Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Now Fluoride Linked To Gum Disease!

Scientists report a link between dental fluorosis and periodontal disease in the June 2007 Indian Journal of Dental Research. (1) Dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown stained and/or pitted teeth - is a visual manifestation of fluoride overdose during childhood. Dental fluorosis afflicts from 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. schoolchildren (and 40% of Irish schoolchildren), according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2) Inhabitants of the Davangere district of India were studied where natural water fluoride levels ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 parts-per-million (ppm) which is similar to fluoride levels allowed in U.S. water supplies (up to 4 ppm). The sample consisted of 1,029 subjects between 15- and 74-years-old. As the degree of dental fluorosis increased, periodontitis (advanced gum infection) increased. "The results suggest that there is a strong association of occurrence of periodontal disease in high-fluoride areas," write Vandana and Reddy. "Surprisingly, studies have not paid attention to the periodontal status in high-fluoride areas from a research perspective," the authors write. "In addition to inflammatory process, which remains common to high- and low-fluoride areas, the fluorosis-induced changes in hard and soft tissues of periodontium requires … attention to suspect fluoride as an etiological (environmental) agent for periodontal disease," the authors conclude. Two thirds of U.S. public water suppliers ( and 100% of Irish public water supplies ) purposely add fluoride chemicals (silicofluorides) in an attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.
Some U.S. communities have natural fluoride levels up to 4 ppm.. "How much longer do the American ( AND IRISH!)people have to be the guinea pigs in the U.S.'s fluoridation experiment," asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. The National Research Council advises more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, the immune deficient, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions and more. (3) Studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficits, thyroid dysfunction, kidney, tooth and bone damage. (3a) But government officials want even more studies before they condemn fluoridation. "Who will decide when fluoride's mounting risks outweigh its questionable benefits. The individual or the government?" asks Beeber. "Fluoridation leaves it in the hands of the government." "Fluoridation chemicals are in short supply these days," (5) says Beeber, "This would be a good time to gracefully bow out of water fluoridation." New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Fluoridation Doing More Harm Than Good, Studies Show

Article Date: 12 May 2007 - 1:00 PDT'

Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1) Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studies published from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention…"They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth. Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans. Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found. "Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water… [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas… Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write. Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over-fluoridated, not under-fluoridated." "There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber. Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "…after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's group. "In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report. To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water. "Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber.
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, IncPO Box 263Old Bethpage, NY

Friday, May 11, 2007

Fluoride Shortage in U.S.

Fluoride shortages abound throughout US

Friday, May 11, 2007

EVANSVILLE, INDIANA — A fluoride shortage has been reported in this city as well as other cities in the Midwest and along the East Coast, a May 11 Courier Press story reported.
In Evansville, fluoride has not been added to the water since last February, and the company that runs the city's treatment plant has not been able to get more.
The water quality manager for American Water Enterprises at Evansville, Mary Armacost, said the shortage is due to damages caused by Hurricane Katrina at fluoride processing facilities, according to the State Board of Health.
Armacost said in the story that everyone is facing the same problem, and the company has looked to many other vendors without luck. She said suppliers are no longer saying when supplies will be back to normal.
Another cause of the shortage is due to a slump in the phosphate mining industry.
Early this year, distributors in Florida were quoted as saying that fluoride had been in short supply for 18 months following the closing of one of the state's major mining companies and a production problem at another, as reported by WaterTech Online™.
The Florida distributors had also said the cost of the compound was skyrocketing due to demand and the fact that there weren't a lot of companies to produce it. A number of Florida water systems were forced to cease fluoridation earlier this year at least temporarily, due to the shortage.

Don't they realise that the fluoridation was really only for the convenience of industry anyway! If they don't produce it there is no need to dispose of the toxic waste in the public water supply. They should thank their lucky stars!

The Irish " Expert Body of Dentists" and Their Hypocrisy.

Dear Sir,
To pretend that the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public water supplies is a common naturally occurring element is highly misleading and erroneous. It is in fact a hodge-podge of chemicals, a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry! We are expected to believe the standard mantra repeated ad nauseam by the pro-fluoride lobby that 40, 50 or 60, (take your pick) years of fluoridation have proven it safe and efficacious. Why should we believe that? Well, let's have a look at some of that 50 years research, will we? York University (UK) had a review in 1999-2000 to assess the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. The Report was commissioned by the UK government who wanted to lay the anti-fluoride lobby's arguments to rest once and for all so that they could bring fluoridation into the UK en masse. The report looked at all the fluoride literature worldwide since the inception of fluoridation. Unfortunately for them and for the whole fluoride lobby, they found the following, and I quote: "We were UNABLE to discover ANY reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found SUGGESTED that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, BUT that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight DISBENEFIT to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the EXPENSE of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was POOR." My emphasis. OK, so the pro-fluoride evidence over 50 years was POOR. So we will discount it because an expert and independent and comprehensive university / government report has said so. What about since 2000? York say that up until October 2003 they still had not received any convincing research to change their minds. Nothing that I am aware of has come out in fluoride's defence since! for what the York Report REALLY said!

