FluorideAction.ca is a Saskatoon group committed to bringing awareness to the facts that the fluoride program may not be as safe as we have been led to believe and that we should have the right to choose in light of recent findings highlighting the potential dangers of ingesting toxic waste fluoride compounds.
The Fluoride used in Saskatoon’s water is NOT regulated by Health Canada. We do not use pharmaceutical grade Sodium Fluoride, rather sodium Hexafluorosilicic acid.
Only a doctor can prescribe a medication and even then the patient must have informed consent.
<< check out this video, its very well done from natural news.
We are based in Saskatoon and are working toward bringing freedom to choose the safest and purest water possible. In Saskatoon Fluoride is not needed.
There is safe natural fluoride in Saskatoon’s water, the addition of toxic waste fluoride to the Saskatchewan River is a hazard for the environment and a health risk. Think of any medication, some people may have adverse reactions that may be serious. Some may even die, think of the Vioxx story. Here is was a drug company that ”knowingly misrepresented or failed to disclose” important information. There are millions of people taking fluoride, and this is a very reactive agent – it interferes with all biochemical processes in some way, even cellular enzyme production is altered. We would not even know if some child died due fluoride reactions. No one is responsible. So we have to be – this is an absurd, outdated practice, that primarily benefits the producers of this toxic waste (silico fluoride) and puts our health at risk.
So what are these new findings.. well first some basic facts on fluoride
There is no benefit to ingesting it.
It was discovered in the 90’s that fluoride’s benefits are topical, fluoridated toothpaste witll do just fine.
The American Dental Assosciation and Health Canada both warn against giving infants and young children under the age of 6 months fluoridated water due to the increased risk of dental fluorosis.
Areas that have removed fluoride have shown no discernable change in the rate of dental cavities.These facts alone suggest the justification for mass fluoridation is suspect.
We are exposed to fluoride from multiple sources and dosage is difficult to ascertain. Fluoride accumulates in tissue and the environment we have little idea what the long term consequences are.
On the back of any toothpaste containing fluoride is a warning against swallowing.
People with kidney problems are at a greater risk of developing complications from fluoride toxicity than the general population.
There are many peer reviewed studies showing that there are indeed risks associated with fluoride in drinking water, including behavioural changes in mice (hyper activity)
Fluoride levles are elevated in waterways and river systems in areas that practice fluoridation which can interfere with sensitive plants and fish spawning.
Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland of the brain to levels that impair its function.
Fluoride interferes with enzyme production, and iodine utilization.
It is actually a highly toxic substance with side effects that occur in other places in the body. We really shouldn’t be asking dentists about fluoride’s effects on the body, they are generally poorly informed and the pharmacology and toxicology of fluoride is not really their speciality. Its like asking a car mechanic the physics behind the internal combustion engine. It might be surprising to know that there are over 3600 professionals demanding that consumers of fluoride know the risks to the rest of the body, before they consume it in water. A good place to start is the professional perspectives video or the EPA scientists union article for good info on the risks of fluoride and what scientists and toxicologists have discovered recently.
“the implementation of this fluoride
program is illegal and violates The Safe
Drinking Water Act.” EPA Scientists Union.
Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Fluorine is a highly reactive element, that is it combines readily with whatever is available, Chemically, fluorine is one of the strongest oxidizing agents known, and is similar to, but even more reactive and dangerous than, elemental chlorine. The high affinity for electrons of fluorine leads it to direct reactions with all other elements in which the reaction has been attempted, except for helium, neon and argon.
So Fluorine is always attached to some other molecule it does not exist in isolation for very long here on earth. In fact when it does, it is because human beings have induced it. It is most commonly found attached to magnesium or calcium in water as in calcium fluoride, CaF2. It is called fluorite in this arrangement and the mineral is used to increase the fluidity of slags used in smelting aluminium.
In fact Alcoa Aluminium is a big producer of industrial waste derived fluorides as is phosphate fertilizer manufacturing.
This brings us to unpleasant truth number one. What is in our water is literally toxic waste, and it is not as pure as it should be, it contains contaminants like lead and arsenic. It is known as Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture, also known as hexafluorosilicic acid. From it we get Sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) a powder or very fine crystal that is easier to ship. It is also known as sodium silicofluoride and that is what is in Saskatoon’s Water. Its Toxic Waste, it might be good for preventing cavities but it is still toxic waste.
