Conversations with a Mayoral Candidate

These are some of the conversations I have been having with local mayoral candidate Chris Spearman. If anyone has any comments, I’d like to hear what you have to say. Also, if you’d like to contact him yourself and tell him what you think, that would be even better.

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate shared a link.

August 22

Here is what Alberta Health says about fluoridation
https://myhealth.alberta.ca/alberta/Pages/Water-fluoridation-in-alberta.aspx
Everyone should educate themselves on this topic and get credible information from both sides of the issue.

https://myhealth.alberta.ca/alberta/Pages/Water-fluoridation-in-alberta.aspx

myhealth.alberta.ca

Martin Van Popta Mr. Spearman, I agree that people should educate themselves and find credible evidence. The trouble is that the site you have provided is filled with large claims only. No evidence has been provided. If we are supposed to study credible evidence from the pro-fluoride side, then can you please provide it?

Like · Reply · 2 · August 23 at 8:00am

Martin Van Popta All that being said the real issue here is an ethical one, not a scientific one. Is your Lethbridge really going to be a place where the majority makes health decisions for the minority? There are more effective and far more efficient ways of delivering fluoride to those who want to be fluoridated. Even if you believe the claim that fluoride is nutrient, what gives 51 percent of people the right to force it on 49 (which is what happened when the last referendum took place).

Like · Reply · 2 · August 23 at 8:02am · Edited

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate Here is another article which offers some balanced perspective on the subjecthttp://www.skepdic.com/fluoridation

fluoridation - The Skeptic's Dictionary

www.skepdic.com

The fluoridation of water supplies to municipalities in the U.S. is done to prevent tooth decay.

Like · Reply · August 24 at 2:19pm · Edited

Martin Van Popta This article implies that there is scientific evidence to support the benefits of fluoridation. Will somebody please provide some substance to back up these claims? It is very easy to mock everyone who stands against fluoride by calling them fearmongerers and luddites, but there has to be some evidence.

Like · 2 · August 24 at 6:57pm

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate I make no apologies. If it is a health issue, let us see legitimate evidence. If it is an issue of democratic rights, I would expect those opposed to fluoride to ensure that a referendum is conducted at the same time as the municipal election. A referendum could be conducted cost effectively at the same time when voters are going to the polls anyway.

Like · August 24 at 7:07pm · Edited

Martin Van Popta Also, Mr. Spearman, may I ask you how you would define which issues are voted on and which issues should be left to individual choice? The article that you shared seems to imply that every community should have the "freedom" to force a majority vote on the minority. While I understand the value of democracy when deciding many political and economic issues, don't you think a line is crossed when citizens are being forced to consume a substance they believe is toxic to their families?

Like · 2 · August 24 at 7:07pm

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate Yes. Most issues would be decided by your elected council. This is a health issue. Most councillors are not qualified to decide on matters of public health, including me. If you force me to, I will decide based on the recommendations of those who are qualified, such as the local health authority, the National Dental Association, Alberta Health etc. I have the background and the experience to decide on matters of taxation, utility rates, capital planning, economic development, transportation, urban development and social services. That is why I feel qualified to serve and there are many in this community who will attest to that. I am not a one issue candidate. I won't be bullied into supporting anyone's views on a single issue.

Like · August 24 at 7:15pm

Martin Van Popta If you would like to see non-partisan double-blind studies on the harmful effects of fluoride I can provide them easily. Can you provide the same in defence of fluoridation? As for democratic rights, they should never supersede personal freedoms.

Like · August 24 at 7:16pm

Martin Van Popta May I ask how speaking with a mayoral candidate about an issue that concerns me, a citizen, is now considered bullying? I am confused. If you don't want to speak with me, please make that clear.

Like · August 24 at 7:18pm

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate I have committed to investigate the issue. I am open to discussing it with anyone who has an open mind. May I ask what your professional qualifications are? Or are your views just your personal opinion? I have begun discussing this issue with knowledgeable and qualified people. Materials have been provided to me for review by those who oppose fluoride. I am in no rush to make a decision and have every right to delay my decision until my platform is made public on nomination day.

Like · August 24 at 7:23pm

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate I am going to take the time to investigate the fluoride issue thoroughly. Until that time, I will continue to post articles, which others are free to react and comment on.

