Scientists slam Irish fluoridation report

The report of the Forum on Fluoridation, which recommends the continued fluoridation of public water supplies in Ireland, has been severely criticised by a group of international scientists.

According to the scientists, the report's primary conclusion that there are no adverse health effects from fluoridation, is 'blatantly false' and the only conclusion that they can reach is that 'the aim of the authors of the report was not to study the evidence, but to find ways to get around it'.

The review says that out of a total of 295 pages, just 17 pages of the report are devoted to health issues other than dental fluorosis. Of these, a heavy reliance is placed on reviewing 'other reviews', some of which are now dated, the scientists found.

"Incredibly for a study which took over two years, only two pages are devoted to an independent analysis of specific health studies", they said.

The scientists also concluded that:

  • The report fails to address a number of recently published important studies into fluoridation.
  • It fails to establish a significant clinical difference in dental decay between children living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in Ireland and throughout largely non-fluoridated Europe.
  • It fails to 'deal convincingly with the issue of dental fluorosis, 'making several unsupportable assertions'.
  • It fails to discuss the fact that certain individuals in a population are going to be 'more sensitive and more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others'.
  • It fails to provide the necessary precautionary advice to mothers, not to use infant formula made up with fluoridated tap water.

The scientists, who were asked to review the report by VOICE (Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment), include Dr Hardy Limeback, head of preventative medicine at the University of Toronto in Canada; Dr C. Vyvyan Howard of the department of human anatomy and cell biology at the University of Liverpool in Britain and Dr A K Susheela, executive director of the Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation in Dehli, India.

The scientific critique of the Fluoridation Forum report can be seen at…

http://www.voice.buz.org

Comments

Anonymous - 06/11/2002 20:35

I believe the fluoride question is going to be the biggest tribunal of the future. With all this evidence stacked up against fluoridation being suppressed it's going to be hard to defend. Even if fluoridation was good (for some people) the human rights issue is just so obvious as to be astounding.

Joe(joemullen) - 13/11/2002 09:46

Few of the scientists who wrote this report seem to have any qualifications in medicine, dentistry or epidemiology. Most of them have also been prominent in the antifluoridation movement for years as their own CVs on this report indicates. The report is clearly a statement of the antifluoridation position rather than any kind of objective critique of the Forum Report. Readers should balance the personal opinions of these individuals with the great mass of reviews on water fluoridation, including those by the WHO, which have basically concluded that fluoridation is effective and harmless at the concentrations found in water fluoridation schemes.

mimat - 15/11/2002 12:16

Joe Mullens answer is typical of people who miss the point. People should have the choice to take any medication they need to be informed of the benefits and side effects and make their own mind up. Why have so many other countries with similar statictics in relation to dental decay made the decision to remove flouride from their water? Joe? Have you got children,? do they brush their teeth,? then they do not need flouridated water. Why not add multi vitimins to the water to improve the general health of people, or put the equivelent of nicotine patches in the water to stop people smiking. It is really a question of civil rights. Doctors and heatlh specialists can give advice but individuals mush make their own decisions. This is supposed to be a first world European Democracy,

Joe(joet61) - 15/11/2002 20:31

Predictably, Dr Joe Mullen attacks the messengers rather than the message. How well qualified does he need his opponents to be? How about Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate? See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson.htm Then he says the Critique "is clearly a statement of the antifluoridation position rather than any kind of objective critique of the Forum Report." I have read both reports and I can assert that the Critique demolishes the Forum Report with solid scientific evidence and rational argument. As for the WHO, it has a disgraceful record on fluoridation. Mind you, it did warn, in its 1994 report on fluoride, that dental and public health administrators (such as Dr Mullen) should be aware of the total exposure [to fluoride] of the population before adding to that exposure. Somehow, Dr Mullen and the Fluoridation Forum managed to avoid confronting this issue, just as they have avoided ALL the major issues.

Joe(joemullen) - 20/11/2002 17:23

It seems to be an occupational hazard for those who speak up for fluoridation to draw personalised commentary upon themselves for their trouble! In response to the two contributors I would like to point out the following: 1: I have no objections to anyone opposing fluoridation on political or "civil rights" grounds. I don't agree that fluoridation is an infringement of civil rights, but the point is certainly debatable. 2. Irish children and adults do NOT have good oral health care practices. Toothpaste is a luxury item for a large proportion of our population. As the York Review and the Forum both note, the combination of toothpaste and fluoridated water give better results than either alone. This is one of the reasons the WHO recommends one systemic and one topical fluoride source as the best option. 3. Examination of all of the scientific evidence produced worldwide indicates that fluoridation is not a health risk and that it does a great deal of good for oral health. That conclusion has been drawn by EVERY major national and international review of this material, including those by the WHO. So, are they all lying? 4. Of the 11 scientists who put their names to the "scientific" critique of the Forum Report, I could only note 4 that might have any relevant qualifications in this area. Dr. Spittle, for instance, is a psychiatrist, and no doubt an expert in that field. These are scientists who have sincere objections to water fluoridation but are not exactly the best qualified people to lead the science on this issue. 5. To describe the WHO as "disgraceful" when one disagrees with its findings is hardly being objective. Better to ask why it has made its findings. Either it has made them on scientific appraisal or we are all victim of the greatest conspiracy the world has ever seen. Which is the more believable? 6. Scientists who oppose fluoridation are in a very small minority. Typically, they are not dentally, medically or epidemiologically qualified although a few certainly are. How many medical or dental scientists working in this area (there are thousands) oppose fluoridation? Why accept the opinion of a few voices as opposed to the thousands? 7. The "scientific" critique regurgitates studies that have been debunked for years (see the York Review) and selectively quotes from some studies while ignoring the huge mass of evidence that exists. That is scientific dishonesty. Finally, people should be in no doubt that the "critique", as I have said, is a document prepared by antifluoridation activists, it is not an independent or objective appraisal of the Forum. Almost all who signed off on the document have been consistent opponents of fluoridation, and are simply restating their objections rather than giving a true critique.

