This user has not filled out their profile yet.

Polldaddy
Check out Polldaddy, the most easy-to-use survey software around. Start creating beautiful online surveys today.

Create an Online Survey

Do you think Calgary's drinking water should be fluoridated? (Poll Closed)

  • Yes
    54%
    2,432 votes

     
  • No
    44%
    1,971 votes

     
  • I need more information before making a decision
    2%
    81 votes

     
  • It doesn't matter to me
    <1%
    9 votes

     

Posted 4 weeks.

33 Comments

  • Rosemarie Waldram-Larson - 2 weeks ago

    desiring to be more brief than is possible when one's frame of reference and experience is as large as is the one I access, I failed earlier to comment on input from those who unscientifically assume/presume fluorine compounds a.k.a. "fluoride" are "minerals" and are thereby considered "safe"?

    Firstly, this element is not a mineral nor a metal; fluorine is a halogen, a gas; a highly-volatile, highly-reactive, negatively-charged ion which, in a free state is a radical element which, with exception of only four othes, will readily latch onto, combine with, any positively-charged other it comes in contact with; however, given a choice, it prefers calcium and then magnesium which thereby makes these two life-vital minerals, especially calcium, the buffering agents for this caustic, toxic element. Unfortunately, when the human technology of Yesteryear was less sophisticated than now, this invited the mistaken assumption this compound was a "mineral" and by the time this error was able to be corrected there were too many $pecial Interests in the field of industry, too many political and/or professional reputations at risk in government and/or the military for any one of these to voluntarily stand up on the firing line of public scrutiny to admit to or try to correct this and other of Yesteryear's historical mistakes and, unfortunately, those few who did paid dearly for their ethical behavior.

    Those not yet aware of these facts thereby deny the truth that "what is meat for some, can be poison to others" for it is equally true that "some can be as sensitive to fluorides as others are to penicillin. Just because one is not aware of the existence of a thing is not in and of itself the evidence it does not exist, and a $pecial Interest which declares or infers that tooth decay is evidence of a fluoride deficiency is either cerebrally deficient or blatantly criminal.

    Twice in my lifetime I was nearly killed by such unscientific thinking when the individual(s) involved, were assured by their MD/DDS source "no one can be allergic to fluoride, its a mineral" Believing me to be a liar or demented, in the first incident I was covertly served food and beverage prep'd in/with fluoridated water. Years later, another who was equally misinformed by a public health officer, served me cookies sweetened artificially --most if not all patented food and beverage formulas are F-produced and/or F-based "Frankenproducts"); however, even though I and those like me cannot be treated with the usual F-base/F-produced drugs which as "medicine", I'm pleased to announce with the aid of non-toxic food-sourced natural medicines and knowledge nutrition-based mitigation, I survived although s the second episode (2012) required a trip to another state to receive a week's worth of non-drug, non-toxic detox treatments plus the better part of a year to fully recover --a fact my holitic MD declared he'd thought impossible when he viewed the painfully itchy contact dermatitis (exema) covering more than 40% of my body from head to ankles because by then he could no longer legally treat me with other than fluoride-base drug medications (cortisone, et al) in this state.

    For more than 70 years, Fluoridation's truth decay has been deliberately withheld from public scrutiny by the more than 52 different $pecial Interests w/in and w/out the military-industral bureaucracy which for more than the past century has profiteered at the expense of the public's pocketbook as well as its health by means of a camouflaged form of dental quackery.

    Ours was a nutrition-conscious household. No refined flour nor white sugar, no junk food nor candy, etc.
    The middle child, was the only one of my three children to receive medically-prescribed pre and post-natal fluoride exposure the first three years of his life, and in spite of the daily fluoride drops, this child's teeth were the only ones to erupt pitted, scarred, and calcium-deficient --the color of

