Former Irish Environment Minister Rejected Drinking Water Fluoridation!

The Oireachtas (Joint Irish Houses of Parliament) Draft report on Water Fluoridation in Ireland 11/1/2007 presented by Mr John Gormley T.D., former 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 outweighed 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 modern 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 The rates of dental decay and the lack of dentists justified the introduction of a prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation.(in 1960) Those who advocated water fluoridation were motivated by concern about the serious decline in dental health standards. We believe that basic health and hygiene habits in Irish society have changed dramatically in the intervening period. We note that dental health has improved to the same degree in countries where there is no water fluoridation. The Department of Health's assessment of the overwhelming benefits of water fluoridation is not justified. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. It is clear and, indeed, accepted by both the pro-and anti- fluoridation sides that the action of fluoride is topical and not systemic. We note that of the 33 recommendations of the Fluoride forum, not one has been implemented to date. 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. 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. 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. 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. It is now accepted by all sides that the sources of fluoride in our diet have increased dramatically since the introduction of water fluoridation. The Committee believes that fluoride toothpastes have contributed to a decline in dental caries in this country and other states. 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. 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. 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. 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.

It is Fluoride, Jim, but not as we know it

So... industrial accidents caused by DuPont and its fluoride derived industries. See http://assets.usw.org/resources/hse/resources/Walking-the-Talk-Duponts-Untold-Safety-Failures.pdf    

As you well know, I am continually opposed to dumping hydrofluorosilicic acid into our drinking water, as this by-product of the phosphate fertiliser industry is not only highly corrosive and toxic, but is un-regulated by any government department & has never been licenced for use as medication, which is what it is being used for when they make us drink it.

Today I have another fluoride culprit, which I only found out about today, but some fast research has shown that for the past 6 years the American EPA has been at odds with DuPont over their use of, and hiding the negative effects of, another fluoride derivative, namely Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), commonly used in Teflon and many household coatings... have YOU checked your cookware lately?

Articles courtesy of  processingmagazine.com 

September 9th, 2012 -

Common chemical linked to heart disease, researchers find

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a common industrial chemical used in the manufacture of many household products, may be associated with higher risks of cardiovascular disease, according to a study by researchers at the West Virginia University School of Public Health.
PFOA, also known as C8, is a manmade, perfluorinated carboxylic acid and fluorosurfactant. One of its main industrial applications is as a surfactant in the emulsion polymerization of fluoropolymers. It has been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the U.S. population.
WVU researchers examined 1,216 subjects from the 1999-2003 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, a major program of the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The team found that increased PFOA levels were positively associated with cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease, independent of traditional risk factors, such as age, sex and race/ethnicity.
“These two factors – increased PFOA levels and cardiovascular disease – are co-existing together for some reason,” said Dr. Anoop Shankar, the lead author of the study. “To determine the cause and effect, we would have to do follow-up studies over time, which we are, in fact, doing. At this point, we cannot say that one caused the other.”
In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency worked with eight major companies in the industry to launch the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program, in which companies committed to reduce global facility emissions and product content of PFOA and related chemicals by 95% by 2010, and to work toward eliminating emissions and product content by 2015.

December 2010 -

3M, DuPont Settle Patent Fight Over Coating Process for Teflon

3M Co. and DuPont Co. settled their patent dispute over a process of making protective coatings including Teflon that are free of a chemical suspected of causing cancer, according to Bloomberg. The companies submitted a filing in federal court in Minneapolis seeking dismissal of the U.S. suit, filed in March. DuPont and 3M were among companies that agreed to eliminate perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, from products including Teflon by 2015 amid government and consumer concern that the chemical may harm people. DuPont has said PFOA has mostly been removed from products introduced since 2007, while 3M said it completed the phase-out of last year. 3M said it filed the complaint after DuPont rejected offers to license the patent, which was issued in April 2008 and covers a way to make aqueous Teflon coatings that are effectively free of PFOA. The agreement to eliminate PFOA was made after an Environmental Protection Agency scientific advisory panel said PFOA is a likely human carcinogen, based on animal studies.
 