Joe(joet61) - 25/11/2002 03:34

Dr Mullen opens with "It seems to be an occupational hazard for those who speak up for fluoridation to draw personalised commentary upon themselves for their trouble!" But it seems to be an occupational hazard for those who live in Ireland to draw unmeasured mandatory doses of an untested poison upon themselves for their trouble. We’re talking about hydrofluosilicic acid, an unbelievably corrosive, toxic, artificial chemical. Why are we fluoridated? Right now, because of Dr Mullen and a handful of highly placed dentists and public health doctors. No one else is supporting the policy of fluoridation. Micheal Martin hasn’t a clue about it, hasn’t read the literature, and hasn’t listened to concerned consumers; he listens only to his DoH dentist advisers. Has Dr Mullen read the literature? I doubt it. Has he read Waldbott, Yiamouyiannis, Roholm, Sutton, Colquhoun, Ziegelbecker and Moolenburgh, among others? Does he know how toxic fluoride is? Can he understand that the whole legal, scientific and medical basis of fluoridation is that it must be ABSOLUTELY harmless to human health, and that if there is anything -- ANYTHING -- wrong with it, it must be stopped immediately? And that therefore there is an enormous responsibility on health authorities (including Dr Mullen) to examine carefully EVERY challenge to fluoridation to ensure there is no shred of truth there? Does Dr Mullen realize that when the fluoridation law was passed in 1960, almost every TD was ignorant about the toxicity and full implications of fluoridation? And does he know how much money the U.S. Public Health Service gave to the Irish government in the late 1950s and early 1960s to promote fluoridation? Has he considered the fact that Irish fluoridation DEPENDS on the 1963 High Court decision of Justice Kenny who was neither a medical doctor nor a scientist? (Prof Binchy in the Forum also managed to skirt that point.) And now Dr Mullen refuses to respond to the Scientific Critique because it is "not a true critique". Exactly which "studies that have been debunked for years" does it "regurgitate"? He says the Critique ignores "the huge mass of evidence that exists." Yet the York Review (which Dr Mullen seems to rely on) found that the huge mass of evidence was of very poor scientific quality. As the chairman of the York Review’s Advisory Group put it, "in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence". Methinks Dr Mullen wants to have it both ways, and wants to keep fluoridation going at all costs, no matter what anybody else in Ireland wants. It reminds me of Malebranche’s dog. Malebranche (1638-1715) was a French philosopher who reasoned (don’t ask me how) that animals could not feel pain; only humans could. He used to prove this every day by beating his dog. Sure, the dog would flinch and howl, but it would soon resume its normal mode of unbounded loyalty and affection for its master. Living proof! Nowadays, we Irish people are Malebranche’s dog, and the stick is being held by Dr Mullen, Micheal Martin and a handful of people I can name. Voila -- the living proof that fluoridation is absolutely harmless. The Irish people go on drinking their fluoride, all day every day, and hardly flinch. Am I not "objective" in describing the WHO as "disgraceful"? Well, consider this: For years, WHO "experts" have been predicting a "a tide of caries" after termination of fluoridation. However, ALL the data analyses reveal a significant decrease in dental caries after suspension of water fluoridation (Japan, Netherlands, Prague, GDR, Finland, Cuba, and Canada). Never has any real increase in dental caries been observed after water fluoridation was discontinued. But the WHO continues to flog the dead horse. And so does Dr Mullen who said recently on radio (Newstalk 106) that he could foresee a time when fluoridation should be stopped, but not now. How does he know? By Malebranche-style reasoning? By the way, the Fluoridation Forum cost us Irish taxpayers more than half a million Euro, and I believe we’re also paying Dr Mullen’s salary. I hope Dr Mullen will respond in a professional manner to the Scientific Critique.

Jane(janejones) - 25/11/2002 21:50

Scientific critique or no scientific critique, Dr Mullen has no right to tell his neighbour that he must take Dr Mullen's prescription for ANY medicine or "treatment". Dr Mullen wonders whether we think that the "august" bodies he refers to are all lying. History shows very clearly - from documented evidence - that the whole darn thing was a HUGE LIE from the start! The idea was heavily SOLD to every State Dental Director back in 1951 by one Dr Frank Bull (documented: Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors, 1951). Bull was a master salesman - an arch propagandist. "Now, we tell them this," (he said to the assembled dentists - documented), "that at one part per million dental fluorosis brings about the most beautiful looking teeth that anyone ever had. And we show them some pictures of such teeth. We don't try to say that there is no such thing as fluorosis . . . But you have got to have an answer. Maybe you have a better one."! Well, here are some pictures of dental fluorosis, Dr Mullen: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/dental_fluorosis.html - and you can find about two dozen abstracts (which we gathered on a quick search of the Pubmed database) on the psycho-social, socio-economic and behavioural impact that dental fluorosis has on its victims, here - http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/DF_Abstracts.html . Dental fluorosis is the first VISIBLE sign that a person has been over-exposed to - poisoned by - fluorides. Some years ago, Dr Mullen's colleague, Prof. Dennis O'Mullane, (also on the Fluoridation Forum) co-authored a book entitled "Children's Dental Health in Ireland", which I have read. In it he wrote that dental fluorosis affects only around 5% of children in Ireland. But in 1996, he appeared on the "Spotlight" programme in N. Ireland where he was forced to admit - very reluctantly - that dental fluorosis affects 50% of children in the Republic! Maybe the earlier figure given in his book was a printing error? Fluorides are known to be avid bone-seekers, too. I would refer Dr Mullen to the following link, http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/0005.htm which is a submission to the Centers of Disease Control who are currently seeking corrections to any inaccurate or faulty data which appears in various public health documents in the United States. There will be many submissions to this request. Perhaps Dr Mullen can tell us how many people in Ireland suffer with arthritis. And, while he is at it, perhaps he can say categorically what "arthritis" IS and confirm that NO cases diagnosed as "arthritis" in Ireland are related to exposure to fluorides. I'll be glad to forward them to Professor Susheela in India, who has spent more than thirty years specialising in fluorosis - of the teeth, bones and soft tissues. I am sure that Dr Mullen would not hesitate to sign, date and add his occupation and the position he now holds to the following: "PERSONAL STATEMENT: I HEREBY STATE that the artificial fluoridation of public drinking water supplies is (a) safe, and (b) effective in reducing tooth decay. I HAVE READ AND STUDIED scientific proof of the above and undertake to have copies of such proof made available to whosoever shall request it. I UNDERSTAND that such fluoridation entails the addition of fluorosilicates from the phosphate fertiliser and/or aluminium industries to drinking water and I can provide proof that the fluoridation agents have been toxicologically tested. SHOULD ANYONE SUFFER HARM as a result of such fluoridation in the Republic of Ireland, I ACCEPT legal and financial responsibility for such harm AND WAIVE any immunity and/or indemnity offered or available to me by virtue of my position." If Dr Mullen is right, he should have no problem with his signature. I invite him to print out the Statement and send it to us at National Pure Water Association, 12 Dennington Lane, Wakefield, WF4 3ET, UK. (We will be very glad to refund the postage.). Jane Jones, Campaign Director, NPWA.

