“This Loony Issue” that dare not speak it’s name: Fluoridation (?) and the Irish Greens…. March 16, 2007
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Greens, Irish Politics.trackback
Leaving the thin pickings in the Guardian in their final installment about the apparently soon to be completed peace process which can best be summed up by the phrase “Thank God we’re out of there”, let’s consider the bould Green Party whose spokesman on Health John Gormley has who has against all expectation raised his head above the parapet upon that great issue facing the Irish nation.
Is it climate change? Is it the GPs excellent proposal on banning experimentation on primates? Is it the current state of the health service?
Er…no, it’s none of the above. Instead its…fluoridation. The Green Party has given a solemn undertaking to end fluoridation of public water supplies in the event it enters government.
So, what’s this then? According to the GP in an article in the Irish Times from Wednesday.
Mr Gormley said the latest advice from the American Dental Association told parents to avoid using fluoridated water when bottle-feeding babies because of the dangers of fluorosis – the staining and pitting of teeth which can result from overexposure to fluoride.
“This advice should be heeded,” Mr Gormley said. “The balance of international evidence proves that water fluoridation should be stopped immediately.”
Mr Gormley said there had been a huge increase in fluorosis in Ireland in the last decade.
He said that 98 per cent of countries in Europe did not add fluoride to their tap water.
“Even up North it is not done. One thing Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley could agree on was that they don’t want fluoridation.”
Mr Gormley also raised concerns about the link between excess fluoride and bone cancer in boys, saying that one study showed boys who lived in areas with fluoridated water had a five times greater risk of contracting the disease.
“Fluoride is a toxic substance, we shouldn’t be taking it into our bodies,” he said.
The curious thing is that if one reads the ADA website one discovers that it actually and I quote:
ADA Positions & Statements
American Dental Association Supports Fluoridation
The American Dental Association unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay. This support has been the Association’s position since policy was first adopted in 1950.
and that
Infants, Fluoride and Bottled Water
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that it will allow bottlers to claim that fluoridated water may reduce the risk of tooth decay. “Whether you drink fluoridated water from the tap or buy it in a bottle, you’re doing the right thing for your oral health,” says ADA executive director James B. Bramson, D.D.S. “Thanks to the FDA’s decision, bottlers can now claim what dentists have long known—that optimally fluoridated water helps prevent tooth decay.”
The ADA agrees with the FDA that this health claim is not intended for use on bottled water marketed to infants for whom lesser amounts of fluoride are appropriate. The appropriate amount of fluoride is essential to help prevent tooth decay. But fluoride intake above optimal amounts creates a risk for enamel (dental) fluorosis in teeth during their development before they erupt through the gums. Read more about how children can get the optimal amount of fluoride to protect their teeth.
Odd.
Yesterday Dick Ahlstrom the Science Editor of the IT brought together a mass of testimonials from health and scientific authorities that the opposite was the case.
“Removing fluoride is not a risk-free option,” said the Health Service Executive’s principal dental surgeon in the west, Sligo-based Dr Joe Mullen. “You certainly will see a rise in dental decay bringing increased pain, increased suffering, lost days at work and other problems,” Dr Mullen said.
The people who would suffer most were the poor.
“The clearest [ risk factor] with dental caries is poverty, which is true for so many other health issues,” he said. It is more difficult for less well-off sectors of society to afford toothbrushes, toothpaste and to gain access to dental services.
“The great thing about water fluoridation is it gets to everybody, rich or poor,” Dr Mullen said. “People on lower incomes benefit proportionately more than people on higher incomes.”
Fluoridation was brought in to counteract bad dental hygiene and its introduction has had a significant impact. The best countries to study for comparative purposes are Northern Ireland and Scotland where water is not fluoridated, but where the general population has similarly bad eating habits when it comes to snack eating and sugary drinks, Dr Mullen said.
“We know from dozens of studies here and studies with Northern Ireland which show a 50 per cent difference in dental caries rates,” he said.
Figures provided by the expert body show that in the 1960s the average rate of decayed, missing or filled teeth in five-year-olds here was 5.6 and 4.8 in Northern Ireland.
It is now 1.8 here compared to 4.5 in the North, where there is no fluoridation.
Stopping fluoridation would reverse this and increase dental problems here, Dr Mullen said. “We would expect to see our decay level equate to the North. I would expect to see an increase of 50 per cent.”
Now, again, perhaps it’s just me, but watching Dr. Strangelove many years ago I was very taken by the US commander Jack D. Ripper of the air base from which the unfortunate B-52 bombers were dispatched who was a sort of walking compendium of the fears of the anti-Communist right… high on his list was “what he believes is a Communist conspiracy which threatens to “sap and impurify” the “precious bodily fluids” of the American people with fluoridated water” (quote from wiki).
And ever since I’ve never been able to take it terribly seriously as an issue. Some months ago I was presented with a pile of Government reports and took the opportunity to read through them. Weirdly one of the most interesting was the Fluoridation Forum (available http://www.fluoridationforum.ie/)report which detailed in exhaustive detail medical findings from around the world.
Their conclusions? That the levels of fluoridation in Irish water supplies presented no threat, and indeed quite the opposite, it was of considerable benefit to public health.
There is an extremely large epidemiological database on human response to a low intake of
fluoride from tap water. It has been accepted by many expert groups at an international
level which have reviewed these data that there is no substantive evidence that fluoride
intakes in the range predicted for young infants by the exposure modelling in this risk
assessment are associated with adverse health effects other than enamel fluorosis (e.g.
Thiessen, 1988, CEPA, 1993, Janssen and Knaap, 1994, California EPA, 1997, US Institute of
Medicine, 1999, McDonagh et al., 2000,). The adverse effects observed in animal studies,
as summarised in the hazard characterisation section of the risk assessment and described
in more detail in Appendix 1, are not considered relevant for the purposes of the risk
assessment, since extensive epidemiological studies have not produced evidence that the
findings in animals can be extrapolated to human populations drinking fluoridated water
over many years (e.g. California EPA, 1997, US Institute of Medicine, 1999, McDonagh et
al., 2000,). It is therefore considered more appropriate to base the risk characterisation on
the available human data, rather than the animal data.
Some findings were made that were acted upon, as noted in a good editorial in the Irish Times today (words you don’t read here often) that:
Some changes were proposed. The level of fluoridation in tap water was reduced. And the Department of Health was urged to conduct public information programmes to minimise an excessive uptake of the mineral by small children through bottle-feeding or the use of fluoridated toothpaste. Fluorosis, involving the discoloration of teeth, was found to be the main disadvantage.
according to Dick Ahlstrom
Mr Gormley also raised fears about using fluoridated tap water to mix formula for bottle-fed babies because of the dangers of fluorosis. Fluorosis is not a health risk and fluorosis is less of a risk where the fluoride in water is kept at proper levels.
The IT editorial also notes that
Anyone growing up in Ireland of the 1960s will remember just how bad people’s teeth were. General poverty and inadequate oral hygiene meant few people retained a full set of teeth into middle age. Living with dentures and toothache was part of growing old. Then tap water was fluoridated. Since then, the situation has improved dramatically. The rate of tooth decay among five-year-olds has dropped from being 10 per cent higher than in Northern Ireland to less than half of the North’s figure today. Tap water in the North is not fluoridated.
and
At a time when the Irish Dental Association is balloting its members on whether to withdraw from a free dental scheme for medical cardholders, the fluoridation issue is an unhelpful distraction. Treatment for medical cardholders is so poor that they can wait for months to have a denture fitted. And orthodontic care for children can take years. As in the health services generally, those who can pay for dental treatment receive priority treatment.
Wiki has some interesting further information, for instance bottled water manufacturers are now contemplating adding fluoride to their products due to the shift in consumption patterns.
Look, I’m not averse to the argument that mass involuntary medication isn’t an unalloyed good. It offends my libertarian instincts considerably. But I can’t in all honestly see this as some sort of wedge issue that heralds worse in the future. Some proponents of fluoridation argue that it is similar to fortifying milk with vitamins, and that seems to me to be reasonable. And really, in a society where we prohibit smoking in pubs, but don’t ban it altogether, despite and because of the adverse affects that it has it seems almost perverse to raise this as an issue of any great import.
And I’m wondering too whether this is in some respects an attempt by the Green Party to burnish it’s individualist credentials and perhaps put a little truly clear blue water between it and the collectivist left.
Problem is, that politically at least, this is a non-issue which has already been thrashed out in considerable detail by the state, various stakeholders and concerned citizens (consider the list of those who made submissions to the Forum). And that General Jack D. Ripper tinge of sheer oddness is nothing the Green Party should seek to associate itself with.
Or as the IT concludes, perhaps with an implicit sideswipe at the GP (which I wish the GP hadn’t given them the opportunity to make) which indicates the lack of traction this issue may have more broadly:
Individuals who worry about excessive fluoridation can take steps to minimise their intake of the mineral, without denying its benefits to the most vulnerable sections of society. At this stage, political parties should concentrate on improving access to good quality dental and medical care rather than be diverted by this loony issue.
PS after writing this I noticed that Simon had also done a piece on it at the Dossing Times, which covers some of the same as the above…although my interest in this is not so much the issue itself interesting as it is as the way it plays with a broader public…
“Loony issue”? I must say that sounds rather tabloidy for our Madam.
Hmm.. the thought struck me too.
I want to be fair to JG, who I have a lot of time for, if this is part of a raft of measures with a libertarian streak from the GP then I’d be much more happy with it in terms of public presentation. It’s just the fact it pops up in seeming splendid isolation and the significations of it with the general public that worries me.
And actually doesn’t it make sense the way she’s playing it, pushing Green philosophies back into a certain box labelled in a certain way. In other words don’t mind the vindication of large aspects of the Green project, lookee here…
I’m not sure I detect an anti-Green strain in the IT generally, I think this is just a rather extreme reaction to the raising of this issue. I’m sure the Dr Strangelove factor plays a part: I think a lot of people who might not be apt to support mass medication if they considered the issue rationally can’t get past the idea that fluoridation is the archetypal crank issue.
As far as I’m aware, ending fluoridation has been Green policy forever. I can’t get particularly worked up about it myself, but I do think the benefits of fluoridation are overstated and when in doubt I would always come down on the side of the policy which doesn’t effectively compel people to ingest something they might not want in their bodies. What swings it for me is the fact that most of the fluoride we take in via drinking water doesn’t have any beneficial effect – fluoride acts topically, and not systemically as was the theory at the time fluoridation started. That means we’re ingesting a lot of fluoride so that some of it can swab across our teeth on its way down.