The WHO support which Dr O'Hickey regularly quotes was based on "over 100 studies of fluoride over 50 years". These reports and studies have been minutely examined by Philip Sutton and published in Chemical & Engineering News in 1988,and have been PROVEN to be highly suspect: No controls, no allowance for bias, 34 didnt exist, 2 studies with data from more than 1 town were listed as 6, 7 case reports in different years from the same study were listed as 14, 20 were about something else, 51 were of poor scientific quality, 4 could not be verified and the last 19 were from fluoridated countries and did not show in a scientific manner that fluoridation was efficacious! Moreover, the WHO has always stated that "the TOTAL fluoride intake of the individual MUST ALWAYS be taken into account BEFORE adding more"! Just for a start, this nation has always had tea as its main beverage, unlike the US coffee culture, and the fact that tea already contains between 6-8mg/L of naturally occurring fluoride seems to have passed all the fluoride pushers by! Ireland is SIXTH in the European caries league BEHIND non-fluoridating countries and all countries have shown a similar caries reduction curve over the last 40 years - even without fluoridation!

Please send me any links to recent health research that shows the efficacy of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water, I would love to see it. On the other hand, the last 30 years have shown major links to damage of the health of fluoridated people. How many cavities avoided justify the death through osteosarcoma of a young boy? How many suffer from hypothyroidism, kidney trouble, broken hips, Alzheimer's Disease, fluorosis, brittle bones and general illness due to the attack hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant chemicals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, phosphate) wreak on the human immune system all because someone CLAIMS this helps kids teeth? There has NEVER been a long-term health survey on a fluoridated population ANYWHERE! Rather strange, isn't that?

Caries have reduced world wide over the past 30 years and faster in some non-fluoridated countries than in fluoridated ones. So where is the PROOF that these pro-fluoride people offer? I am sick and tired of hearing the generalisations based on old and discredited "research". Wasn't it only in the 70's that the lawyers, scientists and experts who worked for the tobacco companies claimed: There is your proof that smoking does not damage ones health or cause cancer - BECAUSE two or three hundred years of smoking proves it!!! Sounds like the same argument that the fluoride lobby are trying to pass off on us. Fluoride can't hurt us BECAUSE it hasn't shown up major health problems yet! As has been said - if you don't look for it, you won't find it! People should research the issue and make themselves aware of what may turn out to be a major health calamity in the (near) future. Fluoride attacks iodine and magnesium in the body, absolutely vital nutrients, along with enzymes, the body's neuro transmitters. Give me the word of a trained toxicologist(the major discipline which was NOT represented on the Irish "Expert Body of Dentists" researches)above that of a mere dentist, who has NO overview of the whole body, any day!

In the end, decisions that have long ranging implications on health should only be made when considering ALL the evidence gathered over a period of time and not just the same tired and discredited fluoride mantra that Dr. O'Hickey repeats ad nauseam. When will Dr O'Hickey admit that HE makes a lot of money by "pushing" fluoride to countries such as South Africa, and indeed , acting as a consultant to the WHO along with Prof. O'Mullane, also on the "Expert Body of Dentists"? He has a hypocritical nerve to regularly accuse anyone in the anti-fluoride lobby of making money from the fluoride debate, as he does so himself! EUES Ireland

Thursday, May 10, 2007

There's Both Eatin' and Drinkin' In It!

Although a FAN (Fluoride Action Network) fan, I think it would be beneficial to let people know that water fluoridation is not the only type of mass medication being practiced by some governments and that salt fluoridation now affects even more people than water fluoridation does! The following article is from the Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC) Canadian website in response to a FAN article, which you can link to at the end of this posting. Fluoride for food - food for thought.