  • Rosemarie Waldram-Larson - 2 weeks ago

    Three generations ago my ancestors began presenting with fluoride allergy symptoms which was subsequently validated by MD-DMD double-blind testing of myself and the middle-child of my own three with the result we are "toxic/allergic to fluorine-bearing compounds (fluoride)". (F) compounds are scientifically-established bio-accumulative poisons and thereby the documented "Aging factor" which is the root of all neurodegenerative pathology, which prompted their original use as chemical/biological weaponry, eg. WW1/WW2, subsequently their significance to genetic modification of DNA (GMO technology) & (F) use in chemical medicines (antibiotics, LSD, synthetic opioids, et al) as well as herbicides, pesticides, insecticides & plant/animal "Frankenfoods" so, we do not waste our time nor our tourist $$$ in cities deceived into subsidizing this form of public health quackery --especially when in 1944 military-industrial $pecial Interests effected the exemption of death by fluoride poisoning from routine autopsy toxicology which insures that the deaths since then which are caused by (F) accumulation in soft tissue --if not ordered by physician, family or the court-- will instead be listed in routine autopsy as by AIDS, SIDS. MS, cancer, diabetes, heart, liver, kidney or other tissue, organ or system failure or by "unknown cause" which in this era of advanced technology there is no excuse for not knowing the true cause of death --unless that is the true cause of death is not meant to be known?

  • Sean - 4 weeks ago

    So many well thought out and intelligent comments. I’ll keep it short and see a dentist are seeing more cavities everywhere. Not due to lack of fluoride in the water but laziness on the part of children and parents to enforce the brushing of their teeth.

  • L Inn - 4 weeks ago

    fluoride is not medication. it is a naturally occurring mineral. found in water soil air etc

  • Dr. Robert C Dickson - 4 weeks ago

    Artificial water fluoridation has been called by highly educated and researched scientists one of the biggest scams ever propagated against society. There are thousands of professionals who risk their careers to speak out against this harmful practice.
    Long fluoridated Edmonton has similar increases in caries recently as does Calgary.
    Ms. Guichon and the dentists in the recent CAlgary Herald article mean well. Unfortunately, it is babies, children, the poor, people of colour, the chronically ill, and seniors who are most affected by the adverse effects of artificial water fluoridation.
    And please do not buy into this “just topping up” diversion. Natural calcium fluoride and hydrofluosilicic acid from the waste stacks of the fertilizer and aluminum industries are very different entities and are handled very differently by the the human body.
    Less than 3% of Europe, BC and Quebec are fluoridated, and their teeth are generally better than those in fluoridated areas.
    Please watch the highly informative 12 minute video FLUORIDE 101 by a Portland dentist on the home page of our Safe Water Calgary website at www.safewatercalgary.com

  • George Pinnell - 4 weeks ago

    Using the water supply as a method of delivering medication is an abuse of the monopoly position of water companies, which denies individuals their right of consent. We should focus on tackling the true cause of decay - which is poor diets and levels of dental hygiene, NOT lack of fluoride. If fluoride was really beneficial England and Ireland would have been famous for low levels of decay. Both of these countries are in the top 3 tea drinking nations of the world. Tea has a high, natural fluoride content which means that regular tea drinkers are already receiving the claimed optimum level without the need of any further doses of this CUMULATIVE POISON being dumped into OUR drinking water. The governments have fallen for the charms of these snake oil salesmen, who profit from the schemes, at PUBLIC EXPENSE.

    The fluoride trials have been exposed as fatally flawed as they are not double blind studies, so are readily subject to bias.They have been dismissed in the Cochrane Review due to their poor scientific standards. The governments have failed to ensure that the compounds used comply with even the most basic medical safeguards. I was shocked to learn that, even though it is inflicted on whole communities the fluoride compounds deployed do not even have a medical products licence; nor are they refined to pharmaceutical standards - even when they have been derived from pollution scrubbers! See:

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tea-drinkers-risk-fluoride-damaged-bones-and-more-studies-shows-300579044.html

    Tea-drinkers risk fluoride-damaged bones and more, studies shows

    NEW YORK, Jan. 8, 2018 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Some teas contain more fluoride than EPA allows in public wate...

    If you want to see fluoride's DAMAGING effects see:

    Fluoride Warnings Issued by International Group of Dentists - IAOMT

    PRNewswire-USNewswire CHAMPIONSGATE, Fla., Oct. 4, 2017 October is Dental Hygiene Month, but not all dentists wi...

