Québec, le 7 novembre 2003
Conseil
municipal de Québec
À
l’attention de Madame Anne Bourget
Hôtel
de ville de Québec
Madame,
Le comité exécutif de l’ACMQVQ s’adresse aux membres du Conseil
municipal pour demander la fin de la fluoration de l’eau potable à Québec.
Cette décision d’ajouter du fluorure à l’eau a été prise en 1978
dans le but de diminuer le taux de carie dentaire dans la population.
Cependant, depuis de nombreuses années, le fluorure est reconnu comme étant
un produit toxique, à peine moins dangereux que l’arsenic et le mercure et un
peu plus que le plomb, et ce même à très faible dose.
L’un des principaux promoteurs de la fluoration de l’eau au Canada,
le docteur Hardy Limeback ( Directeur du département de dentisterie préventive
à l’Université de Toronto et président de Canadian Association for Dental
Research ) s’est d’ailleurs récemment publiquement rétracté devant l’évidence
des dangers de cette pratique.
Selon nos informations, le
fluorure ajouté à l’eau potable de Québec, à raison de 1 ppm, est un acide
hexafluoro silicique. Plusieurs
experts, incluant des dentistes, doutent de l’efficacité de ce produit sur la
santé dentaire. De nombreuses études
scientifiques, étalées sur plusieurs années et à travers le monde, remettent
en question cette pratique. Nous
n’en retenons que quelques unes pour appuyer notre demande.
Ø
Une première révèle qu’à la suite de l’absorption de fluorure à
travers l’eau potable, la moitié de la dose absorbée se dépose au niveau du
squelette toute la vie durant avec des conséquences néfastes pour
l’ossature.
Ø
Une autre étude très récente démontre que le fluor s’accumule au
niveau de la glande pinéale, glande contrôlant des centaines de fonctions à
travers le corps.
Ø
99% de l’eau fluorée se retrouve dans la nature s’infiltrant ainsi
à notre insu dans la chaîne alimentaire entraînant des conséquences encore
inconnues.
La liste des
contre-indications à l’usage du fluorure pour l’être humain est très
longue et il peut sembler affolant de lire toutes les études sur le sujet.
C’est pourquoi dans le doute de l’utilité de ce produit, nous
croyons que l’abstention est encore la meilleure solution.
Étant donné que le mandat de l’ACMQVQ est de veiller au maintien de
la qualité de vie des citoyens de Québec, nous sommes réellement préoccupés
par le fait que la consommation de fluorure dans l’eau potable soit imposée
à tous les citoyens. Ceci ne représente-t-il
pas un acte de médication forcée ?
En cette année internationale de l’eau, l’occasion de poser un geste
significatif pour améliorer la qualité de l’eau à Québec s’offre à vous
et nous espérons que vous saurez répondre positivement à cette demande.
Nous vous remercions de votre bonne attention et nous sommes à votre disposition pour toute information additionnelle sur le sujet.
Ginette Beaulieu
Responsable des communications
ACMQVQ
RÉFÉRENCES
v
Conseil consultatif de l’environnement, octobre 1987.
« Avis sur la fluoration des eaux de consommation au Québec »
présenté au Ministre de l’environnement, Gouvernement du Québec, 16 pages.
v
Conseil consultatif
de l’environnement du Québec, août 1975.
« Conséquences écologiques de la fluoration de l’eau au Québec »,
préparé pour le Ministre de l’environnement, Gouvernement du Québec, 37
pages.
v
Exner, F.B. (m.d.) et
Waldbott, G.L. (m.D.), 1957. « The
American fluoridation experiment ». Edited by James Rorty, New York, 277
pages.
v
Parent, Gilles, Février
1975. « L’inconséquence de la fluoration », Les
grandes éditions du Québec inc., Montréal, 133 pages.
v
John Emsley, et al.
1981. « An unexpectedly
Strong Hydrogen Bond : ab Initio Calculation and Spectroscopic studies of
Amine-fluoride Systems », Journal of the American Chemical Society, volume
103, pp. 24-28.
v
Steven L, Edwards et
al. 1984. « The Chrystal Structure of fluoride-inhibited
cytochrome c peroxidase », Journal of Biological Chemistry, volume 259,
pp. 12984-12988.
v
H.C. Froede and I. B.
Wilson, 1985. « The Slow Rate
of Inhibition of Acetychloinesterase by Fluoride », Molecular Pharmacology,
Volume 27, pp. 630-633.
========================
DOCUMENTS JOINTS AVEC LA LETTRE
========================
Dans notre
clinique, nous avons cessé toute utilisation possible de fluor dans la bouche
de nos patients. Nous les encourageons également à choisir un dentifrice
sans fluor.
Voici
nos raisons :
1.
La fluoration augmente le risque de cancer chez l’humain.
2.
Le nombre de fractures de la hanche augmente considérablement chez les
gens qui habitent des régions où l’eau est fluorée.
3.
La « fluorose dentaire » (taches crayeuses sur les dents) est
le premier signe visible d’empoisonnement au fluor et affecte 8% à 51% des
enfants qui boivent de l’eau fluorée.
4. Toutes les études à longue échéance démontrent que la fluoration ne diminue pas l’incidence de la carie.
5.
Les suppléments de fluor (comprimés, gouttes ou gels) ne diminuent pas
l’incidence de la carie. Cependant, ils causent des éruptions cutanées, des
problèmes gastro-intestinaux, des maux de tête, des faiblesses, qui toutefois,
disparaissent avec l’arrêt d’usage. Les taches de fluorose dentaire elles demeurent.
6.
Le fluor interfère au niveau du collagène qui affecte la formation de
la peau (acnée), peut engendrer une malformation des ligaments, des muscles, du
cartilage, des os (croissance de l’enfant, ostéosclérose chez l’adulte) il
affecte le quotient intellectuel et affaiblit le système immunitaire (grippes,
allergies).
7.
Les gens dont la fonction rénale est déficiente, doivent éviter le
fluor. Il est en grande partie éliminé
par les reins et pourrait être accumulé à ce
niveau.
8.
Le fluor modifie la forme des protéines de l’organisme, permettant au
système immunitaire « d’attaquer » ses propres structures et
donner naissance à des maladies.
(Références
bibliographiques à l’endos)
Bibliographie :
1-
Carcinogenesis, volume 9, pages 2279-2284
Sodium
Fluoride : individual animal tumor pathology table (rats), Battelle
Memorial
Institue, February 23, 1989.
Sodium
Fluoride : individual animal tumor pathology table (mice), Battelle
Memorial
Institute, April 11, 1989.
Lancet
36, page 737 (1990)
Review
of Fluoride : Benefits and Risks, U.S. Public Health Service,
Pages
F1-F7 (1991)
Fluride
volume 26, pages 83-96 (1992)
A
Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and the
Incidence
of Osteosarcoma amoung Young Males, New Jersey Department
Of
Health, November 1992.
Fluoride, the Aging Factor, Health Action Press, pages 72-90 (1993).
2-
Journal of the American Medical Association volume 264, pp. 500-502
(1990)
Journal of the American Medical Association volume 266, pp. 513-514 (1991)
Journal
of the American Medical Association volume 268, pp. 746-748 (1992)
Journal
of the American Medical Association volume 273, pp. 775-776 (1995)
3-
Science volume 217, pages 26-30 (1982)
Journal
of the American Dental Association volume 108, pages 56-59 (1984)
Journal
of Public Health Dentistry volume 46, pages 184-187 (1986)
Health
Effects of Ingested Fluoride, National Research Council, page 37 (1993)
4-
Community Health Studies volume 11, pages 85-90 (1987)
Journal of the Canadian Dental Association volume 53, pages 763-765 (1987)
Fluoride volume 23, pages 55-67 (1990).
5-
Letter from Frank R. Fazzari, Chief, Prescription Drug Compliance, Food
and
Drug Administration to New Jersey Assemblyman John Kelly (June 8, 1993)
Preventing
tooth Decay : Results from a Four-Year National Study,
Robert
Wood-Johnson Foundation, Special Report number 2/1983, 18 pages.
Community
Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, volume 19, pages 88-92 (1991)
1992 Physicians’Desk Referance, page 2273.
6- John Yiamouyiannis Ph. D. risk/Benefits 199
7-
John Yiamouyiannis Ph. D. risk/Benefits 1991
8-
Dr John Emsley et Associés (King’s College of London 1981)
========================
Le
Dr. Limeback s'excuse d'avoir fait la promotion du fluor
http://www.citizenshealth.org/limeback.htm
:
"Prominent
researcher apologizes for pushing fluoride
by
Barry Forbes, The Tribune, Mesa, AZ Sunday, December 5, 1999 --REFERENCE
(Reproduced
With Permission)
"Why'd
you do it, Doc? Why'd you toss the fluoride folks overboard?"
I
had just tracked down Dr.
Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D in Biochemistry, D.D.S., head of the Department of
Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, and president of the
Canadian Association for Dental Research.
(Whew.)
Dr.
Limeback is Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the
country's primary promoter of the controversial additive. In a surprising
newsmaker interview this past April, Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change of
heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste,"
he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be
made up using Toronto tap water. Never."
Why,
I wondered? What could have caused such a powerful paradigm shift?
"It's
been building up for a couple of years," Limeback told me during a recent
telephone interview. "But certainly the crowning blow was the realization
that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a
century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay,
Florida smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the
super-phosphate fertilizer industry."
"Tragically,"
he continued, "that means we're not just dumping toxic fluoride into our
drinking water. We're also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly
elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the
cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are
catastrophic." A recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr.
Limeback's worst fears. "Residents of cities that fluoridate have double
the fluoride In their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse,
we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human
bones."
Skeletal
fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in
bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms?
"Mottled
and brittle teeth," Dr. Limeback told me. "In Canada we are now
spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That
includes my own practice."
One
of the most obvious living experiments today, Dr. Limeback believes, is a
proof-positive comparison between any two Canadian cities. "Here in Toronto
we've been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver ˆ which has never
fluoridated ˆ has a cavity rate lower than Toronto's."
And,
he pointed out, cavity rates are low all across the industrialized world
including Europe, which is 98% fluoride free. Low because of improved standards
of living, less refined sugar, regular dental checkups, flossing and frequent
brushing. Now less than 2 cavities per child Canada-wide, he said.
"I
don't get it, Doc. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) ran a puff
piece all across America saying the stuff was better than sliced bread. What's
the story?"
"Unfortunately,"
he replied, "the CDC is basing its position on data that is 50 years old,
and questionable at best. Absolutely no one has done research on fluorosilicates,
which is the junk they're dumping into the drinking water."
"On
the other hand," he added, "the evidence against systemic fluoride
in-take continues to pour in."
"But
Doc, the dentists."
"I
have absolutely no training in toxicity," he stated firmly. "Your
well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of misinformation from
public health and the dental association. Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong."
Last
week, Dr. Hardy Limeback addressed his faculty and students at the University of
Toronto, Department of Dentistry. In a poignant, memorable meeting, he
apologized to those gathered before him.
"Speaking
as the head of preventive dentistry, I told them that I had unintentionally
mislead my colleagues and my students. For the past 15 years, I had refused to
study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning
our children was the furthest thing from my mind."
"The
truth," he confessed to me, "was a bitter pill to swallow. But swallow
it I did."
South
of the border, the paradigm shift has yet to dawn. After half a century of
delusion, the CDC, American Dental Association and Public Health stubbornly and
skillfully continue to manipulate public opinion in favor of fluoridation.
Meantime,
study after study is delivering the death knell of the deadly toxin. Sure,
fluoridation will be around for a long time yet, but ultimately its supporters
need to ready the life rafts. The poisonous waters of doubt and confusion are
bound to get choppier.
"Are
lawsuits inevitable?" I asked the good doctor. "Remember tobacco,"
was his short, succinct reply.
Welcome,
Dr. Hardy Limeback, to the far side of the fluoride equation.
It's
lonely over here, but in our society loneliness and truth frequently travel hand
in hand.
Thank
you for the undeniable courage of your convictions."
========================
99%
de l'eau fluorée se retrouve dans la nature,
"Now
where does all of that fluoride go? Amazingly enough, upto half of all water
leaving pumping stations (and this is not exclusive to AW) can be lost in
leakages and accidents. Only between 0.1 and 1 percent of water is actually
drunk by consumers. This means at least 99% of supplied water enters the environment in some
way, from leakages, washing, bathing, watering lawns etc. Further more, no
environmental studies have been carried out to measure the effects of this toxic
torrent.
"DO
NOT let this chemical [hexafluorosilicic acid - 'fluoride'] enter the
environment. Dispose of this product as hazardous waste. Consult the supplier to
see if he will take it back."
- Rhone Poulenc Safety Data Sheet for Hexafluorosilicic Acid."
RHÔNE-POULENC
RORER Rhône-Poulenc Rorer (RPR) is a global pharmaceutical company dedicated to
improving human health. The Company ... http://www.sro.org/srolow/sponsorpagerh.htm
========================
Le
fluor s'accumule au niveau de la glande pinéale
"Référence
scientifique : Caries Res 2001;35:125-128
Title
: Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland
Author(s):
J. Luke
Info
: Figures: 2; Tables: 0; References: 32
Keywords
: Calcium; Distribution; Fluoride; Human pineal gland; Hydroxyapatite; Pineal
concretions
Abstract
: The purpose was to discover whether fluoride (F) accumulates in the aged
human pineal gland. The aims were to determine (a) F-concentrations of the
pineal gland (wet), corresponding muscle (wet) and bone (ash); (b)
calcium-concentration of the pineal. Pineal, muscle and bone were dissected from
11 aged cadavers and assayed for F using the HMDS-facilitated diffusion,
F-ion-specific electrode method. Pineal calcium was determined using atomic
absorption spectroscopy. Pineal and muscle contained 297+/-257 and 0.5+/-0.4 mg
F/kg wet weight, respectively; bone contained 2,037+/-1,095 mg F/kg ash weight.
The pineal contained 16,000+/-11,070 mg Ca/kg wet weight. There was a positive
correlation between pineal F and pineal Ca (r = 0.73, p<0.02) but no
correlation between pineal F and bone F. By old age, the pineal gland has
readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone"
Fluoride
and the Pineal Gland
Another
concern is fluoride's effect on the pineal gland, a small but powerful structure
located between the right and left hemispheres of the brain. The pineal gland
secretes melatonin, a hormone that affects such functions as sleep cycles, jet
lag, hybernation in animals, immunity, and the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke,
Ph.D., found that the pineal gland attracts fluoride, and, thereby, interferes
with melatonin's functions.(180) In autopsy studies she discovered extremely
high concentrations of fluoride in the gland, averaging 9,000 ppm, going up to
21,000 ppm in some cases.(181) And in an accompanying study of fluoride-treated
Mongolian gerbils (the animal considered most favorable for studying effects on
the pineal gland) Luke found lower levels of melatonin and earlier onset of
puberty.