June 2001: Health fears rise over fluoride in our water |
Irish doctor blows whistle on
Fluoridation Forum
FLUORIDE FRAUD AT DUBLIN DENTAL HOSPITAL |
Fine Gael has pledged to end the controversial compulsory practice | Statements from European Governments on Fluoridation |
All the answers to questions about fluoride | Fluoridated Water and Health |
Health fears rise over fluoride in our water by Alan O'Keefe and Treacy Hogan Concern about the amount of fluoride in Irish water supplies deepened following the discovery of excessive levels in urine samples supplied by Kildare county councilors. Samples provided by 8 members showed six of them had amounts of fluoride high enough to give rise for medical concern. The amount of fluoride in public drinking water here is three to six times the recommended safe limit for infants in Britain.
|
FLUORIDE FRAUD AT DUBLIN DENTAL HOSPITAL>From: "Fluoride Free Water " <fluoridefree@eircom.net> >Subject: FLUORIDE FRAUD AT DUBLIN DENTAL HOSPITAL. >Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:54:44 +0100 FLUORIDE FREE WATER C/O St. Raphaela's Convent, Upper Kilmacud Road, Stillorgan, Co. Dublin. Phone: 086 8720907. www.fluoridefree.com FLUORIDE FRAUD AT DUBLIN DENTAL HOSPITAL. PRESS RELEASE 7/8/2001 Fluoride Free Water have uncovered a four year old study carried out at Dublin Dental Hospital which exposes the fraud surrounding water fluoridation in Ireland. The study which investigated the fluoride dose of bottle-feeding infants concluded, "(b)aby formulae should be reconstituted with non-fluoridated water".(1) They also called for "more research work (to) be undertaken on the total fluoride dose and the impications for child health both dental and systemic". This study, although presented to a health board conference, has never been published. The conclusions have never been made public and parents who are using tap water to make up infant formula feed are overdosing their children with fluoride. Dr. Don Mac Auley, Dental Adviser to Fluoride Free Water, explains, "there was no follow up study and the Department of Health continues to state that we are all safe and prescription by thirst is scientific. It is shocking to think that they have known of this problem for many years and done nothing. In my experience of dental fluorosis (fluoride damage to teeth) in my dental practice, 90% of children/adolescents have a history of bottle-feeding for longer than 6 months. Doctors know nothing about this. I had a patient in recently whom, after reading an newspaper article, spoke with her GP and he had never heard of any problems with fluoride and infants". Recently, M.E.P., Avril Doyle raised the issue in the Senate.(2) Expressing growing public concern about fluoride, Ms. Doyle continued, "the Minister of State should issue a directive to the effect that fluoridated tap water should no longer be used in the reconstitution of infant formula". In response to Ms Doyle's concerns, Dr Wayne Anderson, chief food science specialist with the Food Safety Authority (FSAI), revealed that a sub-committee of the Forum on Fluoridation is carrying out a risk assessment on use of fluoridated water to make infant formula. Fluoride Free Water finds it surprising that a press release from the FSAI, one year after the above study, advocates the use of tap water over bottled water for formula feed, "(m)ineral waters may have a high solute content, may contain inadequate fluoride and should not be used to mix formula or as an infant drink".(2) This shows the level of ignorance surrounding this issue. Ms. Doyle found it "inexplicable" that there has never been a risk assessment into infant fluoride levels. Ms. Doyle will find it even more "inexplicable" that Professor John Clarkson, a member of this Forum sub-committee, is Dean of Dublin Dental School where the above study was carried out all those years ago. Professor Clarkson recently stated, "the issue of total fluoride exposure needs to be addressed and monitored".(3) However, he failed to mention that a study, carried out at his Dental Hospital, had declared Irish fluoridated tap water unsafe for Irish infants. Fluoride Free Water finds the truth decay surrounding water fluoridation scandalous and unacceptable. The forum on fluoridation is unbalanced, unaccountable and continues to mislead the public and put all our health at risk. We are now calling for an independent public enquiry to investigate the shocking truth behind this mass-medication. Protect our youngest citizens and stop fluoridation immediately. References: 1. To examine the Fluoride content of popular formulae and milks and to study the Fluoride dose that infants are receiving from these various sources. Dublin Dental Hospital 1997-1998. http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/ddhstudy.htm 2. Seanad Debates Official report 19/6/2001. http://www.gov.ie/debates-01/s19june/sect4.htm 3. Infant nutrition affects childhood illness and adult diseases. Food Safety Authority of Ireland report recommends feeding changes. 30 August 1999. Search "Fluoride" http://www.fsai.ie/search_index.htm 4. Minutes of meeting of the Forum on Fluoridation on 10 May 2001 http://www.fluoridationforum.ie/forum_minutes7.htm ------------------------------------------------- Join Irelands campaign for Fluoride Free Water see our web page at www.fluoridefree.com ------------------------------------------------------------ This message has been forwarded to you by VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment, because you are subscribed to concerns, Ireland's leading environmental mailing list. for more info, see http://www.voice.buz.org/maillist.html -----------------------------------------------------------