By the way, I think Sinn Féin policy is anti-fluoridation also.
Joe what qualification or your basing your opinion on. “I do think the benefits of fluoridation are overstated”
I also worth more on the issue here. http://www.irishelection.com/02/why-have-science-when-you-can-have-john-gormely/
I guess what’s interesting is that there are genuine differences of opinion on this subject, but where the data seems to indicate a beneficial public health effect that’s not really (despite the latest pronouncements on it from the GP) the argument being utilised against it which instead is one philosophically that bases itself on libertarian principles.
Two points strike me. I’m unsure as to how to interpret the radically different levels of caries in states and areas which utilise fluoride as against these who don’t, statistics seems to indicate that the topical argument is perhaps slightly flawed since the beneficial effects come through in the data. There appear to be no significantly negative effects after decades of utilisation both here and abroad and the scientific consensus on this is strong. Secondly while leery of mass medication, in a situation where there seem to be no significant side effects and clear benefits why change now? What are the positive outcomes from such a change in five, ten or fifty years?
And if this is a philosophical disagreement, since this is a practical issue and generally the societal, political and medical consensus has been one to retain a modified status quo, wouldn’t it be better for the GP to follow a line (particularly since it isn’t a matter of life and death) of bringing it before the people in some form i.e. perhaps having it subject to some sort of vote or referendum rather than a simple determination to stop it outright?
Sinn Féin is indeed anti-fluoridation. See http://republican-news.org/archive/2000/October19/19fluo.html
And Gerry Adams:
“The proposal to deliberately contaminate public water supplies with fluoride has far-reaching political, medical and environmental consequences.” — Gerry Adams, in the Irish News, May 15th, 1996, when the northern health boards were trying to introduce fluoridation.
Since Ian Paisley was of the same mind, you can’t be surprised that there’s no fluoridation in Northern Ireland.
Did anyone notice that Mary Harney’s advisers on fluoridation, the Expert Body on Fluorides & Health, are now employing the PR company Weber Shandwick? Weber Shandwick’s key motto: “Safeguarding Reputation” (www.webershandwick.com/) Would any of you fluoride consumers prefer that your tax euros weren’t being spent on such things?
WorldbyStorm, you suggest a referendum on fluoridation. Do you mean that if 51% of the people vote in favour of fluoridation, then the 49% who don’t want it would be forced to ingest unmeasured amounts of hydrofluorosilicic acid in their drinking water?
soubresauts, I’m not sure. It’s as simple as that. The scientific data appears to support the contention that fluoridation is safe and beneficial. The opposing viewpoint holds the sincere view that fluoridation is unnecessary and/or a step too far in terms of intrusion by the state. With such a sharply polarised division between the two perhaps it’s only through some sort of democratic mandate that the state can act… Incidentally the state does, of course, impose a range of limitations and intrude into daily life.
As for your points regarding tax euros, well, perhaps. And as regards ingesting unmeasured amounts hydrofluorosilicic acid, well, yeah, but in fact they aren’t unmeasured and levels of fluoride in the water supply is in fact assessed by public health authorities (and it would be well nigh impossible to drink quantities of water that could have a detrimental effect upon one due to the level of fluoride in them) .
And I could also point out that scary as hydrofluorosilicic acid sounds, so equally does hypochlorite liquid solution which is a means of disinfecting drinking water supplies (used in Saggart no less) and is more commonly known as bleach.
oh don’t forget the most evil of chemicals. Dihydrogen oxide. It is used in nuclear reactors, cause thousands or deaths a year and is used in pesticides. And it is contend in most of what people drink. We should campaign against that.
A Bullshit fan, eh?
The point is that there are two possible arguments that can be made against fluordation of the water suppy.
1: ithat it’s either not beneficial, or worse actively hazardous.
Looking at the data that doesn’t appear to be the case or even near it.
2: (which has much more substance) that it’s wrong to mass medicate involuntarily.
I’m much more sympathetic to that. Yet, because of (1) it’s hard to get too exercised by it, it appears to be one of many legacy issues that date from the last century, and coming back to my original point unless this is part of a raft of legislation on the part of the GP in this sort of vein I’d worry that it sends out the wrong signals…
joemomma wrote: “As far as I’m aware, ending fluoridation has been Green policy forever.” Yes, you could say that, though they only started talking about it seriously ten years ago.
Simon, you could have waited until April 1st. Let me explain why fluoridation is no laughing matter…
WorldbyStorm, you’ve raised a lot of points in your last two posts. Let’s just agree that a fluoridation referendum would be problematic at least, and move on to the other points.
I must go back to your introductory post, because your two quotes from the ADA are misleading. What John Gormley is on about is this ADA recommendation: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/infantsformula.asp
In particular: “If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis… Breast milk is widely acknowledged as the most complete form of nutrition for infants.”
Consider the actual figures. Infant formula made up with fluoridated water (1 ppm fluoride — the usual Irish or U.S. level) contains more than 200 times as much fluoride as breast milk does (0.004 ppm). I can assure you that many people are seriously worried about those figures. Parents want the best for their baby. If the baby is not breastfed, what are they to do? Use tapwater, live with the worry, and hope for the best? Or pay out for bottled water or an expensive water filter or a distiller?
You have to remember that fluoride is not a nutrient of any kind; it is a cumulative poison. How poisonous? The Fluoridation Forum report (which apparently impressed you), in an unusually lucid passage, put it thus (page 112): “A standard tube of toothpaste contains about 125 gram of toothpaste (generally containing 1500 ppm fluoride); swallowing as little as one-quarter of a tube may be life-threatening for a one-year-old child.” The fluoride added to Irish water (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is even more toxic than toothpaste fluoride (source: the bible of fluoride toxicology — “Fluorine intoxication” by Kaj Roholm, 1937).
It needs to be said, again and again: Nobody needs fluoride — ever!
You quoted Dick Ahlstrom in the Irish Times. Well, it’s clear that Dick hasn’t done his homework; all he’s doing is repeating what he gets from the Expert Body. As a science editor, the least he could do is bone up on the science — from the highest U.S. scientific authority, the National Research Council of the National Academies. Last year they released their major report on Fluoride in Drinking Water (www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 — you can read it online).
One of the NRC panel members, Canada’s foremost fluoride expert, Dr Hardy Limeback, commented: “In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation.” (www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/index.html)
Limeback was among a group of distinguished scientists who put together a damning critique of the aforementioned Fluoridation Forum report: http://www.fluoridealert.org/irish.forum-critique.htm I assure you it’s more readable than the Forum report. More importantly, it has never been responded to. All the criticism stands.
Dr Joe Mullen and the other “experts” of the Expert Body (none of them are fluoride experts, by the way) might claim that the anonymous documents on the DoHC website (www.dohc.ie/issues/dental_research/), written in response to Dr Paul Connett’s “50 Reasons To Oppose Fluoridation” Forum presentation, also address the scientific critique. That’s nonsense; they don’t even answer Connett’s 50 Reasons (www.fluoridealert.org/50reasons.htm), as his follow-ups show:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50reasons-reply.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50reasons.ireland.pdf
Some of the remarks of Dr Mullen on Morning Ireland last Wednesday were outrageously misleading. He said: “If you’re using infant formula, tapwater is perfectly safe to use.” That’s just wishful thinking.
He said: “In Ireland there is no evidence of any problem with the use of tapwater for making up infant formula…” How would he know? Has he looked for a problem? (Not that he’s qualified to identify a problem.) Actually Mullen knows very well that NO ONE has looked for a health problem. There has been NO research on adverse health effects of fluoridation in Ireland, apart from the dental surveys carried out by the dentist academics who dominate the Expert Body. 43 years of mandatory fluoridation and not one scientific study!
Now do you see why they claim “there’s no evidence”? No one has bothered to look!
Well, I did a little looking. I found, among other things, that fluoride ingestion causes hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid), even at the levels that many Irish people are ingesting these days. And guess what! There is a surprising epidemic of hypothyroidism in Ireland: the third most prescribed drug in the GMS is the drug for hypothyroidism — Levothyroxine.
WorldbyStorm, I’m flat-contradicting your statement that “The scientific data appears to support the contention that fluoridation is safe and beneficial.” I urge you to look at the data. Actually if you can find ten scientific studies that appear to support the contention, I’ll undertake to deliver a refutation of them within a month. Note that the Expert Body says “there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation in Ireland.” (www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/documents/facts.html)
You wrote: “And as regards ingesting unmeasured amounts hydrofluorosilicic acid, well, yeah, but in fact they aren’t unmeasured and levels of fluoride in the water supply is in fact assessed by public health authorities (and it would be well nigh impossible to drink quantities of water that could have a detrimental effect upon one due to the level of fluoride in them).”
How are they measured? Who knows how much water you drank today? What about kids who go to raves, dance all night and drink gallons of water? What about athletes, diabetics… what about anybody? It’s unmeasured! You suppose it’s impossible to drink enough to have a detrimental effect? Read the NRC report. It asserts that water at 4 ppm fluoride is going to cause health damage (and it doesn’t specify any safe level below that). Do some people drink four times as much water as others? How can water at 1 ppm fluoride be safe?
It’s not safe! The emperor has no clothes.
And is it effective? Look at the evidence from American cities fluoridated for decades: http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof2/_pgg6.php3
What’s to be done with the tooth decay problem? Answer: Address the cause. The cause? It couldn’t be simpler: SUGAR. There is no other cause of tooth decay. If only Mary Harney could grasp that…
Scotland (100% unfluoridated) shows the way to go:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6342643.stm
Quote: “Levels of tooth decay among primary one pupils in Scotland are falling… The executive said the statistics were proof that tooth brushing schemes and education programmes in Scotland’s nurseries and primary schools were working.”
Dick Ahlstrom the Science Editor of the IT
That would be Dick “Intelligent Design” Ahlstrom, wouldn’t it?
I’d lean to the second viewpoint, which is why the lists of expert doctors who agree with fluoridation isn’t that relevant to me.
I don’t really care too much about it all though. (But is that down to its benefits, or because my precious bodily fluids have been sapped?)
