Almost 2 and a half years after the now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley, the Chair of the Oireachtas Health and Children Committee, wrote this intelligent Report calling for the immediate stop to water fluoridation on numerous grounds, we are STILL drinking toxic waste with no proven benefits. Why? Now that he is a Minister in Government why has he not moved to halt this criminal poisoning of a nation? Where is the spine? Has it, like the skeletal and dental structures of the fluoride-imbibing public, become brittle and weakened, too?
Introductory Note
Extracted from: Irish Times, Thursday 15th March 2007:
«The publication of a report on fluoridation to the Oireachtas Health and Children Committee written by Green Party Dublin South East TD, John Gormley, is expected to be strongly opposed by some other committee members in the coming weeks.
Rejecting the Green's opposition to fluoridation, the Fianna Fáil TD, Jimmy Devins, vice-chair of the committee, said water fluoridation "is in the interests of public health and should not be discontinued. ...All the evidence available has indicated to us that water fluoridation is in the interests of public health. It prevents dental caries and has no negative side effects aside from a slight staining of teeth in a small number of cases which can be easily treatable."
Mr Devins said he would oppose Mr Gormley's report getting the official sanction of the committee.»
Here is the report which was suppressed by certain committee members.
This report was never put to the vote.
Incidentally, Mr Devins' statement is completely untrue in every aspect.
”All the evidence” can be neatly summed up by the York Report of 2000&2003 which analysed all the hundreds of reports on fluoridation and found “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. “ - http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
“ has no negative side effects aside from a slight staining of teeth” is also completely untrue. There are over 500 reports and scientific papers available which point to fluoride's negative effects on the thyroid, heart, pilial gland, bone density and soft tissue and its effects causing bone cancers, Alzheimers Disease and lowered IQ levels, among other negatives. Check: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/ for a full overview.
Furthermore, “ slight staining of teeth in a small number of cases which can be easily treatable” - over 40% of Irish children now suffer from dental, and ergo skeletal fluorosis, in the more severe cases this can involve cosmetic processes costing thousands of euro.
To continually dose a population for 50+ years with a substance that contains mercury, lead, arsenic , massive amounts of phosphate and sulphur, and indeed 30+ other chemicals in it WITHOUT A HEALTH CHECK EVER HAVING BEEN MADE...anywhere in the world, is asking for trouble. Is it a mere co-incidence that Ireland, the most fluoridated country in Europe, has the highest cancer and heart disease rates, rampant Alzheimer's and high incidence of broken hips? Hardly, when similar increases were registered in the American cities that started fluoridating. And if it is so good for our teeth, why are we in sixth place in the European caries league, after 5 non-fluoridating countries? There are vested interests that have been pushing fluoride for almost 50 years now, but there is a change happening due to the research and the dubious history of fluoridation that has been released over the last ten years. Help to speed that change by publicising this health horror for what it is – someone's handy way to turn what would otherwise be classed as toxic waste – hydrofluorosilicic acid- and would have to be treated at great expense, into a commodity that they sell to us to dump unregulated into our own drinking water, on a false promise.
For the buried report summary check: http://euesireland.blogspot.com/
The Oireachtas (Joint Irish Houses of Parliament) Draft report on Water Fluoridation in Ireland 11/1/2007 presented by Mr John Gormley T.D., now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Ireland.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I am very pleased to present my Report on Water Fluoridation to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children. I was appointed first to undertake this work in 1999 during the last Dáil. Unfortunately, I was advised by the Committee Chairman to interrupt my work when the then Minister for Health and Children, Micheal Martin, set up the Fluoridation Forum to conduct a similar investigation into the action of fluoride. Following the completion of the Forum Report, the Health Committee recommenced its own investigation. Given that sufficient time has now elapsed since the publication of the Forum Report and that not a single recommendation out of 33 has been implemented, it is timely to publish our deliberations on the subject.
Having agreed to become the rapporteur, I quickly discovered that I faced a complex and mammoth task. Not only did I have to analyse the testimony of those who appeared before the Committee, I also had to wade through the often contradictory scientific evidence and the endless archive material.
I have tried to distil the essential elements of my research into this report. As well as looking at why water fluoridation was introduced into this country, the report seeks to answer two fundamental questions — (1) how effective is water fluoridation in fighting tooth decay? (2) what are the side effects of water fluoridation?