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 26/11/2002 20:36

These are great exchanges on the subject of fluoridation, particularly the one by Jane Jones. Even if fluoridation is effective, which it is not, and even if fluoridation is safe, which it is not, the disposal of the fluorosilicate from the fertilizer and aluminum industries through the public water systems has got to be among the most cruel and ridiculous schemes ever inflicted on mankind. It (fluoridation) is prescribing a medication without infomed consent and without any dose control. And, because less than one percent of the fluoridated water is ingested by the intended patients, ninety-nine percent of the perscribed medication is simply thrown away to pollute the envirnment. In terms of money, ninety-nine percent of all the money that is spent on fluoridation is spent to dump the toxic waste of the above mentioned industries into the environment. And for Dr. Mullin, since you seem so sure of your support of fluoridation, can we expect to see your signed PERSONAL STATEMENT, as suggested by Jane Jones, real soon?

Joe(joemullen) - 27/11/2002 12:48

So, Jane Jones, Campaign Director for the UK National Pure Water Association (whoever they are) thinks the World Health Organisation, medical and dental associations worldwide, government agencies, universities etc etc etc are all involved in a massive conspiracy. Why? Where does this paranoia come from?It makes no sense. What is the motive? This contribution from Jane Jones is probably the most ridiculous letter I have ever seen printed anywhere on the topic of water fluoridation. Where are the queues of people waiting to sue about fluorosis? The most litigious country in the world is the USA (about 65% fluoridated) – fluoridation simply could not stand if citizens were able to argue successfully in court that fluorosis was a significant problem in relation to the good it does. Do people know that the treatment of fluorosis (which is staining limited to the outer few microns of tooth enamel) is a simple polishing technique (no local anaesthetic, no drilling)? There is no evidence that mild fluorosis is linked to any other conditions, fluorosis is not evidence that a person has “overdosed” on fluoride and there is no evidence of any link between water fluoridation and arthritis. The comments on Professor O’Mullane are misrepresentations and have been dealt with many times by Prof O’Mullane in previous response to this repeated nonsense, such as his letter to the Irish Medical News. As for that final paragraph (“Personal Statement”), this is a shameful tactic and typical of the attempts by some antifluoridationists to try to intimidate professionals who are trying to inform the public. This was tried on me a few years ago by an Irish antifluoridation group. Exactly the same letter, exactly the same spelling. Imagine that. And imagine if anyone was stupid enough to sign such a letter – forever after, Jane and her friends could say that this person had a financial interest in suppressing fluoride information! The readers of this website can judge Jane and company’s devotion to democracy by their use of such methods, designed to silence those who speak against their point of view. I am amazed, delighted and grateful that Jane has shown us all the true face of her particular branch of this campaign.

Joe(joemullen) - 27/11/2002 12:48

For the benefit of “joet61”, I most certainly have read the literature. As for Yiammouyiannis, his publications are classic examples of the perversion of the scientific method. I recommend you read “Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet” by the American Oral Health Institute. It is a commentary on the crank methods used by John Yiammouyiannis (a non-dentist, non-doctor, non-epidemiologist), methods which, unfortunately, are still used to this day by many antifluoridationists. And if you give weight to non peer-reviewed books such as by Waldbott and Moolenberg, then I’m afraid you have no idea at all what scientific appraisal is about. It is about validated evidence, not unsupported opinion. Support for fluoridation in Ireland comes indeed from the dental profession, the medical profession, health boards and academics. There is no mass-movement against fluoridation, in spite of 4 years of relentless scaremongering here by certain Irish, American and British fringe organisations. My own job is NOT to promote fluoridation but to promote health and specifically oral health. I am very aware of my responsibilities in this matter and take them very, very seriously. Incidentally, I am only one of some 150-200 people working in this field on this island. Right now, the evidence is clear that fluoridation is the best way of promoting oral health – yes, the York Review does say that. Also, it is clear that there is no real evidence that it causes any medical harm. The studies that earned the lowest ratings by York were those not even deemed worthy of inclusion by York and they included most of the stuff the antifluoridation lobby likes to quote, including the authors of the “scientific” “critique”, (a document which is neither). The York team allowed in almost any study purporting to show evidence of harm, no matter how poor, while studies of the benefits had to be of far higher quality to be considered. York deemed the quality of the studies they did review as “low to moderate” and in epidemiological terms, moderate is actually quite strong. The only studies which would have passed the York test as “good” (meaning conclusive) would be Randomised Clinical Trials which, as every epidemiologist knows, are impossible to conduct for water fluoridation (ensuring group A has nothing but fluoridated water for 5-10 years, group B never having fluoridated water for 5-10 years), and highly cross-controlled longitudinal studies (which again have very major drawbacks in the case of fluoridation, including cohort drop-out). It is also completely untrue that studies on cessation of fluoridation showed a continued decline in caries. In those countries such as Finland and Cuba where fluoride was provided in other forms for schoolchildren, decay rates in children did not increase. Why would they when the children were still getting their fluoride? In areas where this was not done (see the UK cessation studies such as Anglesey and Kilmarnock) decay rates rose to pre-fluoridation levels. Again, I recommend the York Report. You seem to think people drink hydrofluorosilic acid. We don’t, we drink fluoridated water. Please read Urbansky and Schock (US Centre for Disease Control) or the recent report of the Water Research Council (UK) for a run-down on the chemistry of water fluoridation. Basically, hydrofluorosilicic acid reacts with water and completely dissociates into fluoride ions and sand in about 12 minutes, or about 2 minutes in hard water. There is absolutely no chemical difference between water fluoridated artificially or naturally. As for fluoride being “absolutely” harmless, that guarantee exists about nothing in life. What about the harm caused by non-fluoridation? What about the fact that children just across the Border in Fermanagh / Derry / Tyrone (non fluoridated) are up to four times more likely to have general anaesthetic extractions than children in fluoridated Sligo-Leitrim? Even allowing for all confounding factors, there is an obvious health benefit here. I have had three occasions in general anaesthetic clinics where children became cyanotic or had prolonged and scary recoveries. Five of my Principal Dental Surgeon colleagues have had children die on them under general anaesthetic, including one case in a Dublin hospital this year. Balance that against your view of “absolute” harm, when it is clear that NOT fluoridating carries its own risks. As for the studies in the “scientific” “critique” which have been debunked, consider the following: The York Review (again) was a Systematic Review, in which ALL studies in ALL languages were located and appraised. This means that they considered (and dismissed) all the health allegations made before 2000. In the “scientific” “critique” all but 10 of the 120 or so references predate York – and if York is accepted, they can be discounted. A large number of the references also relate to non-peer-reviewed material (letters etc) and can also be immediately discounted as worthless. A large number also concern in-vitro animal tests at absurdly high concentrations of fluoride, and they also can immediately be discounted (as per the York criteria). A very large number of the references actually support water fluoridation (eg Phipps, Pendrys etc, etc, etc). As for the 10 references that post-date York, Alcon-Herrera deals with water naturally fluoridated to 4.5ppm (not the 0.8-1.0ppm in Irish systems) in Mexico and is thus irrelevant; Buzalaf deals with infant formula, a topic addressed by both the Forum and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland; Connett is just a letter and has no value as any kind of evidence; Fein et al is on fluoride content of food (not on any kind of pathology); Gutteridge is on treatment of osteoporosis in women by large doses of fluoride (nothing to do with water fluoridation); Levy is on primary dentition fluorosis which was also the subject of a study commisioned by the Forum; Li et al report that people on fluoridated water at 1ppm have the lowest bone fracture risk; Limeback is a non-peer-reviewed document; Luke is on pineal gland physiology, not pathology; Warnakulasuriya is on fluoride content of food, again not on any evidence of harm. This is not the sort of material on which to throw doubt on fluoridation! If we include the year 2000 references, just to be certain, we get another handful of references with much the same profile. Your views about the ignorance of TDs, judges and legal professors strike me as perverse. If not TDs, who should legislate? If not a judge, who should have presided over the court cases of the 1960s? I have indeed said on Newstalk 106 that I can forsee the day when we won’t need fluoridation. If we can lower the risk factors for decay (poor oral health practices, poor dietary practices, low government spending on dental care, persistent poverty in our population) then we wouldn’t need fluoridation. Frankly, I couldn’t care less which method is used to control dental disease levels, I just want the one that works best. I can assure you that I have no particular fascination with water chemistry. It is the end result that is important, namely, a healthier population.