‘Joe what qualification or your basing your opinion on. “I do think the benefits of fluoridation are overstated”’
I don’t have any relevant qualifications, but I am aware of the claims made by both sides. As far as I’m aware two claims are undisputed: 1) fluoridation reduces the incidence of dental caries in people who don’t otherwise look after their teeth; and 2) fluoridation increases the incidence of dental fluorosis in the population. I wouldn’t claim that dental fluorosis is anything like as serious as dental caries, but given that there are many ways of preventing caries other than fluoridation, I am inclined to think that it would be better to allow people to have the choice of avoiding the risk of fluorosis.
Someone following this debate might be forgiven for thinking that the cause of tooth decay is lack of fluoride, rather than excess of sugar. The biggest dental health issue is the consumption of sugary drinks by children – fluoridation is an attempt to mitigate this problem rather than address it directly.
As for the general issue of “expertise” continuously raised by simon, like any rational person I believe in relying on the advice of experts on topics which are not accessible to the layman. However, this does not mean that we should hand policy-making over to scientists or other experts. Perhaps some people would be content to live under such a technocratic system, but not I.
I think that from the point of view of the political right flouridation is a threat because it improves dental health, so less time is spent in dentist’s waiting rooms, and less exposure to the beneficial political effect of reading the Readers Digest.
the issue of concern for me here is the Green party misrepresenting the views of the American Dental Association.
There are arguments against flouridation, but a debate needs ot be properly informed, and the Green Party here seem to be trying to mislead the public.
Wondering why my previous post didn’t appear…
“the issue of concern for me here is the Green party misrepresenting the views of the American Dental Association.”
I don’t think they’ve misrepresented them. Take a read of the ADA’s Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intakes for Infants and Young Children. The ADA is indeed one of the world’s strongest backers of fluoridation, which is why their concession in respect of bottle-fed infants is so significant. Of course, by saying “this advice [of the ADA] should be heeded”, Gormley invites the comeback “shouldn’t we then also heed their other advice and continue fluoridating our water?”
It’s also important to note that the ADA issued their advice as a reaction to the report of the US National Research Council on fluoride in drinking water.
soubresauts, it seems it was picked up by our over-conscientious spam filter. I’ve retrieved it and a few other genuine comments and reprimanded the filter accordingly.
joemomma wrote: “As far as I’m aware, ending fluoridation has been Green policy forever.” Yes, you could say that, though they only started talking seriously about it ten years ago. Trevor Sargent was getting in on the act then; look at this amazing letter from Chemifloc in Shannon, when they had lost the fluoride supply contract: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluosilicic.htm
Simon, you could have waited until April 1st. I think I can explain why fluoridation is no laughing matter…
“That would be Dick “Intelligent Design” Ahlstrom, wouldn’t it?”
I think you might be thinking of William “there is scientific evidence of the existence of God” Reville.
soubresauts, you raise interesting points, but can you point to evidence of individuals who have suffered clear negative impacts from flouridation? In this state it’s been the norm for, what is it, moving on for over forty years? That’s pretty much all my life.
Take the example you give of a child swallowing a tube of toothpaste. I can’t agree more that in that scenario it might prove life threatening, but the same is true of so many other products in the contemporary home that to single it out as a cause for particular concern seems unusual.
As regards drinking water in excess, well, I suspect -although no doubt someone has the precise facts – that you’re more likely to get hyponatremia (over hydration) than fluoride poisoning. And I’m not entirely certain that your point re 1ppm as against 4ppm is correct.
I’ve already noted that if I were more exercised about the issue one way or another the real line of attack I’d take is the mass medication one, not the data which seems to be fairly trivial in terms of the effect of fluoride, and it’s also arguable that in any situation in a contemporary society there is no risk free solution.
Incidentally it’s also interesting that the ADA interim guidance doesn’t address an issue of poisoning, but instead fluorosis. It’s also telling that naturally occurring fluoride is also mentioned in the report:
There’s a good overview of this aspect of the issue here.
joemomma, I get the impression that some invisible formatting character is causing the spam filter to block my posts.
WorldbyStorm, you said that “the ADA interim guidance doesn’t address an issue of poisoning, but instead fluorosis.” And that “the data… seems to be fairly trivial in terms of the effect of fluoride”.
I suggest reading this: http://www.fluoridealert.org/dental-fluorosis.htm
It has been known for a long time that dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of systemic fluoride poisoning. The people who say it is purely a cosmetic effect are either lying or inexcusably ignorant.
Even the British Government accepts that “dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity.” See: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/fluoride.html
If there was some biochemical mechanism whereby ingested fluoride homed in on the tooth-forming cells in your body and avoided every other cell, it would have been studied and described. There is no such description, and no such mechanism. Fluoride messes up your endocrine system, and so poisons every cell in your body, but particularly the thyroid and pineal glands, and the bone-forming cells. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/
However, this does not mean that we should hand policy-making over to scientists or other experts.
But when you use science as the basis of your arguement. Should you not actually use all of it not just the bits that suit you.
Thanks soubresauts, I’ve read through the literature you’ve provided. The problem is that even so the effects seem extremely limited and the connections appear somewhat tenuous. I really can’t get worked up about such low figures.
It’s worth noting that the full quotation you reference reads:
That is a somewhat different meaning to the one you choose to put upon it… and I notice that the quote is used inaccurately across a range of sites on the net. Now I have no problem with the quote being used as long as it is contextualised in it’s full extent. And the point is can you point to evidence of systemic ill-health on a more than individual basis which can be clearly attributed to fluoridation of the water supply?
I have to be honest, the language you use about it “poisoning every cell in your body” seems slightly inappropriate in a situation where we know that in our water and in our air there are many vastly more dangerous substances which are much more pervasive and without even a modicum of a beneficial factor.
All I can say is that the data doesn’t appear to support your contentions that fluoridation of water constitutes a major and immediate hazard to the population and that the broad scientific consensus on the issue tends to that view (with I recognise dissenting voices). There does on the contrary appear to be a beneficial aspect of fluoridation, although I am glad the government has reduced the levels somewhat.
I’d also argue that while I’d be strongly opposed to any future mass medication process this is one which as I’ve termed it before, constitutes a legacy issue where fortunately or unfortunately the experiment was carried out on people like – well – me actually seeing as I’m in my early 40s.
But when you use science as the basis of your arguement. Should you not actually use all of it not just the bits that suit you.
Yes, of course, but science should inform political decisions, not make them.
WorldbyStorm, my posts are not getting through apparently. I’ll try answering your challenges with very short posts.
About the Baroness Hayman quote, you said: “That is a somewhat different meaning to the one you choose to put upon it…”
Huh? No, it’s not. What are you on about?
Of course Hayman went on to use the “there is no evidence” argument, since otherwise the UK government would be facing the Appalling Vista that it is slowly poisoning five million of its people (12% of England is fluoridated — Birmingham and Tyneside). Just like the Irish, the British haven’t looked for evidence.
WorldbyStorm, you said that “we know that in our water and in our air there are many vastly more dangerous substances which are much more pervasive…”
You’re mistaken. Fluoride is the most dangerous thing in our water and our air, and it’s pervasive. By the way, the biggest fluoride polluters in Ireland are ESB Moneypoint and Intel in Leixlip, though there are many others, especially around the Shannon Estuary.
soubresauts, I don’t doubt for a moment your sincerity or your diligence on this issue, problem is that I just don’t think that the level of rhetoric equals the scale of the threat. It’s that simple. Nor are they challenges. I’ve already indicated that if we were doing it again I wouldn’t be in favour of fluoridation but that we are where we are, the drastic and extreme side effects that the sites you mention do not appear to be borne out in experience, the poisoning you refer to has had minimal effects and sin é.
Re: Hayman, the implication that appears to be in your response is that Baroness Hayman has validated what you argue, otherwise why only quote the truncated version? She doesn’t. She makes a statement which is then qualified by further information. No big deal, and why only take cogniscence of one part of her response but not the other?
Re: the Appalling Vista. perhaps she, and her experts sincerely and with no malice aforethought just simply don’t believe that the evidence of an Appalling Vista stacks up. There are two views on this. Both are sincerely held. There is no reason to impugn the motives of those on either side.
Re: the most dangerous thing in our water and our air. in large concentrations as I’ve already conceded yes of course flouride, like any other substance is dangerous. To say it’s the most dangerous appears to me to be hyperbole. But I’d propose the most dangerous substance in our water and our air, and equally pervasive is CO2. And that’s not restricted to the examples you offer above.
WorldbyStorm, I think you’re still trying to make the Hayman quote (which means, unequivocally: UK Govt accepts that dental fluorosis shows systemic poisoning) fit in with the Irish Govt stance, which is that dental fluorosis is the ONLY adverse effect of fluoridation and is PURELY cosmetic (not poisoning). The rest of what Hayman said is a sort of backing away from the admission, using the false cover that “there is no evidence”. The evidence has not been looked for.
You’re effectively challenging me to come up with the evidence. Without claiming to be a scientist or medical researcher, I gave pointers above, and I’d also point to the medical literature (which is extensive). They should be enough to make any reasonable person shout “Whoa! We might have a big problem here.”
You don’t see a big problem with fluoridation, but you haven’t looked, have you?
About pollution, see http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pollution.htm
CO2 dangerous? There’s no comparison.
By the way, since you mentioned Robin Cook on the Cohen thread, I’ll mention that Cook was, for many years until he died, a vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society, a quango with a long history of scientific misconduct and misrepresentation of the facts. (Read the Barry Groves book on this.)
You mentioned sincerity. I’ve no doubt Cook was sincere about the Iraq War, and I could accept he was sincere about fluoridation (though duped). But fluoridation is kept going mainly through the culpable ignorance and professional negligence of politicians, public health doctors and certain other professionals.
soubresauts, I have looked, following diligently the links you have given me. To be honest the risks appear overblown and exaggerated. At no point do I say there is no risk, simply that in the scale of things they don’t measure up to the rhetoric of those making the claims. The worst poison in our eco system? Doesn’t seem like it to me. A big problem? Again, it doesn’t seem like it to me.
Nor am I challenging you to do anything.
Re Robin Cook, I can’t see the relevance of your point, or how it strengthens your argument.
There are two views on this matter. That’s the way it is.
