFRASTRUCTURE.WE HAVE KIDS’ TOYS. I’M NOT SURE — BANT, ALLKINDS OF THINGS THAT WE’VEDISCOVERED THERE’S LEAD IN, AND I GUESS MY QUESTION WASYOU WERE MAKING THE POINTABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLUORIDE AND LEAD AND IJUST — I WASN’T CLEAR ONTHAT. MY NEXT QUESTION RELATES TOSOME OF YOUR COMMENTS WITHRESPECT TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND ALBERTA HEALTHSERVICES BEING PRO-FLUORIDE.HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HAVING A POSITION THAT YOUWOULD FRAME AS BEINGPRO-FLUORIDE WHICH SOUNDS IN SOME WAYS UNREASONED ASOPPOSED TO HAVING WEIGHED THEEVIDENCE AND SAYING ON BALANCE I SUPPORT FLUORIDE FOR THESEREASONS, AS A SCIENTIFICTHING. AND THE REASON I ASK ISBECAUSE THE TERM PRO-FLUORIDESEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOADED, AND I’M WONDERING HOWYOU’RE COMING AT THAT.YOU ALSO TOOK SOME AIM AT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN PUBLICHEALTH, AND I’D JUST LIKE TOKNOW WHERE YOU’RE COMING FROM ON THAT BECAUSE I KNOW YOU’VEDONE AN AWFUL LOT OF WORKAROUND THIS, SO I’M CURE CURE — I’M CURIOUS TO KNOW HOW YOUTRIED TO RESOLVE THAT AND HAVECOME TO THAT CONCLUSION.>> AMONG PEOPLE WHO AREAGAINST FLUORIDATION,PRO-FLUORIDE MAY WELL BE A LOADED TERM.BUT AMONG THOSE IN FAVOUR OFFLUORIDATION, 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 QUESTIONSPECIFICALLY IS HOW DO I WHATNOW? >> MY QUESTION IS HOW HAVE YOUCOME TO THAT CONCLUSIONBECAUSE — IF SOMEBODY’S WEIGHED EVIDENCE AND THEY COMEWITH A RESPECTED OPINION, HOWIS IT YOU DIFFERENTIATE THAT AND HAVE YOU TRIED TO RESOLVETHE DIFFERENCES?YOU’RE MAKING ACCUSATION THAT IS THEY’RE NOT READINGS THERESEARCH.THEY’RE SAYING THAT THEY’VE READ TONNES OF RESEARCH ANDDONE SYSTEMIC STUDIES ABOUTTHE RESEARCH ALL OUT THERE AND ON BALANCE HAVE COME TO THISCONCLUSION.>> OKAY, I COME TO THIS CONCLUSION AS FOLLOWS:I’VE TALKED TO THREE MEDICALOFFICERS OF HEALTH IN ALBERTA OVER THE YEARS.THE OVERWHELMING IMPRESSION IHAVE IS THEY DON’T KNOW WHO THE — WHAT THE LITERATURE ISON THIS, EITHER PRO OR AGAINST.AND THAT’S OKAY EXCEPT AT SOME POINT IT’S THEIRRESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW, BUTWHAT’S NOT OKAY IS FOR OFFICIALS WITH — WHETHERTHERE ARE GOVERNMENTALOFFICIALS IN THE ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICE OR WHETHERTHEY’RE DEANS OF MEDICINE ANDHEADS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH SCIENCES DEPARTMENTS.WHEN PEOPLE START TALKINGPUBLICLY FROM POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY THAT THE GENERALPUBLIC HAS RESPECT FOR, THENTHEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE A GOOD REASON FOR SAYINGWHAT 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 OFSUPPORT THIS ARE MORE FROM THEUNITED STATES THAN CANADA BUT SOMEBODY MENTIONED EARLIERTODAY THE PRESSURE ONEMPLOYEES OF AGENCIES THAT ARE PROMOTING FLUORIDE TO COME UPWITH THE RIGHT ANSWERS.AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CASES OF SCIENTIST WHO IS DIDLEGITIMATE, COMPETENT RESEARCHTHAT TURNED OUT TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF HARM AND THEY WERETOLD NOT TO PUBLISH THEIRPAPERS BUT THEY DID PUBLISH THEIR PAPERS AND GOT FIRED.THERE SEEMS TO BE ALSO ATENDENCY OF SCIENTISTS, AT LEAST IN THE UNITED STATES INTHIS AREA, TO FEEL THAT THEYCAN’T GET SUPPORT FOR THEIR RESEARCH UNLESS THEY SAYFLUORIDE IS A GOOD THING.IT’S REALLY KIND OF BIZARRE SOMETIMES.I’VE READ A NUMBER OF PAPERSWHERE IN THE ABSTRACT IT SAYS THIS IS — FIND THIS EVIDENCEOF HARM, THIS EVIDENCE OF HARM,AND THEIR CONCLUSION IS THAT IT’S WONDERFUL.OR THERE’S THE INTRODUCTION TOTHE PAPER THAT SAYS THE PURPOSE OF THIS INVESTIGATIONWAS TO SHOW THAT FLUORIDE ISSAFE AND EFFECTIVE.WELL, THAT’S NOT ANINVESTIGATION.THAT’S THE ANSWER. AND IT’S AN ANSWER THAT ISUNSUBSTANTIATED.>> SO IF I’M UNDERSTANDING YOUR ANSWER CORRECTLY, YOU’RESAYING THAT THEY’RE UNINFORMEDAND THE — AT LEAST STATESIDE THERE’S A CONSPIRACY TO — ORWHATEVER.SOME KIND OF PRESSURE NOT TO PUBLISH THE RESEARCH OR SOMEEXTERNAL PUSH NOT TO HAVE THERESEARCH. >> I’M NOT SAYING THAT THEY’REUNINFORMED.I’M JUST SAYING IN OUR DISCUSSIONS THEY HAVEN’T SHOWNME TO BE INFORMED AND I WOULDLIKE TO BE INFORMED ON THE STUDIES THEY SAY SHOWFLUORIDATION, FOR EXAMPLE, ISEFFECTIVE BECAUSE I KNOW WHO MANY PROPONENTS RELY ON THEREAND THOSE STUDIES THAT THEYRELY ON DON’T SHOW EFFICACY SO WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT ANDSEE WHO’S READING THE PAPERSRIGHTS.IF I’M MISUNDERSTANDING, IWANT THEM TO STRAIGHTEN ME OUT.SO THAT’S WHAT LED ME TO THESE REMARKS BECAUSE THESEOFFICIALS OF ALBERTA HEALTHSERVICES HAVE MADE STATEMENTS HERE TODAY THAT ARE PATENTLYWRANG.LIKE THE COMMENTS ON DOSE AND THE THINGS LIKE THAT, THECOMMENTS THAT THERE’S NOEVIDENCE OF MEDICAL HARM. THERE IS EVIDENCE.