|
![]()
Irish doctor blows whistle on Fluoridation Forum
INTERNATIONAL FLUORIDE INFORMATION NETWORK
BULLETIN #326: July 19, 2001.Dear All, In the July 17 issue of the Irish Medical News, Dr. Andrew Rynne, who testified before the Fluoridation Forum a couple of weeks ago, has expressed his concerns about the bias of the members of this Forum, due to publish its findings this fall. Fluoridation opponents from the very announcement of the formation of this Fluoridation Forum have seen this as a crude attempt by the Irish government to divert attention away from the growing - and successful - effort to educate the Irish public and decision makers on the dangers and exaggerated benefits of fluoridation. When I myself testified before this Forum, along with Dr. Hardy Limeback, the panel members and the chairman and the Minister of Health (who made a brief appearance but didn't manage to hear a word either Hardy or I said), went to great pains to assure us that they had an "open mind" on this issue. My response was that the best way to prove this "open mind" was to provide their detailed written response to the "50 Reasons for Opposing Fluoridation" prepared by Michael and me (see http://www.fluoridealert.org/). While they have set up a sub-committee to do this, I have yet to hear a word. Meanwhile, this is what panel member Dr. Joe Mullen, had to say about my presentation : (see http://www.fluoridationforum.ie/forum_reports2.htm) "Dr Mullen was unimpressed with Professor Connett's presentation, which he believed was designed for a lay public group rather then an Expert Forum and portrayed his opposition to all forms of fluoride. "With regard to his scientific presentations, Dr Mullen believed Professor Connett posed a series of what he considered to be flimsy, far-fetched and highly elastic hypotheses. He gave toxicological and animal studies much more weight than other researchers have. The majority of papers quoted had not been subjected to peer review and had been published in the antifluoridationist Fluoride journal." ( minutes of November 9th meeting of the Fluoridation Forum). Now Dr. Mullen is entitled to his own opinion, but if this is the comment from an "open mind" I dread to think what a "closed mind" would have produced! For the record, Dr. Mullen was provided with a copy of my 20 page paper, Fluoride: A Statement of Concern, on which my presentation was largely based. Of the articles cited in this paper, 44 were either government reports or appeared in mainstream peer reviewed scientific, medical or dental journals. Only 5 were published in the peer reviewed journal Fluoride. This journal has been published since 1968 by the International Society for Fluoride Research, which has never taken a position on the fluoridation debate. Its editorial board includes both pro and anti-fluoridationists and while it publishes articles and editorials both favorable and unfavorable to fluoridation, its major focus is on pure research into a whole gamut of scientific issues relating to fluoride. The leading force behind the formation of the ISFR, Dr. George Waldbott, firmly believed that if the issue was pursued openly and scientifically, fluoridation would fall under its own "unscientific" weight. This credo has been followed to this day. As far as the "open mindedness" of the rest of the panel is concerned, in addition to the members from dental schools with a long history of promoting fluoridation, I worry that there are so many members from government agencies (see list of Forum members below). Politically, it is going to be difficult for them to reach a finding other than the one desired by the Ministry of Health. And now over to Dr. Andrew Rynne's comments in the Irish Medical News. Paul Connett. ******************** IRISH MEDICAL NEWS 17/7/2001 http://www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=PView&ArticleID=2366 Forum is not fairly balancedby Dr Andrew Rynne:I went before The Forum on Fluoridation a few weeks back. It was held in the boardroom of the very impressive new dental hospital in TCD. This rather formal setting was a bit intimidating although, to be fair, the Chairman and each of the 12 members present on the day were nothing if not relaxed and courteous. Yet I could not escape the feeling that I was "up against it," if you know what I mean. Undoubtedly, many members of this Forum have indeed got open minds on the question of the continued fluoridation of Ireland's water supply. Equally though, what I would call the power base of the group is manifestly pro-fluoridation and have made no secret of that fact. Couple this with the opening remarks of the Minister, where he expressed himself as strongly in favour of fluoridation, and the whole Forum begins to take on some distinct elements of a miserable farce. For example, two letter-writers to this journal - Dr Joe Mullen of the Society of Chief and Principal Dental Surgeons of Ireland and Prof Denis O'Mullane of the Oral Health Services Research Centre, are both members of the Forum. In the letters column of this paper, they made no bones about their devotion to the fluoridation cause. Here Dr Joe Mullen stated: "the simple truth of the matter is that every single major review of the evidence, both medical and dental, has concluded two unarguable