Like · August 24 at 7:24pm

Martin Van Popta I respect your right to make your platform decisions at your leisure. You had posted a link that you thought had a balanced view. I thought that since you had published it on a public forum that you were willing to discuss the issue with citizens. As for my qualifications, I have none. I am just a citizen talking to a politician. I would warn you, though, that health professionals have been wrong about many health issues, and have made many poor decisions. DDT, asbestos, cigarettes, leaded gasoline, thalidomide, and Freon were all once considered harmless. So as you say, keep an open mind.

Like · August 24 at 7:31pm

Martin Van Popta Please be assured that I am not attempting to bully you, I am only asking questions. I would be very willing to answer any questions you have for me.

Like · August 24 at 7:34pm

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate Everyone in elected office makes decisions based on the best information available. Your elected representatives would be foolish to make decisions on public health without referencing credible sources.

Like · August 24 at 7:38pm

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate I don't agree Jeannie. If most want fluoridation after hearing the evidence from both sides, you will have to accept that.

Like · August 24 at 7:47pm · Edited

Martin Van Popta Agreed! We have credible sources for you to examine. To my knowledge, there is not a single non-industry funded double blind placebo test in existence that can prove the benefits of water fluoridation. If I am wrong about this, please share the studies you find with me.

Like · August 24 at 7:47pm

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate I will ask. Please provide your information for verification. Thanks !!!

Like · August 24 at 7:49pm

Martin Van Popta I should be able to provide a list of studies by tomorrow. I don't have the file on me presently. I appreciate you taking the time to chat.

Like · August 24 at 7:50pm

Chris Spearman - Mayoral Candidate You're welcome. I have lots to read so take your time assembling information. Next Friday would be fine so I can read next weekend and find a source for verification. Thanks !!!

Like · August 24 at 7:52pm

Martin Van Popta http://www.enviro.ie/...

http://www.enviro.ie/Human%20Toxicity,%20Environmental%20Impact%20and%20Legal%20Implications%20of%20

www.enviro.ie

Like · Remove Preview · 1 · August 25 at 8:36am

Martin Van Popta https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30umO7s4Zj0

Fluoride 101: A Response to Dr. Wu

Dr. Jay Levy, a practicing dentist in Portland, exposes the demonstrably false c...See More

Like · Remove Preview · 1 · August 25 at 8:37am

Martin Van Popta http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html#sfluorosis

A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride

www.slweb.org

b) Studies investigating association between water-fluoride levels higher than fluoridated water (2 to 5 ppm) & bone/hip fracture.

Like · Remove Preview · 1 · August 25 at 8:39am

Martin Van Popta I understand that the first resource is lengthy and you probably don't have time to read it. It would be good if you could make it available to your health professionals. The video I have provided was created by a dentist in Portland. He demonstrates how inaccurate and misleading information from health professionals can be. Alberta Health Services has demonstrated similar behaviour. I don't understand the motive, but they seem to have an irrational desire to defend water fluoridation, even when ethics and the science don't support it. The video is short (only 12 minutes long), so please take the time to view it. The last link is an extensive list of studies and reports on water fluoridation and its many effects on human and environmental well-being.

Like · 1 · August 25 at 8:55am

(I was using my wife's FB account (Jeannie) which is why Mr. Spearman refers to me as Jeannie)

Science or Ethics?

Elections are looming closer, here in Lethbridge. We are all working hard to educate councillors and citizens. Often the conversations we have become bogged down with differing ideas about how fluoride affects our health. However, many other conversations (or heated arguments if you prefer) are spent hammering out whether or not governing bodies have the right to make medical decisions on our behalf. 

What do you think? Should the decision to keep/remove fluoride be based on medical science or ethics?

Does anyone have any questions about water fluoridation, or comments on my previous posts? Does anyone have any ideas that could help us fight this battle here in Lethbridge? Let's put our heads together and end this madness!

Letter to the Editor

I wrote this letter to the editor recently and it was published. It was in response response to Gordon Manville's letter to the editor, wherein he insisted on the necessity of fluoride for maintaining healthy teeth. 

"I have only been part of the anti-fluoride battle for a short time, and I am already tired of “science”. This is not a scientific disagreement. This is a battle between right and wrong, Gordon, between good and evil. It is a war between freedom and oppression.

 I find it extremely contradictory that you express great concern about public dental health, while making a living selling slurpees and every imaginable tooth destroying confection at your convenience store. If people have the right to destroy their teeth with highly acidic, dangerously sugary garbage, then why don’t they have the freedom to destroy their teeth by refusing fluoride? If you have the interests of others, it certainly doesn’t show by your actions.