>> WE’VE BEEN TALKING A LITTLEBIT ABOUT RESEARCH IN ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES.IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT SOMEOF THAT DEBATE SHOULD BE HAPPENING AT A PROVINCIALLEVEL IF THEY’RE PERMITING ITTO BE PUT IN THE WATER. I REALIZE THERE’S A LEVEL ATTHE MUNICIPALITY HERE, BUT ITWOULD SEEM TO ME THAT ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES AND THEPROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT ARE IN ABETTER POSITION TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH THIS.THAT’S JUST BE A OBSERVATIONBASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU JUST GAVE ME WHICH IAPPRECIATE.I GUESS THE OTHER THING THAT YOU MENTIONED TO ALDERMANDEMONG’S QUESTION THAT IAPPRECIATED WAS A WILLINGNESS TO THINK ABOUT THIS COMMITTEEAND HOW WE MIGHT STRUCTURE IT.YOU EMPHASIZED SOME OF MY OWN CONCERNS ABOUT MAKING SURETHAT THE COMMITTEE WAS — THERESULTS WERE NOT PREDETERMINED, THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS WORKINGWITH AN OPEN MIND, AND I THINKTHAT IS A CHALLENGE.I CONCUR WITH YOU ON THAT.>> THAT WILL BE HARD TO DO.>> YEAH. HARD TO DO WHAT I’M TRYING TODO RIGHT NOW TOO.WHICH IS TRY TO FIGURE OUT ON BALANCE WHERE I SEE IT.SO I APPRECIATE THE INPUT ANDTHANK 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’SSOMETHING I DIDN’T FULLYUNDERSTAND IN REGARDS TO A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BYALDERMAN MacLEOD.SPECIFICALLY IN REFERENCE TO THE LEAD ISSUE.ARE YOU SUGGESTING SOMEHOWTHAT FLUORIDE IMPACTS THE LEAD IN THE PIPES ON THE JOINTS,MAYBE INCREASES THE LEVEL ORSOMETHING? TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.>> THE FACTS THAT I CAN BACKUP WITH THE STUDIES THAT I CAN QUOTE AND SEND YOU ARE ARELATIONSHIP BETWEENFLUORIDATION AND THE LEVEL OF LEAD IN CHILDREN’S BROAD.NOW, OF COURSE ONE OF THEFIRST THINGS YOU ASK IS WHERE IS THAT LEAD COMING FROM ANDWHY IS IT MORE — WHY IS THELEVEL HIGHER IN SUPPOSEDLY COMPARABLE GROUPS OF CHILDRENWHERE THERE’S FLUORIDATIONTHAN IT IS WHERE THERE IS NO FLUORIDATION.AND WHEN PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED ATTHIS, AND THIS I CAN’T GIVE YOU THE RESEARCH ON THIS, BUTI THINK YOUR CITY OFFICIALSCAN TELL YOU WHETHER — HOW YOUR PIPES ARE SOLDEREDTOGETHER AND SO ON, BUT THEEXPLANATION FOR THIS DEMONSTRATED RELATIONSHIP THATI’VE HEARD IS THAT IT COMESFROM PIPES EVEN THAT ARE NOT LEAD PIPES BECAUSE THE JOINTSARE CONSTRUCTED WITHSUBSTANCES INVOLVING LEAD WHICH IS LEECHED OUT WITHFLORIDATED WATER.>> SO YOU’RE SAYING EVEN THE PVC HAS A LEAD COMPONENT INIT?>> PVC WOULDN’T BE SOLDERED, SO THE MAIN INFRASTRUCTURE OFA CITY LIKE CALGARY IS — WITHWHAT, IRON PIPES? SO THOSE WOULD BE SOLDERED,AND I’VE BEEN TOLD THAT THATSOLDER CONTAINS LEAD.>> INTERESTING.I GUESS THAT’S A QUESTION THATWE MAY HAVE TO FURTHER CLARIFY WITH ADMINISTRATION.>> BY THE WAY, STUDIES JUSTPUBLISHED LAST YEAR WITH ANIMAL STUDIES, IT’S SHOWNTHAT IN THE PRESENCE OFFLUORIDE, THE LEAD IS INCORPORATE INTO BONES ANDTOOTH ‘UNANIMOUS HE WILL.THAT WAS DONE IN RATS. IT HASN’T BEEN DONE, TO MYKNOWLEDGE, IN CHILDREN.BUT WE’RE A LOT LIKE RATS. >> SO I’M TOLD.I JUST DIDN’T FULLY UNDERSTANDWHAT YOU HAD REFERENCED IN REGARDS TO THE LEAD AND THEASSOCIATION WITH FLUORIDESPECIFICALLY AS ALDERMAN MacLEOD HAD ASKED.SO DO YOU HAVE SOME STUDIESTHAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO ME, IF YOU COULD DO THAT I’M SUREOTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEEWOULD 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 INTHE ENVIRONMENTALISTPROFESSION. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOMEONEFROM NATURAL STEP WHO WASWANTING TO SPEAK. BUT LEFT EARLY.DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ONTHE FLUORIDE AS IT GOES INTO THE WATER SYSTEM?DOES IT TURN INTO — LOOKSLIKE A NATURAL OCCURRING FLUORIDE?I KNOW THERE’S CONCERN IN THEEAST AROUND THE GREAT LAKES AREA ABOUT THE AMOUNT OFFLUORIDE THAT’S GOING INTO THEWATER SYSTEM BECAUSE IT’S NOT BEING CLEANED FROM THE SEWAGETREATMENT AND A LOT OF IT ISCOMING FROM TOOTHPASTE AS WELL.>> SURPRISE, SURPRISE, I DON’TKNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.>> I’D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUTIT.DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES TO APPROVE ASUBSTANCE BY HEALTH CANADA ANDWHAT IT TAKES TO REMOVE A SUBSTANCE BY HEALTH CANADA?IF SOMETHING’S APPROVED YEARSAGO, IF I HAVE SIS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE THOUGHT ABOUTSCIENCE VERY DIFFERENTLY ANDTHE SCIENTIFIC INTERVENTION AND MODERN, WHERE IS THEBURDEN 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 COURSEOF MAKING THOSE — THATPETITION FOR INFORMATION FOR HEALTH CANADA, AND THERE AREMANY SECTIONS, SUBSECTIONS,AND SO ON.SOME OF THEM INCLUDE FLUORIDEAS A TOXIN THAT HAS TO BECONTROLLED AND SO ON, THEN IN SOME SUBSECTION I CAME TO ONETHAT SAID FLUORIDE IS OKAY.NONE OF THAT STUFF APLIGS. >> I DIDN’T WANT TO PUT YOU ONTHE SPOT.JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU’RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEPARTICULAR TOPIC.THE EXPERIENCE IN EUROPE, WE HEARD FROM ONE PRESENTER WHOTALKED QUITE A BIT ABOUT HERPERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN EUROPE AND HOW THEY WERE REMOVINGFLUORIDE FROM THE WATER SUPPLYBUT PROVIDING IT THROUGH OTHER MECHANISMS.AM I SPEAK TO GO SOFTLY?I’LL SPEAK UP. THERE WAS A PRESENTER WHOSPOKE ABOUT HER PERSONALEXPERIENCE FROM EUROPE AND HOW IN EUROPE THERE WERE — THEYWERE MOVING FORWARD FROM THEWATER 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 FLUORIDETHROUGH OTHER MECHANISMS,INGESTING FLUORIDE THROUGHOUT OTHER MECHANISMS?LET ME LET YOU ANSWER THAT ONEFIRST.