Those who came before the committee had often diametrically opposed views on the subject. There is no doubting the sincerity and dedication of both sides in this debate. It is worth noting however, that whereas there was almost unanimity in the dental community when water fluoridation was introduced as to its effectiveness, there are now clear differences of opinion among dentists on the subject. One only has to contrast the testimony of Dr. O'Mullane and Dr. Clarkson with Dr. MacAuley and Dr. Limeback to understand how greatly views diverge on water fluoridation. But there is some common ground. And it's worth reflecting on these points of agreement at the very outset. When fluoride was first introduced it was thought generally to act systemically i.e. it had to be ingested. We now know it acts topically i.e. in the mouth and on the surface of the tooth. We also know that there are increased sources of fluoride now compared to fifty years ago. All sides admit - and the evidence points to - a huge increase in the incidence of fluorosis, a condition which indicates an excess of fluoride. Both sides also took the view that fluoride in toothpaste did reduce the rate of dental caries. They also agree that children who use fluoride toothpaste require supervision and proper instruction.
The crucial question for the committee was whether the perceived benefits of water fluoridation out weighed the negative side effects. The contribution of international expert, Dr. Hardy Limeback was persuasive in this regard when he commented that using the most authoritative international data, the risk of fluorosis far outweighed the benefits of fluoride. Dr. Limeback was also very clear in his recommendation that fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies. Indeed, his advice seemed to have been accepted by the Food Safety Authority until it changed its mind in circumstances that have not been explained to the satisfaction of the committee. The committee has also noted the latest advice of the American Dental Association which states: "If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride". (ADA 9th November 2006).
Given that it is extremely impractical for mothers who are bottle feeding to source non-fluoridated water supplies and that fluorosis rates continue to rise, our central recommendation — based on the precautionary principle - is that the practice of water fluoridation should end immediately. All of the available evidence suggests that not only will this lead to a marked reduction in fluorosis but that there would not be a significant rise in dental caries.
The evidence presented by Dr O'Mullane showed that Ireland had a very serious dental health problem in the 1950s and early 60s. All of the available historical records confirm this to be the case. They also show that Ireland had a real shortage of dentists at the time. The committee fully appreciates why a prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation seemed like a sensible approach at the time. However, we have had to base our conclusions and recommendations on all of the data now available to us. Quantifying the effectiveness of fluoridation was our most difficult task. In our view, the most accurate measurement of this is contained in the York Review, undoubtedly, the most comprehensive study ever to be carried out on water fluoridation. Similarly, we have referred to York Review in quantifying fluorosis rates.
A key recommendation of the Fluoridation Forum was the reduction in the level of fluoride in our water supplies. Significantly, this recommendation has not been implemented, and even if the fluoride levels in the water were slightly reduced, we could not recommend that this water be used to bottle feed babies.
The Ireland of 2006 is a very different place with very different standards of general and oral hygiene. We are a modem European state with dental caries rates equal to and sometimes below other EU states which do not fluoridate their water supplies. We do, however, continue to consume too much confectionary, and our snacking habits are leading to continued dental caries problems as well as higher rates of obesity. The Department for Health and Children should tackle this problem by concentrating its efforts on education in relation to better oral hygiene, banning junk food vending machines and using fiscal means to change these poor eating habits.
If our recommendations are implemented we are convinced that not only will we see a reduction in fluorosis rates but that there will also be a drop in dental caries rates.
2 CONCLUSIONS
1.The rates of dental decay and the lack of dentists justified the introduction of a prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation.(in 1960)
2.Those who advocated water fluoridation were motivated by concern about the serious decline in dental health standards.
3.We believe that basic health and hygiene habits in Irish society have changed dramatically in the intervening period.
4.We note that dental health has improved to the same degree in countries where there is no water fluoridation.
5.The Department of Health's assessment of the overwhelming benefits of water fluoridation is not justified.
6.While positive aspects of fluoridation have been over-stated, the growing negative impact has not been properly recognised. The Committee views the officially reported sevenfold increase in fluorosis since 1984, as completely unacceptable, requiring immediate action.