facts: (a) fluoridation benefits dental health and (b) adverse medical effects are unproven". And the author of this mouthful sits on the Forum and indicates he is "open-minded" on the subject. Again in this paper dated March 12 last, Prof Denis O'Mullane, another member of the Forum on Fluoridation, went to great pains to down-play the significance of dental fluorosis, which he said occurred at a rate of 50 per cent in fluoridated regions, that is of course all over Ireland. This he described as a "very mild, very questionable change in the appearance of the enamel". And whatever else you might like to make of that statement, impartial is hardly a word that readily springs to mind. Yet the author sits on the Forum and indicates he is "open-minded". Suppose this Forum was set up to study the impact of sex education in our schools. At the opening press conference Cardinal Connell makes clear his opposition to sex education and says so to the attending media. Then we learn that the Forum in made up largely of members of the Knights of Columbanus, the pro-life movement and Opus Dei. And let me hasten to add what fine fellows they all of them are, but would you expect a fair and impartial report from then on the impact of sex education. I mean to say let's be reasonable now, of course you wouldn't. Yes, well that is exactly what the Forum on Fluoridation is like. It was opened by the Minister of Health who announced to the attending media that fluoridation was the best thing since sliced bread. Then, just to make sure that we all keep eating it, the Forum is stuffed with pro-fluoridation heavy hitters - Professors, Chiefs, Deans and the like. In my pathetic David versus Goliath address to this lot I said in my opening remarks that I had serious reservations as to the impartiality claimed by many of the members of the Forum. This of course predictably went down like the proverbial feed of crubeens in a synagogue, and the rest of the meeting was taken up by members protesting their innocence in that regard. One staunch pro-fluoridation member declared to the assembled faithful that he would readily change his mind-set if it were ever proven that fluoridation was in fact harmful. This I thought akin to saying that he would stop believing in God if someone could prove to his satisfaction that God did not in fact exist. Again to be fair about things, the Forum does in fact have a very good website which is constantly updated. You can follow the proceedings at . Here you may note two recurring themes. One is the constant complaint that people and groups known to be opposed to fluoridation are not prepared to go in front of the Forum and present their views to them, and thus seem to lack the courage of their convictions. The reason why so few of us opposed to this mass medication are not willing to go before the Forum, however, has nothing to do with strength of convictions and all to do with the belief that the composition of the Forum lacks balance. People, understandably reluctant to make a presentation to a group of implacable believers, are voting with their feet and staying away. And that is how it will remain for the duration of the Forum and they can moan all they like about it. Another impression you will undoubtedly gain from perusing this website is that this wretched Forum has no intention of recommending the discontinuation of fluoridation in Ireland. They may recommend stricter controls and monitoring and ongoing studies, but depressingly, I do not see any evidence that they are going to recommend to the Minister that the practice should be discontinued, or even suspended, and so you and I will continue to be force-dosed with an unknown quantity every time we make a cup of tea or water our whisky. There is, however, a chink of light coming; not from this hopelessly biased Forum - you can forget about them. Individual members of county councils are becoming increasingly alarmed at the levels of fluoride that are being discovered among their own members. They have every reason to be alarmed. The Chairman of Kildare County Council, for example, has just discovered that his level of fluoride is an alarming 5.4mgs, that is almost double the so-called "safe" level. County councils are now asking the Government that they be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to continue the practice of fluoridation. The problem in that is that they have a statutory duty to fluoridate under the 1956 Fluoridation Act. And this needs amending quickly. I am going to vote for Fine Gael the next time around. They have promised to discontinue this vile practice of pumping 2,000 gallons of toxic waste daily into this country's fresh water supplies. This State-approved dumping is in contravention of 1997 Council of European Convention of Human Rights and simply must be stopped immediately. But do not rely on the Forum to do it, because they won't. Registered office: Croft End, Lowick Bridge, Cumbria LA12 8EE A not for profit Company This document may be freely copied
|
Fluoride Jan.
2001 Fine Gael has pledged to end the controversial compulsory practice of adding fluoride to all drinking water because of serious health concerns. They
said there were sufficient grounds to point to serious health risk. Less
than 2 pc of Europe’s population have fluoride in the water, most
countries have by now rejected, discontinued or banned the practice. Allergic
responses, ski irritation, mouth ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome.