>> I WOULD NOT DO IT TO MYSELF,AND I WOULD NOT RECOMMENDANYONE ELSE DO IT BECAUSE I DON’T THINK FLUORIDE INGESTEDHAS ANY BENEFICIAL EFFECTS, NOSUBSTANTIAL LEVEL. >> MY SECOND QUESTION ISEUROPE COMPARED TO NORTHAMERICA. ONTARIO COMPARED TO QUEBEC.CALGARY COMPARED TO VANCOUVER.CAN WE SHOW — CAN WE DEMONSTRATE THAT FLUORIDE HASBEEN BENEFICIAL?>> NO. IN THE CASE OF EUROPE, THE –MOST COUNTRIES STOPPEDFLORIDATING. THEY WERE FLORIDATING DURINGTHE SEVENTIES.AND THE REASONS THAT WERE GIVEN FOR THAT BY THEIROFFICIALS WERE ACTUALLY THETHREE REASONS I’VE GIVEN WHY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE IT.SOME OF THEM JUST SAID WELL,IT’S ETHICALLY UNACCEPTABLE.IT’S FORCING MEDICATION ONPEOPLE.AND THAT WAS ENOUGH. THEY STOPPED.AND OTHERS SAID WELL, DOESN’TSEEM TO BE BENEFICIAL. AND SOME OF THEM — NOT ALL OFTHEM, BUT SOME OF THEMMENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY OF TOXICITY.SO IN THE CASE OF EUROPE.IN THE CASE OF — BY THE WAY, I SHOULD TELL YOU THIS MAYSPUR YOUR SPIRITS ASPOLITICIANS VOTING ON AN ISSUE LIKE THIS, BUT OVER THE LASTSEVERAL MONTHS DOZENS OFCOMMUNITIES AND JURISDICTIONS IN CANADA AND THE UNITEDSTATES HAVE STOPPEDFLUORIDATION OR REFUSED TO START FLUORIDATION, AND ITHINK THAT’S BECAUSE THEY’RELEARNING THINGS THAT THEY DIDN’T KNOW BEFORE.>> QUEBEC CITY STOPPEDFLORIDATING. THE ISSUE OF POVERTY ISSOMETHING THAT I CAREPARTICULARLY ABOUT. AND YET WE’RE HEARING FROM –WE HEARD FROM SOME POVERTYGROUPS SUGGESTING THAT THERE’S BETTER WAYS TO USE THAT MONEY.ANOTHER POVERTY GROUP WHOARE — WELL, NOT MAYBE POVERTY GROUPS BUT OTHERS ARE PEOPLEADVOCATING FOR THOSE INPOVERTY THAT IT’S NECESSARY TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.FOR CHILDREN OF LOW INCOMEFAMILIES.>> WELL, FOR ME IT’S CLEARTHAT THE INCIDENT DENSE OFPREVALENCE OF DENTAL CARIES, OF CAVITIES, HAS DECREASED INTHE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD,REMARKABLY OVER THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE DECADES.THE INTERESTING POINT BEENTHAT IS THAT’S HAPPENED WHETHER THERE’S FLUORIDATIONOR NOT.AND IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WHILE WE STOPPED — LET’SSEE, HOW DID IT GO?THEY STOPPED FLUORIDATION IN ONE PLACE AND THEN ANOTHER ANDTHE DECAY RATE CONTINUED TONNEDECREASE OR SOMETHING. WELL, IT’S DECREASING FORREASONS OTHER THANFLUORIDATION. THAT SEEMS TO ME FAIRLY STRONGCONCLUSION.SO WHAT IS DOING IT? WELL, DENTISTRY IS NOT MYTHING.I DON’T PRETENDS TO KNOW A LOT ABOUT DENTISTRY.BUT THE ARGUMENTS THAT THEREASON THIS HAS HAPPENED IS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN DIET,IMPROVEMENT IN ORAL CARE,DENTAL CARE. THAT COULD BE AT HOME,BRUSHING YOUR TEETH AND NOTDRINKING SUGARED DRINKS AND SO ON.AND ALSO PROFESSIONAL DENTALCARE. AND IN THE CASE OF CANADA,THOSE THINGS ARE PROBABLYPRETTY UNIFORM ACROSS THE NATION.AND WE DON’T HAVE DID THE, ORNOT GOOD DATA, ABOUT THE INCIDENCE OF CAVITIES ACROSSCANADA.BUT I’M TOLD BUT PEOPLE, INCLUDING DENTISTS, THAT THEORAL HEALTH IN BRITISHCOLUMBIA, WHICH IS 10% OR LESS FLORIDATED, IS NO WORSE THANIT IS, PERHAPS A LITTLE BETTER,THAN IT IS IN ALBERTA.SO I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK ATTHOSE OTHER FACTORS.I THINK THAT’S WHAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE IN MIND WITHTHEIR AMENDMENT TO THE MOTIONAND I THINK THAT’S THE WAY TO GO.>> THANK YOU.WE HEARD FROM SOME MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TODAY THAT THOSEWITH KIDNEY DISEASE SHOULD NOTWORRY ABOUT — NOT INCLUDING THOSE ON DIALYSIS.I IMAGINE THAT’S A FAIRLYSPECIAL CASE. BUT THOSE WITH KIDNEY DISEASESHOULDN’T WORRY ABOUTCONSUMING FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER.I HAVE A VERY DEAR FRIEND WHOHAS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT KIDNEY DISEASE WHO’S BEEN ADVISED BYHIS DOCTOR OTHERWISE, AND I’M –I FIND THAT CONFUSING. >> I WAS VERY SURPRISED TOHEAR THAT FROM A PHYSICIAN.AND THE AMERICAN KIDNEY SOCIETY, I THINK THAT’S THENAME OF IT, UNTIL A YEAR OR SOAGO WAS A STRONG PROMOTER OF FLUORIDATION, AND THEYREVERSED THAT POSITION.THEY NO LONGER DO IT.THE REASON THEY DIDN’T ISBECAUSE PERSONS WITH KIDNEYDISEASE ARE NOR SUSCEPTIBLE TO HARM FROM FLUORIDATION.