January 2006 -

Bottled water in Ohio test positive for DuPont chemical

The Associated Press reports that bottled water provided to about 1,000 southeast Ohio residents whose tap water contained a chemical used by DuPont Company to make Teflon has tested positive for trace amounts of the same substance, the company providing the water said last Thursday. Marietta-based Crystal Spring Water, which has been supplying the water to residents since September, confirmed the presence of perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts in tests after a learning of a similar finding by the local water association, it said. The company's tests on the bottled water showed C8 levels at 13 to 17 parts per trillion. The well supply that provides the residents' tap water contained 3,500 parts per trillion to 7,200 parts per trillion. The company is one of three hired by DuPont, the third-largest chemical company in the U.S., to provide water to local residents until it installs filters to remove the chemical at well-water treatment plants near its Parkersburg, West Virginia facility as part of the settlement of a 2001 class action lawsuit against it. Crystal Spring is giving the 1,000 people treated water and is installing a filter to remove the chemical, known as PFOA or C-8, from the spring it uses across the Ohio River in West Virginia, owner Gary Matheny said. It is also sending 2,000 letters to customers to tell them about plans to install the filter. The chemical, used in DuPont products from nonstick cookware coating to computer chips, is a "likely" carcinogenic, according to a draft report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency science panel. Ohio and West Virginia residents who sued DuPont in 2001 claimed the company intentionally withheld and misrepresented information about the human health threat posed by the chemical. DuPont, which says C8 poses no human health threat, agreed to pay more than $107 million to settle the lawsuit with the residents over the chemical from the West Virginia plant. 

December 2005 -

EPA, DuPont in settlement over chemical

According to the Associated Press, federal regulators have reached an agreement with DuPont to settle allegations the company hid information about the dangers of a toxic chemical known as C8 used in the manufacture of Teflon. Lawyers for DuPont and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told an administrative law judge that they had reached a final agreement, but needed more time to put together the paperwork. The EPA alleged that DuPont for 20 years covered up important information about C8's health effects and about the pollution of water supplies near the company's Washington Works plant. Under federal law, DuPont could face civil fines of more than $300 million for not reporting information that showed C8 posed "substantial risk of injury to health or the environment." The company has set aside $15 million to cover the costs of the lawsuit, according to corporate disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. DuPont also faces a federal criminal investigation of its actions concerning C8 pollution, the company has told shareholders. Since May, DuPont and the EPA repeatedly have said they were close to a settlement in the civil case, but had one item left to resolve. They would not identify that item. DuPont has maintained that C8, also known as perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, has no negative health effects. In February, DuPont settled a class-action lawsuit for $107.6 million brought by Ohio and West Virginia residents in 2001, alleging the Wilmington, Del.-based company intentionally withheld and misrepresented information concerning the nature and extent of the human health threat posed by C8.

More Scientific Evidence of Fluoride links to Cancer

The latest survey of American cities comparing the ten MOST fluoridated against the ten LEAST fluoridated cities in the USA shows clearly that while cancer rates climb a steep upward trajectory in the fluoridated cities, in the non-fluoridated cities it has levelled off 30 years ago. Pure and simple proof that the hydrofluorosilicic acid that they "call" fluoride has even worse effects than causing Alzheimers , brittle bones and fluorosis on teeth. Watch the youtube video of an interview with the scientist running the analysis here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qq_oQoTdnYc

Latest Links of Heart Disease to FLUORIDATION!

Recent research on causes of heart disease has revealed a link between fluoride and coronary artery disease. The study, referred to as: Association of Vascular Fluoride Uptake with Vascular Calcification and Coronary Artery Disease.

Researchers examined the arteries of 61 people for signs of calcification – artery hardening due to calcium, and fluoride absorption.
Connection between fluoride and heart disease was described as “significant”.
Fluoride was detected in the vascular walls (veins) of 96% of study participants, and calcification was observed in the vascular walls of 88% of participants. Study participants arteries also showed significant calcification and fluoride absorption.
Doctors who reviewed study participants’ medical histories noted that there was a very strong link between the presence of fluoride in artery walls and the history of heart disease. Researchers concluded that: ”An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.”

Too much fluoride in public water supplies:

Earlier this year, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly announced that they would be recommending that fluoride levels in drinking water be lowered because of a slow rise in fluorosis – fluoride poisoning that causes brittle bones, brain damage, and discolored teeth, among other health problems.

The HHS proposed lowering maximum allowable levels of fluoride in water to 0.7 mg/l. The EPA, which actually sets the standard, currently allows up to 4 mg/l of fluoride in water. This means that the EPA allows 5.71 times more fluoride in water supplies than the HHS actually deems safe! The EPA has said it is considering lowering the allowable level of fluoride in water, but has not officially acted yet.