“There are two views on this matter. That’s the way it is.” I wouldn’t disagree there, and in Ireland, broadly speaking, those views are represented by the Government parties on one side (let fluoridation continue) and the opposition parties on the other (stop it now). And then there are those who call themselves “left-wing”…
The attitude of “well maybe, but I can’t get worked up about this” explains very well how fluoridation has been kept going for 43 years in Ireland, with no research done, and barely a peep out of those who claim to care for the underprivileged. It is the underprivileged who are suffering: their bad diets make them more susceptible to fluoride’s toxic effects, they breastfeed less, they’re less educated about dental care, they cannot afford bottled water, they cannot afford private dentistry (or doctors), and they have to put up with long waiting lists…
The U.S. statistics provide incontrovertible evidence. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that 80 percent of tooth decay is found in just 25 percent of the children, most of whom are from low-income families. And nearly all of them drink fluoridated water. (www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00149.pdf)
In Ireland, there are more than four times as many dentists now as there were when fluoridation began, and they are the highest paid profession of all. Mind you, there are honest dentists out there, like Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation: http://www.idof.net
The Irish Times, which denigrates those who want to stop fluoridation, won’t print the many letters responding to its disgraceful editorial. The right to reply that this forum provides is much appreciated.
Three issues that do not seem to be getting much attention here.
Firstly, no one ever asked me personally if they could deliberately affect my body chemistry by putting something into the water. They just went ahead and did it. And they enshrined it in law so that my local authorities have no choice but to put that substance in my water. So they have no choice, I have no choice.
Secondly, those who have decided that I have no choice but to take their medicine, have never come to me and asked “so how are you getting on Sean… are you getting the right amount per kilo of body weight per day… lets check you out to see if you need more or less than you’re getting at present… hang on there now while we do a bone scan, hair mineral and blood analysis for you” (come to think of it, what IS the right daily amount of fluoride for a person per kilo body weight?!)
Thirdly, the phenomenon of bio-magnification up the food-chain. Plants watered with fluoridated water will concentrate fluoride. Animals that eat those plants will concentrate it further. Humans who eat those animals (or plants if they’re that way inclined) will concentrate it further still. So while the amounts released into water are initially diluted to what seem to be paltry levels (1ppm is like 1minute out of almost 2 years) the amounts ending up in the body can be way higher. Which would explain why some Co. Councillors who had their urine checked a few years ago were excreting anywhere from 3 to 5ppm…
So never mind the science stuff… how about the human right to refuse medication? And (even if we agree that it is okay to medicate someone without ever meeting them or asking their permission) the negligence of the medicators in checking in with me?! Not once in 38 years have I heard from them regarding adjusting my dose… strange that the Irish Medicines Board haven’t hauled them up on that.
Hmmm, strange that the Irish Medicines Board haven’t really said much at all about either this amazing medical substance or this very unusual method of administering it.
No one can legally oblige you to take a poison in your water or can they? Every drug you are prescribed has a name and patient information leaflet with it. Not so with the tap water.
The word ‘Fluoridation’ is not an ingredient, it only describes a process so where is the patient information leaflet giving name of product and its sell by date and side effects/
Although it is diluted at source it is not diluted in your body
because you retain half of the toxic fluoride-compound in water fluoridation, and then begin to build up your own private
personal reservoir. So the argument of dilution in the body uptake no longer applies because the levels rise every day.
Secondly , if you dose whole communities with a toxic substance you need to tell them. Thirdly if using a toxic substance in the water don’t you need a toxicologist to oversee this and how many were on the Fluoridation Forum or the Expert body?
Sean Uisce, while it’s true that “no one ever asked me personally if they could deliberately affect my body chemistry by putting something into the water”, you have to remember that the 1960 Fluoridation Act was passed by the Oireachtas; in other words, a “democratic” decision.
“They just went ahead and did it. And they enshrined it in law… I have no choice.” But think about who did it, and why. It was the Fianna Fail government, with Minister for Health Sean MacEntee, and the opposition was pathetic, with very few exceptions. At that time, just about everything coming from America (except rock and roll music) was seen in Ireland as good. Fluoridation was no exception, so few dared to question it, especially when Washington was handing over large sums of money for the promotion of fluoridation. That mentality was even stronger after Kennedy was elected.
While Kennedy was still in the White House, Judge John Kenny gave his judgement in the High Court on Gladys Ryan’s challenge to the fluoridation law. Reading his judgement now, you’d say the man was totally out to lunch. But the next year the Supreme Court, led by Cearbhall O Dalaigh, heard Mrs Ryan’s appeal and they simply upheld Kenny’s judgement. It was laughable stuff… How could all those supposedly learned men show such ignorance of the nature of science, or the science of nature?
A few years ago I read up on the legal side of it and gave my views here: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/FluoridePoisoning/message/1788 (I included there the most relevant parts of the courts’ judgements.)
Maybe even more amazing is that, since 1964, no Irish lawyer has publicly questioned those judgements, even though every lawyer has studied the Ryan case. And the legal expert on the Minister’s Expert Body on Fluorides and Health, Prof William Binchy, has not attended one meeting of the Expert Body in its three years of existence. The legal profession has a lot to answer for.
Actually Sean Uisce the point you raise about mass medication is one that has been made in almost every post since the initial one that started this written by me, which is that it’s not something to do again and were we in the same position again I wouldn’t support it.
Problem is people do not appear to dropping dead from fluoride. Flourosis is in general the worst that can be expected – and almost not at all if people are sane enough not to utilise flouride toothpaste. I know on the sites recommended there is some arm waving about cancer and thyroid issues but frankly I don’t see a casual link that indicates fluoridation is a primary or even secondary reason for these.
On the other hand, always glad to provide a forum and it is right and proper that these concerns are aired.
WorldbyStorm… if you wouldn’t support fluoridation were it to be started again, on what grounds can go along with it’s continuing now?
And if the ‘problem’ is that people don’t appear to be dropping dead from it… well what if someone is proven to have been killed by it tomorrow? Can we afford to take that risk as a society? I don’t know about you, but I’m not prepared to ask anyone to risk or compromise their health in order to protect my teeth from damage caused by my dietary choices.
Just because someone does not die from consuming something does not mean that the substance is safe to consume. “Fluorosis is in general the worst that can be expected” suggests you believe that fluorosis is not something to be concerned about. I contend that a substance which, while not killing me, alters the structure and method of growth of my bones from that which nature intended is a very serious matter indeed. It means – at the very least – increased risk of fractures, osteoporosis and other skeletal related issues. Never mind the possibility that if a substance has been interfering with the construction of my bones that it could also have been interfering with the construction and/or function of other body parts.
And exactly what level of fluorosis are you talking about… the minute white flecks built-in to teeth or the crippled joints and crooked spines people get consuming 4ppm? Where on the symptom spectrum do you draw the line… or do you draw one at all? My own view is, again, it’s better not to go down a road that could in any way be risky – the precautionary principle ought to apply. “First do no harm” if you will.
Your point about there not being a causal link between fluoridation and cancer and thyroid issues is all very well if someone wants to insist on “scientific” evidence of harm before ending fluoridation. Going down that road leads to a quagmire of argument and counter argument which distracts from the fundamental issues:
1 I’m still being forced to consume something that
2 MSDSheets say should not be released into the environment because of it’s toxicity and is considered a hazardous substance en-route to public water supplies.
So I want to keep it real simple.
I want someone who thinks it’s okay to medicate me even though they’ve never met me, to tell me exactly what a person’s daily consumption of fluoride per Kg body weight ought to be. And I want them to prove to me exactly how much my body will suffer if I don’t get that amount. Show me the double-blind cross-over studies and in-vitro and in-vivo examples of what happens to cell function when not getting just the right amount of the right variation of fluoride
Once all this is established to my satisfaction THEN we can begin discussing how to establish via chemical analysis of my body tissues my present levels of fluoride ingestion and retention and thereby determine whether I actually need that drug or not.
And THEN if my need is established, I’ll insist on seeing the list of side-effects that this medication has been shown to cause along with the approval it received for use as a medicine from the Irish Medicines Board (seeing as the US FDA have never examined it’s suitability for use as a medical substance).
And after all of that, it will be ME who makes the final decision about whether to take it or not (unless of course two or more of you ‘out there’ decide I’m legally insane and start forcing me to take it for my own good… or a bunch of you get together and democratically create a law that makes me take it).
Maybe I’m missing something here, but so far I’ve seen numerous responses on this thread which point towards scientific evidence which I have spent some time hunting down. Now if you’re saying in the following statement “Your point about there not being a causal link between fluoridation and cancer and thyroid issues is all very well if someone wants to insist on “scientific” evidence of harm before ending fluoridation. Going down that road leads to a quagmire of argument and counter argument which distracts from the fundamental issues” that my following those leads is now merely irrelevant why all the other “scientific” information?
I’ve been asked to look at evidence. I’ve weighed it up as best I can, come to a conclusion and away I go. I don’t think living on this planet is risk free under any circumstances, I don’t see how it can be. But to single out fluoride for particular concern when even you as just above can’t point to clear evidence of any significant harmful effect upon public health as reflected in the data from this country just makes me think that for my personal list of priorities it’s not going to near the top. Even on the mass medication front (and I have considerable sympathy for that argument). Simply put I don’t believe this is an issue of societal concern in the face of broader issues which have direct and calculable impacts from the state of the health service, the North, housing, pension, climate change etc, etc.
I simply can’t get exercised about it. I don’t see evidence of significant harm. I don’t see evidence that the negatives outweigh the benefits.
I’m sorry, I know that’s not the response you seem to require.
Sean Uisce, you have explained why there is not one Irish medical doctor willing to defend fluoridation in public debate.
WorldbyStorm, I detect wishful thinking…
“Problem is people do not appear to be dropping dead from fluoride.” Yeah, that’s the trouble with slow poisoning.
“Flourosis is in general the worst that can be expected.” Who told you that?
Actually the WHO did… because the “justification” for fluoridation always includes “the WHO says…”
I heard that so often that I decided to investigate the WHO, and this is what I came up with:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/FluoridePoisoning/message/3967
In other words, the WHO’s “expertise” on fluoride doesn’t extend beyond one Swedish dentist who knows his stuff and three fluoride-promoting dentists (two from UCC) who always get their way. Talk about a house of cards.
What do you think has caused the epidemic of hypothyroidism? And the rise in incidence of irritable bowel syndrome, scleroderma, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, brittle teeth, delayed eruption or teeth, repetitive strain injury, cancers, Alzheimer’s, etc.? All linked to fluoride ingestion; see http://bruha.com/pfpc/html/symptoms.html
On delayed eruption, see http://bruha.com/science/html/tooth_eruption.html
(Delayed eruption would explain the difference in caries rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.)