However, I would like to step outside the box for a moment and make a bold claim. I simply don’t care how “well educated” or how “recognized” anybody is. Well known, prominent doctors have been making terrible public health decisions in the name of “cutting edge” science for over a century. DDT, asbestos, cigarettes, tetra-ethyl lead, CFC’s, Freon, arsenic, and thousands of pharmaceutical concoctions have been approved as harmless, or even beneficial, by our “institutes of research”. I just don’t care. I don’t trust scientists because they don’t have a clean rap sheet.

I am certain of this; it is unethical to force your public health ideals down my throat. I don’t want them, and I should have a choice. Your science is worthless drivel. If I don’t want fluoridation, I should have the freedom to opt out. If you want fluoride poisoning, then take some pills or shoot it in your veins. Make your choices and I will make mine."

I am tired of people suggesting that the most effective way to improve dental health is to ingest a harmful drug, when it is much more effective to eat whole foods and drink clean water. But, we do all have choices to make. RIGHT?

Here is the letter my friend Sean sent to the editor at the Lethbridge Herald in response to Dr. Suttorp's article. He brings up some very valid points that I encourage everyone to bring before their local councillors. 

"Dr. Suttorp, our Medical Officer of Health, has written a column entitled “Fluoride decision should be based on facts,” but all she has provided is propaganda riddled with error and misinformation.

Did Lethbridge “first introduce fluoride” in 1961 and remove it in 1965? No. Fluoridation began in 1974 after four rejections by plebiscites.

Contrary to Dr. Suttorp’s benign description, the fluoride used in our water supply isn’t “naturally occurring.” The City’s website says it’s hydrofluorosilicic acid - a toxic waste product scrubbed from the smokestacks of the fertilizer industry.

“Bait and switch” is what Dr. Suttorp has done by quoting studies on naturally occurring fluoride to support fluoridation with a Class D-1 hazardous waste.

Of course municipal water fluoridation is cheap! We are recycling industry’s toxic waste, which they would otherwise be required to dispose of at great cost.

Dr. Suttorp’s “estimate” that every $1 spent on fluoridation prevents $38 in dental treatment costs has been shown to be unsubstantiated. The study quoted includes an estimate of lost income of parents taking a child to the dentist while neglecting substantial costs of fluoridation itself.

Shall we take the endorsement of Health Canada as proof of fluoride’s safety or effectiveness? Neither Health Canada nor any of the agencies Dr. Suttorp cites has EVER tested hydrofluorosilicic acid, either for safety or efficacy in preventing cavities. And they’ve been dead wrong many times before.

Dr. Suttorp claims it’s her “responsibility to monitor the health of Albertans.”

What is she doing to monitor the dosage of this drug in the individuals of Lethbridge?

How does she justify administering a drug without our informed consent? Should any medical doctor get away with such an illegality and invasion of individual rights?

How can she administer the correct dose when one citizen drinks two glasses of water per day and another eight? What about the age, gender and general health of the individual?

I agree people must have access to ALL the information in order to form educated opinions. So let’s have the facts, indeed.

Dr. Suttorp, how about truly fulfilling your responsibility to us?

Sean Fife"

If enough of us cry out, we will be heard.

Our Medical Officer, Dr. Vivien Suttorp, submitted an article for publication in the Lethbridge Herald last week. It was angering. Apparently, everyone who opposes poisoning the water supply is a misinformed lobbyist. Is anyone else comfortable with how effortless it is for our medical authorities to lie to us and ignore their responsibilities?

We are all losing our health and it doesn't even seem like they are losing sleep. Come on people, let’s be angry about this. If somebody snuck into your home and slipped poison into your kid’s apple juice, wouldn't you be outraged? Wouldn't you seek justice? How is this any different? This is not the time to be silent.

I sent this letter to the editor at the Herald. I don’t know if it will be published so I am posting it here. I will also post the letter my friend sent in. If any of you would like to be represented here as well, then please speak up. I want everyone’s voice to be heard.

To the editor-

                                   

“It is an indisputable fact that too much fluoride can cause bodily harm or death. Why hasn't this limit been defined by our Medical Officer, Dr. Vivien Suttorp? She reassures us that our health is being monitored, but she can’t possibly know how much fluoride we are being exposed to. There is fluoride in the toothpaste. There is fluoride in the mouthwash. It’s at the dentist and in prescription drugs. It’s in processed foods and even in fresh vegetables. Why do we need it forced into our drinking and bathing water as well?