Why the difference?

The EPA and the HHS have two separate goals when it comes to fluoride:
HHS – (recommendation) Reduce tooth decay while minimizing the rate of fluorosis
EPA – (Sets the standard) Maximum concentration of fluoride it considers safe
 
What this means: The EPA now believes its current standard (4 mg/l) is too high, but the EPA is not ready to set a new standard yet. Until the EPA sets a new standard, it is possible that the level of fluoride in your water could pose risks to your health.

In Ireland, the Expert Body on Fluoridation recomended in 2002 that the level of hydrofluorosilicic acid be reduced from 1ppm to 0,7 ppm to reduce the incidence of fluorosis and other possible side effects of this chemical. Four years later the Dept. of Health had still not implemented the reduction. It is impossible to tell at what level we are being fluoridated/medicated at present as the EPA website which used to list the results of the fluoride additive testing was taken down in 2001 , at the height of the Celtic Tiger.

References
Li, Y. et al. Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616

Lowes R. HHS Recommends Lower Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water (Medscape) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/735486

The Fight against Forced Medication Continues

As I pointed out a number of years ago in my own research into the CDC figures for fluoridation vs cancer deaths in the various states of America, (Blogger 6/10/2007-Black People Suffer More from the Effects of Fluoridation) it seemed obvious that black and hispanic groups were reaping even more drastic effects from fluoridation than caucasian communities. It seems that my feeling has been further backed up by research in the intervening years. I welcome the release of the information that hydrofluorosilicic acid (it is NEVER pharma-grade fluoride that is used in public fluoridation, just phosphate industry slop) attacks even more minority groups than originally believed. Maybe this will finally cause wilful and ignorant governments to finally pull the plug on their misguided fluoridation campaigns.

Daniel Stockin of The Lillie Center in Georgia, and FAN's Georgia state contact person, provides the following summary of the dramatic developments of 2011 pertaining to the growing awareness that minorities are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects, and that the government is failing to offer warnings about this fact. We suggest that you print this summary and share it with the leaders of your cities and water districts.



2011: A Dramatic Year in the Fight Against Fluoridation

by Daniel G. Stockin



At The Lillie Center we have felt inspired to pursue the involvement of black and other minority communities to help end fluoridation. In 2006, we published our first article "Harmed Babies and Minorities: Acceptable Collateral Damage of Fluoridation?" Since then our focus on harmed minority groups has continued, and this year we have been fortunate in gaining the involvement of leaders across the United States in this effort.



We have worked particularly to involve leaders in the black community in Georgia and Tennessee, in the backyard of the Centers for Disease Control (the Oral Health Division of the CDC is the number one promoter of fluoridation in the U.S.). In 2011, Andrew Young, former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador, and Reverend Gerald Durley, a nationally known civil rights leader and prominent Atlanta pastor, both released letters opposing fluoridation.



We were also pleased to work with Bernice King and Alveda King, the daughter and niece of Martin Luther King Jr., and they each released statements opposing fluoridation. In addition, prominent Atlanta resident Laura Seydel, daughter of CNN founder Ted Turner and a widely respected environmental advocate, was of great assistance in our efforts, and she also released a statement on her website, opposing fluoridation.



In addition to working with leaders in the black community, we also joined efforts with Nikki Kuhns and Henry Rodriguez from San Antonio, Texas, who worked tirelessly and with great sacrifice to secure the passage of a dramatic civil rights resolution opposing fluoridation by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest hispanic civil rights organization in the U..S.



The developments in Atlanta elicited a damage control response by the American Dental Association and the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health. In reading the excerpts printed below from the minority community leaders who have now spoken out against fluoridation, one can see why fluoridation promoters are nervous (see also the quote from ADA below):



From former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young: "People are calling for investigative Fluoridegate hearings, and one can understand why, given the fact that the story about fluorides keeps changing. I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion."



From civil rights leader Rev. Gerald Durley: "I support the holding of Fluoridegate hearings at the state and national level so we can learn...why our government agencies haven't told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans..."



From William Owens, President of the 5,000-member-strong Coalition of African American Pastors: "African Americans have more kidney disease and more diabetes, but nobody elected to tell us that kidney patients and diabetics are more susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides... We need to investigate this Fluoridegate mess. This is a civil rights and environmental justice issue.."



From Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr.: "Water fluoridation needs to end. It is good that organizations are lending their support to help push this outdated and harmful practice of fluoridation toward collapse."



From Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr.: "This is a civil rights issue. No one should be subjected to drinking fluoride in their water, especially sensitive groups like kidney patients and diabetics, babies in their milk formula, or poor families that cannot afford to purchase unfluoridated water. Black and Latino families are being disproportionately harmed."



From Laura Seydel, well-known environmental leader and daughter of CNN founder Ted Turner: "...the government should stop adding fluoride chemicals to our water immediately...Gerber is selling bottles of non-fluoridated water that parents can use for their infant children. However, as Atlanta leaders have pointed out, bottled water is not always an option for low-income families."



Attempts at Damage Control by Fluoridation Supporters



Here is the telling statement in a letter sent to Howard Koh, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health, from the President-Elect and Executive Director of the American Dental Association: "...we have asked for your help in addressing the concerns raised by Former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young and Pastor Gerald Durley regarding the safety of water fluoridation for minority populations. We believe that this issue has the potential to gain traction."



Adding fuel to the fire later in the year, the resolution passed by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) was fiercely resisted, removed from the LULAC website, and then later restored. The resolution stated, "LULAC supports efforts by all citizens working to stop forced medication through the public water system because it violates civil rights; and...LULAC demands to know why government agencies entrusted with protecting the public health are more protective of the policy of fluoridation than they are of public health."



The Message Reaches California



With key assistance from Patty Ducey-Brooks, David Kennedy, and others, nationally known black leader Bishop George McKinney and San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water hosted an event this past summer, a "Town Hall Meeting on Fluoridegate." Bishop McKinney issued a statement that, "Our state and federal elected representatives should convene FluorideGate hearings immediately and put people under oath...And we need to find out why minority community leaders weren't told that fluorides disproportionately harm Black Americans, Hispanics, and other people of color.."



The Vital Assistance in These Efforts from the Fluoride Action Network



At The Lillie Center, we are grateful that the Fluoride Action Network identified fluoridation as an Environmental Justice issue (also see FAN's submission to HHS). With FAN's wonderful connections and expertise, news about fluoride harm to minorities is now being used in city council meetings, in state legislative houses, in pieces published in the media, and elsewhere. We will be continuing our work of reaching out to black, hispanic and other minority leaders, and we recognize the vital role of Dr. Connett and the FAN team in helping to spread the word about this issue. The message simply won't go away. We are pleased that the top leaders of the American Dental Association are concerned about these efforts "gaining traction," and we look forward to even more awareness by minority citizens about their greater risk for harm from water fluoridation, and awareness of the fact that those promoting fluoridation are not warning them about their increased risk.

Thank you Dan for all the wonderful work you have done to help end fluoridation this year and for several years before. If ever the quote "one person can make difference" applies it applies to you. And thank you to everyone else who is making a difference on this issue. I have no need to tell you how difficult this task is but if we keep together as a worldwide team we will prevail.



Paul Connett,

FAN Director

Minister John Gormley T.D., Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, OPPOSES Fluoridation!

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.

Philadelphia Reconsiders Fluoridation

This article covers many of the relevant points that should be made to any governing body anywhere which currently advocates fluoridation and the Pennsylvania experience is in microcosm what other fluoridated areas are going through. Hopefully their City Fathers will do the right thing and halt fluoridation now.


Reprinted from New Jersey Cosmetic Dentistry Blog http://cent4dent.com:80/blog/?p=66

Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia’s drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was (also) invited so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.
My testimony is below and attached. Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren’t pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). The affirmed that it’s not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it’s safe. However, they admitted that they weren’t on top of the recent science on the issue.
I was delighted to see the council president’s special counsel and the mayor’s legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.
Anyway… feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.
Mike—–
Testimony of Mike EwallDirector of ActionPA before City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City’s Drinking Water Resolution #080288
April 14th, 2008
Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I’m the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.
I’m here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous “drug” in the water – one that is the most preventable.
Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.
Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we’re talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
However, the “fluoride” that is put in the drinking water isn’t pharmaceutical grade, even though it’s put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They’re not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.
These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they’re high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001). [See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm]
Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decayThe intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.
Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]
Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap waterIn late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]
Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure
Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/sciam.pdf] brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council’s March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf] The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA’s “no longer considered safe” level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can’t be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn’t relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report’s authors and others. [See http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html] Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason1
EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation
The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]
Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems
Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, “Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.” RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.
Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs
Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. [See links to these warnings at the bottom section of: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html ] As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia’s supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city’s current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.
State mandate would take away local control and further increase costsThe state legislature is considering House Bill 1649 [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/], which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state’s water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state’s water customers (it’s mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/] If HB 1649 passes, it’ll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it’s in the city’s financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.
City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save moneyIn the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]
In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]
There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I’d encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I’d be glad to provide access to these experts.
If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can’t afford dental care.
Thank you.
Mike EwallFounder & DirectorActionPA1434 Elbridge St.Philadelphia, PA 19149215-743-4884catalyst@actionpa.orghttp://www.actionpa.org
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