You wouldn’t be just a teenchy-weenchy bit curious about those effects, would you?
So, “can’t point to clear evidence of any significant harmful effect upon public health as reflected in the data from this country”? I’m trying to tell you, nobody has looked at the data. But don’t you get exercised about it now.
Medication has side-effects. Mass medication has massive side-effects.
Yes, you’re right. That was not the response I required.
You still have to explain how you can simultaneously be okay with fluoridation continuing and also saying you would not support it were it to be initiated again.
You also have to come up with the goods (which should be easy when it comes to delivering a medicine) regarding the ideal amount for me to get per Kg body weight per day. If you can come up with answers on this one I’ll be highly impressed. Because, to my knowledge, those administering this medicine to me don’t know those answers. (Note: I’m being very generous on this point by not also insisting you check your sources to find both the toxic-dose levels and the margin of safety which would have been established during rigorous clinical and human trials prior to the drug’s being approved by authorities).
If fluoridation is not a priority for you then that’s fine. And I suspect we’ll have to politely agree to disagree about it’s importance.
Because your criteria for ending it seems to be on the basis of “evidence of harm”… and that harm needs to be “significant” (would be interesting to establish what criteria one would use to classify a harm as ’significant’).
Meanwhile my criteria against fluoridation is on the basis of “avoid the risk of harming someone” I agree with you that life on this great planet is risky. And I see no sense in us adding risk unnecessarily. So I believe the onus is not on opponents to prove harm (or even the lesser standard of ‘risk of harm”) but rather on proponents to unequivocally demonstrate both it’s necessity AND it’s safety. And even if they could I would still disagree with the practice on both medical malpractice and human rights grounds.
Your expression “as reflected in the data from this country” is quite disturbing if it’s the truth. Were your conclusions reached based on only Irish-derived data?? Did you really not consider data from everywhere else on the planet? India, China, Chile… all ignored? What about the studies given in the journal “Fluoride” (http://www.fluorideresearch.org) – were they part of your investigations?
If data from outside Ireland was not considered in forming your conclusions, then it would not surprise me that you “don’t see” evidence of either significant (?) harm or the negatives outweighing benefits and fluoride would tumble down your list of priorities.
And even if you did only take on board “data from this country” when looking for clear evidence of ’significant harmful effect’ well at least you had the decency to stand up and debate the matter publicly. Which is more than can be said for those who keep telling us there’s plenty of evidence of safety and effectiveness but don’t emerge into the public arena to defend that evidence…
I’m reading all this, but finding myself oddly unable to care.
Tulipstairs, nobody’s saying that fluoridation is the sole cause of losing your capacity to care, but I respectfully suggest that if you try to avoid the tapwater you might notice an improvement.
Perhaps you should also, for the moment, avoid bad-news stories like this morning’s Daily Star poll results (www.rte.ie/news/2007/0323/poll.html).
And just then, Soubresauts crosses the line into “precious bodily fluids” territory…
Also, that’s hardly a “bad-news story” for a Green Party member.
(Excuse me. That should read “supporter”.)
I have some additional thoughts soubresauts and sean, and will put them up tomorrow…
sobresauts, one thought struck me from reading your piece earlier.
A quick trek around various sites relating to Alzheimers i.e. http://www.alz.org etc, indicate it’s not even mentioned as a possible cause. Same with hyperthyroidism, same with IBS, same with cancer, same with osteoporosis, same with osteoarthritis. Now no doubt I’ve left out some sites where it is mentioned, but these are reputable organisations, many of them advocacy organisations. The idea that they’re all in the pocket of big fluoride strikes me as unlikely. If they’re not making the link, and these are organisations that would scour the literature for any such linkages, then I think we would need much firmer evidential data.
Where there seems to be some link to fluoride is in the area of teeth. But most of it appears to recommend fluoride as a means of ameliorating the very things you point up as evidence of fluoride poisoning i.e. brittle teeth.
And I doubt that all the above can be laid exclusively or even particularly at fluorides door, if only because we see exactly the same patterns in the UK where fluoridation is used in only a limited number of centres (and if one takes Seans advice and looks at the situation outside Ireland and Britain we see exactly the same developments elsewhere in countries where there is no fluoridation). I’d suspect we’re seeing some of them simply because we’re living longer as a species, our diet has changed radically (and for the worse) in a century and so on.
Sean, again I take on board the argument you make from a libertarian perspective indeed that’s a good question you raise at the beginning. I say that because fluoridation has been in use without the detrimental effects that those against it claim it is responsible for. I wouldn’t do it again because of the risk of any mass medication, but… unfortunately I and you have been part of an experiment, which has worked to date. I don’t think there’s a massive contradiction. This time I think we were lucky. I wouldn’t want to take the risk again (and I note that there have been mutterings about anti-cholesterol drugs being more broadly utilised in foodstuffs, something that sounds barmy).
If I seem to see the issue as less important than a range of others, that’s not to say that it’s not important. And I think it’s absolutely necessary that there are people (such as yourselves) checking and rechecking this in order both to keep the science clean and to monitor on-going effects.
WorldbyStorm, I never personally consented to be part of the experiment (it began before I was born). And now I want out.
The law says I can’t get out.
The fact that we collectively democratically go along with it, sets a precedent that other experiments could be suggested and enshrined in law. This I am not comfortable with on personal freedom grounds AND on personal liability grounds (if I okay the experiment, then I must accept responsibility – legal, moral, financial etc – for any unexpected outcomes – like poisoning of participants).
And staying with the notion of us being part of a fluoridation experiment… it is highly doubtful that it “has worked to date”
There are several epidemiological studies showing no major difference in dental decay rates between people in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. And there’s also the town of Basel in Switzerland which halted fluoridation after 41years… because they could see no dental health benefit when comparing decay rates to non-fluoridated Swiss communities (which, as it happens, was the rest of their country as Basel was the only area fluoridated).
Furthermore, the experiment has been appallingly badly conducted. Not once have the guinea pigs been checked to see how much of the experimental substance they were individually getting per day. Nor were they checked to see how much they were getting BEFORE the experiment started. Nor were they given an amount specific to them as individuals.
And where is the control group which has been kept in similar conditions (in which the only variant is that they have no fluoride in their water – same diet, habits, exercise levels etc)? How have things gone with the dental health of the control group in the same length of time?
Given those points, personal freedom issues to one side, how can one possibly conclude that the substance being checked experimentally was actually what made the (claimed) improvements in dental health?
WorldbyStorm, I have to say you’re mistaken on nearly every score. I’ll explain fully later…
Sean Uisce, I fully agree with the points you made; they will not and cannot be answered by the medical establishment. I just have to correct one invalid comparison you made:
While it’s true that Basel (the last city in continental Europe fluoridating its water) stopped it in 2003 after 41 years, you shouldn’t compare it to the rest of Switzerland, because most of the Swiss people are fluoridated through their salt. Salt fluoridation is underpinned by scientific fraud, by an all-powerful dentist called Prof Dr Thomas Marthaler, and by the influence of the WHO (based in Switzerland). You won’t be surprised to learn that Marthaler is an old friend and collaborator of Ireland’s doyen of fluoridation, Prof Denis O’Mullane. I wrote about all that here: http://sonic.net/kryptox/nutri/saltGermany.htm
Guys, can’t we all just blame the Jews? It’s far easier.
Pidge, and others, I thought you might have noticed that there’s a serious political issue for left-wingers here. It’s about democratic opposition to an oppressive government measure — fluoridation is harmful, it’s being inflicted on the population without their consent, and the poor are suffering the most.
I showed above that Sinn Féin are clearly opposed to fluoridation. What about the Labour Party? Well…
Labour’s environment spokesman, Mr Eamon Gilmore, said there was a need for an independent study. “When fluoride was first introduced, a commitment was made by the Department of Health to undertake studies on possible health implications. However, none were ever undertaken and concerns now being expressed by members of the public should not be ignored.”
– Irish Times, 18 May 2000 (www.voice.buz.org/mailarchive/msg00012.html)
Seven years on, there’s no indication that Gilmore or any other Labour person has noticed that the “independent study” hasn’t happened. Instead, more and more public money is being spent to keep fluoridation going.
Do any other left-wingers have anything to say?
Even Fine Gael have taken a principled stand against fluoridation: http://www.fluoridationcenter.org/papers/2001/irishindependent011501.htm
As for the Government parties, it’s clear that the fluoridators have infiltrated them thoroughly. The performance of Fianna Fáil’s Dr Jimmy Devins in the Oireachtas Health Committee shows that he’s been told to stop John Gormley (see http://debates.oireachtas.ie/CommitteeMenu.aspx?Dail=29&Cid=HE, in particular 8 Feb 2007 and 14 Dec 2006).
And how about this from the PDs: http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/press_room/2307/
That GE candidate Keith Redmond is on the council of the Irish Dental Association, which is still ignoring the advice of the American Dental Association on infant formula (see above). Redmond is just one of the many sources of pro-fluoride pressure on Mary Harney.
Other sources of pressure are the various health-related organizations with public appointees. I indicated above how, with fluoridation, the foxes are in charge of the hen-house. I’m glad to see that the Greens, at least, are doing something about that particular problem:
http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/reform_of_public_appointments_key_to_cleaning_up_politics
Right now it seems that only the Greens are prepared to “get their hands dirty” on the issue, even to the extent of drawing the wrath of the Irish Times.
Are left-wing politicians afraid of prompting scorn from the IT leader-writer?
Perhaps, but you haven’t addressed my point about the major lobbying groups in the health areas you directly point to such as cancer, etc. If they’re not concerned about flouridation as a significant cause, worthy to be put in their lists of causes of such ailments I’m not certain that it advances your case very far.
Re the rest of it. Perhaps a critical mass of anti-fluoridation will occur. That’s fine. You won’t find me too upset one way or the other.
WorldbyStorm, not having discussed issues directly with lobby groups I can’t really comment on them… other than to share my experience with a cancer support group and clients who came for other concerns – as a result of which I suggest that perhaps the reason those lobby groups are not investigating/shouting about fluoride is that they see no danger in it.
In my work, I invariably broach the issue of what people ingest as being a contributor to their difficulties. And about 90% of those I see simply don’t want to know. They take the “ah, sure you have to die of something” attitude. Or they adopt the flat denial stance (“what I eat and drink has nothing to do with it – it’s a disease I’ve caught!). Even some people who had been told they had a few weeks to live, still did not want to make any changes to how they were living, eating and drinking.