June 15, 2003
FAN’s “Swiss Cheese”
In the past few weeks we have received a flurry of mails, mainly from Europe and Canada, about the situation in Basel, Switzerland and the reports which have been circulated by the anti-fluoridation movement on this issue. It has become obvious that many anti-fluoridation campaigners are and have been misinformed.
Of particular concern to most were several bulletins by the International Fluoride Information Network (IFIN) and the present lead article on the newly revamped website by FAN, the global Fluoride Action Network. FAN distributes the IFIN bulletins, which are usually authored by Prof. Paul Connett, to other anti-fluoridation activists worldwide.
Please be informed that the lead item on the FAN website site entitled "Basel Switzerland Votes to Stop Water Fluoridation" (1) is very inaccurate, highly misleading, and has “as many holes as Swiss Cheese”.
The FAN article refers to a report by the Commission on Health and Social Issues (GSK) which led to the cessation of water fluoridation in Basel. The report was written on Feb. 26, 2003 and passed on to the Great Council on March 19, 2003. The Council voted upon the matter on April 9th, 2003. The original GSK report has been placed on-line by the GSK (2) as well as the PFPC (3).
Unfortunately, throughout the FAN article key points of the GSK report are mis-represented.
A few examples:
[1] FAN:
"In March, the GSK presented their advice to end water fluoridation in a ten page report delivered to Parliament. The two main reasons supporting their recommendation were:
COMMENT: First of all, there were THREE main reasons given by the GSK, not two. They are listed further below. But for now, let's go to the next item, allegedly reason #1:
[2] FAN:
1) Lack of evidence that water fluoridation is more effective than other, less intrusive, means of reducing tooth decay.
As noted in GSK's report:
"No study or investigation can belay clearly that water fluoridation obtains better results as a measure to reduce tooth decay than other uses of fluoride."
COMMENT: Not only is this matter not reason "1)", but the GSK report does NOT say this. The sentence above shows up under reason #3:
"No study or investigation can show plainly and clearly that water fluoridation as a measure to protect against caries can achieve better results than other measures of BASE-FLUORIDATION."
This is a VERY important difference.
Base-fluoridation ("Basisfluoridierung") describes fluoride which is taken up by the masses via the oral/intestinal tract (systemic), while "Individualfluoridierung" (individual fluoridation) means local applications via toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel, etc. Another associated term encountered in the document is the word "fl├Ąchendeckend" which means area-covering, i.e. both water fluoridation and salt fluoridation cover large population areas, thus are described as "area-covering". This is a very important aspect if we are to discuss "forced medication", but more on this later.
The fact is: what water fluoridation is being specifically compared to here is SALT fluoridation - another form of systemic fluoride intake by the masses and which is in place in virtually all of Switzerland, the first country to sell fluoridated salt in 1955, and where 85% of the population uses fluoridated salt. This aspect is clearly described in the GSK report [Point 4, Page 5].
It is hard to understand how this could have been misinterpreted as FAN’s own postings of newsarticles report on the fluoride-salt “ersatz” (4). It is further very hard to understand how an organization campaigning against systemic fluoride intake can show such ignorance.
Newspaper articles had been circulating on the Internet on this issue since March 20th, specifying the GSK position and its “political” motive - a day after the report was handed to the Great Council (i.e. Tagesblatt Bern, March 20, 2003).
[3] FAN:
"In 1999, the GSK had asked public dental clinics to investigate whether Basel had a lower rate of tooth decay than 'areas or cities with similar population structures, such as Zurich or St. Gall'. Four years later, these investigations had yet to be conducted, or if they were, the results were never presented."
COMMENT: The GSK did not ask such thing and should never be quoted as such, really. What the GSK DID ask for were studies which investigated if fluoride in water was any better than fluoride in salt, both being examples of "base- fluoridation" (Feb, 1999). Zurich and St. Gallen are BOTH fluoridated salt areas with "similar population structures", and were therefore proposed. (There are 11 unique ethnic communities). Zurich has used fluoridated salt since 1955.
NOTE: Numerous cantons in Switzerland fluoridate all salt destined for human consumption, thus fluoride is taken in from all processed foods, bakery products, in restaurants, cafeterias, canteens, etc. - in short, any food item with salt. In those areas, the daily intake of bread alone may already provide more than 1.2 mg per day of fluoride - per person (5). Such measures certainly are “forced mass-medication”, and worse than any water fluoridation, as now all foods made with such salt contain much more fluoride.