There are actually some questions about its effectiveness as a cavity preventative. It is exaggerated, and repeated with a kind of religious zeal until it is believed as fact. The scientists at the EPA stating through their Union that they oppose fluoride and regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness.
There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.16
Fluorides benefits are from contact with the tooth, not from drinking it.
So the risks of drinking it, are in fact unnecessary, and there may be more risks than we have been led to believe.
The biggest boosters of fluoride are the companies that produce 40,000 tons of this a year in the US alone. A waste so toxic and lethal that it cannot be disposed of in water. That would be in violation of EPA guidelines, as well as Government of Canada’s Environmental Protection Act. Yet it is in our water as a medication.
Yes its confusing, however it is important to become an involved and informed citizen now more than ever!
So have a look at the videos and explore.
If you live in Saskatoon Centre, Daeran Gall – (author of this post) ran for the Green Party to bring awareness on the fluoride issue at the Provincial Level.
This is starting out to a very good web site, with simple, effective messages. You’ll see that Ottawa’s web site is quite unique and attention grabbing…
Yes, this is a great website.. and i know it will attract alot of people. There is a lot of movement happening and i see change happening. I would like to see some info about the World Water Day March.22nd. We are also planning a Yoga and Music day by the water treatment plant with Joanne Yanke June.25th. 3:00.
Should we add vitamin C, vitamin D, or calcium to our water? No.
Even though most of us are deficient in certain vitamins and minerals, it’s no reason to add it to everybody’s drinking water. We deserve pure, clean drinking water as it is a necessity of life.
So why then is it ok to add TOXIC WASTE to our drinking water??
FACT: Fluoride is poison. It is the active substance in many anti-depressants, as well as rat poison.
Thank you so much for raising awareness of this injustice!!
Question everything. It’s common sense
I would like you all to read the facts on fluoride as published by the Canadian Dental Association before making your decision on the safety of fluoride. One quote that I want to put to your attention is ” There are no health risks associated with water fluoridation with the exception of dental fluorosis, scientific studies have not found any credible link between water fluoridation and adverse health effects.” Maybe we should listen to the professionals on this one.
Clearly it depends on what studies you read and what ‘professional’ you are talking to. I would like to see one credible study that shows the addition of waste stream sodium silicofluoride (never been approved for human consumption) is absolutely safe. If there is any doubt than citizens would rather trust their own judgement. They said Trans fats were safe, that Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are a family of fluorine-containing chemicals used to make materials stain and stick resistant, that BPA was safe. I think i would rather trust the professionals at the EPA on this one. What do dentists know about toxicology? Apparently not much. The Scientists at the EPA won’t have it in their water, why should I?
Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Here is only one of many studies that question fluorides safety.
Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995)
If there are no questions regarding fluoride’s safety, why are there questions..
This IS a highly toxic substance, and we really have not done enough studies to say that chronic low dose exposures are safe, and there ARE studies that are credible that question whether there is a safe limit at all. I have a question, why is the CDA so biased on this. This is an unapproved toxic substance, you would think the bias would be precautionary. See: Kidney Foundation Admits, that Kidney Patients Should be Notified of Potential Risk from Fluorides and Fluoridated Drinking Water.
There is a ton of research that supports what’s being said here. I don’t think it’s a good idea to listen to an organization (dental associations) that has an interest in promoting fluoride.
The following study looked at the incidence of fluoridosis in children in the United States:
http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/articlerender.cgi?accid=PMC1253719&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population receives drinking water from municipalities that add fluoride to their water systems to prevent dental caries [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2002]. The CDC hails fluoridation of drinking water as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century (CDC 1999). The first Surgeon General’s report on oral health in the United States credits fluoridation for dramatically lowering caries rates. Several studies have shown caries reduction of up to 60% after fluoridation [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 2000a].
