The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

#~ _ 8 + WATERLOO CHRONICLE + Wedreesday, March 26, 2006 jormston@ waterloochronicle.ca Peter WINKLER PUBLISHER Bob VRBANAC EDITOR ext. 229 editorial@waterloochronicle.ca sports@ waterloochronicle.ca Cireg MACDONALD REPORTER ext. 215 edmacdonald@ waterloochronicle.ca SALES REPRESENTATIVES Norma CYCA ext. 223 neyca@waterloochronicle.ca Jackie HAMILTON ext. 228 jhamilton@waterloochronicle.ca Carly GIBBS ext. 222 cgibbs @waterloochronicle.ca EDITORIAL Gerry MATTICE ext. 230 RETAIL SALES MANAGER Jennifer ORMSTON REPORTER ext. 203 sales @ waterloochronicle.ca Brenda SOKOLOWSKI ext. 202 bsokolowski @waterloochronicle.ca CLASSIFIEED > 519â€"895â€"5230 CIRCULATION 519â€"886â€"2830 ext. 213 Canadian Publications Mail Sales Publication Agreement Number 40050478 International Standard Serial Numâ€" ber ASSN 0832â€"3410 Audited Circulation: 31,292 The Waterloo Chronicle is published each Wednesday by Metroland Media Group Ltd. ONTARIO PRESS COUNCIL The Waterloo Chronicle is a member of The Ontario Press Council, which considers complaints against memâ€" ber newspapers. Any complaint about news, opinions advertising or conduct should first be taken to the newspaper. Unresolved complaints can be brought to: Ontario Press Council, 2 Carlton Street, Suite 1706, Toronto, ON., MSB 113. COPYRIGHT The contents of this newspaper are protected by copyright and may be used only for personal nonâ€"commerâ€" cial purposes. All other rights are reserved and commercial use is proâ€" hibited. To make any use of this material you must first obtain the permission of the owner of the copyâ€" right. For further information conâ€" tact Bob Vrbanac, Editor, Waterloo Chronicle, 279 Weber St. N., Suite 20, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3H8. ADVERTISING LETTERS POLICY Letters to the editor must contain the writer‘s full name, signature, address and telephone number. Addresses and telephone numbers are used only for verification purposes and will not be published. Names will not be withâ€" held. We reserve the right to edit, conâ€" dense or reject any contribution for brevity or legal purposes. Letters may be submitted by fax to 519â€"826â€"9383 or by email to editorial@waterâ€" loochronicle.ca or by mail or delivâ€" ered to Waterloo Chranicle, 279 Weber St. N., Suite 20, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3H8. WATERLOO CHRONICLE 279 Weber St. N., Suite 20 Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3H8 519â€"886â€"2830 Fax: 519â€"886â€"9383 www waterloochronicle.ca FAX $19â€"886â€"9383 EMAIL wtttie That‘s what the Ontario Municipal Board decided last week when it allowed Waterloo‘s Louisette Lanteigne‘s appeal of the subdivision plan, which could add up to 1,600 homes on the Waterloo moraine, to go to a hearing. In February lawyers for the developer, the city and the region brought a notice of dismissal of that appeal to the OMB hoping to get her case thrown out before it could be heard by the quasiâ€"judicial planning body. Despite what you think about the relative merits of a local environmentalist‘s appeal of a controversial land development on the west side of the city, she deserves to be heard. The lawyer for the developer claimed the appeal was vekatious and a delaying tactic. Those are strong words to use against the sole appeallant who could have been on the hook for damages from the developers if it was found that she had no case. It was alsoâ€"troubling because Lanteigne had made a significant financial sacrifice to get her case to that stage, and it would have been even more devastating if it was tossed out without a hearing. Fortunately, Peter Atcheson decided that there were enough questions raised by the appeal to have it heard at a full hearing. At the least, in his judgment he wrote that the conflicting evidence of the experts involved with the case should be heard in the adversarial atmosphere of an OMB hearing where they could be properly crossâ€"examâ€" ined by opposing counsel. This has been an emotional and exhausting debate for the City of Waterloo and the people involved. Before it reaches its ultimate conclusion is should have every, and all avenues of appeal exhausted. This will satisfy both supporters and critics that everyâ€" thing possible was done to make sure this development met the environmental and planning standards of our time. It also upholds the democratic right of people to be heard when they disagree with their governments. Everyone deserves a fair hearing CHRONICLE EDITORIA! VIEWPOINT number of very simple Aquestions have gone unanswered over the past year. A local dentist with over 20â€"years experience tells me dentists just recently learned that the product that is added to our drinking water is industrial toxic waste, (HFSA), a byproduct of the pesticide industry. This siliâ€" coâ€"fluoride would be considâ€" ered air pollution if released into the atmosphere. What exactly is being added to our water? I have been told it is "industrial toxic waste." No one has told me that this is not a fact. The citizens of Waterloo, are expected to ingest it for our livers and kidneys to filâ€" ter. This seems strange to me. Added to our drinking water it ends up in our rivers and lakes, which is a further complication. HFSA is not the same chemical naturally found in the drinking water of some communities; it is not what Waterloo‘s citizens voted for 25 years ago. I have been unable to find any study or document provâ€" ing that HFSA is safe and effective for all of us to ingest. Dentists say that fluoâ€" ride works topically, that is, when applied to the surface of the teeth. Then why subâ€" ject the entire body to it? Do we know that it does not adversely affect our livâ€" ers, kidneys, thyroid or other organs? We can have a conâ€" trolled, topical application in the dentist‘s chair if we want to, or we can use toothpaste More questions about fluoride WB that has fluoride in it. Cauâ€" tion though: do not swallow. Interesting! â€" â€" If fluoride is a drug, where is the prescription? What are the limits? Are we aware of them and who monitors these limits? The citizens of Waterloo are getting "Auoride" in an unknown dose whether they want it or not. It is remarkâ€" able to note that hydrofluoâ€" rosilicic acid has never been approved by the proper authorities as a food additive or as a medication. HFSA contains trace amount of arsenic and lead. This has not been disputed. HFSA is now known to indiâ€" rectly add lead to our drinkâ€" ing water by chemically releasing lead from lead pipes, lead solder and leaded brass fixtures in our homes. How can this community justify adding these toxins to our drinking water? The Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act bans these items from ANGELA being added to the drinking water. Are we not in contraâ€" vention of this act? The Ministry of the Enviâ€" ronment and Health Canada are concerned enough about HFSA that they are conductâ€" ing a review of the practice. If the MOE recommends discontinuation of water fluoridation, what would the citizens of Waterloo think about our inactivity on this issue? I suggest that we turn off the tap until after the study is complete, just as Niagara Region has done. Thunder Bay has decided not to fluoridate until the study is complete. I suggest that the citizens of Waterloo require the region to immediately stop adding this industrial waste to our drinking water and spend the money on effecâ€" tive dentalâ€"care programs. We need to attack the real causes of cavities â€" diet, poor oral hygiene and lack of dental examination. Two other communities have quietly turned it off and it is their legal and ethical right to do so. _A final question. What does it cost to add these chemicals to our water? Less than one per cent of the water that is treated for us goes into our mouths at a cost of $300,000 a year. Is this a good way to spend taxpayâ€" ers‘ hard earned dollars? Undoubtedly, there would be money left over to put into an infrastructure savings fund to fix our potâ€" holes and aging pipes.