Birmingham,UK held up as example of fluoride success - NOT!

SO, Once again the "powers that be" decide what is best for us without any definitive evidence to support their claims! I have been listening to SKY News today and the debate that is once again being dragged through the media (NO BAD THING) about whether it is better to fluoride our drinking water in order to save us all from our bad dental hygiene and dietary habits or whether hydrofluorocilicic acid is actually a manufacturing waste that is accumulating in our bodies and slowly (but surely) causing the rise of osteoporosis, brittle bones, lower IQ, Alzheimers Disease and underactive thyroid.... (it actually is, unfortunately).

Just to put the debate into some kind of perspective, below I have reprinted an article issued in 2003 which refers to the fact that Birmingham UK has NOT benefited from 40 years of fluoridation - at least no more than the 70% decreases in dental caries also experienced by NON-FLUORIDATED EU countries over the last 50 years!

When listening to the claims of the pro-fluoride brigade one must pay as much attention to what they don't say!

So, when they say Birmingham has 50% fewer cavities, demand to see the evidence - personally, I would love to see it. But it does not actually exist.

If you really want to learn about the harm that fluoridation does to communities, read this blog. watch the videos, check out fluoridealert.org (NOT fluoridealert.com which the American Dental Association hijacked in order to confuse those who were seeking to research the fluoride debate), read, read, read...then ask, WHY?!