Although the efficacy of drinking-water fluoridation is well accepted by the scientific community and policy makers, the benefits are not without consequence. Ingestion of fluoride during the formative years of a child’s enamel development can cause dental fluorosis—a condition marked by permanent, often pronounced staining of adult teeth. Reports of fluorosis prevalence in North American children range widely depending on public water fluoridation status (Clark 1994; Mascarenhas 2000; Riordan and Banks 1991; Tabari et al. 2000). In the National Survey of Dental Caries in U.S. school children (1986–1987), 22% of children examined had fluorosis (Brunelle 1989). In 1998, 69% of children 7–11 years of age examined in a suburban Boston pediatric practice were found to have fluorosis (Morgan et al. 1998). Children from a fluoridated community in North Carolina showed a prevalence of 78% with fluorosis (Lalumandier and Rozier 1995). In nonfluoridated communities, fluorosis prevalence reported in a number of studies conducted during 1990–2000 ranged from 3 to 45% (Clark 1994; Mascarenhas 2000; Riordan and Banks 1991; Tabari et al. 2000).
Several studies point to other sources of fluoride besides fluoridated drinking water (e.g., fluoride toothpaste, fluoride supplements, infant formula and beverages produced with fluoridated water, food grown in soil containing fluoride or irrigated with fluoridated water, and cow’s milk from livestock raised on fluoride-containing water and feed, and soil) that contribute to overall fluoride intake and therefore may contribute to dental fluorosis (Fomon et al. 2000; Jackson et al. 2002; Levy 1994; Levy et al. 2001; Pendrys and Stamm 1990).
Pathway A: ingestion of drinking water.
The U.S. Public Health Service sets optimal drinking water fluoride levels based on geographic temperature bands and corresponding water consumption rates (Lalumandier and Jones 1999). The recommended fluoride concentration in temperate zones is 1 ppm, or 1 mg/L. A recent study conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that measured fluoride content of nationally representative municipal water samples from 24 consolidated metropolitan statistical areas in the United States revealed that either water is fluoridated and contains approximately 1 mg/L of fluoride or it is not fluoridated with undetectable fluoride concentration (Miller-Ihli et al. 2003). The USDA study found that approximately 40% of the water samples were fluoridated with a mean concentration of 1.01 ± 0.15 mg/L. We assumed that the water in non-fluoridated areas does not contain any fluoride.
The use of bottled water as the primary source of drinking water has increased in the United States. The American Dental Association (ADA) recently called for labeling of fluoride concentrations on bottled water because of increased use of bottled water not only as a drinking water source but also in preparation of infant formulas and various foods. Bartels et al. (2000) examined fluoride concentrations of five commercially available bottled water products. The results indicated that although there were significant differences in fluoride concentrations among different brands and between different batches from the same brand, all products had fluoride concentrations lower than the ADA-accepted standard for optimally fluoridated water (i.e., 0.7–1.2 mg/L dependent on the average maximum daily air temperature of an area). Because widespread use of bottled water is a recent phenomenon, there are limited data to ascertain how bottled water intake is affecting children’s teeth. Our intake/risk estimates for infants and children consuming non-fluoridated tap water would most likely be equivalent to intake/risk estimates of those consuming bottled water as their drinking water source because most bottled water in the United States is currently not fluoridated. However, this may change in the future because of pressure from consumer groups and federal/state regulatory agencies.
Pathway B: ingestion of soft drinks and fruit juices.
The ingestion of soft drinks and commercially prepared fruit juices has more than doubled in the last 25 years (Levy 1994). Because these beverages are usually prepared with fluoridated water, they can be a significant source of fluoride. Pang et al. (1992) reported the fluoride content of sodas, juices, punches, tea, and Gatorade purchased in North Carolina. Fluoride levels were highly variable, ranging from < 0.1 to 6.7 mg/L. We used the weighted average of these reported concentrations (0.76 mg/L) in calculating the EDI for this pathway.
Pathway C: consumption of infant formula.
Infant formula processed with fluoridated water may be a significant source of fluoride in infants. In 1979, because of the concern about fluoride intake in infants, formula manufacturers voluntarily agreed to lower the concentration of fluoride in their products (Fomon et al. 2000; Levy 1994). However, fluoridated water used to reconstitute or dilute powdered or concentrated preparations remains a concern. An average concentration of 0.65 mg/kg fluoride is used in the EDI calculation. This concentration was derived based on a survey of fluoride concentrations in ready-to-use formula (mean, 0.23 mg/kg fluoride), concentrated liquid (mean, 0.6 mg/kg fluoride), and powdered concentrate (1.13 mg/kg fluoride) sold in retail stores in the United States (ATSDR 2001; Dabeka and McKenzie 1987). The intake rate of infant formula was estimated from feeding recommendations by Behrman and Vaughn (2000).
