Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
CONTRIBUTION · 13th November 2011
This question is to all Mayoral and Councillor candidates:

What is your position on fluoridation of city water?
education then referendum
Comment by Dave Pernarowski on 15th November 2011
Do you want the City of Terrace to continue adding fluoride to its water supply?

Yes 1251 – 64%
No 717 – 36%

On November 19th, 2005 the City of Terrace put out the above question to referendum. As you can see, the majority of people in the community said YES to continued fluoridation of the water supply.

I question how well this referendum was managed. Was enough information provided to the community prior to going to referendum? Were other communities consulted? Why has the number of communities adding fluoride to their water supply decreased over the years?

When our family lived in Thompson, MB, where they do not add fluoride to their water, our dentist suggested fluoride drops for the kids when they were young and their teeth were growing. I think people should have a choice to introduce fluoride to their lives if they want it. Let’s provide all the stats and information available on adding fluoride to community drinking water and then plan for a referendum on the issue.
No to flouride
Comment by Mike Ross on 14th November 2011
Once again, the scientific evidence is conflicting, (both for the benefits and the adverse effects).
The chemical companies have done their job well but I would be in favour of eliminating flouride from our water suppy and let people self-administer (toothpaste) flouride if they felt the need.
Population control through mass-medication
Comment by A. L. on 13th November 2011
Back in 2003 the city council voted to "delay" a referendum concerning the fluoridation of the city water supply. Councilor David Hull said "it's just not a good use of city money" referring to the referendum itself.

This is baffling to me, because as councilor Lynne Christiansen pointed out, if fluoridation ends it would save the city around $24,000 a year.

The referendum was said to cost $6,000. Hull stated the city would only save money if voters reject fluoridation. "Are you willing to gamble $6,000 on that?"

I don't know anyone that supports water fluoridation. Most people are not even aware of it. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia both believed water fluoridation/"mass-medication" was key to population control.

If you read the article below, you will see that in 2003 David Hull said that fluoridation "is a longtime cumulative effect" and posed no immediate health risks.

I'll share this quote with you: (if you want to know more I encourage you to do your own research)
"Any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." -Charles E. Perkins, Chemist.

One year. That's one year on the Terrace water and you will never be the same.

David Hull however, goes on to say that it would "make more sense" to delay the referendum for a year, or maybe even until 2005.

Hmmm.. what happened in 2005?

Well, that's when the city spent $1.1 million to buy the Co-Op from Don Hull & Sons.
But a referendum about poison in our drinking water goes ignored.

Now, maybe it seems far-fetched, but how are David Hull and Don Hull related?
Is there something more sinister going on in the back rooms of the City Council ?

Now the City is buying an experimental test car from BC Hydro for $17,000. ( )
Seriously, why? Where was the referendum on buying test cars?

It's been 8 years since the city voted to delay that referendum,
In that time, we could have saved $186,000 (that is subtracting the $6,000 for the referendum)

Here is the article explaining how the City voted to not let us vote about our water :
Question for mayor merv by mbw
Comment by Merv Ritchie on 13th November 2011
Merv, what is your psoition on fluoridation of city water?

Thanks, you asked this question once before as a comment on my, "No Holds Barred" writing.

Here is the answer I gave then and it is the same today.

If there was a secret ballot and our representatives were able to investigate this issue on their own, they would invariably vote against poisoning our water system.

The floride issue is a non starter. It is simply a foolish action and an entire waste of money.

There is nothing, not a shred of evidence suggesting this is a good practice.