Every person has a different body, with different sensitivities and needs. What if I drink more water than most people or have to shower more often? I don’t think our Health Officer has ever stopped to consider both sides, and yet she accuses those who do of being misinformed.

 The truth is, I have considered the information and I don’t want fluoride in my family’s drinking water. Unfortunately, I can’t make the best decision for my own wellness, like she suggests, because no one is giving me a choice.”

Martin VanPopta

I've just spent some time reading the script of an on-line question period that took place in December 2012. Dr. Cynthia Morrow was being questioned about the validity and efficacy of public water fluoridation. It is clear that she had no practical understanding of how fluoride supposedly works, or at least was unwilling to share it. She claimed that all of the anti-fluoride studies are “non-generalizable”, and that the studies she was citing were peer-reviewed science. She provided the following links to pro-fluoride “studies” that, she said, defend fluoridation effectively.

 http://www.thecommunityguide.org/oral/fluoridation.html 

http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf

If you felt like you were chasing your tail reading this literature, its okay; so did I. Fortunately, I did find this buried treasure. Apparently the pro-fluoride movement shares this story with pride.

During the 1930s, Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental officer of the U.S. Public Health Service, and his associates conducted classic epidemiological studies on the

geographic distribution and severity of fluorosis in the United States. These early studies were aimed at evaluating how high the fluoride levels in water could be before visible, severe dental fluorosis occurred. By 1936, Dean and his staff had made the critical discovery that fluoride levels of up to 1.0 part per million (ppm) in the drinking water did not cause the more severe forms of dental fluorosis.  Dean additionally noted a correlation between fluoride levels in the water and reduced incidence of dental decay.

So, are we supposed to be set at ease by this kind of science? They carefully calculated exactly how much fluoride it would take to cause severe dental fluorosis, and then set the safe limit slightly below that amount. Aren't they concerned if people suffer from mild dental fluorosis (which I do), or other internal bodily harm?

What is even more alarming is that Dr. Ada Bennett, Medical Officer of Health, Alberta South Zone, recently suggested, in a local radio interview, that Lethbridge citizens would not be at risk until we had 10-15 times more fluoride in the water. That would be 10 to 15 ppm. According to Dr. Dean, at 10-15 ppm everybody in Lethbridge would be suffering from very severe dental fluorosis.

Why are we expected to believe Dr. Bennett? She might wear a white coat, but these are not white lies.

While I was reading Doug Kaupp’s 2011 Fluoride Report to Lethbridge City Council, the last paragraph really stuck out to me. He was discussing steps that he would suggest if the fluoride use were to be discontinued. He writes:

“In order to receive favourable pricing, the utility purchases the fluoride chemical [hydrofluorosilicic acid] in bulk, delivered by tanker truck. Therefore, we have storage facilities large enough that these shipments can be received with minimum storage levels to manage the risk of running out [what a tragedy that would be]. The amount of HFS acid storage on site can range from 3-20 tonnes. This represents between one and five months supply. The operational preference would be to avoid the cost of chemical disposal by continuing fluoridation of the water long enough to consume the chemical inventory.”

Does this upset any of you? If as citizens we decide that fluoride is in fact poisonous, our General Manager of Water And Wastewater would prefer to continue diluting the toxic waste into our water, rather than pay the chemical disposal cost. I called SENA Waste Services in Swan Hills to determine the cost of such a disposal. The cost for disposing of “municipal water grade” fluoride started at 1 dollar per kilogram, depending on, get this, the levels of other toxic contaminants.

So, according to Kaupp’s report, the Lethbridge fluoride storage facility has a 20 tonne capacity, which represents about a five month supply. From this, I estimate our yearly fluoride usage at 48,000 kilograms. That means, that every year, we are fluoridating our water with toxic waste that would otherwise cost nearly $50,000 to dispose of. It is easy to see why the fertilizer manufacturers are thrilled to sell us this stuff, instead of footing the disposal bill themselves.

Come on everyone, let’s give our heads a shake. This is total nonsense, and it’s high time for it to stop.

How The Fluoride Was Turned On

Mainstream media and medicines try to give us the impression that public water fluoridation was approved by an overwhelming majority in the past. They insist that the issue is not worth revisiting, and that we are wasting our politicians’ time. I would like to share with you the stubborn and crooked politics that introduced fluoride into Lethbridge water.

This information was retrieved from a report to Lethbridge City Council submitted by Doug Kaupp, the General Manager of Water and Wastewater.