Joe(joemullen) - 27/11/2002 12:53

In reply to Robert Briggs, the fluorosilicates used in Ireland have nothing to do with the fertiliser or aluminium industry. These details are in the Forum report In the USA, they do use by-products (not waste products) of these industries. The suggestion that fluoridation is carried out as a convenience dumping ground for waste is patently ridiculous and firmly in the realm of conspiracy theory.

Jane(janejones) - 27/11/2002 13:57

You purport to know it all? Just sign the Statement in my last posting, Dr Mullen. You should have no problem in putting your monicker where your mouth is. http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/jackson.html

Joe(joemullen) - 27/11/2002 14:39

Jane, grow up. Imagine if I asked any commentator to do what you are asking? Free speech is an important democratic principle.

Jane(janejones) - 27/11/2002 18:55

Free speech certainly is a fine democratic RIGHT. So is the individual RIGHT to say NO! to any kind of medical of "preventive" treatment for non-lifethreatening, avoidable conditions such as tooth decay. "Experts" are entitled to their opinions. But if they want to compel populations to take their advice, they should take full responsibility. So, if you know that fluoridation is perfectly safe, I cannot see why you are so shy of putting your name to it! And yes - it IS similar wording to the one you were offered in the past, (and did not sign!). We wrote it! And we have asked innumerable "experts" to sign it, too - and not one of them has done so. It is amazing how something so simple and straightforward can cause you and your fellow fluoridation promoters such angst!

Jane(janejones) - 27/11/2002 20:08

From George Glasser, an American living in UK: Dr. Mullen: I read your posting and I would have sworn that Michael Easley wrote it! In 1999, I was retained as a reseacher by a law firm involved with a case of severe dental fluorosis attributed to fluoride supplements. While the supplements certainly contributed heavily to the DF, other sources of exposure were also implicated. As expected, the pediatrician's attorneys asserted that the supplements prescribed could not have caused the degree of severity of DF diagnosed by the pathologist and that therefore the pediatrician could only be held liable for contributory negligence. The child's total exposure to fluorides came from sources including toothpaste, fluoride supplements and a particular brand of white grape juice which contained about 4.0 ppm fluoride. Because this case required a determination of 'market-share liability' it transpired that the plaintiff would be forced to sue several individuals and large corporations. Each of the defendants could say that their products did not contain enough fluoride to cause the severity of DF seen in the child. The estimated total fluoride intake from all sources was at least 4 mg per day (in this case, the water was not fluoridated.). We certainly had a case against all the individuals and manufacturers for contributory negligence, but neither the the law firm nor the plaintiff had the monetary resources to pursue what would certainly have become a hugely expensive case to bring to court for simple damage. In the US, for the the larger law firms (with larger monetary resources) to take on a case such as DF, the matter of "simple damage" for repair of teeth is insufficient incentive. The case must be broadened to include punitive and emotional damages, which substantially inflate the returns both for the plaintiffs and the law firm. These cases are treated as "venture capital investments" by large law firms. Difficult legal problems have been encountered in many health injury issues in determining who is responsible for the damage. In the case of asbestos injury, for example, an injured worker might have worked for several employers. Who was responsible for the damage? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how long such a case could last, and how expensive it would be. Certainly, Colgate paid £1,000 as a "goodwill payment" to an Essex child with dental fluorosis in the late 1990s. This was hardly a birthday present to a stranger! The firm knows that fluoride toothpaste contributes to overall fluoride exposure. A law firm in England is still actively pursuing a dental fluorosis class action suit - this has been going on for nearly ten years. All is not quiet on the legal front! I know that other lawyers in the U.S. and in the UK, are taking a keener interest in the issue of dental fluorosis. It might take a little time, but I have absolutely no doubt that cases will be brought to court - and will be won. There is only one cause of dental fluorosis, Dr Mullen - overexposure to fluorides! All the lawyers have to do is to determine who is responsible for that overexposure. The World Health Organisation clearly states that "Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries prevention." (1994). In Ireland, the total fluoride exposure in the population was not known before fluoridation began. Nor was it known in the UK. Or in the US. And I would venture that Dr Mullen has no idea what his own fluoride exposure is right now! Dr Mullen promotes the 'benefits' of fluoridation but he has no idea of the fluoride exposure level of any person in the Republic of Ireland, because neither the Government nor the health boards bother to test for it. And I call that negligence. George Glasser.