    Subjecting someone to medication without consent constitutes assault. The York Review revealed that 48% of children in fluoridated areas were already afflicted with dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of chronic fluoride poisoning. In a quarter of these cases (ie 12% of the children) the mottling was severe, meaning that the teeth are discoloured and pitted. The only "treatment" is to mask the defective teeth with dental veneers, which can cost over £500 per tooth. This treatment may need to be repeated several times, whilst the underlying stump can tolerate it, so the lifetime cost of veneers alone could readily exceed £10,000. As tooth enamel is the hardest part of the body it is clear that this unwarranted action has caused actual bodily harm. The promoters of fluoridation should therefore be brought to book for aiding and abetting and incitement to violence.

    If you were assaulted and suffered such damage by an assailant on the street you would understandably expect the perpetrator to be brought to court for such criminal behaviour. Surely, the need for such action is even greater when we are being insidiously assaulted in the supposed safety of our own homes on a daily basis? Perhaps the promoters should take responsibility for their actions and be forced to pay for the clear damage which is caused by Fluoride?

  • Johanna D. - 4 weeks ago

    Community Water Fluoridation is an evidence-based dental caries prevention strategy that needs to be in place for optimal protection for all ages.

  • L Inn - 4 weeks ago

    Is a mineral a medication? Naturally occurring like any other minerals. If we ourselves do not get enough minerals we take supplements.

  • S.H. - 4 weeks ago

    Is it not true, that Edmonton still fluoridates their water, and they have seen an increase in decay and cavities as well? Maybe focus should be on hygiene practices and food supplies versus medicating the entire population where it is not needed.

  • Ivor - 4 weeks ago

    It is amazing that so many readers are not giving their council support for clean, unadulterated water.
    Instead of claiming the requirements of over 50% of voters, measure the amount of space taken by the pro-fluoride body, in your paper and using any other media.
    Some of the claims reported from fluoride proponents are outrageous and are not backed by good statistical evidence
    Ask readers or journalists to consult the huge US base fluoridealert, (created by FAN) or my UK-based safewatererinformation.org.
    Give space to this: The 2017 study claiming Calgary cavities caused by lack of fluoride has been shown to be fraudulent. It used incorrect time periods and an unequal Calgary / Edmonton primary teeth sample. The study author was a proponent of fluoridation who featured in near identical articles in multiple Canadian newspapers the day it was published.
    Also give space to any of the growing evidence of fluoride’s damage. A recent example is proof of the reduction in IQ in children linked to the fluoride consumed by their mothers. It is a study of large scale and with official US support.
    I ask Calgary, as my father’s birth place that I would love to visit again, to keep to facts and reason and not to be bullied.

  • Marjorie S - 4 weeks ago

    Definitiely vote YES If you want to dump a toxic industrial waste byproduct into Calgary's drinking water

  • Dana - 4 weeks ago

    I would rather see (and would support) the cost that would be spent doing mass fluoridation actually be spent on providing fluoride to those who want it.

    When dosing the water supply - the plan has to be to have a high enough concentration that the incidental amount that is periodically exposed to the teeth during consumption is enough to have an effect. You could try to estimate an average water consumption volume per individual - but really there is no way to know what the actual distribution is. This approach, therefore, has an uncontrolled and unpredictable dosage level. In order to have an adequate dosage for a target percentage of the population - we also risk an overexposure for some other percentage of the population.

    Any water used for cleaning, bathing, watering lawns and gardens, commercial and industrial uses will all dump extra fluoride into the environment or sewer: ineffective and unnecessary. Perhaps harmful.

    Comparing to jurisdictions that actually have a natural fluoride content that is higher than ours is a fallacious argument. This isn't a discussion of whether to accept existing natural levels or not, we are discussing whether to intentionally take action to purposely add a substance to the water.
    When this is done on purpose: the net effect is to be medicating a portion of the population without consent. In the case of visitors to town, it is without consent AND without informing them.

    For consideration: Perhaps the jurisdictions with a higher fluoride content than ours should be considering whether it is worthwhile taking measures to REDUCE their own concentration.

    If the true concern is childrens' teeth, and if the application of fluoride is effective to address this concern: then provide fluoride mouth rinse to schools and the disadvantaged. It is heavier on administrative effort, but it allows a controlled and supervised dosage, and is targeted exactly where desired: it is more effective with less unintended consequences.