Pathway D: ingestion of cow’s milk.
Cows ingesting fluoridated water or feed processed with fluoridated water produce milk containing fluoride. The mean fluoride concentration of 0.041 mg/kg (range, 0.007–0.086 mg/kg) reported in a Canadian study (Dabeka and McKenzie 1987) that surveyed fluoride concentrations in 68 samples of milk sold in retail stores across Canadian provinces was used in this analysis.
Human breast milk contains very low levels of fluoride (0.004 mg/L in nonfluoridated and 0.01 mg/L in fluoridated areas) even when intake by the mother is high (Fomon et al. 2000; Levy 1994). Moreover, the percentage of exclusively breast-fed infants at 6 months of age in the United States was only 22% in 1995 (Ryan 1997). For these reasons, only formula-fed infants are included in this analysis. Exclusively breast-fed infants will have a much lower average daily fluoride intake for the duration of the breast-feeding period than will formula-fed infants.
Pathway E: consumption of food.
Dabeka and McKenzie (1995) determined fluoride concentrations in individual food items and food composites in various categories (milk and dairy products, meat and poultry, soups, bakery goods and cereals, vegetables, fruits and fruit juices, fats and oils, sugar and candies, beverages, and other miscellaneous items) purchased in Winnipeg, Canada. Food categories with the highest mean fluoride levels were fish (2.118 mg/kg), soups (0.606 mg/kg), and beverages (1.148 mg/kg). The mean fluoride concentration in all samples, including milk, various beverages and fruit juices, and tap water, was 0.325 mg/kg, ranging from 0.011 to 4.970 mg/kg. Using these data, we estimated the mean fluoride concentration of 0.262 and 0.29 mg/kg fluoride in foods potentially consumed by infants and children, respectively. This estimate does not include milk, beverages and fruit juices, and tap water because these are treated separately in our analysis. For infants, certain food items were excluded from their diet (e.g., cold cuts, lunch meat, cured meats, honey), and fluoride exposure due to food consumption was limited to 8 months, starting at 4 months of age.
Pathway F: incidental ingestion of soil.
Children inadvertently ingest soil through normal hand-to-mouth behavior. Industrial sites, hazardous waste sites containing fluoride, and soil contaminated with phosphate-containing fertilizers may have higher levels of fluoride. We used the mean fluoride concentration in soils and other surface materials in the United States (430 mg/kg; range, 10–37,000 mg/kg) (ATSDR 2001) in the calculation of the EDI for the incidental soil ingestion pathway. Because children < 1 year old are not ambulatory, the average daily fluoride intake for this pathway is calculated for children 3–5 years of age only.
Pathway G: ingestion of fluoride supplements.
Ingestion of fluoride supplements can be a major exposure pathway for some children. These supplements are prescribed to infants and children in areas that lack fluoridated public water supplies. Although several studies indicate that supplements are often prescribed inappropriately to children in fluoridated areas (Lalumandier and Rozier 1995; Pendrys and Katz 1989), we assumed that only children living in nonfluoridated areas receive supplementation. The ADA, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend supplemental fluoride intake of 0.25 and 0.5 mg/day, for children 6 months to 3 years of age and children 3–6 years of age respectively, in areas with nonfluoridated water (CDC 2001). After the recommended dosing schedule for infants, exposure was limited to 6 months for infants 90% of toothpaste sold in North America is fluoridated, many children are exposed to fluoride through incidental ingestion of toothpaste. Toothpastes specifically flavored for children have been linked with use of larger quantities of toothpaste, increasing the importance of this pathway (Levy 1994). The recommended concentration for fluoride ion in the United States is generally 1,000 mg/kg (ATSDR 2001; CDC 2001). The CTE and RME ingestion rates of toothpaste used to estimate EDI were the average (0.26 g toothpaste per brushing) and 90th percentile (0.77 g toothpaste per brushing) compiled from 11 studies (CDC 2001; Levy 1993, 1994). We assumed a brushing frequency of once daily for the CTE and three times daily for the RME. This pathway was excluded from the estimation of cumulative fluoride intake for infants (< 1 years of age) because several studies show that many in this age group do not have their teeth brushed (Levy et al. 1997; Tabari et al. 2000).