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 27/11/2002 23:34

In reply to joemullen. If the fluorosilicates used in Ireland to fluoridate water systems are not from the fertilizer and/or the aluminum industries, where do you think the they come from? In the USA most of the fluorosilicates used to fluoridate water systems are the pollutants captured by the fertilizer industry\'s smokestack scrubbers The scrubbers capture the pollutants, incidently not only fluoride but arsenic and lead as well, so as to reduce the amount of pollutants dumped in the local surroundings. Although these actually are hazardious waste products, some think it is easier for the public to swallow if they are referred to as by-products. Dr. Mullin, why do you chose to ignore the fact that 99% of this hazardious waste product, or if you prefer, this by-product, misses the targets, (the mouths of those you have been mislead to believe it will benefit)and thus, via public water systems, pollutes local environments. This is a clever ploy by the industry to sell the pollutants rather than spend the money to properly dispose of them as the hazardious waste which they are. The following is from a letter from Rebecca Hanmer,USA Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, dated March 30, 1983 \"In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.\" Keep in mind that the scrubbers only minimize the polluting of the area surrounding the fertilizer plants. Dr. Mullen, have you seen Dr. Paul Connent\'s \"50 reasons to oppose fluoridation\", if not you can find them on >fluoridealert.org<. Which, if any, of these can you refute?

Andrew(Login8001) - 01/12/2002 19:44

Could Dr Mullin please explain his comment that there is no difference between artifically fluoridated water and naturally occuring fluoridated water. Has he ever tested the artifically fluoridated water to see what else it contains. Before he has done this he surely can make absolutely no claim to its safety. I challenge him to do so and publish the results.

Joe(joemullen) - 02/12/2002 09:53

In reply to Andrew: There is a recent report on this published by the Water Research Council (UK). To quote: "Hexafluorosilicate added to fluoridate water is effectively 100% dissociated to form fluoride ion under water treatment conditions. Therefore in terms of chemistry and bioavailibility there is absolutely no difference between added and natural fluoride". The point is that in terms of decay reduction and in terms of dental fluorosis, the effects of added fluoride and natural fluoride are identical; the exceptions to this are in naturally fluoridated areas in 3rd world countries with concommitant nutritional problems, where natural fluoride can be misinterpreted as being more active than added fluoride. The details on this can be found in the recent MRC report on water fluoridation and in Appendix K of the York Report. Details on what is added to water through artificial fluoridation are available in the report of the Forum on Fluoridation, and also on the website of the Eastern Regional Health Authority in Ireland.

Joe(joemullen) - 02/12/2002 10:03

To George Glasser: The point about overall exposure to fluoride cuts both ways. The technology on this is not very good; for example, there is no standard agreed international mechanism for measuring fluoride content in diets. As that is the case, and as estimates of fluoride consumption in the past have been made mostly on water content, toxicological estimates of the appropriate amount of fluoride - which are based on observations of harm at high doses - may also have been underestimated and may end up being revised upwards! The WHO statement of 1994 does indeed encourage this research but also goes on to strongly recommends water fluoridation as a public health policy.

Joe(joemullen) - 02/12/2002 10:11

To Robert Briggs: Once again, the fluoride in Ireland comes from mined feldspar - Calcium Fluoride - and has nothing to do with any other industry. The \"toxic dumping\" argument does not and can not apply here. In any case, the \"toxic dumping\" argument claims that there is an enormous worldwide conspiracy to poison people for the benefit of a few industries. It\'s a view that\'s simply beyond belief. As for Dr. Connett\'s 50 Reasons, I have looked at them and can tell you that they do not stand up. In the dental section, for instance, he prefers to quote from a low level ecological study by a very dubious character (a non-dentist, non-doctor, non-epidemiologist) who never saw a single patient in his \"study\", to the many hundreds of studies by experts in the field. In other words, he is extremely selective in the information he considers. On his website, the same trend is seen.

Jane(janejones) - 02/12/2002 22:09

Dear Joe,***Re Robert Briggs***There are two ways to get hexafluorosilicic acid. The first is from pollution wet scrubbers and the second is to add some sand or glass to hydrofluoroic acid. How do they make yours?***George Glasser

Jane(janejones) - 02/12/2002 22:28

Dear Joe, \"The WHO statement of 1994 does indeed encourage this research but also goes on to strongly recommends water fluoridation as a public health policy.\" How come the Irish forum recommended the lowering of fluoride in the water to 0.7 ppm if there is not a problem with dental fluorosis? And, as for that report by the WRc-NSF Ltd (NOT \"The Water Research Centre\"!) please see http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/jackson.html . Mr Jackson used a theoretical model to determine a hypothetical scenario and the paper has not been published (except on the website of the British Fluoridation Society) and has not been peer reviewed! George Glasser

Anita(anitaknight) - 04/12/2002 07:28

Dear Dr. Mullen, Here in Florida where most of the fluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate the drinking water originates and many environmental disasters are covered in our Tampa Tribune newspaper, I can bring some facts to the equation. First, the claim that fluorosilicic acid dissociates in water completely is admitted to be wrong. This was noted in the Federal Register, June 12, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 113, Notices, pages 40329-40333, concerning nomination of Hexafluorosilicic acid (aka fluorosilicic acid) nomination to be studied for chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, and toxicokinetics - Mechanistic studies related to cholinesterase inhibition and lead bioavailability. 'Rationale for Nomination' states: "Primary agents used to fluoridate public drinking water systems; lack of toxicity information: assumed complete dissociation to free fluoride under normal conditions of use not supported by experimental evidence." This is also evidenced in (American Water Works Association) AWWA Standard for Fluorosilicic Acid B703a-97 Addendum to B703-94. "The transfer of contaminants from chemicals to processed water or the residual solids is becoming a problem of greater concern." The characteristics of the element fluorine are that it is the most reactive and oxidative of all the elements and will combine to form compounds and complexes with almost all the elements. The University Press of Florida published 'The Geology of Florida' 1997 and page 143 paragraph gives the process of phosphate mining: "In addition to uranium, fluorine is an economic byproduct of phosphoric-acid production. The fluorine from the rock reacts with silica to form SiF4 gas. During acid production this gas is recovered as fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) in wet scrubbers that are part of the environmental-protection equipment. Fluorosilicic acid is widely used in the preparation of chemical compounds and in the treatment of public drinking water." Fluorosilicic acid has been analyzed for radiologic content for the U.S. CDC (letter from Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. dated Feb. 20, 1998) and found to contain Uranium at

Joe(joemullen) - 04/12/2002 09:38

To Jane: The hydrofluorosilicic acid used in Ireland comes from mined feldspar (Calcium Fluoride) from Spain. It has nothing to do with pollution scrubbers, waste products, or phosphate or fertiliser industries. It is not contaminated with trace elements, which are present in the tiniest amounts and well within EU specifications. Talk to you again in 2003, have a Merry Christmas.