Any questions, euesireland@eircom.net



Daily Mail - LondonTuesday 08 July 2003FLUORIDEby Bob Woffinden
TOMORROW, peers will be asked to approve a piece of legislation so sinister, so Draconian and so far-reaching in its implications that it is hard to believe it is happening with barely a murmur of protest.
The new Bill will force water companies to add fluoride to all drinking water when ordered to do so by local health authorities - in other words, millions of us will be forced to take medication against our will.
It sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, and it is. Once fluoride is in the water supply, everyone will be exposed to it. It will be in our tea, coffee, food, and absorbed through the pores of our skin when we take baths or showers. For years, dental authorities have lobbied for fluoridation, arguing it prevents decay in children's teeth - but dentists should play no part in the debate. The first, and most important, consideration is not teeth, but whether fluoride has adverse effects on the human body. There is mounting evidence that it does.
Cancer, osteoporosis, kidney problems and skeletal fluorosis - a crippling disease which causes muscle weakness and gastrointestinal disorders - have all been linked in scientific studies to fluoridation.
How ironic that, when France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all rejected mass water fluoridation, our government is embracing it with such enthusiasm.
Why? After all, even the evidence that adding fluoride to water prevents tooth decay is patchy. In December 2002, four leading British scientists, who had reviewed the subject, wrote to the Government pointing this out.
They said the effects of fluoride on teeth could range from 'a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit'. In other words, fluoride might actually be harming children's teeth.
We shouldn't really be surprised when we consider the origins of fluoridation. The Americans were the first to add fluorides - chemical compounds used by modern industry and commerce, which, once in the body, build up in teeth and bone - to water after World War II.
The plan was to study a fluoridated city and a non-fluoridated one in a five-year scientific experiment to see whether children's teeth improved.
HOWEVER, the experiment was never carried out.
Within 18 months, the control city was also fluoridated on the grounds it was unfair to deprive children there of the 'benefits' of fluoridation.
So, instead of reaching a conclusion based on research, it was decided by the U.S. medical authorities, and the research was abandoned.
Yet despite this, fluoridation spread. Harold Wilson introduced it to Britain in the Sixties when about ten per cent of our water supply, reaching five million people, was fluoridated - mainly Birmingham, the West Midlands, and the Newcastle area. Much of the U.S. followed suit, as did Ireland and parts of Australia and New Zealand.
Forty years later, however, it has still not been conclusively proved that fluoride benefits children's teeth. One British study found children in fluoridated areas suffered, on average, 15 per cent less tooth decay compared to those in non-fluoridated areas.
But studies in Finland, Germany, Cuba and Canada found the rate of dental decay did not increase when communities stopped fluoridation.
So how is it supposed to work?
Well, astonishingly, no one knows.
One of the main possibilities is that it helps the re-mineralisation of teeth enamel.
If this is true, then it is a process that works simply through fluoride being applied to the surface of the teeth. Therefore, the benefits can be obtained through fluoride toothpaste, and there is no point in adding fluoride to the water supply.
A second way in which fluoride might work is by suppressing the enzymes that cause the build-up of the acid that leads to tooth decay.
But is fluoride clever enough to know that it should affect just those enzymes and no others? Of course not. Different enzymes will react to fluoride in different ways, and some enzyme systems will function less efficiently.
There will also be a range of individual responses to fluoride, in which age, sex, race and genetic susceptibility will play a part. It is a chilling thought, but if the Government adds fluoride to the water supply, then it will be saying to some people, we are going to make you ill.
Once fluoride is in the body, one of its actions is to displace iodine, which ensures the correct functioning of the thyroid gland.
The consequences of an underperforming thyroid include muscle and joint pain, high cholesterol, heart disease, weight gain, fatigue and low energy levels. Not surprisingly, having an underactive thyroid is a increasing problem for people in the U.S., the world's most fluoridated country.
In the Eighties, scientists wondered whether fluoride could help treat bone disease, and gave fluoride to patients suffering from osteoporosis in an attempt to harden their bones and prevent fractures.
The trials had to be abandoned, however, when it became clear that patients were suffering more fractures. Studies have also linked fluoride to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.
Even more alarmingly, reports from China have shown that children growing up in fluoridated areas have lower IQs than those in non-fluoride areas.
Birmingham has been fluoridated for 35 years, so one might expect people's teeth to be in a better condition than elsewhere in the country. Yet that is not the case. The cost of dental treatment per person in Birmingham is as high as in other major cities.
But why is this government so in thrall to the pro-fluoridation lobby?
Ministers point to statistics showing that by the age of five, two out of three children in the most deprived parts of the country have at least one rotten tooth.
Fluoridation is a way of acting when feckless parents won't.
Yet it is precisely these children whose bodies are already low in calcium, magnesium and essential nutrients who are going to be most at risk from fluoride poisoning.
More cynically, campaigners attribute ministers' enthusiasm to astute lobbying from the big chemical companies.
Fluoride is a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry. If it was classified as toxic waste, firms would have to pay to get it cleaned up. But if they persuade the Government that fluoride should be added to our water supply, then they can make money from it.
LIKE previous administrations, this government has started from the conclusion that fluoridation is a good thing. Plan A was to gather government-friendly scientists to give fluoride the all clear.
That was the York Review of September 2000, which, unfortunately, concluded there had been few studies into fluoride's harmful effects, and emphasised the need for research into the links between fluoride and 'infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ'.
So Plan B was to get together an even friendlier group of scientists from the Medical Research Council. However, in September 2002, even its report acknowledged that 'little high quality research has been undertaken in the area of fluoride and health'. Plan C, wheeled out just days ago, was to go ahead with fluoridation anyway.
New legislation will indemnify water companies against damage to public health caused by fluoride - in other words, if victims of fluoridation go to court, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Water companies will no longer be allowed to refuse requests by the health authorities to add fluoride to their water.
The Government says fluoride schemes will be subject to public approval.
Just how it intends to obtain this is unclear. Certainly, those unfortunate people in Birmingham were not asked for approval before their city was fluoridated.
Before more of us are exposed to the potential dangers of fluoridation we are entitled to an answer to the following question - is there published peer-reviewed scientific research linking fluoride to cancer, poor thyroid function, stillbirths, Down's syndrome, the early onset of puberty, increased rates of hip fracture, and diminished IQ levels in children?
The straight answer is, 'Yes'. If the Government presses ahead with this sinister programme of forced medication, then political morality will have sunk to new depths.


Fluoride Action Network 802-355-0999 info@fluoridealert.org