>> THANK YOU.MY FINAL QUESTION, THEN, IS THE IDEA OF A PLEBISCITE.WE HAD SIX PLEBISCITES WITHFLUORIDE. FOUR OF THEM VOTED NEGATIVELYTO INTRODUCE IT TO THE WATER.TWO OF THEM HAVE VOTED FOR IT. NOW, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I’MGETTING IS IF WE BROUGHTSOMETHING IN WITH A PLEBISCITE, SHOULD WE NOT TAKE IT OUT WITHA PLEBISCITE?WE HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THE SAME VOTE NO BROUGHT IN FLUORIDE.WE ALSO VOTED NOT TO DUE WATERMETERS.YET COUNCIL, BECAUSE OF WATERUSE BEING SO HIGH, REVERSEDTHAT DECISION WITHOUT A PLEBISCITE.OUR POLICY FOR LOCALIMPROVEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WANT TO REDO YOUR SIDEWALKON YOUR STREET, YOU NEED 66%OF THE LANDOWNERS ON THAT STREET TO SIGN A PETITION INFAVOUR.AND THAT DOESN’T INCLUDE SOMEBODY OPTING OUT OF THATVOTE T WOULD NEED TO BE 66% OFTHOSE LANDOWNERS. SO A PLEBISCITE AT A SIMPLEMAJORITY DOESN’T REALLY MAKESENSE TO ME WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTHISSUES.BUT THE QUESTION THEN IS SHOULD — IS A PLEBISCITE THEAPPROPRIATE WAY TO DISCUSSTOPICS OF THIS NATURE? >> NO, OF COURSE NOT.IT’S AN ABSURD WAY TO SETTLESUCH A QUESTION. IT’S BAD ENOUGH THAT YOU CITYCOUNCIL MEMBERS CAN SIT AROUNDAND DECIDE WHAT I HAVE TO TAKE INTO MY BODY AND — BUT YOUHAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BEBETTER INFORMED TO GET ACCESS TO RESOURCES, TO VISORS, TOALL KINDS OF PEOPLE, TO SITAROUND AND REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, BUT THE GENERAL VOTERDOESN’T HAVE THE TIME, PERHAPSNOT THE ENERGY OR BACKGROUND, TO DO THAT.AND SOME OF YOU, I’M NOT –NOT MANY, I THINK, ANYMORE, WANT TO TURN THIS DECISIONOVER TO THOSE VOTERS WHO WILLINEVITABLY BE LESS INFORMED AND PERHAPS FEEL LESSRESPONSIBLE TO DECIDE WHETHERA MILLION PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE THIS UNAVOIDABLE STUFF INTHEIR WATER.THAT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.IF 99.9% OF THE VOTERS INCALGARY DECIDED ON WHAT MEDICINE I SHOULD TAKE, ITWOULDN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCEBETWEEN 50% OR 2%.IT’S THE SAME THING.I DON’T GATHER MY NEIGHBOURSTOGETHER TO TELL ME WHAT MY MEDICAL CARE SHOULD BE.>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERETODAY. >> 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 LESSTHAN FIVE MINUTES.THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW ME TO DISCUSS THEFLUORIDATION.I INTEND TO KEEP MY REMARKS WITHIN THE REALM OF THESCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT. IN THE 1998 REPORT, FLUORIDETEETH AND THE ATOMIC BOMB, THESCIENCE OF FLUORIDE IN PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS HASBEEN FROM DAY ONE SHODDY ATBEST. THE BASIS THAT HAVE SCIENCE ISROOT AND HAD PROTECTED IN U.S.(INDISCERNIBLE) PROGRAM FROM LITIGATION.FLUORIDE WAS THE KEY CHEMICALIN ATOMIC BOMB PRODUCTION.MILLIONS OF TONNES WEREESSENTIAL FOR THE MANUFACTUREROF URANIUM AND PLUTONIUM. ONE OF THE MOST TOXICCHEMICALS KNOWN, FLUORIDERAPIDLY EMERGED AS THE LEADING CHEMICAL HAZARD OF THE U.S.ATOMIC PROGRAM FOR THE WORKERSAND NEARBY COMMUNITIES. THE ORIGINAL SECRET VERSION OFTHE CLASSIFIED OPERATIONPROGRAM F WAS WRITTEN BY PROGRAM F SCIENTISTS ANDPUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL THEAMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION IN 1948.THE SCIENTISTS SHOW EVIDENCEOF ADVERSE HEALTH AFFECTS FROM FLUORIDE WAS CENSORED BY THEU.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION.JUST AS AN ASIDE WITH TODAY’S PRESENTATIONS, WE TALKED ABOUT50 YEARS.I THINK THERE’S A CORRELATION BETWEEN 1948 AND 1998 IN THATA LOT OF DOCUMENTATION OFFLUORIDATION IN THE UNITED STATES IS CLASSIFIED ANDMILITARY.THE FIRST LAWSUITS AGAINST USA BOMB PROGRAM WERE NOT OVERRADIATION BUT OVER FLUORIDEDAMAGE.HUMAN EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE HASMUSHROOMED SINCE WORLD WAR II.DUE TO NOT ONLY FLORIDATED WATER AND TOOTHPASTE BUTENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION BYMAJOR INDUSTRIES FROM ALUMINUM TO PESTICIDES, FLUORIDE IS ACRITICAL INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL.SPENCER WELLS WRITES IN HIS BOOK “PANDORA’S C 2010” MOSTOF OUR DIET IS BASED ON WHEAT,RICE, CATTLE, POTATOES, ANY OTHER NON-AQUATIC ANIMAL, ANDPLANT PRODUCTS, HUMANS CONSUMECOMES FROM DOMESTICATED SPECIES.WESTERN CIVILIZATION INPARTICULAR NOT ONLY APPLIES TOPICAL FLUORIDE TO TEETH BUTINGESTS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OFFLUORIDE IN OUR FOOD SUPPLY. HE WRITES, IT TAKES 1,000GALLONS OF WATER TO PRODUCE APOUND OF BEEF. MORE THAN 500 GALLONS TOPRODUCE A POUND OF RICE.GEORGE GRACEIER WRITES IN HIS PAPER “NOR I’D AND PHOSPHATECONNECTION” EPA CHEMIST KEVINBIHIK WORKED OUT THE SOLUTION TO A MONUMENTAL POLLUTIONPROBLEM.BECAUSE RECOVERED PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER (INDISCERNIBLE)CONCLUDED THAT THECONCENTRATED SCRUBBER LIQUOR COULD BE A PERFECT WATERFLUORIDATION LIQUID AND WASALSO INEXPENSIVE.FOR THE PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY,SHORTAGE OF SODIUM FLUORIDEWAS A KEY TO TURNING RED INK INTO BLACK AND AN ENVIRONMENTTHE LIABILITY — SORRY, ANENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY INTO A PERCEIVED ASSET.WITH THE HELP OF THE EPA,FLUORO CYCLIC ACID WAS TRANSPORTED FROM ACONCENTRATED TOXIC WASTE INTOA PROVEN CAVITY FIGHTER. ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT THE –YOUR QUESTIONS OF Dr. BECK ANDTHE STATEMENT THAT SOME TYPE OF NATURAL FLUORIDE IS ADDED,THIS IS NOT THE CASE.ONLY CALCIUM FLUORIDE OCCURS NATURALLY IN WATER AND HASNEVER BEEN USED FORFLUORIDATION.THE CHEMICALS USED TO — THECHEMICALS USED TO FLORIDATE90% OF OUR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER ARE INDUSTRIAL GRADEHAZARDOUS WASTE CAPTURED INTHE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SCRUBBER SYSTEMS OF THEPHOSPHATE UTILIZER INDUSTRY.THESE WASTES CONTAIN A NUMBER OF TOXIC CONTAMINANTSINCLUDING LEAD, ARSENIC,CADMIUM, AND EVEN RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES.MICHAEL CONET IN MAY 2003WRITES IN HIS PAPER THE PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY –PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER INDUSTRYAND ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW AND THIS IS PERHAPS HOPEFULLY I’MBACK DOCTORING BECK UP INTO AQUESTION. IT IS QUITE REMARKABLE FROMTHE EPA THAT DESPITE 50 YEARSOF WATER FLORDAIGS THE E — FLUORIDATION THE EPA HAS NOCHRONIC HEALTH STUDIES ANDCYCLICAL FLORIDES. ALL SAFETY STUDIES ON FLUORIDETO DATE HAVE BEEN CONDUCTINGUSING PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE SODIUM FLUORIDE, NOTINDUSTRIAL GRADE SILICALFLORIDES. WE LEARNED ABOUT DIRTYPOLITICS INCLUDING IN THESCIENCE AND SELLING OF FLUORIDATION TO A TRUSTINGPUBLIC.I MIGHT ADD THE DIRTY BUSINESS.THANK YOU.>> RIGHT ON TIME, MANY MACKENZIE.QUESTIONS?ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERETODAY, MR. MACKENZIE.YOU’VE OBVIOUSLY READ A LOT ABOUT THIS TOPIC.WHAT GENERATED THE INTEREST?>> MY BACKGROUND IS MANAGEMENT AND I SPECIALIZE INENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ANDSAFETY FOR THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY.I’VE HAD TO REALLY LOOK AT THEROOT OF THE SCIENCE’S STUDY SO I CAN MAKE INTELLIGENTDECISIONS.I FIND A LOT OF INFORMATION — I APOLOGIZE FROM THIS COMMENTBUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT OFALL THE MEDICAL EXPERTISE, I’M QUITE DISCOURAGED IN WHAT I’VEHEARD TODAY.I CAN FIND PROBABLY — IF YOU WANT TO PAY ME MY CONSULTINGFEE, I CAN FIND AS MANYNEGATIVE COMMENTS TO DISCREDIT WHAT THEY’RE SAYING ASDr.BECK HAS POINTED OUT.BUT MY REAL PERSONAL INTEREST IS I WAS GIVEN THE STUDY THATI QUOTED REGARDING ATOMICENERGY IN THE EARLY 2000 AND FROM A VERY CREDIBLE PH.D.I’VE DONE A BIT OF WORK ONTHAT AND TO THE DATE I DON’T USE FLUORIDE WATER WHICH IS ALIE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I’MGOING TO HAVE A HERNIA OPERATION, I CAN’T CARRY THEBOTTLES OF WATER SO I HAVE TOUSE CITY WATER UNTIL MY SURGERY MARCH 1st THEN I’LL GOBACK AND CARRY THE BOTTLES OFWATER. THE OTHER THING IS I DISCUSSEDMYDENTIST, AND I DON’T USETOPICAL FLUORIDE FROM MYDENTIST.MY BIGGEST PROBLEM IS ARGUINGWITH HEALTH PROFESSIONALS BEING THE PEOPLE THAT CLEANAND DO MY TEETH PRIOR TO HIMLOOKING AT IT SO TO ME IT’S MEDICATED — ALL THE THINGSWE’VE HEARD ABOUT THAT ARENEGATIVE ABOUT FLUORIDE.THAT’S MY INTEREST.I DON’T WANT SOMEONE TELLINGME WHAT TO DO. I THINK THE MOST EMOTIONALTHING THAT I CAN SAY IS THATHAVING BEEN A HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATOR AND HAVING BEENTERMINATED IN HEALTH CARE ANDFOUGHT A WRONGFUL DISMISSAL SUIT IN WHICH THEADMINISTRATOR THAT TERMINATEDME WAS CHARGED BY THE R.C.M.P. FOR 13 COUNTS OF FRAUD DOESN’TMEAN, AS Dr. BECK SAYS, YOUGOT TO WHITE COAT, YOU’RE AN EXPERT.I THINK YOU NEED TO REALLYLOOK AT IS I’VE TRIED TO INDICATE HERE THE ROOT OF THESCIENCE.WHERE DID THE SCIENCE COME FROM, WAS IT TRANSPARENT, WHOPAID FOR IT.AND THERE’S LOTS OF STUFF OUT THERE THAT ARE NOT PAID FOR BYBEING INDUSTRY — BIG INDUSTRYOR BIG GOVERNMENT THAT DISPUTE THE CLAIMS BEING MADE, THATARE PRO-FLUORIDE.>> THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU, Mr. MACKENZIE.>>> MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE, ISEVERYBODY HERE FOLLOWING SUPPER?WE HAVE ABOUT 12 MORE WHICHWILL TAKE US TO ABOUT 9:30. BASED ON WHAT WE’VE DONETODAY.THAT’S FINE. WE ARE RECESSED TILL 7:05.THE CAPTIONS OF THIS MEETINGIS PROVIDED AS A COMMUNICATION ACCESSIBILITYMEASURE AND IS NOT INTENDEDAS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.IF INACCURACIES OCCUR, ITMAY BE DUE TO HUMAN ERROR, Permanently lost this transcriptportion: firewire port erroron SHAW cable box. -Gord THEN OF COURSE THE RECOMMENDSWOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TOMEMBERS OF COUNCIL FOR A DECISION.>> I CAN’T REMEMBER THE FULLDETAILS OF THE PREVIOUS PANEL AND IT’S QUITE POSSIBLE THATDr. MUSTO WOULD RECALL ORDr. FREEZEN CAN RECALL MORE THAN I CAN BUT THE PROCESS FORDOING IT AS I RECALLADMINISTRATION WAS DIRECTED TO PUT TOGETHER A PANEL, AND WESOUGHT OUT EXPERTS WITHDIFFERENT SKILL SETS AND ASSEMBLED THAT PANEL, AND THEYWENT AWAY AND DID ASIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK. I RECALL IT TOOK A LOT LONGERTHAN IS BEING SUGGESTED BY THELETTER THAT WAS SENT TO US FROM THE UNIVERSITY.I THINK MY SENSE IS THAT THEPROPOSAL BY THE UNIVERSITY THAT CAME INTO THE MAYORRECENTLY IS A MUCH QUICKERREVIEW.IT WILL ASSEMBLE SYSTEMATICREVIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN DONEAND TRY TO, YOU KNOW, SUMMARIZE, GIVE A SYNOPSISWHAT’S OUT THERE, CURRENTLITERATURE