Joe(joemullen) - 04/12/2002 09:43

To Jane. Sorry, I forgot the second message. Dr. Jackson presented his paper at the Royal College of Physicians in November. My understanding is that it is due for publication shortly. The main paper in the literature in this area is, of course, Urbansky and Schock, which is a much more detailed and less reader-friendly version of the same subject. It gives a dissociation at equilibrium of 1 molecule of undissociated hexafluorosilicate to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 dissociated molecules - effectively complete dissociation. As Jackson notes, the next question is the time taken to reach equilibrium which is estimated at 12-30 minutes, depending on the presence of catalysts such as Calcium, Lithium or Iron ions in the water supply.

Joe(joemullen) - 04/12/2002 09:50

To Anita Knight: Thank you for sending that information. I will follow up on this and comment in January 2003, after the holiday period. As to complete dissociation, one of the practicalities reported by Jackson is that the fluoride ion probe readings (which only respond to free fluoride ion) agree completely with the measured dose amounts of fluoride in the hydrofluorosilicic acid. This in itself is a practical indicator that dissociation is complete. In Urbansky's paper I noted that some of the more exotic reactions, particularly regarding some complex formations - were based on assumptions rather than evidence, but generally based on worst-case assumptions. I wonder is it this area that is being investigated, to get accurate chemookinetic values? I will follow it up. Once again, thanks for forwarding this information.

Jane(janejones) - 04/12/2002 11:59

Dear Joe, You said, "The hydrofluorosilicic acid used in Ireland comes from mined feldspar (Calcium Fluoride) from Spain."*** We asked, "There are two ways to get hexafluorosilicic acid. The first is from pollution wet scrubbers and the second is to add some sand or glass to hydrofluoroic acid. How do they make yours?" ***

Jane(janejones) - 04/12/2002 14:24

Joe - So that readers of this board are clear, the Jackson paper was not presented TO the Royal College of Physicians, of course. That august building was merely used as a status venue for the British Fluoridation Society's annual hooley (the BFS paid for Jackson's report.). Like Urbansky & Schock, he was doing clever somersaults with theory and hypothesis - Jackson used theoretical models. See http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/pulp_science.html . We asked Jackson to explain what Baumer found experimentally, but he didn't/couldn't. See http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/Public_comment.html . As was said earlier, there are two ways to get hexafluorosilicic acid. The first is from pollution wet scrubbers and the second is to add some sand or glass to hydrofluoroic acid. How do they make yours - which still contains contaminants, as we have seen, from analyses?*** Have a good Christmas break - here is a short bedtime story: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/DF_blears.html - recommended reading for all on this board. From this piece, the reason the Fluoridation Forum want to lower the level of H2SiF6 in Ireland's drinking water can be deduced!

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 04/12/2002 22:17

Dr. Mullen,as concerns Dr. Connett's 50 reasons, certainly Dr. Connett is selective, would you not be selective if you were to list some reasons to fluoridate? Or, would your list contain reasons to oppose fluoridation? Dr. Mullen, you were asked , which, if any, of the "50 reasons" you can refute. What kind of "look" was it that you did, a review or a glance? After your "look" you simply chose to charaterize someone as a very dubious character. Just who is this? What do the "50 reasons" not stand up to? Exactly what do you mean by, do not stand up to? In your response, please be more specific than you have been. P.S Please verify your claim concerning the source and the stuff used to fluoridate your water.

Andrew(Login8001) - 10/12/2002 20:57

Thank you Dr Mullen for answering my concern. You mention further on in the discussion that the hydrofluorosilicic acid used in Ireland comes from mined feldspar (Calcium Fluoride) from Spain. Could you then comment on the information contained on Fluoride Free Ireland's website with regard to the chemical coming from Holland and an analysis of it showing trace metals which caused the Minister for Health to apologise for misleading the Dail ? I reproduce the information below: MINISTER MARTIN MISLEADS DAIL ON ACID Minister Martin recently misled the Dail in responding to a question from John Gormley T.D. On 21/3/2000, the Minister of Health was asked if, “chromium is present in hydrofluoslicic acid, the fluoridating agent imported from Holland used to facilitate fluoridation of drinking water?” Minister Martin replied that the acid fluoride “does not contain chromium”. Fluoride Free Water has now acquired a full Chemical analysis of the acid fluoride, pumped into our drinking water at the rate of 2000 gallons daily. This analysis confirms our greatest fears, chromium is present and at similar levels as the arsenic also present. Minister Martin has misled the Dail and the Irish people. This is misinformation at best or possibly fraudulent if Minister Martin is aware of the contaminants of this hazardous product of the fertiliser industry. It is a toxic cocktail! The chemical analysis also gives levels of nickel, sulphur, lead and aluminium. Please see enclosed analysis. According to the Irish Medicines Board, this hydrofluosilicic acid has never been proven safe or effective and not surprisingly is unregistered, unlicensed and not considered a medicine. So, what is it and why is it untested? Why are we drinking unmeasured, uncontrolled levels of this toxic cocktail without the freedom to make an informed choice? MINISTER APOLOGISES FOR MISLEADING DAIL ON FLUORIDE ACID . 598. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Health and Children further to Parliamentary Question No. 332 of 21 March 2000, the reason he stated there was no chromium contained in hydrofluosilicic acid. [24676/00] Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin): In my response to the Deputy's Parliamentary Question of 21 March 2000 I stated that chromium was not present in the hydrofluosilicic acid used for the fluoridation of public water supplies. My reply was based on an independent laboratory analysis of hydrofluosilicic acid carried out for the Eastern Regional Health Authority, the contract holder for the supply of the substance. However, this analysis did not, apparently, include analysis for the presence of chromium. Accordingly, the laboratory report did not list the presence of chromium and my officials concluded from this report that chromium was not present. If an analysis had been conducted for chromium it is possible that trace levels of the substance might have been found. These levels would be insignificant to public health. I have asked the Eastern Regional Health Authority to extend the range of substances tested for in the course of routine independent laboratory analysis to include chromium. I apologise to the Deputy for the unsatisfactory nature of the previous reply and I trust that I have now clarified the position to the satisfaction of the Deputy and the House.