    To dose the water supply is a shotgun approach - hitting all kinds of other things (unnecessarily) in the hope of maybe getting the right dosage to a specific portion of the population.
    A shotgun approach is hardly reminiscent of the level of quality, precision, and professionalism that we should all (and I certainly do) expect from the medial industry.

  • Louise Prenovost - 4 weeks ago

    I DO NOT want toxins in every glass of water I drink. Fluoride treatments and fluoride toothpaste are sufficient.

  • Krisztina Zorgo - 4 weeks ago

    I believe the scientist who are against fluoridating drinking water. They are the experts not the dentist.. Flourositic acid is a neuro toxin and we should not be poisoning every body. Just for your information who thinks they should have it they can go to the dentist for fluoride treatment and that should be free or given pharmaceutical grade fluoride drops. What goes in the water is a waste product of thr aluminium industry and is a toxin. Nobody should be forced to drink it . It is a crime against humanity by Dr Mercola.
    If you want more information go to Fluoride Action Network Erin Bronkovich also joined the fight against water fluoridation.. Remember her ?

  • Doug T - 4 weeks ago

    A public health and cost savings program but the dentists are a strong lobby group who make money out of tooth decay. Look at why Alberta has 40% higher service fees than other provinces. They get away with it because they can.

  • Dennis Polischuk - 4 weeks ago

    The anti fluoridation comments seem to follow Trumps views on almost everything. Not facts but rather lies. Too bad that antifluoridationists are so ill informed yet such a strong lobbying group. Where is their objection to chloride (chlorine) Same family of drugs. What about the inadequate level of natural fluoride that exists? I have seen the benefit of adding fluoride to the water supply for over 50 years. I know it’s effective in preventing tooth decay

  • Aida - 4 weeks ago

    Fluoride is POISONOUS. To those who want fluoride in your water, I propose that you get the big drink companies and request for them to sell you water with fluoride added to it. Or better yet, add it yourself to your own water after it flows out from your tap. That way, you can experiment as much as you want as to whether it is really beneficial or not. The rest of us can wait to see if that pans out for you. Just please do not advocate this poison in our drinking water for the rest of us. Thank you.

  • Kimberly Gunn - 4 weeks ago

    Dental health is not the whole picture. It's only one aspect of health. Fluoride is actually contraindicated for some endocrine problems, which actually runs through my family a few generations. If the city puts fluoride back in the water then they will need to pay for several households of expensive water filters to remove the "mass medication", and I will pursue this and open it up to anyone else who doesn't want fluoride in their water. If you want fluoride, get the very inexpensive drops. If you can't afford them then the city should have a grant or program of sorts for them. I'm not asking for the city to put synthroid in the water even though way too many people have thyroid issues; with more incidences of it to come if fluoridation resumes, since fluoride is taken up in the iodine receptors, inhibiting adequate iodine absorption for optimal thyroid function. It's pretty much the same thing.
    Mass medication is a terrible approach.

  • Lindsay - 4 weeks ago

    I don't think floride should be put in our water. We know it's a neuro toxin.
    How about saving on money and providing families who would like them, floride drops? And yes, the sugar argument is a real thing. If we are looking at low income families as the most likely candidates for cavities and using that as a justification wouldn't it be better to provide them with flourished drops and maybe take a look at what is being eaten? I can't help but feel like body acidity due to poor diet is the number one culprit for poor dental health.

  • Lindsay - 4 weeks ago

    I don't think flourished should be put in our water. We know it's a neuro toxin.
    How about saving on money and providing families who would like them, flourished drops? And yes, the sugar argument is a real thing. If we are looking at low income families as the most likely candidates for cavities and using that as a justification wouldn't it be better to provide them with flourished drops and maybe take a look at what is being eaten? I can't help but feel like body acidity due to poor diet is the number one culprit for poor dental health.

  • Brian Scribbins - 4 weeks ago

    Why not add the fluoridation question to the Olympic vote in the fall? After several years without fluoridation, parents with young children may voice a different opinion than they did in 2011.