How the fluoride was turned on:
In 1952, the Alberta government amended the Public Health Act and thereby dictated that decisions to fluoridate in Alberta be made by a local plebiscite. The Act required a two-thirds majority vote for implementation. This requirement was reduced to a simple majority vote by another amendment to the act in 1966.

After four previously unsuccessful attempts, the City of Lethbridge held its fifth fluoride plebiscite in 1974 in conjunction with the fall municipal election. With a slight majority of citizens voting in favour of fluoridation, bylaw 3236 authorizing fluoridation of the communal water supply was passed.

Lethbridge Fluoridation Plebiscites
Date             Bylaw  For   Against Rejected Required
June 26, 1957    2230   38.49% 60.92%  0.59%   66.7%
June 7, 1961     2384   52.86% 46.68%  0.46%   66.7%
October 13, 1965 2602   42.61% 53.77%  3.62%   66.7%
October 18, 1967 2711   48.32% 50.05%  1.63%   50%
October 16, 1974 3236   50.26% 46.78%  2.96%   50%
 
 
We can see here that it took five attempts and an amendment to the Public Health Act, to finally begin poisoning Lethbridge. So you can imagine my irritation when local pro-fluoride advocates insist that we give up. They attempted three times and rejected Lethbridge’s better judgment. Determined, they lobbied to have the bar lowered, tried again and still failed. Then finally, against the odds, they allegedly won by a miserable one quarter percent, and here we are today. 
This does not seem like fair play to me. What do you think? I hope that we don’t have to be twice as stubborn to overturn this atrocity. Although, I assure you, we are prepared to be!

This past Monday, January 7, the Lethbridge Herald printed an article about Fluoride Free Lethbridge’s efforts to persuade City Council to remove fluoride from the public drinking water (http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/front-page-news/brushing-up-on-fluoride-1713.html). The Herald also ran an online poll to determine if Lethbridge citizens wanted City Council to revisit the science and ethics of fluoridation.

I was very disappointed with how the whole thing turned out. The online article was followed by a heated discussion between pro and anti-fluoridation advocates. The thread remained available for viewing, even though many of the pro-fluoride advocates were behaving slanderously. Last night Mark Benson and Dr. Bob Dickson, a general practitioner from Calgary, made very effective cases against fluoride. By about 9:30 this morning, the entire thread was removed and the article was closed for commenting.

The poll turned out worse. The percentages this morning were showing that most voters believed the City Council should reconsider fluoridation. About 11:00 this morning, somebody (or several people) noticed that they could vote as many times as they pleased, if they deleted their internet browsers’ “cookies” after voting. They flooded the poll with “cheater” votes and threw off the percentages. When a Lethbridge Herald employee was questioned about it, he confirmed that the voting pattern was very irregular (too many votes in a small time period), and grounds for suspicion.

I want this issue dealt with fairly. Let’s not pick each other apart. Let’s pick the issue of fluoridation apart. Let’s talk about this openly. No fraudulent accusations, no falsified polls. Let’s clear the air and have a polite and factual discussion about this issue.

I have personally been harmed by fluoride. I have mild dental fluorosis. I have to say, it makes me angry. It makes me angry that no one will take responsibility for the harm that has been done to me. No one gave me a choice. No one is given a choice. We are being medicated without consent.

Why is such a controversial drug being prescribed universally? No one asked me how old I am. Or what my body mass is. Nobody diagnosed me. Nobody authorized a prescription for me. Nobody asked if I had a history of kidney problems, or an acute allergy to fluoride. Nobody asked if I wanted to be medicated with hydrofluorosilicic acid. I have had no right or opportunity to accept or reject this medication. So why is it happening?

There are no other instances where medicating without consent is permitted. Why is there an exception made for an industrial waste product to be prescribed to every single person in Lethbridge, without any concern for their individual medical status?

Do you want to be medicated? If you do, don’t you want to be asked first, or at least informed? Even pro-fluoride advocates admit that fluoride is only effective when in contact with the tooth (ie. Toothpaste, fluoride rinses). So what good is it doing me swallowed? Does one drink sunscreen for skin protection? So why not supply free fluoridated toothpaste to all those who want to be medicated, instead of forcing drugs on unwilling citizens?

We don’t dump vitamins or enzyme supplements into the water supply, just because we know they can be beneficial. We know we couldn’t control dosage or who it’s being administered to. Doctors would be outraged at such an irresponsible medical practice, just like they should be outraged about forced fluoridation. So why is the Canadian Medical Association supporting water fluoridation against its own basic principles and the law?

This is a violation of human rights, and it has to stop!