John(johnwilliams) - 28/12/2002 00:04

This is one of the most interesting topics I have read on this site. Joe Mullen does not need me to defend him but the attempt by the British National Pure(sic) Water Association to get him to sign a personal statement should immediately warn readers and points to a lack of credibilty in its tactics.

Jane(janejones) - 29/12/2002 10:56

John Williams' opinion that the NPWA shows a lack of credibility in its tactics indicates a lack of understanding of the politics of fluoridation on his part. NO-ONE has the right to deny individual rights in this matter. The fact that the fluoridationists attempt to do so simply illustrates a totalitarian mindset. They think that the people should take any old industrial waste as "treatment" if the professionals say so! Come on, Mr Williams! If those professionals - and any other promoters of fluoridation - are unwilling to put their reputations and positions on the line, THEY are the ones without credibility! You might ask yourself why Joe Mullen doesn't sign it. You might also ask why the fluoridation agent is being used at all when there has been no toxicological testing of the stuff. That presents the obvious question - WHY hasn't it been safety tested? Answer: because it would FAIL. The definition of a medicinal substance has been established since February 2002 by the Codified Pharmaceutical Directive 2001/83/EEC. Article 1 defines a medicinal substance as "Any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals. Any substance or combination of substances which may be administered to human beings or animals with a view to making a diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological function in human beings or animals is likewise considered a medicinal product." From this and related Directives (see sources, below), the following can be derived:- Any ingestible substance is either a food or a medicine. The definition of 'food' includes drinks. Within the European Community, any ingestible product containing a medicinal substance is expressly prohibited from being classified as a 'food' (and therefore also as a drink), and must be classified as a medicine. There is an absolute prohibition on attributing to any food (or drink) any properties of preventing, treating, or curing any human disease. Any substance presented to the consumer so that an averagely intelligent person would gain the impression that it has medicinal properties is a medicinal substance. All food carrying a medical claim is subject to medicinal legal procedures and requires a Product Licence (Coppens et al) Sources:- (Coppens et al. 'Are foods bearing health claims medicinal products?' http://www.snf.ideon.se/sjn/akt/pdf%20artiklar/301%20coppens-et-al.pdf Proprietary medicinal products Directive (65/65/EEC) Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive (2001/83 - Article 2.1(b)) Foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional use Directive ( 89/398/EEC - Article 6.1) European Court of Justice rulings has supported these interpretations, as follows. Case C-60/89, 21 March 1991, re Monteil and Samanni, European Court Reports 1991;I:1547 Case C219-91 28 October 1992 re Ter Voort, European Court Reports 1992;I:5485 Case C368-88 21 March 1991 re Delattre, European Court Reports 1991;I:1487 Case C227-82 30 November 1983 re van Bennekom, European Court Reports 1983;3883 'Fluoridated water' is promoted to the public as having specific medicinal properties - the reduction of dental caries. It is therefore quite specifically a medicinal substance. Dilution is not an issue - the recommended dosage is 1mg/litre in water, and that is how it is sold to the public. The public water supply is in fact a privately produced and marketed product, like any other manufactured substance. Fluoridated water is therefore a product containing a medicinal substance, promoted as having medicinal properties, and therefore must be classified as a medicinal product. All medicinal products must be sold in accordance with the Medicines Packaging Regulations. The fact that fluoridated water is not actually packaged therefore itself raises interesting issues that appear not to have (yet) been considered by the legal sector. I hope Mr Williams' interest in this subject continues beyond the superficial! http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/fluoride.html

Anita(anitaknight) - 30/12/2002 01:12

Dear Dr. Mullen, Re: Ireland's source of fluosilicic acid is noted in the Journal of Dental Research, Vol.69, Feb. 1990, Special Issue, International Symposium on Fluorides, 'The Future of Water Fluoridation', D.M. O'Mullane, pages 756-759. Page 759; "On the costs side, in 1987 the annual capital costs for fluoridation in Ireland were estimated at 3.8 pence per head of population. Importation, storage and distribution of 607,000 gallons of fluosilicic acid cost IRf590,830, and labor cost IRf160,000, giving a total operating cost of 21.2 pence per head of population." "First, the fluosilicic acid is now imported from The Netherlands, adding considerably to costs. The local supply, which was available as a by-product of the fertilizer industry, ceased in the mid 1970's due to changes in the methods of fertilizer production." As to dissociation, Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, 1993, National Academy of Sciences, page 129 notes: "High concentrations of dietary calcium and other cations that form insoluble complexes with fluoride can reduce fluoride absorption from the gastrointestinal tract." Seems the science is a bit more complicated than most are willing to admit.

Andrew(Login8001) - 15/01/2003 04:16

I find it interesting that Dr Mullin, after being so active in replying to people, doesn't seem able to answer my question posted since in December about where the fluoridation chemical used in Ireland actually comes from and what else it contains. Are we to take it from his silence that he agrees that the chemical is in reality toxic waste which is untested by any agency ?

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 15/01/2003 04:16

Dr. Mullen, why have we not heard from you. Do you still claim that the material used to fluoridate the water in Ireland comes from Spain and has nothing to do with waste products from the production of fertilizer? If so, what is the basis for you making such a claim? Also, if there is no basis for such a claim, why did you make it?

Anonymous - 15/01/2003 20:07

I have been quoted €700 for a water filter which takes out fluoride. This is more than three times the price of standard filters because, they claim, fluoride is a much smaller particle which is harder to remove. Has anyone else had a better quote? One company which originally quoted me a much lower price and came and took a water sample has since become impossible to contact. I wonder why?

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 05/02/2003 20:19

For Anonymous. Have you checked on Reverse Osmosis water purifiers. We have one (a counter top model)that retails for 525 US dollars that does a pretty good job of reducing fluorides.

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 05/02/2003 20:35

Dr. Mullen: do you still maintain that fluoride is not the hazardous waste (referred to by some as a by-ptoduct)from the fertilizer industry? It seems to me that you have had ample time to check out your information sources on this subject. Also, which, if any, of Dr. Connett\'s \"50 reason to not fluoridate the public water\" do you refute?

Anonymous - 07/02/2003 10:46

Thank you for interesting discussion. I believe that both sides make very valid points supporting what they believe to be correct. When it comes down to it, you are entitled to believe whichever viewpoint you want, once you have reviewed available information and made up your own mind. However, I don't think that being derogotory towards people putting forward their own opinion, no matter how deluded you may believe it to be, helps forward the discussion in any way. I look foward to more information being posted here, from both sides.