The EDI representing CTE and RME scenarios are calculated for each exposure pathway discussed above using Equation 1. Cumulative EDI of fluoride is estimated by adding EDI values for infants and children living in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas using Equations 2–5. In nonfluoridated areas, fluoride concentration in drinking water was assumed to be zero; thus, intake through ingestion of drinking water was not considered. On the other hand, it was assumed that no intake via ingestion of fluoride supplements would occur in fluoridated areas……
read more at the above linked article…
Good job on the website, it is nice to have a home base for the Fluoride Issue in Saskatoon.
Thanks for setting this website up.
Great job!
In my opinion Fluoridation should have been removed a long time ago, we are
dealing with enough chemicals as it is without adding one to our water.
Thanks for getting the movement started.
Water is a chemical.
that is for sure.. daeran at the environmant film fest this wekend we are invited to bring some material and petitions about the fluoride action.. i hope to be there in time for it so we can give out flyers.. see you saturday
“Yes its confusing but its important to become an involved and informed citizen now more than ever.”
Good site, but please correct the punctuation mistakes. Not spelling properly makes this information seem less legitimate…
thanks
true… blame it on the fluoride…lol
Great job Daeran.
Here some more studies:
[2] The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children’s intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China Yunpeng Dinga, YanhuiGaoa, Huixin Suna, Hepeng Hana, Wei Wanga, Xiaohong Ji a, Xuehui Liub, Dianjun Suna, Journal of Hazardous Materials 186 (2011) 1942–1946
[3] Effect of high Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water on Children’s Intelligence, Seraj B., , Shahrabi M., Falahzade M., Falahzade F., Akhoundi N, Journal of Dental Medicine, Summer 2006; 19(2 (47)):80-86.
[4] Chronic administration of aluminum–fluoride or sodium–fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Julie A. Varner, Karl F. Jensen, William Horvath, Robert L. Isaacson, Brain Research 784 1998. 284–298, 1997
[5] Decreased nicotinic receptors in PC12 cells and rat brains influenced by fluoride toxicity—a mechanism relating to a damage at the level in post-transcription of the receptor genes, Ke-Ren Shana, Xiao-Lan Qia, Yi-Guo Longb, Agneta Nordbergc and Zhi-Zhong Guan, Toxicology, Volume 200, Issues 2-3, 5 August 2004, Pages 169-177
[6] An Investigation of Bottled Water Use and Caries in the Mixed Dentition, Barbara Broffitt , Steven M. Levy, John J. Warren, Joseph E. Cavanaugh, J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):151-8.
[7] Prevalence of Dental Fluorosis in Fluoridated and Nonfluoridated Communities—a Preliminary Investigation, Dennis Leverett, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Volume 46, Issue 4, pages 184–187, September 1986
[8] A Prospective Study of Bone Mineral Content and Fracture in Communities with Differential Fluoride Exposure, MaryFran R. Sowers, Kathleen M. Clerk, Mary L. Jannausch, and Robert B. Wallace, 1. Am. J. Epidemiol. (1991) 133 (7): 649-660.
[9] Fluoride accumulation and bone strength in wild black-crowned night-herons, C. J. Henny and P. M. Burke, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Volume 19, Number 1, 132-137, DOI: 10.1007/BF01059821
[10] Neuro-radiology of skeletal fluorosis. Reddy DR, Prasad VS, Reddy JJ, Prasad BC. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1993 May;22(3 Suppl):493-500.