The exact psychology behind this I cannot describe. Perhaps it’s a mix of not wanting to look foolish for being self-destructive or naive in their decisions… perhaps it’s blind-faith in the notion of a benevolent and kindly caring society and Gov that wouldn’t allow anything harmful
to enter their lives. I don’t know.
What I do know is that out of c.60 with cancer worked with in a 5 year period… only one made serious effects to explore the role what she was consuming might play in her cancer. Another made half-hearted attempts. And both were scared they were doing something wrong because society did not encourage them in the choices.
This is hardly a statistically significant observation on my part… but it does suggest something deep in the human psyche that does not like new info (esp. if it means change of habit or a world-view, or considering one’s own role in one’s own difficulties).
So I suspect that the lobby groups you mention (being run by people and therefore being affected by their perceptions) could very easily suffer the same selective vision when it comes to investigating causes and remedies to their member’s difficulties. Which would mean that (as they’ve been told for decades it’s safe & effective) they’d not even consider fluoride as a concern.
Soubresauts, thank you for the correction re Switzerland. And yet, ironically, your correction perhaps highlights my point further. If all Swiss were consuming fluoridated salt and some of those were also consuming fluoridated water and showing no greater dental benefit, then surely that casts serious doubt on the thesis of a dental benefit of fluoridation?
Sorry – typo!
“in a 5 year period… only one made serious effects to explore the role what she was consuming might play in her cancer”
I of course meant to say “serious efforts”
Sean, I’d have to take issue with that entirely. I doubt that the lobby groups would take such a narrow minded view of the causes of any disease that was central to their work. My own father died of colon cancer in 2001, having first manifested it in the mid 1990s, and it was very clear, from my own personal experience of his problems (dodgy I know to be on this ground, but you did introduce experience as a means of assessing the issue), the advice from medical staff and from support groups was unequivocal that diet had contributed very strong to his medical problems and that he had to alter if he were to survive. Unfortunately – or fortunately, depending I guess entirely on his viewpoint – he chose not to follow that advice. Now I think it entirely implausible that such groups would ignore any evidence of environmental causes of cancer, or whatever, or that some twist of the psyche would prevent them if given specific evidence to do so.
But again, since there is no clear evidence that fluoride is the cause, or even part cause of the diseases mentioned above I think it unnecessary to introduce them, or even to hint that fluoride might be the cause of them when we know already that there are numerous other much more clearly responsible environmental toxins.
WorldbyStorm, “no clear evidence that fluoride is the cause”? I’d dispute that, but we shouldn’t have to wait until everyone is agreed that the evidence is “clear”.
About the health organizations (who are not warning about fluoridation), you wrote: “…Same with hyperthyroidism, same with IBS, … these are reputable organisations, many of them advocacy organisations.”
Reputable they may be, but they don’t know about fluoride. (BTW, the fluoride-related thyroid problem is hypothyroisism, rather than hyperthyroidism.) There are four obvious reasons why fluoride is not considered by them:
1. In general, advocacy organizations are funded by Big Pharma and other industries with a vested interest in fluoride — see http://bruha.com/pfpc/html/index_drugs.html. The example you gave, the Alzheimer’s Association, is typical. See http://www.alz.org/about_us_sponsors.asp
2. Those organizations that are truly independent — refusing any commercial donations — sometimes cop on about the fluoride problem, but rarely. They just don’t have the resources to research the issue. And there’s virtually no money behind the anti-fluoridation campaign; it’s just ordinary consumers who don’t want fluoride and are trying to tell others about the deception. And it is a big deception. (Read “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson.) So big that somebody as well informed as yourself, WorldbyStorm, still seems to think that fluoride is basically good for us.
3. The organizations are deliberately infiltrated by pro-fluoride people, often dentists. I have personal experience of this, people in America have reported the same, and several books document it.
4. Advocacy organizations, like most people, tend to listen first to the medical establishment. The whole medical establishment has capitulated to the big-shot dentists who run the fluoride show, and copies out their propaganda. However, you should note that there’s not one Irish medical doctor who’s willing to defend fluoridation in public debate. (The reason is obvious: it’s indefensible.)
Sean Uisce has reinforced my point. If someone like me (no long list of letters after my name) or an environmental group like Voice (www.voiceireland.org) tells them of the fluoride link, they’re either incredulous or dismissive. Believe me, I’ve tried.
You wrote: “If they’re not making the link, and these are organisations that would scour the literature for any such linkages…”
No, they wouldn’t, and they don’t. Nor do the Irish “guardians of public health” — the DoHC, the Health Research Board, the Expert Body, the EPA, the FSAI, etc. None of them show any interest in fluoride’s side-effects. There has been no effort to investigate side-effects, not one study (apart from dental studies). In fact the HRB will turn down applications for such studies (I know of at least one case recently). Ignorance reigns. Any medical or dental person who questions the use of fluoride is likely to be called a crank, a troublemaker, or worse.
Over the years, anti-fluoridation scientists have given shocking details of the dirty tricks and intimidation used by the fluoridators. See the books by Waldbott and Yiamouyiannis, both of them great scientists. They endured incredible abuse from the American medical establishment.
About Alzheimer’s, bear in mind that aluminium (as alum — aluminium sulphate) is added to nearly all Irish water supplies, and not for any health reason. The scientific details about Alzheimer’s, fluoride and aluminium are here:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/ and
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000094.htm
Rest assured that no Irish medical researchers are given time, money or encouragement to look into that evidence. For the DoHC, the Health Research Board and the whole medical establishment, that would be looking into the Appalling Vista. No, the public money that could go into useful medical research goes instead into PR contracts to preserve the reputations of the fluoridators, into the Expert Body, and into fluoridation equipment, maintenance, etc.
What kind of a public health policy is it if it can be kept going only through lies, scientific fraud. dirty tricks, and PR companies? And why is only one Irish politician angry about it?
WorldbyStorm, here are my comments [in square brackets] on what you wrote earlier.
Where there seems to be some link to fluoride is in the area of teeth. But most of it appears to recommend fluoride as a means of ameliorating the very things you point up as evidence of fluoride poisoning i.e. brittle teeth. [Nobody suggests fluoride will make teeth less brittle, though they do say "harden". What happens is that fluoride makes the enamel hard in a different way, and thus more brittle; ditto the bones. It's like the difference between ordinary glass and toughened glass.]
And I doubt that all the above can be laid exclusively or even particularly at fluorides door [I didn't say "exclusively"...], if only because we see exactly the same patterns in the UK where fluoridation is used in only a limited number of centres (and if one takes Seans advice and looks at the situation outside Ireland and Britain we see exactly the same developments elsewhere in countries where there is no fluoridation)… [We don't see exactly the same developments elsewhere. There are differences -- life expectancy in Ireland is the lowest in western Europe, and there are higher rates of many diseases.]
…fluoridation has been in use without the detrimental effects that those against it claim it is responsible for. [There you go again, begging the question.] … unfortunately I and you have been part of an experiment, which has worked to date. [What?? In what way has it worked? And what has so convinced you?] … This time I think we were lucky. [You think?] I wouldn’t want to take the risk again… [But you seem to be happy to continue taking the risk, drinking the water, and letting fluoridation continue.]
If I seem to see the issue as less important than a range of others, that’s not to say that it’s not important. And I think it’s absolutely necessary that there are people (such as yourselves) checking and rechecking this in order both to keep the science clean and to monitor on-going effects. [But you're not bothered that the "guardians of public health" are wilfully neglecting to do that checking.]
For sheer ignorance, Reville’s article in today’s Irish Times takes the biscuit.
WorldbyStorm, I’d rather not get side-tracked into a debate on whether or not advocacy groups are or are not being open-minded and thorough – it doesn’t seem central to our discussion here.
I still don’t have answers from you regarding my core points. Namely:
- dose levels per kilo body weight
- medical assessment of my personal need for it
- medical supervision of my progress while taking the medication
- list of side-effects of that medication discovered during trials prior to it’s approval as a medicine here by the Irish Medicines Board.
Fluoridation has been with us here in Ireland for four decades. So those behind fluoridation should have plenty of information readily to hand to address those issues succinctly.
If you can find answers to those core issues – and someone to back those same answers in a public debate (would they appear perhaps on The Late Late Show?), then I’ll concede that maybe those behind fluoridation are actually worthy of being considered scientists.
And scientific in their approach.
No disrespect, but this works both ways. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that fluoridation causes the detrimental effects you suggest. I don’t think it’s side tracking to consider those who have a particular interest in specific diseases and conditions might just potentially consider all factors including flouridation.
I don’t have, and nor am I particularly concerned about providing answers to those questions. It’s not my business to do so. It is you who is making a claim as to the negative. Provide clear evidence and I’m with you. You haven’t, I’m not (and again I’d not in any sense doubt your sincerity or bona fides, just I’ve not seen a convincing smoking gun on this). I think, and in my personal experience as I’ve noted, there are vastly more dangerous environmental factors which have more profound consequences. Flouridation has been with us for four decades. In that time I’d have expected profound negative consequences to be seen if there was a clear casual link.
In the absence of same I fear we’re simply going around in circles.
WorldbyStorm, you don’t see a clear causal link? Well, I’ll spell it out for you (again).
Take just one of the diseases I mentioned — hypothyroidism. It is now an epidemic in Ireland. The drug prescribed for hypothyroidism, Levothyroxine, is in third place in the most-prescribed drugs in the GMS (latest figures are for 2005: 586,881 prescriptions in the GMS alone!).
Hypothyroidism was a rare problem in Ireland before fluoridation. The disease is directly linked to iodine deficiency, which was not a problem in maritime nations like Ireland — UNTIL FLUORIDATION CAME ALONG.
What other countries are now reporting surprising levels of iodine deficiency? One guess: USA, Australia and Hong Kong — countries that fluoridate most of their water. (The others in that category are New Zealand and Singapore but I don’t have figures for them.)
Causal link: Fluoride ingestion, even at low levels, causes hypothyroidism. That is absolutely clear from the medical literature. (I’ve given you some links above and can give you more if you want.)