REVIEW IF YOU WILL. MY REX OF –RECOLLECTION OF THE PANEL THATWAS PUT TOGETHER WAS SORT OF A MUCH LONGER PROCESS.AND IT –WITH MORE — AS I RECALL, WHEN THEYSUBMITTED THEIR DOCUMENT, IMEAN THERE WAS PAGES AND PAGES AND PAGES OF REFERENCEMATERIAL THAT THEY HAD LOOKEDINTO.SO THEY HAD LOOKED INTOINDIVIDUAL PIECES OF RESEARCHAS 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 ABOUTSYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IS THATTHEY ARE OFTEN REVIEWS OF REVIEWS.I DON’T KNOW.WHAT ABOUT THE EUROPEAN — IT SEEMS TO BE CIRCULATED MOREAROUND AN ETHICAL QUESTION INEUROPE.AND IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TOHEAR FROM SOME OF THE EUROPEANSIDES AND EVEN POLITICIANS WHO MADE THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS.>> WELL, I MEAN JUST TO BECLEAR, WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP THE LAST TIME, IT WAS VERYCLEARLY A REVIEW THAT WAS DONEBY THE MEDICAL AND DENTAL COMMUNITY AND THE SCIENTIFICCOMMUNITY.IT WASN’T ANYTHING THAT WAS DONE BY THE WATERWORKSDEPARTMENT OR THE WATERINDUSTRY. IT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT WEPROFESS TO HAVE ANY EXPERTISEIN AT ALL FROM THE HEALTH RELATED ASPECTS OF FLUORIDATION.FIRST, IN HOW TO APPLY THEPROCESS AND DESIGN IT AND RUN IT AND OPERATE IT.BUT IN TERM OF THE ACTUALBENEFITS OR THE MEDICAL BENEFITS, DENTAL BENEFITS OROTHERWISE, THAT’S NOTSOMETHING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO COMMENT ON.SO, AGAIN, I DON’T KNOWWHETHER GOING TO EUROPE OR ANYWHERE ELSE, AUSTRALIA ORNEW ZEALAND FROM THE POINT OFVIEW OF A HEALTH BENEFITS REVIEW WOULD BE A GOOD THINGOR NOT.WE COULD TELL YOU OPERATIONALLY WHAT THEY AREDOING AND WHAT THE PLANTS AREDOING AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT DOING AND SO ON, BUT I CAN’TREALLY COMMENT ON THE HEALTHSIDE OF IT.>> OKAY.MAYBE WE SHOULD GET AN OPINIONFROM Mr. INLOW ABOUT THE LEGALITIES OF THE COUNCIL’SDECISION.YOU HAVE BEEN HERE ALL DAY. WE THOUGHT WE WOULD ASK YOU ATLEAST ONE QUESTION TO JUSTIFYTHE TIME COMMITMENT. >> YOU DON’T NEED TO DO THATBUT …>> Mr. INLOW, QUESTION OF IF THE MOTION THAT’S BEFORE USPASSES BY COUNCIL, THEN WHATWOULD BE THE NEXT STEPS? AS FAR AS THE CITY ISCONCERNED?AND THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS? >> WELL, THERE ARE SEVERALSTEPS, AND CERTAINLYMr. PRITCHARD CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THEM, BECAUSE THEYINVOLVE HAVING TO AMEND –IF COUNCIL SIMPLY MAKES THE DECISION AND SAYS WE ARE NOLONGER GOING TO FLUORIDE, THENTHERE ARE SOME PROCEDURES THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN WITH THEOPERATING LICENSE FROM ALBERTAENVIRONMENT.I’M NOT SURE IF THAT’S THEKIND OF LEGAL ISSUE YOU ARETALKING ABOUT OR WHETHER YOU ARE REFERRING TO SOMETHINGELSE.>> NO. THAT WOULD BE THE QUESTION.>> YEAH.I MEAN, IT IS IN SOME RESPECTS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE, BUTODDLY COUNCIL ISN’T REALLY THEPUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITY. IT REALLY COMES TO COUNCILBECAUSE WE ARE THE OPERATOR OFTHE WATER SYSTEM. AND THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN GOINGON FOR DECADES AND DECADES ASTO WHETHER OVERALL THERE IS A BENEFIT OF CARRYING THIS TOTHE PUBLIC THROUGH THE WATERSYSTEM AND WATER SYSTEM CLEARLY HAS LIMITATIONS IN THESENSE THAT IN TODAY’STECHNOLOGY WE CAN REALLY ONLY DELIVER ONE KIND OF WATER.IT’S NOT AS IF WE GOT SIXPIPES COMING INTO EVERY HOUSEHOLD SAYING, WELL, YOUCAN PICK THESE OPTIONS.IT’S REALLY A PUBLIC INTEREST ISSUE FOR COUNCIL TO SAYHAVING LISTENED TO THE SCIENCE,IN SOME RESPECTS MAYBE THE QUASI SCIENCE OF WHAT’S BEINGSAID, WHAT IS IN THE PUBLICINTEREST? AND IN TERMS OF WHETHER ITSHOULD BE IN OR OUT, AND IWANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE ARE NOTDEFLORNATURING THE WATER.WE ARE SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT NO LONGER ADDING ADDITIONALFLUORIDE TO THE WATER, WHICHIS NOT THE SAME THING.AND SO I THINK IT’S JUST AMATTER OF COUNCIL MAKING ADECISION BASED ON THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVIDENCEAND THE SCIENCE, AND WHAT’STHE BENEFIT HERE VERSUS WHAT’S THE PERCEPTION OF A DETRIMENTTHERE, AND OVERALL, IN THEBALANCE OF THINGS, WHAT’S OVERALL IN THE BEST PUBLICINTEREST?>> OKAY. THANK YOU.THANK YOU.WELL, COMMITTEE, I THINK I WILL PUT FORWARD THE MOTIONTHAT WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCILAND ANY NUMBER OF THINGS COULD HAPPEN AT COUNCIL.WE COULD MAKE A DECISION TOREFER THIS MOTION TO A BODY OF EXPERTS FOR THEIR OPINION, ORWE COULD PASS IT, OR IT COULDFAIL AND WE COULD CONTINUE WITH THE STATUS QUO OR WECOULD MAKE A DECISION TO GOWITH A PLEBISCITE.I THINK IT HAS BEEN A VERYHEALTHY DISCUSSION.AND I DON’T THINK I’M SURPRISED BY ANY OF IT.WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO AREPASSIONATE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DISCUSSION AND CARE DEEPLYABOUT THEIR POINT OF VIEW, ANDTHE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS THAT SPOKE FEEL VERY PASSIONATELYTHAT THEY ARE PROVIDING APUBLIC HEALTH BENEFIT, WHILE THERE ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE,MANY CALGARIANS WHO ARE VERYCONCERNED ABOUT THEIR WATER SUPPLY AND A FEAR WHETHER ITIS BASED IN REALITY OR NOT,THE — IT CONCERNS ME DEEPLY THAT WEHAVE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO AREWORRIED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THEIR WATER SUPPLY.THAT IN ITSELF I THINK ISSOMETHING WE CANNOT IGNORE. ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ISPOSSIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES.AND I DON’T THINK WE HAVE LOOKED AT THEM ENOUGH AS ASOCIETY.SO I’M GOING TO PUT THIS MOTION FORWARD AND THEN WE’LLSEE WHAT COMMITTEE DOES.AND I WANT TO URGE COMMITTEE TO VOTE FOR THE SECOND PORTIONOF THE MOTION.BECAUSE I DO THINK WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS AMUNICIPALITY, ALTHOUGH SOMEMAY ARGUE THAT’S NOT THE CASE, TO LOOK AFTER THE HEALTH OFOUR CITIZENS, THE MOSTCOMPELLING ARGUMENT TO ME, OF COURSE, IS THE ISSUE OFCHILDREN IN POVERTYSITUATIONS.BUT I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THERESPONSES TOWARD POVERTY ANDTHE ARGUMENTS FOR FLUORIDE ARE VERY SIMPLISTIC, THAT WE THINKWE ARE DONE, AND WE ARE NOT.OF COURSE WE ARE NOT. SO I THINK PERHAPS THIS WOULDBE A WAY TO ADDRESS THAT MORALCONCERN. SO I WOULD URGE MEMBERS OFCOMMITTEE 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 MOTIONTO REFER THIS TO THE EXPERTPANEL THAT’S SUGGESTED IN THE LETTER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OFCALGARY FACULTY OF MEDICINE,AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.THEY HAVE GOT A NEW RESEARCHCENTRE THAT THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN THIS LETTER, AND THEYWANT TO CRITICALLY REVIEW THEMOST UP TO DATE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, SCIENTIFICLITERATURE, AND PROVIDE CLEAREVIDENCE-BASED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT RISKS ANDBENEFITS.AND IT’S THAT CLEAR EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWERS THATI’M LOOKING FOR.WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION PRESENTED TO US.AND A LOT OF RESEARCH REFERREDTO.BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT ISSUBSTANTIVE RESEARCH THAT’SBEEN PRESENTED TO US? AND WHAT IS LESS RIGOROUS?ON EITHER SIDE OF THEARGUMENT. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT PUBLICHEALTH EXPERTS.AND I WORRY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW HOW TO READ –I HAVE NOT READ THE RESEARCHMYSELF, AND I’M RELYING ON OTHERS TO INFORM ME ABOUT THEOUTCOMES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME,I THINK THERE DOESN’T SEEM TO BE ANY AGREEMENT, AND SO IN MYOPINION, I THINK WE NEED TOLOOK AT REFERRING IT TO THE EXPERTS.I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THECOMPOSITION OF THIS PANEL. I THINK WE NEED PUBLIC HEALTHEXPERTS ON IT, MEDICAL ANDDENTAL, PERHAPS SOME PEOPLE WITH –I THINK ALDERMAN FARRELL HASTALKED ABOUT THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE, PERHAPS THERE ISSOME DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES,DIFFERENT WAYS OF SEEING THE WORLD, AND PERHAPS SOME OF THETHINGS THAT Dr.BECK HASREFERRED TO NEED TO BE EXAMINED SO WE CAN GET THEEVIDENCE, WHEN THERE IS CLAIMSMADE ABOUT THIS OR CLAIMS MADE ABOUT THAT, THAT WE ACTUALLYCAN SEE WHO IS SAYING THIS ANDWHAT 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 TOMAKE.SO I ALSO ADD THAT THE LAST PANEL, THE LAST TIME WEREFERRED THIS TO A PANEL, THATPANEL MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE, AND I DON’T THINK THATIT’S A FOREGONE CONCLUSIONTHAT THERE WOULDN’T BE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE.I THINK IF WE SELECT THE PANELCAREFULLY THAT WE GET CREDIBLE PEOPLE, THAT WE WILL IN FACTBE ABLE TO CREATE A GROUP OFPEOPLE, BRING TOGETHER A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT CANINDEPENDENTLY LOOK AT ALL THERESEARCH OUT THERE AND GIVE US SOME INFORMATION TO MAKE ANINFORMED DECISION.>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR MOTION.CITY CLERK JUST INFORMED METHAT WE CAN’T REFER IT TO A PANEL BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE APANEL TO REFER IT TO.SO WHAT WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO DO IS REFER TO THE MAYOR’SLETTER AND ASK THE MAYOR TOGET A HOLD OF THE PROPONENTS TO FORM THE COMMITTEE.RATHER THAN THE WAY YOU SAIDIT.BECAUSE WE CAN’T REFER TO APANEL THAT DOESN’T EXIST.SO IT WOULD BE IN REFERENCE TO THE MAYOR’S LETTER AND LET THEMAYOR DO THAT AND REPORT BACKTO COUNCIL, RATHER THAN TO COMMITTEE.>> I THINK THAT’S ALL GOOD.I WOULD LIKE THE COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL TO HAVE INPUT ON THEPANEL MEMBERS.>> SO IT WOULD GO STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL.>> WELL, IS THAT –>> IT HAS GOT TO GO TO COUNCIL ANYWAY FOR THE REFERRALSUPPORT.>> OB. >> OKAY.>> ALDERMAN STEPHENSON.>> I’M READY TO DEBATE THE MAIN MOTION.I WILL SPEAK TO IS THIS AREFERRAL MOTION WE ARE DEALING WITH THEN?