[11] Fluoride Ion Toxicity in Human Kidney Collecting Duct Cells, Cittanova, Marie-Laure MD; Lelongt, Brigitte PhD; Verpont, Marie-Christine; Geniteau-Legendre, Monique; Wahbe, Fayez MD; Prie, Dominique MD; Coriat, Pierre MD; Ronco, Pierre M. MD, Anesthesiology: February 1996 – Volume 84 – Issue 2 – pp 428-435
[12] Proteomic analysis of kidney in fluoride-treated rat, Hui Xua, Lin-Sen Hub, Ming Changb, Ling Jinga, Xiu-Yun Zhanga and Guang Sheng Li, Toxicology Letters Volume 160, Issue 1, 30 December 2005, Pages 69-75
[13] Effect of long term fluoride exposure on lipid composition in rat liver, Ya-Nan Wang, Kai-Qi Xiao, Jia-Liu Liu, Gustav Dallner, Zhi-Zhong Guan, Toxicology 146 (2000) 161–169
[14] Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland, Jennifer Luke, Caries Res 2991;35:125-128
[15] Elevation of Cyclic Guanosine 3′,5′-Monophosphate Levels in Dog Thyroid Slices Caused by Acetylcholine and Sodium Fluoride, Kamejiro Yamashita and James B. Field, November 10, 1972 The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 247, 7062-7066.
[16] Human Thyroid Adenylate Cyclase in non-toxic Goitre: sensitivity to TSH, Fluoride and Thyroid stimulating Immunoglobulins, Karine Bech and Stig Nistrup Madsen, Clinical Endocrinology (1978) 8,457466.
[17] Suppression of male reproduction in rats after exposure to sodium fluoride during early stages of development. Reddy PS. Naturwissenschaften 94(7):607-11.
Showing that the CDA does not have their facts straight and is academically dishonest.
“With the knowledge about the detrimental nature of fluoride publicly available, I believe it is the responsibility of any municipality to remove this poison from our water for the priority of genuine health for its citizens and all living creatures connected the the flow of our life giving sacred treasure. Just plain common sense.” Timothy Wachowicz Saskatoon, SK. via the Petition to Ban Fluoride
I bow down humbly in the presence of such gretaenss.
You post informative articles Just bookmarked !!!
Perfect site, i like it!
I want to post quick hello and want to say appriciate for this good article. chWyBr4x3CbxrQ
Spot on with this write-up, I really think this website needs far more consideration. I’ll most likely be once more to read much more, thanks for that info.
I commend the edifying article you stock up in your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and have my friends scrutiny up in your blog frequently.
I am so glad I found this weblog. Thank you for the facts. You make a great deal of excellent points in your article. Rated 5 stars!
Extremely good content. I basically stumbled upon an individual’s webpage together with desired that will express the fact that I have extremely liked looking through an individual’s blog site together with threads. Anyway I’ll get following an individual’s provide for together with That i intend that will read an individual’s blog site for a second time.
I love fluorideaction.ca , bookmarked for future reference
I’m from Moncton where the city is disussing the removal of fluoride. Very nice site with lots of information, here is a link to Fluoride Free Moncton as well if you would like to exchange links ~ http://fluoridefreemoncton.ca
thanks.
Does anyone know if the fluoride overhaul at the water treatment plant in Saskatoon has been completed yet? I would like to know what I am drinking. It was nice these last few months to drink water that didn’t have extra, potentially toxic fluoride added to it.
fluorideaction.ca is awsome, bookmarked!
188bet.net
Wonderful goods from you, man. I have be mindful your stuff prior to and you’re simply extremely magnificent. I really like what you have received right here, certainly like what you’re stating and the way in which through which you say it. You make it entertaining and you continue to care for to stay it wise. I can’t wait to read far more from you. That is really a tremendous web site.
I?ve learn several good stuff here. Certainly value bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much effort you put to create the sort of wonderful informative site.
I like Your Article about Fluoride Action Saskatoon Perfect just what I was looking for! .
Your site came up at my search and i’m astounded by what you have published about this topic. I’m currently expanding my inquiry and therefore cannot contribute further, nevertheless, We’ve bookmarked your site and you will be returning to keep up with any upcoming updates. Just love it and provides many thanks for tolerating my comment.
So much useful content here, fluorideaction.ca bookmarked !
Hi, great post! Thanks..
Flouridation os Saskatoon,s water was resumed on Friday, September 30th, 2011
Have you ever considered creating an ebook or guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog based on the same subjects you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my visitors would appreciate your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e mail.