  • Zachary C - 4 weeks ago

    Adding fluoride to water is mass medication of the population. This should not happen in Canada, a democratic nation. If anything, administer fluoride individually at request, or subsidize those who choose to purchase it.

  • Carl Hays - 4 weeks ago

    Read the research at fluoridealert.org or read "The Case Against Fluoride' by Paul Connett, et al before you come to the conclusion that water fluoridation is "safe and effective." As someone who has discussed this issue with many dentists, I've discovered that most dentists are NOT "experts" on this topic; they just regurgitate what they learned in dental school. If you're not familiar with all the issues both pro and con, then your opinion about the topic doesn't really mean much.

  • James B - 4 weeks ago

    What about allergic reactions to fluoride. Studies show that many people have hypersensitive reactions to
    Fluoride. The syptoms include gastric distress,headache,joint pain,lethargy,mouth lesions,skin rashes,visual disturbances,and weakness. After the fluoride was removed the syptoms usually went away promptly. So, people, let them put Fluoride in the water and for those that have an allergic reaction to it, you can simply install a reverse osmosis unit to your drinking water, which only costs about 500.00 for the cheap one and send the bill to the city for compensation for what they injected into your water.

  • Diane Sprules - 4 weeks ago

    But the cavity rate in fluoridated Edmonton is equally as bad as Calgary's. And in Ireland where water fluoridation is mandatory children are experiencing "catastrophic decay". https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/parenting/why-increasing-numbers-of-youngsters-are-losing-their-teeth-1.3071563
    Something else is going on and this should be looked into. It is NOT lack of fluoride

  • Kate - 4 weeks ago

    I'm with Debbie B....... get the fluoride drops. I use water for the vegetable garden, showers, dishes, flushing a toilet..... wait.... most of the water isn't drank, why does ALL of the water need to be fluoridated? The win/win sounds like a good idea to me.

  • Anthony Hulse - 4 weeks ago

    It's poor kids in poor areas who are suffering most. I teach in the North East, and there are kids in agony because their teeth are rotting. This isn't the 19th century. Get it sorted!

  • Rob Walker - 4 weeks ago

    It's another diet-cola quick-fix solution to sugary, refined-starch Western diet. I don't buy the "dentists are the experts" line - it depends on the dentist, whether they bother to read research, etc. It wasn't that long ago that they were sticking mercury in our mouths - so gimme a break! And recent research doesn't support the effectiveness of flossing (in preventing tooth decay).

    So if YOU want to drink fluoride, go right ahead.

    Keep it out of MY drinking water.

  • AC - 4 weeks ago

    As a dental professional, a mom and a person who grew up with fluoride in the water I can fight the side of putting it back in. As a child I had terrible hygiene and still very few cavities. My child who brushes all the time (I brush for him) has had nore cavities then I did at his age. I work with tons of kids and have seen the difference in a child who uses high fluoride well water and brushes rarely vs a child who has no fluoride in their water and brushes regularly. All for putting it back in.

  • Krystle - 4 weeks ago

    My son is 10 now and he brushes his teeth twice a day and I make sure he is brushing right as well as flossing and he has had so many cavities in his poor little mouth. It is torture for him. A child shouldn’t have to swish his mouth every time he eats and use extremely expensive toothpastes from the dentist just to avoid cavities. If not in the water there needs to be other options for us. No child should have to go through this.

  • Debbie B - 4 weeks ago

    When my children were young we were given small bottles of flouride to add to their water. Why not do the same now ? Probably a lot cheaper, and this is a win win for both sides.

  • Jen - 4 weeks ago

    I had a lengthy conversation with my dentist over Calgary’s lack of fluoride. The numbers are astounding for how much decay is present in kids today. It’s not from a lack of brushing and flossing...or too much candy. My daughter had surgery to put 11 caps on 8 year old teeth. (Believe me, she has good hygiene). Genetics have a role to play but my dentist figured 70% of the pain she dealt with would not have been necessary had politicians not made informed decisions. Apparently the issue is extremely political (research conducted in China). From my understanding most dentists want fluoride back...and they’re the experts!

  • Lucie R. - 4 weeks ago

    Water fluoration , will not compensate for, Halloween candy, sugary drinks habit, addiction to sugar and teeth damages from it.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment