Archive | Government Waste RSS feed for this section

Dr. Paul Connett on the Top 7 Reasons to End Fluoride – Toronto

23 Jun

On Monday, April 22, 2013, I held an event at the North York Civic Centre hosting Dr. Paul Connett Ph.D on the artificial fluoridation of Toronto’s water supply. You can see the full video presentation on YouTube here.

Dr. Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. After teaching for 23 years in Canton NY at St. Lawrence University, he retired from his full professorship in chemistry in May 2006.  Dr. Connett was kind enough to grace Toronto with his presence before travelling on April 23rd to testify against the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid (fluoride) to the water supply in various municipalities in Quebec. Quebec currently has one of the lowest rates of artificially fluoridated water in Canada at just 6.4% with their largest city Montreal, having never fluoridated their water supply.

After another incredibly informative presentation, Dr. Connett reviewed the top 7 reasons why the artificial fluoridation of any water supply is absurd, immoral, unethical, and goes against one of our most basic human rights which is our right to informed consent.

Here are the top 7 reasons to end the artificial fluoridation of any water supply as presented by Dr. Paul Connett:

1) The Results of the Largest Study Ever Conducted on Fluoride and Tooth Decay

In 1991, the largest study ever conducted on tooth decay was performed by Brunelle and Carlos at a cost of $3,600,000 examining over 39,000 children in 84 fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. The results showed that out of the 128 tooth surfaces in the human mouth, 0.6/1 tooth surface may have been saved through fluoride ingestion. 

Under true informed consent where you the patient makes the choice of ingesting a medication based on the potential risk/reward analysis provided by your doctor, would you choose to ingest fluoride as a medication every single day for the rest of your life to save 0.6 of a single tooth surface in your mouth?

2) Fluoride Works Topically

In 1999, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA conducted a study with 30 scientists to review the literature on the intake of fluoride. The CDC, although a strong advocate for the addition of hydrofluorosilic acid to the water supply, determined “… laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children” citing the peer reviewed study from JD Featherstone.

The CDC themselves say that fluoride works topically, yet in the very same paper, they then advocate continuing the addition of fluoride to the water supply so that the population continues to ingest it… Something seem wrong here?

3) Population Overexposed to Toxic Fluoride

In 2006 the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science (NRC) released a 450 page review of fluoride toxicity titled Fluoride in Drinking Water – A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. The results of the 3 year study showed that fluoride at 4 ppm (4mg/liter of water) placed the target population at increased risk of teeth, bone and joint damage. This lead the NRC to recommend that the “safe” level of fluoride in drinking water be dropped.

4) Increased Risk of Bone Cancer

In 2001 a study was produced by Bassin et al.  from Harvard University “Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma.” The results showed that there was a statistically high correlation between increased fluoride intake in young males, and increased incidence of bone cancer later in life. The same finding was not true for females however Bassin acknowledged that more study was required either way.

The interesting point to acknowledge is that Bassin found a link between fluoride and osteosarcoma using the same data analysed from a previous study (McGuire, Douglass, et al. 1995) where no link was found. How could two separate researchers find different results when analysing the same data? The fact that Professor Douglass, who found no link to osteosarcoma from fluoride ingestion, also worked for Colgate and donated millions of dollars to Harvard, brought forward enough controversy for even Fox News to question.

5) Fluoride May Have Nothing At All to Do With Tooth Decay

In 2009 Warren et al. conducted a complete study on total fluoride exposure as it relates to tooth decay and dental fluorosis. Their findings suggested that “achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.” (Warren 2009).

As Health Canada’s dangerously outdated endorsement of fluoride is based on studies as old as the 1930’s studies conducted by Dr. H. Trendley Dean who observed a correlation between higher intakes of fluoride, less tooth decay, yet more dental fluorosis, the question remains… Would you risk increased dental fluorosis for decreased tooth decay?

6) 41% of the Population Now Has Dental Fluorosis

Dental fluorosis is a mottling and discolouration of the teeth and can be a very debilitating disease. Increased fluoride ingestion has been directly linked to this disease and was observed as far back as 1931 causing a “browning” of the teeth.

In 2010, the CDC reported that dental fluorosis affected 41% of the population as the following graph shows:

CDC 2010 - Fluorosis Levels USA

Note that an alarming 3.6% of the general US population are now diagnosed as having “moderate or severe” dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is highly problematic especially for those who consume a large amount of fluoridated water compared to the general population such as fire-fighters, athletes, diabetics etc… Hence the controversy of dose vs. dosage. Although the dose of fluoride added to water at 1 ppm is very accurate, the dosage is different for everyone depending on how much water they consume.

7) Fluoride Reduces IQ in Children

In India and China, where naturally occurring levels of fluoride are very high in some areas, numerous studies are being conducted to understand the effect of this poison on the human mind and body. The most concerning of which was the recently published 2012 Harvard School of Public Health study Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The results were repulsive.

Zhang et al. showed that those children who were exposed to high levels of fluoridation exhibited significantly lower IQs supporting the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride on children’s neurodevelopment.

This is an extremely important blog post for me this evening ladies and gentlemen. As I have gotten older in life I have come to realize certain facts about North American culture that are far different from the picture painted in our public schools.

One is that we are told to believe many things that simply aren’t true. I was one of the people who blindly followed the herd and said “fluoride is good for my teeth.” With time however, and with my own research, I have found that this could not be further from the truth. When we are told to blindly believe an idea without asking where that idea came from, and what scientific studies were conducted to back those ideas up, we become our own worst enemies.

Another point I have realized is that there are many people out there who know the truth however disturbing it may be, and yet, have allowed themselves to forget about it and merely brush the truth aside.

Don’t do that.

It is never too late to do the right thing. It is never too late to live, love and and to be human. To love people you don’t even know. To help humanity be stronger than we have ever been.

I challenge anyone to refute the studies cited above. I challenge any so-called public health figure to debate Dr. Connett on national television.

And the next time you think that fluoride is good for you ask yourself one question… Says who?

www.fluoridealert.org

Advertisements

How to Solve Toronto’s Traffic Congestion Problems: Top 5 Reasons Why We Need Subways

12 Jun

Toronto is growing fast. There are now over 55,000 condo units being built around the GTA landing it the number one spot in North America for new high rise construction. With massive growth happening in the outskirts as well, more people flock into and out of the city on a daily basis. So what does this mean for roads?

Things are about to get a whole lot worse.

If over 200 condos worth of new homes are to be built, the surrounding transit system has to handle the onslaught of new riders. Either public transit needs to cope with the new demand or 55,000 homes worth of new cars are about to riddle the streets. The hairy reality we face however is that our roads are already congested and our transit system so outdated that Toronto City Council is now forced to deal with years of neglect and pathetic transit planning.

This leaves only one option to solve Toronto`s transit problems:

Build subways.

Done.

We need subways, and we need them immediately.

Look at subway maps around the world:

New York Subway

New York Subway Map

Frankfurt Subway

Frankfurt Subway Map

Tokyo Subway

Tokyo Subway Map

Toronto Subway

Toronto Subway Map

Does something seem wrong here?

On the international subway scale, Toronto is so barbaric… so out of touch with reality it is scary to think that politicians like Karen Stintz are in charge of something as important as transit infrastructure. Tell me something Karen, after the LRT is built and traffic builds up again to the point of deadlock, will subways suddenly make sense to you?

Here are the top 5 reasons why Toronto needs subways:

1) Time

As we get older we realize with more urgency perhaps that time is our most valuable resource. Having more time means having less stress, being more productive, and generally being happier. The simple expansion, for example, of the Sheppard line from Yonge to Downsview would result in millions of hours of individual time being saved over many years. The current set-up, where people have to take the Finch line south, all the way around and back North to Downsview, is not only ridiculous, it is a complete waste of time… Your time! One simple extension could save the average person over one hour a day resulting in giving them months of their life back. More subways means more time.

2) Safety

More subways below-ground means less TTC roadblock buses and LRT aboveground. As the roads become ever more congested the rate of car accidents also increases. As discussed in my previous blog post Why Speed Doesn’t Kill: Bad Drivers a Result of NO Government Training, it is even more concerning that Toronto has no formal driver training process leaving new drivers and immigrants to learn the rules of the road from people who may not be qualified. These very same people then drive alongside our bus drivers who are in charge of protecting the lives of their daily commuters.

Dealing with untrained, sometimes unlicensed drivers, puts bus drivers at increased accident risk.  This makes bus drivers just as susceptible to stress, carelessness or road rage as the rest of us. The impact of  bus driver carelessness can be felt as in this article posted by the Toronto Sun regarding the untimely death of a 43 year old Toronto woman killed on a TTC bus in 2011.

3) Efficiency

Subways are extremely efficient. They run directly off the power grid and transport a large number of people per watt of energy used. New methods are being continuously developed to make them even more efficient and harness the wasted power they produce. Since subways are underground, they are shielded from the majority of our harsh Canadian winters which is even more important in the long-run. Since they do not interfere with above ground road traffic, subways are also more efficient for drivers.

4) No Other Viable Alternative

The problem with Light Rail Transit (LRT) is simple… When the roads are congested to the point of standstill traffic, building a rail-road line right smack down the centre of it isn’t exactly going to make things speed up now is it? Since construction has to happen aboveground, the inconvenience to daily commuters is astonishing. Point and case as with the development of the new York Region LRT scam line from Warden to Yonge. Traffic has become disastrous along Highway 7 and its neighbouring streets as massive construction has been taking place since 2009 and may last until 2020! Notice how the construction crews have stopped at all the major bridges? Just wait until the “relocation” of those bridges begins. That is not only going to become a project in extreme patience for the everyday commuter, the estimated $2-3 BILLION budget will be easily burned.

As Toronto begs to expand its subways, York Region spends billions on an LRT while their buses are empty.

5) Cost

Yes subways are expensive… in the beginning. However other than the initial upfront costs of construction, the benefits begin to add up immediately after opening:

  • Saving people time.
  • Reduced aboveground traffic and accidents.
  • Energy efficiency.
  • Reduced impact on drivers.
  • Ease of travel.
  • Speed.
  • Convenience.
  • Stress reduction.

If a massive subway project were to begin in Toronto, the money spent would immediately be recirculated throughout the city. The all-Canadian subway workforce would need food, shelter, entertainment, transportation and more. “Made in Canada” regulations would benefit hundreds of Canadian businesses who supplied the expansion. What “cost” is there really when these points are factored into a subway expansion plan? When people have more time to pursue happiness on a daily basis?

Not only should the upfront costs of Toronto’s subway expansion be calculated, the resulting boom in the local economy and the freedom they create for the people must be taken into account so that 15 years into the future and beyond, our great City of Toronto is ready to handle the further population explosion and increasing need for speedy transit.

The World is our Teacher.

10 Reasons Why The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) Should Be Demolished Immediately

22 Dec

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) is the single largest purchaser of alcohol in the World. This is an easy feat when you have a government monopoly annihilating any competition and a population of 13,000,000 to supply. However, like any monopoly, this comes with a host of inefficiencies which end up costing you, the consumer and taxpayer. Here are the top 10 reasons why the LCBO should be demolished immediately:

     1) Time – Do you enjoy having to drive to a completely separate location or locations to purchase your alcohol? Having to purchase wine, spirits and beer could mean two separate trips which are usually followed by a third to purchase accompanying mixers or snacks. This contrasts the US where you can make all alcohol related purchases in your local grocery store.

     2) Environmental Waste – The carbon footprint of Ontario’s 124 million annual LCBO transactions, where consumers are forced to drive to two separate locations, is massive. The LCBO’s very own Carbon Calculator will show you exactly what your carbon footprint is… Here is mine (Notice the largest impact?):

LCBO Carbon Footprint Calculation

     3) Inconvenience – Refer back to point number 1.

     4) Hyperinflated Salaries – In light of the recent report on Federal Bureaucrats costing us taxpayers almost $44 billion a year, it is no surprise that the average full-time LCBO salary is over$100,000 as well. Taking into account the wages and salaries expense of $424,177,000 per year, this money would be instantly saved by being absorbed into existing free-market infrastructure.

     5) Oversight (Or Lack Thereof) – When government institutions watch over other government institutions, it can be argued that this may lead to a lack of proper rules enforcement. When the government itself benefits from any form of collusion, this results in a catch 22 scenario. For example, although brought to the public’s attention in 2011 that the LCBO was found to be overcharging us taxpayers by colluding with suppliers to artificially markup prices, where was the punishment? What corrective actions have been taken since?

     6) Variety – Is there a special type of alcohol you like, but cannot get? You can thank your government for that. Centralized purchasing power has eliminated the possibility of obtaining special alcohol brands of wine, beer and spirits. The World is a big place, but it gets a lot smaller when a single government purchasing authority makes all the decisions. Centralized purchasing power also leads to a much larger chance of collusion as larger contracts invite larger perks.

     7) Cost – If privatized, the cost of alcohol may or may not go down. Applied government taxes could largely affect the overall cost of a bottle of alcohol when sold at the store level. What would most certainly go down however, is government expenses:

  • The cost of running and maintaining the over 600 LCBO locations would be instantly absorbed into existing business infrastructure, saving almost half a billion dollars in costs and expenses.
  • A further $110 million dollars would be saved in administration expenses, although a large portion of this would be required to allow for the transition to privatization and eventual monitoring of retail outlets similar to tobacco (A further $424 million would also be saved in salaries and expenses as mentioned earlier).
  • The almost $90,000,000 in annual warehouse expenses would be completely abolished.
  • Finally, if there is only one coffee shop in town, would it really be necessary to market that coffee shop to patrons as with the LCBO’s printed Food and Drink magazine?

     8) Concentration of Power – Centralized purchasing power is not just limited to alcohol itself, it extends to the outsourcing of special projects like the $49 million spent on capital improvements to its stores in 2010/11 which would be saved immediately if the LCBO were dismantled. Once again, large purchasing power and lack of government oversight leads to a larger chance of collusion… Who is watching over how these contracts are awarded?

     9) Inefficiencies You can be the judge of whether you believe government run institutions are efficient, however the biggest difference between private and crown corporations is that private corporations always have more skin in the game. If you run your own business and lose sales or do not cut costs, you go bankrupt and lose your house while the government gets bailed out by taxpayers. In 2012, it was revealed that the LCBO, the single largest purchaser of alcohol in the world, pays too much for the alcohol they purchase. If it was your business, would you not continuously negotiate with your suppliers?

     10) Value of a Monopoly – As a businessman myself, I do not and cannot agree to a perpetual monopoly under any circumstance. In my opinion, it is not the role of the government to play God with a product or service. The role of the government is to protect consumers and taxpayers from any potential harm of the free market economy by taxing and regulating what the free market does, not participating in the free market itself.

Do you disagree? Please let me know your thoughts and ask yourself one question the next time you drive to a separate location to purchase alcohol… Is this really necessary?

Oh yeah, and why isn’t there a tax breakdown on your receipt when you go to the LCBO?