The city of Calgary could potentially reintroduce fluoride into the municipal water supply.
A municipal referendum on October 18th drew 62% voter support on the question of reintroducing fluoride, with 38% opposing it. The results of the referendum are non-binding, as the final decision rests with the city council, most of whom have either voiced their support or assented to reintroduce water fluoridation. 13 out of 15 of the mostly newly elected city council members are either in favour of reintroducing fluoride into the water supply, or would follow the majority plebiscite, according to a Postmedia poll.
Previously, Calgary had rejected water fluoridation in referendums in 1957, 1961, and 1971 and accepted it in 1989. The program was implemented for 20 years before the city council removed it in 2011. Some councillors cited the high cost of replacing the ageing infrastructure as a reason for this.
Although there are some marginal benefits regarding applying a modest amount of fluoride to the teeth regarding dental health, there is no known beneficial amount of fluoride for a human to ingest.
Simply put, the human body does not need fluoride in it to function properly or be healthy. In fact, too much fluoride exposure often leads to fluorosis, a condition that discolours and potentially damages teeth in young children.
Despite alarming concerns and unresolved questions about its effects on human health, including long-term neurological damage, and stunted development of children, many professionals across Canada and the West advocate for water fluoridation.
Does the notion of “experts” making medical decisions for others for their “own good” sound familiar? If anything, given the amount of fluoride people already unknowingly inhale or consume on a daily basis, they should be treating water fluoridation with extreme caution.
Moreover, the project is estimated to cost approximately $30,000,000 CAD, with annual costs of up to $4 million. The money required for this project, of course, comes from that of the municipal taxpayers, who could see their taxes and living expenses rise as a result. So, not only would it reintroduce a chemical compound known to be harmful to the human body into drinking water, but it would have residents pay to do so. If re-enacted, the implementation of the infrastructure and program could take anywhere from 18 months to 2 years.
There is an argument that the cost of fluoridation in water supplies reduces cavities and thus would outweigh any dental expenditures that may occur because of lack of fluoridation, put forth by some such as Ward 6 Councillor Richard Pootmans. This irresponsibly disregards other potential adverse health effects, as well as removing the ability for individuals to make that choice for themselves.
Regardless of the final decision of city council, it is disturbing that this is a debate to be held at all.
There has long been a strong push from mainstream media, hand-in-hand with the politicians that they favour, to accept reducing the autonomy of people for “the greater good”. Fluoridation, vaccine coercion, a “climate emergency”: supporters of causes such as these often hold a false sense of superiority, which is ultimately predicated on vindictiveness towards those who don’t share the same vision. Don’t question The Science™.