>> YES, IT IS.IT IS NOT THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY –>> I WON’T SUPPORT THEREFERRAL MOTION. I THINK THAT THAT DECISION HASTO BE DONE, SHOULD BE DONE BYCOUNCIL. SO I THINK WE SHOULD BELEAVING THAT UNTIL WE GET TOCOUNCIL. WE’LL SEND THIS TO COUNCIL ANDAT THAT POINT IF THEY WANT TOREFER IT, THEY CAN.BUT I WON’T SUPPORT IT AT THISPOINT.>> OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?SEEING NONE ON THE REFERRAL TOCOUNCIL TO APPOINT A PANEL, ARE YOU AGREED?OPPOSED?CALL THE ROLL. >> ON THE REFERRAL ALDERMANDEMONG.>> 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 SUPPORTTHE MOVEMENT TO COMMITTEE WHENIT GOES TO COUNCIL EITHER. THE REASON IS BECAUSE IBELIEVE WE HAVE ALL THERESEARCH THAT WE NEED AND HAVE HAD FOR SOME TIME.I GOT TO SAY THAT I HAVE BEENOPPOSED TO FLUORIDE FOR 30 YEARS, BUT I KEEP LISTENING,THINKING SOMEONE IS GOING TOCOME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT’S GOING TO CAUSE ME TORECONSIDER MY POSITION ON IT.AND I HAVE LISTENED ALL DAY TODAY AND HEARD NOTHING THATWOULD CHANGE MY MIND ON IT TOTHIS POINT.I WILL LISTEN TO THE DEBATEHERE AND IN COUNCIL, AND THENI WILL MAKE MY FINAL DECISION ON HOW I VOTE.BUT I WILL NOT SUPPORT APLEBISCITE EITHER BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE PLEBISCITE ISNOT THE WAY TO GO WHEN YOU AREDEALING WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS.NOW, I’M GETTING A LOT OFE-MAILS AND I’M SURE ALL OF YOU ARE, LETTERS, AND SO ON,AND THEY ARE COMING IN FOUR TOONE AGAINST FLUORIDIZATION, FOUR TO ONE IN FAVOUR OF USREMOVING IT.IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS THAT I HAVE OPPOSED FLUORIDATIONI HAD A LOT OF RIDICULE AND ICAN’T IMAGINE THE AMOUNT OF RIDICULE THAT SOME OF THEPEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN FIGHTINGTHIS THAT ARE IN POSITIONS OF MEDICAL DOCTORS OR DENTISTSAND THE AMOUNT OF PEERPRESSURE THAT THEY ARE GETTING.ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLYSURPRISES — IT DOESN’T SURPRISE ME BUT ITSURPRISES ME THAT IT ISN’TRECOGNIZED MORE IS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE CHANGEDTHEIR POSITION.THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WERE IN FAVOUR OF IT, WEREADVOCATES OF IT THAT ARE NOWAGAINST IT, AND I HAVE NOT TO THIS POINT COME ACROSS ANYONETHAT’S GONE THE OTHER WAY.IT SEEMS WHEN PEOPLE DO ENOUGH STUDY ON IT, THEY REALIZE THATIT’S THE WRONG THING TO DO.AND THE REASON I WOULDN’T SUPPORT A PLEBISCITE ISBECAUSE I DON’T THINK, EVEN IFIT’S 53%, AND THAT’S WHAT I THINK THE LAST VOTE WAS, 53%OF 30% WHO ACTUALLY COME OUTTO VOTE MAKE A DECISION ON MEDICATING 100%, AND ISTRONGLY AGREE WITH –DISAGREE WITH THAT, EVEN IF IT WAS 50, 60% OF THE TOTALPOPULATION.I DON’T AGREE THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MEDICATE THEREST.EVEN IN THE CASES AS ALDERMAN FARRELL POINTED OUT, IN THECASE OF OUR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTBYLAWS, WE HAVE 66% IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR PAVING ANALLEY.AND THAT’S 66% OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN PROPERTY.NOT THE ONES THAT HAVE THEINTEREST TO COME OUT AND VOTE.IT’S 66% OF EVERYBODY WHO OWNSWHO 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 CANDO SOMETHING AS SIGNIFICANT AS THIS WITH SUCH A SMALLPERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLEMAKING THE DECISION FOR THE REST OF US.NOW I KNOW THAT THERE IS A LOTOF PEOPLE DISMISS CLAIMS OF HARM AND WE HEARD HERE TODAYTHAT PROFESSIONALS, PEOPLE WHOI RESPECT A GREAT DEAL HAVE SAID THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OFHARM BUT HOW CAN WE DISMISSALL OF THE CLAIMS ABOUT HARM WHEN WE HAVE SEEN POSITIONSCHANGE, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE,THE CHANGE NOW IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS IS THAT THEYSAY INFANTS CANNOT BE GIVENFLUORIDE IN THEIR WATER. CHILDREN, THEY ARE NOW SAYINGYOUNGER CHILDREN, EVEN IF IT’SNOT AN INFANT, THEY SHOULDN’T BE HAVING IT BECAUSE THERE ISA POSSIBILITY OF HARM.WE HAVE SEEN THEM REDUCE THE LEVELS OF THE AMOUNT OFFLUORIDE IN THE WATER.THE REASON THEY ARE DOING THOSE IS BECAUSE OF EVIDENCEOF HARM OR POTENTIAL HARM.SO — EVERYONE THE DOCTORS THAT WEHEAR, THEY DON’T DISPUTE THATTHE DOSAGE CAN’T BE CONTROLLED.NOBODY DISPUTES THAT.THERE IS FLUORIDE IN FOOD, IN BEVERAGE AND TOOTHPASTE, ANDIN OUR WATER, AND I HEARD ITSAID THAT THERE IS A DANGER — LESS DANGER OF PEOPLE NOTBEING ABLE TO CONTROL IT IF WELEAVE IT IN THERE.I DON’T AGREE WITH THAT.IT JUST MEANS THAT MORE PEOPLEHAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO GET TOO MUCH WHEN WE ARE PUTTINGTHAT MUCH IN THE WATER.SO THERE IS A CONCERN. AND IF WE ARE GOING TO ERR ISNEEDS TO BE ON THE SIDE OFCAUTION. NOBODY HAS COME UP WITHANYTHING, PROOF THAT THERE ISA BENEFIT TO CALGARIANS. I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS.WE KEEP ASKING FOR IT BUT ITIS NOT THERE. AND THERE IS NO QUESTION IN MYMIND THAT SOME CALGARIANS AREBEING HARMED BY IT. (PLEASE STAND BY).

As found on YouTube

Book Now For Environmental Consultingl In Newcastle

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.