“The doses of fluoride our body accumulates increase the risks of bone
fractures, osteoporosis, bone cancer and genetic damage,” says
Patricia McKenna, Green MEP. The
latest EPA report on drinking water shows that many water supplies here
have excess levels of fluoride. A
number of local authorities have passed all party motions calling for an
end to fluoridation the Minister for health has set up Forum on
Fluoridation. |
Fluoridated Water and Health |
|
What fluoride is used in Irish tap-water? | Hydro-or hexaflosilic acid or its chemical name H2SiF6 |
Is the fluoride added to Irish tap-water a pure substance? | No, unlike natural calcium fluoride, it is contaminated with toxic elements- arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals, radionuclides- and silicon. |
Where does it come from? | It is untreated waste by-product of the fertiliser industry |
Has the supplier tested it for safety as an additive to drinking water? | It has never been tested on humans or animals even though it is not biodegradable and has long-term toxic effects on bone and enamel. The supplier extends no warranty as to its fitness as a drinking water fluoridating agent, i.e. it is simply supplied to a chemical specification. |
Who orders it to be put into Irish drinking water? | Each of the eight Health Boards is ordered by the Health Minister to add it to their public water supplies under the 1960 Health (Fluoridation) Act. |
Has the Health Department done any safety test? | No. After 40 years, no test results on the safety of this product are available, as confirmed by a letter from the Eastern Regional Health Authority of 18th October 2000. Nor has the Health Minister carried out any general health tests on Irish people. |
How many people are getting fluoridated drinking water? | Over 400 water supplies are fluoridated, affecting 73% of all Irish people. Only group water schemes are excluded from this mass medication policy. |
Is it true that overdosing of fluoride by water supplies is common? | Yes, in the last three years some 10% of samples have illegal fluoride levels, yet our Environmental Protection Agency imposes no legal sanctions on the guilty parties. |
Who is most at risk from fluoridated water? | Infants and children, those with impaired kidney or immune system function and the elderly. |
How real are the risks to Irish consumer? | Half of the fluoride we consume is retained in the bones and other tissues so the cumulative effect is a lifetime reality to most Irish consumers. |
What are the health symptoms of fluoride poisoning? | Many people have dental fluorosis or mottling of their teeth- this is a sign that the body has been poisoned by fluoride: it is structural damage to the teeth. Besides damaging calcified tissue like bone and teeth, it can also affect other organs eg. The Thyroid which controls most enzyme activity including vital " protein function; the pineal cord gland is another organ where fluoride accumulates. It is linked to Osteoporosis and irritable bowel problems as well as lower IQ in children exposed to high amounts of ingested fluoride. |
What other sources of fluoride are there? | Fluoridated toothpaste, mouthwashes and fruit or vegetables sprayed with pesticides containing fluoride long recognised for its toxic properties. |
Is the fluoride in toothpaste the same as added drinking water? | No. It is pharmaceutical grade, however all forms of fluoride are toxic and have acute effects at high dose, hence the poison warning on some fluoride toothpaste. |
This article is provided by VOICE, the voice of Irish concern for the environment. Phone:01-6618123; e-mail: avoice@iol.ie Website: www.voice.buz.org |
Who to contact if my child swallows fluoride toothpaste? The Poison Control Centre at Beaumont Hospital, Tel: 01 8092566 & 8379964 |
Statements
from European Governments on Fluoridation France: "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg Germany: "Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/germany.jpeg Luxembourg: "Fluoride has never been added
to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking
water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people
needing an addition of fluoride can decide by there own to use the
most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover
their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water
Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg
Finland: "We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm "Artificial fluoridation of
drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one
town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of
about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation
started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of
local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented
in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without
additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population
groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned. Drinking water fluoridation is not
prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be
willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been
against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena
Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and
Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www.fluoridealert.org/finland.jpeg
Belgium:
Denmark: "We are pleased to inform you
that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic
fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies.
Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus
Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm Norway: "In Norway we had a rather
intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the
conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls
Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for
folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March
1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm Sweden: "Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm
Netherlands: "From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm
Northern Ireland: "The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/Northern-Ireland.jpeg
Austria: "Toxic fluorides have never
been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M.
Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur
das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February
17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm
Czech Republic: "Since 1993, drinking water
has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout
the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not
actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this
form of supplementation is considered:
Despite the fact that these
countries have decided against fluoridation, they have approximately
the same level of dental decay as the United States (which is around
60% fluoridated). The following is data from the World Health
Organization (see http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html). DMFT
Status (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) for 12 year olds:
Data from: WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html |
|
Links:
An International Coalition to End Water
Fluoridation |