[4] FAN:
Adding to these doubts were recent findings showing that tooth decay had risen in Basel's children since 1996, coupled with an absence of any evidence showing Basel to have a lower rate of tooth decay than other Swiss cities (most of which have very low rates of tooth decay).
This is also an incorrect and misleading statement. Again the impression is created that “other Swiss cities” are “un-fluoridated”, which is entirely untrue, as discussed above. It is further untrue that most other Swiss cities have very low rates of tooth decay.
The GSK reports on the position statement given by the Director of Public Dental Clinics, who said that caries had become clearly worse between 1996 and 2001 in Basel. Especially for seven-year-olds caries occurrence had actually doubled. The GSK report states this with special emphasis ("Verdopplung!"). However, a similar situation exists in Zurich, and a similar increase is seen in this age group. From the year 1992 to 2000, caries prevalence in 7-year-olds increased by 64% in Zurich (6). (Please note that nowhere in Switzerland can there be any “fluoride deficiency”. There are extensive school-brushing programs with fluoride toothpaste, almost all people use fluoride toothpastes (w/ organic fluoride compounds), fluoridated salt is used by 85 % of the population - yet there is such an alarming increase in caries?
[5] FAN:
According to extensive data collected by the World Health Organization and various national/regional surveys, unfluoridated countries in western Europe have experienced - without exception - the same general decline in tooth decay over the past 30 to 50 years, as that experienced in the US. As a result, children today in unfluoridated countries such as Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden have as low - or even lower - levels of tooth decay as US children.
This is sheer nonsense and it boggles the mind how anyone can speak of “unfluoridated countries” here, or even attempt to compare caries rates without any apparent knowledge on fluoride exposure and intake in these countries.
If the Netherlands are “unfluoridated” - how come Dutch public health officials in 1988 calculated total daily fluoride intake to be up to 6.0 mg of fluoride? Food was estimated to be the source of 80-85% of fluoride intake; intake from drinking-water was 0.03-0.68 mg/day and from toothpaste 0.2-0.3 mg (7). “For children, total intake via food and water is decreased because of lower consumption. Intake of food and water relative to body weight is higher, however, and is further increased by the swallowing of toothpaste or fluoride tablets (up to 3.5 mg of fluoride per day)” (8).
NOTE: For comparison - in 1991 the US PHS estimated daily fluoride intake of adults in “optimally” fluoridated areas of the US to be up to 6.6 mg/day (9).
In Germany, fluoridated salt has within a few years grabbed the major share of the market, driven by a PR campaign initiated by salt producers (13). Dentists have been lobbying to have regulations lifted to allow bakeries and large kitchens to use fluoridated salt. Test case has been the kitchen at the University of Heidelberg which has used fluoridated salt in its foods since 1999.
FAN has a special page alerting to “other sources of fluoride intake” (10). However, fluoridated salt is not mentioned at all.
1) No reason for Basel to be the "lone island" in Switzerland. As around Basel other methods of caries prophylaxis are in existence, and no unique benefit of fluoridated water could be identified, the GSK felt this "lone island" approach of water fluoridation was not justified. The GSK rejected the idea to “half the fluoridation” (fluoridate at 0.5 ppm), as had been proposed by Peter H. Miehl, the Director of the Public Dental Clinics. [It is noted in the report that fluoridated salt is available in Basel as well, posing another problem commonly described in the literature as “overlap”. Earlier there had been a sort of "gentleman's agreement" with distributors "sacrificing" sales, but now fluoridated salt was once again widely available.]
2) The second reason was that fluoridated water has a "Streuverlust" (scatterloss), meaning it is being scattered, not used for drinking or cooking, but ends up being wasted. The report states: "with fluoridated food salt, as is used in the rest of Switzerland for base-fluoridation, this scatter-loss and with it the unnecessary burden on the environment would be considerably less."
3) Here it is stated that the "island solution" as well as "scatterloss" could only be justified if there were no other alternative and comparable means to base-fluoridate available. It is here where it is stated that no study exists which can show that fluoridated water is better than other means of base-fluoridation - meaning fluoridated salt - NOT "other uses of fluoride" or “less intrusive measures”, as stated by FAN. It is here that the report also addresses the question of "personal freedom" and "forced medication" imposed upon by water fluoridation. This has been a political item since 1990 when a Basel couple sued because fluoride-free water was not available and the case made it to Supreme Court (Bundesgericht)[see Point 2, page 4 ].