7.The Committee is disappointed and alarmed that no general health studies, as provided for in S.6 of the 1960 Fluoridation Act have ever been carried out, particularly considering that four in ten 15 year olds are now affected by fluorosis. By disregarding this provision of the Act, the Department of Health has left itself liable for the harmful effects of fluoridation of Irish drinking water.
8.It is the view of the committee that the Department of Health has failed to offer a coherent scientific justification for continuing the policy of water fluoridation and has notably failed to deal with Dr Connett's 50 Reasons to oppose fluoridation either in the Fluoridation Forum or since.
9.Despite emphasizing the expertise of its membership, the Fluoridation Forum failed to apply key principles of toxicology, for example the toxic dosage for Irish children. Another failure was to overlook the synergistic effects of fluoride chemicals with other substances (e.g. aluminium) that are ever-present in many Irish drinking water supplies.
10.The Committee notes that the recommendation of FSAI advising against the use of fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies was changed subsequently following representations form a minority of members in 2001.
11.The Committee believes that the manner this was done was both irregular and suspect and represented a "process mess". The replies given to the former Chair by Dr Wayne Anderson in this regard were unsatisfactory. The Committee notes a similar change in advice on using un-fluoridated water in infant formula by Prof John Clarkson.
12.The committee notes that the vast of majority of those on the Forum for fluoridation had records of being strongly in favour of water fluoridation.
13.It is clear and, indeed, accepted by both the pro-and anti- fluoridation sides that the action of fluoride is topical and not systemic.
14.We note that of the 33 recommendations of the Fluoride forum, not one has been implemented to date.
15.We believe on the basis of the international studies there would be no long-term increase in dental decay if fluoride were not added to Irish drinking water.
16.There is no evidence to suggest that Irish people are fluoride deficient, in fact, the evidence at hand suggests that we have too much fluoride in our systems.
17.On the basis of the available archive material the Committee believes that the original Fluorine consultative council did not approach its task with an open mind. It would appear to have had a very strong pro water fluoridation bias.
18.We are disappointed that only the minutes of one of the meetings of the Fluorine consultative Council survive, the others having been destroyed in a flood.
19.It is now accepted by all sides that the sources of fluoride in our diet have increased dramatically since the introduction of water fluoridation.
20.The Committee believes that fluoride toothpastes have contributed to a decline in dental caries in this country and other states.
21.Fluoride toothpastes should carry a warning about the dangers of children swallowing fluoride toothpastes, and children properly supervised when brushing their teeth using fluoride toothpaste.
22.The increase in membership of Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation from single figures when the Forum reported, to over 120 dental practitioners today reflects the growing professional opposition to the policy.
23.There is sufficient scientific evidence in relation to health effects — albeit contradictory — to justify the application of the precautionary principle. We also note the latest advice from the American Dental Association which advises parents to choose non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding babies.
24.We note that the fluoridating agent hydrofluorosilic acid has not been sanctioned by the Irish Medicines Board.
Recommendations
1.Fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies;
2.Given the impracticality of sourcing non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies, the committee — on the basis of the precautionary principle — believes the practice of water fluoridation should cease immediately;
3.The savings accruing from the policy change must be assessed in each HSE region. They should be ring-fenced before being re-allocated to educational programmes aimed at the socially deprived, in line with best practice in other European countries;
4.Independent research into general health effects should be undertaken in order to assess the full impact of lifetime fluoride exposure in the population. Particular attention should be given to effects on infants and children of exposure to fluoride from all sources;
5.The Minister for Health should not permit indiscriminate medication measures to treat the whole population via water or food because of the inability to control dosage and monitor individual reaction, evidenced by the forty year experience of water fluoridation;
6.The Government should undertake a major educational programme to encourage healthy eating in order to tackle the twin problems of dental caries and obesity;
7.More public dentists need to be employed and more regular check ups encouraged;
8.Parents should be given advice about teeth brushing and the use of fluoridated toothpaste. Along with imaginative education programmes on regular tooth brushing, existing nutritional programmes already underway should continue to target sugary diets of children from 5 yr olds to 15 yr olds. Special emphasis should be laid on initiatives that target the socially disadvantaged where dental decay linked to poor diet is most prevalent; and
9.Fluoride toothpastes should carry warnings similar to those in the United States about the dangers of swallowing fluoride toothpaste.