Now do you want me to do the same for all the other diseases linked to fluoride ingestion? Skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s…
WHEN DO YOU NOTICE there’s a problem with fluoridation? Or do you keep on lapping up the words you want to hear from Reville, Mullen and the others. “No, there’s no chance you were in any way harmed by drinking unmeasured amounts of that cumulative poison every day for thirty years. No, the WHO and the US government assure us it’s safe, so it must be so. We have staked our reputations on that (and we have Weber Shandwick here with us — at taxpayers’ expense — to preserve those reputations).”
But take the simple obvious effects of fluoride overdosing: dental fluorosis in the young (no dispute there), and brittle teeth in older people. Is the latter admitted by the dentists? No, of course not. Look how they explain it away:
The Irish Dental Association “warned that tooth grinding and clenching, which is exacerbated by stress, is becoming increasingly common. As a result, many dentists are reporting an increase in the number of people presenting to them with a condition known as cracked tooth syndrome (CTS).” — http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=10882
You’re asking for evidence that it causes harm. I’m saying the evidence is there but no one is looking for it.
I notice you’re not interested in seeking evidence that fluoridation is safe. Why not? Wouldn’t sensible people want to see evidence of safety before they subject themselves to it?
Are you really convinced by what the fluoridators are saying? People like Reville and Mullen? You must be joking.
One of the greatest medical researchers of the last century was George Waldbott. In 1963 he testified before Judge Kenny in the High Court about his clinical evidence, from years of research, that fluoridation damages health — evidence that has NEVER been refuted.
Look at what Judge Kenny (neither a doctor nor a scientist) said:
“I am satisfied beyond the slightest doubt that the fluoridation of the public water supplies in this country at a concentration of 1 p.p.m. will not cause any damage or injury to the health of anybody, young, old, healthy or sick, who is living in this country and that there is no risk or prospect whatever that it will. . .
“I come now to deal with the evidence in this case. . . I reject the evidence of Professor Gordonoff, of Dr. Rozeik, of Dr. Waldbott and of Dr. Dillon. . .
[On mottled enamel:] “If the water in Ireland is fluoridated to a concentration of 1 p.p.m., ten per cent of the children will develop mild, and very mild mottling of their teeth. . . I am, however, satisfied that the mild and very mild mottling which will be produced in the teeth of some children is not an indication of any element of risk to health or of dental harm or damage to any of the children who get it.
[On thyroid conditions:] “Another ground of objection to the introduction of the fluoride ion into the drinking-water is that it would or might cause goitre or other thyroid conditions. The suggestion is that the fluoride ingested affects the functioning of the thyroid gland. I am satisfied that it does not. . .
“In my judgment, the fluoridation of the public water supplies in this country is not a violation of any of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and this action must be dismissed.”
That’s how we got fluoridated — just ignore or dismiss the evidence.
The plaintiff in 1963, Gladys Ryan, is still very much alive, and still wants fluoridation stopped. A terrible injustice was done to her and to the Irish people.
And fluoridation is kept going by people turning a blind eye to it.
Firstly I haven’t quoted Reville one way or the other. Secondly I’m not a proponent of fluoridation. Thirdly, as I’ve repeatedly stated, I’m not that fussed by it. Fourthly I’ve indicated that none of the organisations directly involved in the specific conditions you mention as a byproduct of fluoridation appear exercised about it. You haven’t contradicted that, simply suggested that they don’t look for fluoridation as an issue. Now, either they’re stupid, they’re bought or there isn’t a problem on the scale you suggest. I find it hard to credit either of the first two propositions are correct so I go with the third. Finally regarding safety. Is it safe? The answer appears to be yes, overwhelmingly, safer than any other mass medication (and after all, it’s not entirely unheard of for a society to mass medicate as with innoculations and such like). Fluoridation of the water supplies in this state have continued for four decades with no clear evidence of negative effects on the scale you propose (and yes, I’m quite certain there probably are side effects on a marginal level as with any medication) and no concern from the groups that would be most directly affected by such effects. That, in the absence of more compelling data satisfies me, not by ‘turning a blind eye’ but by weighing up risks and benefits. That is my assessment, and again perhaps you will ultimately be able to provide convincing and conclusive evidence to the contrary.
I’m quite happy for you to have the last word.
“Now, either they’re stupid, they’re bought or there isn’t a problem on the scale you suggest. I find it hard to credit either of the first two propositions are correct so I go with the third.”
Well… most people in Germany (and many elsewhere) went along with Naziism. Were they stupid? Bought? And was there a big problem?
WorldbyStorm, I think you need to widen your view of human nature. People are easily duped sometimes; you don’t have to be stupid, or bought. In relation to fluoridation, this is explained in “The Fluoride Deception” by Bryson.
“Naziism”
*sigh*
Nazism reminds me of… this interesting article in The Examiner:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=opinion-qqqm=opinion-qqqa=general-qqqid=27406-qqqx=1.asp
And… suppression of dissent — by, of all people, Geraldine Kennedy. Well, it seems like that. Why else would the IT avoid publishing any of the many letters objecting to the IT’s pro-fluoridation propaganda since the “loony issue” editorial?
For what it’s worth, here’s one I wrote myself last Thursday:
Madam,
Dr William Reville’s attempted defence of fluoridation (IT, 29 Mar 2007) shows amazing ignorance of the science of fluoride. I suggest you try to find a medical doctor to write a defence of fluoridation. On second thoughts, you needn’t bother, since fluoridation is medically indefensible. It is contrary to fundamental medical principles, including the following:
* The Hippocratic oath — “First, do no harm.” Even the dentists and public health doctors who promote fluoridation admit that it causes dental fluorosis, which is tooth damage.
* The principle of informed consent — the patient has the right to refuse medication. In fluoridated areas, the public water supply has been turned into a prescription drug, where no prescription is required. See http://www.fluoridealert.org/med-consent.htm Related issues are consumer choice and what the nanny state can do.
* Modern pharmacology: “Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication — of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day — to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy. Not only in that the dose cannot be adapted to individual requirements. It is, in addition, based on a completely irrelevant factor, namely consumption of drinking water, which varies greatly between individuals and is, moreover, very poorly surveyed.” — Dr. Arvid Carlsson, pharmacologist, winner of Nobel Prize in Medicine (2000) http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.new2.html
* Modern toxicology: “Nature appears to have evolved a mechanism of minimizing the exposure of infants to fluoride. Human breast milk only contains between 5 and 10 ppb fluoride… chloride, a closely associated halogen ion that is essential for life, is present in breast milk at 360,000 parts per billion. There must be an evolutionary selection pressure operating for this selective exclusion of an otherwise highly diffusible ion.” — Prof Vyvyan Howard, infant and fetal pathologist, toxicologist, University of Ulster, Coleraine http://www.fluoridealert.org/epa-sf/appendix-d.pdf
* Modern endocrinology: “In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor…” — National Research Council (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p223.
The NRC is America’s highest scientific authority. A few minutes reading and simple arithmetic make it clear that the “fluoride-induced changes” described by the NRC occur at fluoride intake levels that are common among people subjected to fluoridation. Please apprise Dr Reville of this.
Sincerely,
– Joe Thornton
Whatever about the scientific and medical arguments, what about the economic arguments against fluoridation?
Let’s do a little costing: If you stop fluoridation and abolish the Expert Body and related entities, you’d save many millions per year. That would easily pay for free toothbrushes and toothpaste (unfluoridated) for all children, with some over to pay for an educational programme along the lines of what’s being used to good effect in Scotland, with the key message: “The problem is sugar.”
But the savings should not be limited to what is currently spent on the fluoride chemical, fluoridation equipment & maintenance, security measures, the Expert Body (with all its expenses, travel to conferences, Weber Shandwick contract for PR, etc.), the extensive monitoring of every public water supply from Inishowen to Skibbereen, and so on.
No, there’s a lot more (and a lot more expense) to the whole infrastructure of fluoridation:
There’s the Dental Health Foundation, which acts as the Expert Body’s secretariat and is little more than a fluoride promotion outfit. Despite its “independence” and “good intentions”, the DHF is actually 99% funded by the taxpayer.
There’s the lavish grants handed out to the dental schools by the Health Research Board for research on “fluoride delivery methods” and all that. Possibly running into millions over the last ten years, especially during Dr Helen Whelton’s membership of the HRB. Those grants have done very little for the public good and untold harm.
And then there’s the Government’s financial support of the dental schools (TCD and UCC). It is obvious (and Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation confirm this) that dental students are not taught the facts about fluoride. Serious reform of the curriculum is needed there and the Government should issue an ultimatum about this.
Ending fluoridation would also bring an end to the fluoride-induced effect of delayed eruption of teeth. This is well documented in the medical literature, and was more or less admitted by the abovementioned Dr Joe Mullen when he was questioned by John Gormley in the Oireachtas Health Committee four years ago. Apart from the fact that delayed eruption would account for the differences in decay rates between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, there is obviously a link to the rise in orthodontic problems, another huge drain on the exchequer, not to mention the human suffering.
There’s more stuff, though harder to measure, such as to what extent fluoridation (which increases the corrosivity of the water) contributes to leaks in water mains. And so forth.
And if the engineers and operatives in the water treatment plants didn’t have to worry about the considerable logistic problems of fluoridating with hydrofluorosilicic acid, they just might do a better job on making the public water safe for consumption.
Dental fluorosis costs money too.
As for the socio-economics, there’s no evidence that fluoridation reduces inequalities; in fact, all the evidence points the other way.
A loony issue?
WorldbyStorm, of course it’s not your place to answer my questions about how much fluoride I’m meant to be getting per Kg body per day – you aren’t a medical doctor.
What I was hoping was that, from all the research and sources available to you, you would be able to extract the information I need to make an informed decision about whether to continue taking this medication or not.
I doubt very much you will find someone who can answer those questions… because to my knowledge they have never been answered.
You want me to provide clear evidence of harm and THEN you’ll support my efforts to stop taking this medication. I on the other hand want clear evidence of safety, dosage levels per Kg body weight, margin of safety, toxic dose levels – standard information that is known about every medication prior to it’s being administered.
Given our fundamental differences of opinion regarding:
1. how medicine ought to be practiced and
2. that the actor in this situation can continue doing what they’re doing until the recipient of this action proves that it’s harming them…
… it seems we’ll never agree on this issue.
There seems to be little common ground between us regarding medical practice and individual human rights.
Did anyone read the Green Party manifesto (www.greenparty.ie/en/election_07/manifesto_2007), published last Thursday? The GP’s policy change on fluoridation (page 22) is certainly the most ignorant, most inept, and most unethical move ever made by the Greens.
I say that as a founder member of the Green Party, who was an active paid-up member until I moved abroad a few years ago.
I can picture the post-election negotiations:–
+++
Fine Gael: …Now about this fluoridation thing — it’s no problem for us. We committed ourselves to stopping it six years ago (www.fluoridationcenter.org/papers/2001/irishindependent011501.htm). So —
Labour: It’s not a problem for us either. Liz McManus and Eamon Gilmore have indicated we can go along with stopping it.
Greens: Hang on, we committed in our Manifesto to setting up an independent study. That means keeping fluoridation going until the study is completed and the results assessed.
Lab: Jesus…
FG: But… but you said in a press release… what’s that you said, oh yes, on March 13th: “The Green Party today said that it would stop the fluoridation of Irish water supplies if elected to Government… the practice of water fluoridation should cease immediately.” (www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/greens_in_govt_would_stop_water_fluoridation)
Greens: Yeah, well that was superseded by a party decision for the Manifesto. Did you not read it? We said there: “The Green Party will… * set up an independent study into the total fluoride intake of the Irish population, as called for by the Oireachtas Health Committee, and if the study shows excess levels we will stop the current fluoridation of drinking water.” Look, we WILL stop fluoridation. It’s just a matter of time. We figure that no one will be too upset at the delay, except a few anti-fluoridation fanatics.
FG: God almighty, we were sort of hoping to give Mary Harney and Micheal Martin a well-deserved kick in the teeth by stopping fluoridation now. And you… I don’t get it. The Greens were always firmly opposed to fluoridation. I remember, when was it? Yes, here it is: Trevor Sargent in the Dail on 6 Feb 1997 — he said: “It is time to stop this crazy experiment with our health. It cannot be lawful for a state to poison its own people. We have ample evidence that fluoridation is damaging our health.” (http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0474/D.0474.199702060021.html) What happened? Were the Greens so frightened by that editorial in the Irish Times, and your man Devil, I mean, Reville’s “science” column?
Greens: Look, I’m not going to go into the internal workings of the Green Party. We made an election promise. We keep our promises.
FG: You’re loony. This kind of “independent study” will be bloody awkward, and it’ll take a lot of time and money. But… I guess we can sell it to our people; we’re pretty good at that.
Labour: Us too. Let’s move on…
+++
What a fantastic victory for the fluoridators — they foresaw the rise of the Greens, very effectively infiltrated the Green Party as well as the other parties, and mounted a brilliant PR operation — at taxpayers’ expense!
Who are the losers? Oh, just the Irish people. But they’re born losers.
I agree that a very effective PR operation was conducted in response to the Greens’ proposal to end fluoridation, but do you really believe that the “fluoridators infiltrated the Green Party”?
I do. And why wouldn’t they? What’s to stop a few dentists and/or their family members/friends joining the GP and exerting influence? I’ve seen it happen in other organizations, including Earthwatch – Friends of the Earth Ireland, and the Consumers Association of Ireland. Ask if you want details…
Infiltration by fluoridators is well documented in the literature on fluoridation. And members of environmental organizations in North America have noticed pro-fluoride agitators cropping up again and again.
It doesn’t have to be as blatant as in the PDs, where Dublin NE candidate Keith Redmond, a prominent dentist and member of the council of the Irish Dental Association, has thrown his pro-fluoride weight around. The statements he made in the Today FM debate with Patricia McKenna and Matt Cooper were completely bonkers. But the Greens were too careless to attack him over that; they contrived to be embarrassed over Patricia’s statements about vaccination, which were reasonable and consistent with the traditional Green approach. The GP’s policy change on vaccination is deeply disappointing to me and I’m sure to quite a few others, and it seems to have been made with no regard to the science.
With Fianna Fail, the fluoridators won over Micheal Martin years ago. (I wouldn’t be surprised if he and Dr Helen Whelton are old mates from UCC days.) More recently they leaned on Dr Jimmy Devins so that he obstructed John Gormley in the Oireachtas Health Committee. It’s quite clear from the minutes.
The Greens act like they think they’re above all this. Most Greens have no idea that the influential GreenFacts.org website represents the interests of their enemies. It was set up by Solvay. You will find Greens sometimes citing GreenFacts as an authoritative source!
The fluoridators have always had limitless resources. In Ireland they don’t even have to depend on American money now; they get it from the Irish taxpayers. And dentists are the highest paid profession of all.
Joemomma, do let us know if you hear how the Green Party arrived at their sudden policy change on fluoridation. Can it be true that the Greens have abandoned their principle of consensus decision-making?
I got that impression from reading another blog (www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=19352&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48) where a “Green” called AndrewM stated:
“…every member is entitled to have their say and have their opinions heard. Members then vote on it and the candidates respect the decision of the party.”
After recent events, I’m wondering if, as the Greens enter coalition, we can expect them to cave in on various other policies that ex-Greens like myself hold dear?
Joemomma, I can guess why the Greens suddenly changed their policy on fluoridation. It was because of nonsense like this:
“The problem for Fianna Fail offering a deal to Labour is that Labour would demand four or five cabinet posts, while the Greens would be entitled to only two. On the other hand, some lads in the Fianna Fail backroom will tell Bertie Ahern that it will be easier to deal with grown-ups who understand how government works than with – as they will tell you over a pint – adolescents who want to end water fluoridation and promote homoeopathy.” — Sunday Business Post, 22 Apr 2007
http://www.thepost.ie/post/text/story.asp?document_id=22920
There were many other comments like that, especially on political blogs. There was the Irish Times getting in on the act (see above). And there were the PD attacks. All of those seem to impress the Greens, if no one else.
The result of the Greens’ change of policy on fluoridation was stuff like this, on RTE’s Prime Time:
* PD leaflet: Greens want to ban fluoridation in the country’s water supply
* Fact: Greens want to conduct a nationwide survey and only ban it if there is a dangerous uptake
(www.rte.ie/news/elections2007/mediaintell.html)
For more than ten years, the Greens’ official position was to demand an immediate halt to fluoridation. There was never any medical, scientific or moral reason to deviate from that position. And there was no deviation from it — UNTIL the media assault starting one month ago. The Greens caved in very quickly. So much for Green principles.
Look at what they used to say:
Ten years ago:
“It is time to stop this crazy experiment with our health. It cannot be lawful for a state to poison its own people. We have ample evidence that fluoridation is damaging our health.” — Trevor Sargent addressing the Dáil
(http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0474/D.0474.199702060021.html)
Five years ago:
“A bill to end the controversial practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water was published yesterday by the Green Party. The fluoride ban will be a ‘non-negotiable’ demand in Coalition negotiations after the general election, according to the party. Green Party health spokesperson, John Gormley TD, blasted the Forum On Fluoridation set up by the Minister for Health as a ‘disgraceful waste of tax payers’ money’.” — Irish Independent, 8 Feb 2002
And this year:
“The PDs voted down the motion [at their convention] to ban fluoridation. It’s difficult to understand how a liberal party, whose apparent philosophy is based on the notion that the individual has a right to make choices about his or her life, could countenance the idea of mass medication. It’s disappointing. Well done, anyway, to Councillor Paul Mitchell for putting the motion.” — John Gormley’s blog, 18 Feb 2007
(www.johngormley.com/wp/2007/02/18/johns-blog-fluoridation-and-auction-politics/)
Green Party PRESS RELEASE, 13 March 2007:
Greens in Government would stop water fluoridation
The Green Party today said that it would stop the fluoridation of Irish water supplies if elected to Government. Health spokesperson [and Green Party chairman] John Gormley TD said that water fluoridation had reached its sell-by date and that the latest international research meant that fluoridation was no longer tenable.
Speaking at a press conference in Dublin, Deputy Gormley said: “The latest advice from the American Dental Association tells parents to avoid using fluoridated water when bottle feeding babies… The balance of international evidence proves that water fluoridation should be stopped immediately.
“There has been a huge increase in fluorosis in Ireland in the last decade. And as it is wholly impractical for mothers to source non-fluoridated water, it is prudent to stop water fluoridation immediately…”
Recommendations:
Fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies.
Given the impracticality of sourcing non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies, on the basis of the precautionary principle the practice of water fluoridation should cease immediately.
etc.
(www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/greens_in_govt_would_stop_water_fluoridation)
So you don’t think it was infiltration by fluoridators after all?
On the contrary… it was such a dramatic policy change that it could hardly have happened without the party’s resolve having been weakened by infiltrators.
Sousbresauts is right: the Greens have dumped a sound policy against fluoridation – for what reason? Seems they took more notice of the misinformation in the ’scary’ press stories than the solid science behind their previous policy to stop fluoridation. No Party going down that rocky road should be anywhere near sitting in the seats of Government.
While it’s hard to be convinced fluoride poisons “every cell in the body”, Fluoride does poison some people: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5329003820626343107
Why it is so selective is hard to say. I suspect it is the same reason that is the basis for that stunning reaction on your favourite pussy ( or the unwelcome neighbour’s cat next door ) if you give it a panadol in its saucer of milk. It sure becomes a very ‘cool cat’ as its liver cannot process the active agent paracetamol. Fluoride gets toxic reactions to fluoride the same way in some people. And they certainly needed some party to stick up for them.
they only wanna do you dir. Nurit Hailey.
At last, Dr Ben Goldacre, Guardian columnist, has dipped his toe in the water — he has noticed the bad science behind fluoridation. Well, a little bit of the bad science:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/medicalresearch.health
It’s very tentative stuff. He doesn’t mention fluorosis, an adverse effect admitted even by the fluoridator dentists. And he doesn’t seem to have noticed that fluoridation runs contrary to medical principles — the Hippocratic oath, principles of toxicology, pharmacology and endocrinology, and the patient’s right to refuse medication.
Goldacre says: “The reality is that anyone making any confident statement on fluoride speaks way beyond the evidence.” But he doesn’t notice that “health” authorities are keeping five million English people (and three million Irish) fluoridated using specious “confident statements”. Or if he does notice, he thinks that’s OK. Very odd.
He tries to ridicule Bill Etherington MP for calling fluoride “poison”. Goldacre seems to know very little about fluoride’s toxicity. The fluoride added to water supplies, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is one of the most toxic chemicals known to science, and it accumulates in your body.
[...] Science column, Dr. William Reville. It’s a remarkable column, as has been noted, here and here and here. And if I check on the search function of the Irish Times I see that in this month alone [...]
[...] [...]