SO - the GSK recommended to stop water fluoridation, and to use fluoridated salt instead. Has the government stopped “fluoridation”? No, it will chose another medium to fluoridate the people. The GSK report further states that the transition from fluoridated water to fluoridated salt should be accompanied by a one-time info-campaign, and that this could be done when water bills were being sent out by the IWB (Industrial Works Basel).
Please also note that elsewhere in the report [Point 6, page 7] it is stated that the IWB cannot sell its water to other cantons or countries because of the fluoride content. The GSK claims that it has not concerned itself with this aspect of the "Politikum of TWA" (fluoridated drinking water). One can see this point also stressed in the submission by Ziegelbecker from the day before the report was made (11).
The report further states that no longer fluoridating the water of Basel will save 200,000 francs a year. Fluoridated salt has no costs what-so-ever to the state.
NOTE:This fact is very advantageous for dental public health officials everywhere who, long aware of the political implications in water fluoridation, now quietly go about starting massive fluoridated salt programs. More on this below.
Fluoridated salt is no more expensive than other salt, and is actually sold under a slight subsidy, making its selling price just a bit lower than other salt (Yewe-Dyer, 2002). The "poor" family - which really doesn’t exist in Switzerland where 99% of the population is literate and the average income is above US $28,000 a year - will go for fluoride salt, the cheaper salt. Marketing is aggressive and has been very successful, aided greatly by salt producers - as in many other countries. Now even common recipes call specifically for fluoridated salt (12).
98% fluoridation- free?
Often encountered on FAN’s website is the statement that 98% of Europe is “unfluoridated”. Anyone who knows about the global drive to fluoridate salt supplies knows how wrong such a statement really is. “Fuzzy Math”? Perhaps one day soon FAN will wake up and take its mandate to “minimize fluoride exposure” seriously and actually pay a bit of attention to the remaining 98% NOT affected by water fluoridation programs, but other means of “base-fluoridation” and “mass-medication” programs?
While it was estimated in the 1990s that worldwide 230 million people received artificially fluoridated water (13), the number of people now affected by fluoridated salt programs greatly exceeds those affected by water fluoridation. 350 million people were added in 1996 alone when the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) launched a massive salt fluoridation program in Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela (14).
The project was part of a multi-year plan launched by PAHO in 1994 to “fluoridate the entire Region of the Americas”. The project was funded - once again - by a multi-year deal grant from Kellogg’s (15).
Since then many other countries have been added and many more are currently in the process. In Jamaica, Costa Rica and Columbia all salt destined for human consumption is fluoridated (“universal” salt fluoridation).
Forced Medication?
Just like in water fluoridation - where it was presumed that people would drink 4 glasses of water every day and thus take in the “optimal” intake of 1 mg of fluoride/per day - salt was fluoridated at 250 ppm. Here it was presumed that “individual application” (meaning use of the salt shaker at the table - the “sprinkling over food”) would contribute 1 to 4 g of the daily total salt intake, thus a person would take in 1 mg of fluoride a day at 4 grams a day - the “optimal” dose of fluoride intake to “protect against caries”.
How dentists ever convinced public health policy makers that the same salt (also called “cooking salt”) wasn’t also used for all cooking, including breadmaking, soups, etc. is anyone’s guess.
Fluoridated salt - which also has plenty of contaminants (16) - has one quality much worse than fluoridated water: an individual's preferred level of salt may be raised or lowered by progressively raising or lowering the actual level over a period of time. In other words, the amount of salt you use today might not be enough for you a month from now when you will be adding a little bit more! Salt consumption has shot through the roof, and worldwide efforts are underway to reduce overall salt intake to 5 g/day. In Costa Rica - just as one example - all salt is fluoridated at 250 ppm and people consume on average 10 g of salt per day, ensuring a daily fluoride intake of 2.5 mg/day from this source alone.
“Fluoride-free by 2003”?
Not this way.
Bob Johannsen, Rainer Neuhaus & Andreas Schuld
Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC)Vancouver, BC, Canada
PFPC Website:

To read FAN’s updated article see:

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Public Anti - fluoridation Meeting In Dublin, May 6th.

May 3rd 2007

Leading scientist speaks on dosage of fluoride in Irish drinking water and its toxicity. Venue is St John's Hall, Tower Road, Dublin 22. (In Clondalkin village) at 3pm on Sunday 6th May.

Professor Vyvyan Howard of the University of Ulster and a European authority on the toxicity of chemicals, will speak for the first time in Ireland on the scientifically controversial practice of water fluoridation. In addressing the Scientific and Medical Network in Dublin on Sunday 6th May, he will reveal some of the main toxicological risks, in particular as they affect the development of infants and children.

Professor C. Vyvyan Howard. MB. ChB. PhD. FRC Path. is a medically qualified toxico-pathologist and has recently set up a Bio-imaging Research Group in the Centre for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Ulster in Coleraine. His areas of interest include the way in which nanotechnology could create a variety of new and potentially serious health risks.

Dr Howard has written the foreword to Drinking Ourselves to Death? by Barry Groves published in 2001 in Dublin by Gill and Macmillan. This is the leading analysis of the failings of fluoridation policy in Ireland and the UK, the only two EU member states in which it is tolerated.
Dr Howard has regularly advised the European Commission on the toxicity of chemicals in humans. He is a member of the UK Government’s Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Professor Howard is also the President Elect of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE). This body has over 100,000 medical doctors affiliated to it and is recognised by the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. He will take up the Presidency of ISDE in June 2007.

Dr Andrew Rynne, founder of Clane General Hospital will demonstrate that fluoridated drinking water is a medicinal product according to the Irish Medicines Board’s own definition of that term. Since it is not licensed by the regulatory authority who defines it as a medicine, it is an illegal product. The fact of the matter is that it could not be licensed because it would fall far short of the Irish Medicines Board’s strict and correct criteria for a medicine’s safety and efficacy.

Dr Rynne will also argue that Irish citizens are supposed to be protected under the Irish Constitution, which promises, inter alia, a right to bodily integrity. The force-feeding of an unspecified dose of an unlicensed medicine on a daily basis is clearly a violation of an individual’s right to that bodily integrity.

Mr Robert Pocock of the environmental group VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment will outline other policy contradictions of fluoridation including evidence of greatly increased levels of fluoride exposure.
For more information phone 087-6488748 …. Jacqui Nielsen SciMedNet

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Tooth Decay Rise in U.S. Children -May1st

ATLANTA (AP) - Preschoolers are getting more cavities. The largest government study of the nation's dental care in more than 25 years shows a rise in tooth decay in children's baby teeth. The study also notes a drop in the number of adults who visited a dentist in the past year, a possible indicator of declining health insurance. The study's lead author is Doctor Bruce Dye of the National Center for Health Statistics. Some reasons he cites for the increase in children's tooth decay: parents are giving their children more processed snack foods than in the past, and children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water.

Here we go again! Instead of looking at the reality, dentists continue in denial.

Dr. Bruce A. Dye assigns part of the blame for the increase in U.S. children’s dental caries to “children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water”. When does the penny actually drop for these people? The US has 100% fluoridated most of its cities for 50 years now, and there is still complete surprise that “poorer people” (i.e. in general, inner city dwellers) have much higher caries rates than others. This is the same racial group, black people, who 70 years ago had the BEST teeth in America! Sheer co-incidence that the highest fluoride areas have the highest caries rates?
Look at the CDC figures across the whole United States and you find there is NO definitive correlation between dental caries reduction and fluoride use. Co-incidence? I can send you the spreadsheet.
Look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics of cancer rates in the various states and set them against the fluoridation rates and you DO find a clear trend to higher cancer death rates in the most fluoridated states. Co-incidence?
I hardly think that the worst caries groups (the poor) are the same ones who are substituting expensive bottled water for tapwater for their children! Does Dr. Dye (not a medical doctor, I take it) really expect us to swallow that one?
Fluoride is pervasive throughout the food and drink chain in fluoridated countries now. Hardly anything escapes some measure of fluoride toxification – children ingesting fruit and soda drinks are, along with an overabundance of sugars, taking in AND RETAINING in their bones and organs, high levels of fluoride. For anyone to suggest that even more fluoride is the answer is to go beyond foolishness to wilful assault on the health of the nation. Maybe Dr. Dye is aptly named.
The dental profession is, as usual, looking for a scapegoat to divert attention from their failure to tackle the caries of those who cannot afford their treatment. More fluoride, more fluoride is their call, as if the human body is suffering from a lack of fluoride, as if it doesn’t have a multitude of negative health effects on the rest of the body, as if it isn’t causing cancer, as if it has actually been tested before use for health, which it never has been on a human population. Meanwhile the 67% of Americans, the Irish, some Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders using fluoride (by which I mean, of course, hydrofluorosilicic acid – the waste from phosphate fertiliser factories which is used to “fluoridate”) DO see their cancer rates rising, their asthma and heart disease rates rising, their sperm counts decreasing, their IQ’s reducing, ADD and Alzheimer's and autism rates increasing and, oh, the caries rate increasing! But, surely, that is all just co-incidence?