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 07/02/2003 19:05

For Anonamous, If my comments/questions for Dr. Mullen prompted your last message, you are correct when it comes to opinions, I am not much interested in his opinions, I questioned whether the information he provided is correct. I also asked for his rebuttal, if he had any rebuttal, to Dr. Connett's 50 reasons to not fluoridate the water. I would hope he would provide facts not opinions. Do you consider this derogotory?

Anonymous - 10/02/2003 11:53

Dear Robert, it was Jane's post of 29/12/02 that I was referencing where somebody else's opinion/comments were referred to as supercilious. Don't think attacking people who are expressing an opinion will further the discussion at all. I also note that Dr Mullens said he would revert after the Christmas Holidays' - how long does he get anyway?

Jane(janejones) - 10/02/2003 13:30

Dear Anonymous, Wheter or not you consider my comments 'supercilious', the fact remains that no-one has the right to medicate or treat people via the public drinking water supply. Under European law (by which your country and mine are bound), fluoridation violates several European laws and Directives. ALSO, the fluoridation chemicals are schduled poisons. Furthermore, they have never been toxicologically tested (because they would fail safety tests!). So, the bottom line is that whatever anyone thinks about the "safety and efficacy" of fluoridation is academic. NO-ONE should advocate an unlawful practice. If anyone wishes to treat themselves with fluoride they can do so in several ways - but the population must be protected against forced treatment. Dr Mullen can defend his position in the eyes of the law. - Jane

Andrew(Login8001) - 12/02/2003 22:03

Is Dr Mullin still on holiday since December or is the fluoridation chemical that is actually used in water supplies and he has been advocating in this forum as "harmless", a toxic waste which is untested by any agency ? Makes a mockery of all his other claims doesn't it? Oh yes the fluoride we use in the laboratories can't be proven to cause any ill effects (sic) but we don't know anything about the stuff we pour into the water supplies ...mmm ...

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 01/10/2003 03:16

It has been a long time (ample time for Dr. Mullin to respond) and still no defense of his claims. Dr. Mullin can't you refute even one of the 50 reasons to not fluoridate as provided by Dr. Connett? Possibly Dr Mullin is incapacitated, could someone let me know?

Jane(janejones) - 01/10/2003 19:45

Dr Mullen is booked to give a talk in favour of fluoridation at the Royal Institute of Public Health this month. The event is called "Water fluoridation - for and against." When I rang up for details of speakers, etc. (some months ago, when it was announced), they "didn't know". Who would take part? "Water companies, the food industry and consumers." What can the food industry contibute? No answer. Weeks later, I asked, What consumer groups will be attending? "We don't know, yet". Note, the NPWA had not been approached, despite our campaign against fluoridation since 1960! Last week we had some info via our network friends. Someone from the WHO will speak (speaker to be arranged.). Professor Michael Lennon, Chairman of the British Fluoridation Society will speak. So will Dr Mullen. When I commented that I saw no anti-fluoridation speakers listed, I was told coldly that "We ARE the Royal Institute for Public Health!" So, folks, here you have an event "For and Against" fluoridation, but only "For" people are so far booked to speak! Long live public health - in our own hands, preferably! - So, if you want to speak to Joe M, perhaps you should write to him care of the RIPH in London. There's an £80 fee for all speakers, apparently. Doubtless his travel fees will be paid by his Irish employers - er, the taxpayers. Best to all - Jane

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 01/10/2003 20:32

Thank you Jane for the update, Aloha, Bob

Joe(joet61) - 07/10/2003 00:45

About Andrew & Robert's questions to Dr Joe Mullen over the source of the fluoride: The fluosilicic acid (FSA) currently used for Irish fluoridation is not toxic waste; it is an artificial chemical produced by Spanish company Derivados del Fluor who manufacture a range of industrial (not food-grade or pharmaceutical) products. This FSA has not been safety-tested as a medicine or food additive (it would never pass). Until the year 2000 (when the Fluoridation Forum started), toxic waste FSA was used for many years in Ireland, and Dr Mullen supported that practice. Why was the change made in the FSA supply just before the Forum started? You'd have to presume it was so that Dr Mullen and the other fluoridators could announce to the Forum that Ireland was NOT using toxic waste fluoride, and so avoid embarrassment. Is the current FSA less toxic than the toxic-waste version we were dosed with for years until 2000? Answer: We have no reason to think so. FSA, no matter where it comes from, is a deadly poison and the idea of dosing everyone in the population with unmeasured quantities of it is sheer lunacy.

Joe(joet61) - 07/10/2003 00:47

Dr Mullen gave a brief response to my earlier point about Justice Kenny making the crucial decision in 1963 about fluoridating the Irish population. (The Supreme Court , hearing the subsequent appeal, upheld Kenny's judgement.) Sure, the fact that Justice Kenny was neither a medical doctor nor a scientist does not negate his right to make the decision. The important point is that he made the wrong decision -- he made an almighty BLUNDER. It's there in black & white; read his judgement. He clearly got it wrong. He made a fundamental error about the nature of medical science. Why has nobody pointed out the error before? Well, actually Dr George Waldbott pointed it out back in 1965 in his book A Struggle With Titans (which you can find in TCD library among other places). As Waldbott put it: "The judge decided that one set of experts was totally right, even to the point of proving a negative, i.e., that fluoridation carries no possibility of harm to any member of a large population, and that the other set of experts, equally eminent and well-qualified, was totally mistaken and incorrect to the point of failing to establish even a possibility of harm. He failed to take into account that medicine is not an absolute science like mathematics or physics." Justice Kenny simply took a chance on the pro-fluoride witnesses and he just dismissed (he didn't disprove) all the anti-fluoride evidence. I think Dr Mullen can understand this point, but will he admit it? And since 1964 the Irish people are stuck with that decision. Why have no lawyers pointed out the Kenny blunder? Well, for one thing, lawyers are usually not scientists and they tend to miss the point. Another thing is that Kenny was one of the most celebrated judges in Irish legal history and younger lawyers would be loath and maybe afraid to criticize him -- just as many dentists are afraid to come out in public and state that they disagree with the senior dentist academics over fluoridation (though they'll tell you in private).

Robert(RobertBriggs) - 06/12/2003 08:54

Does anyone know of any other scheme to mass medicate through public water systems. If you don't know of any that have been implimented, do you know of any that have been seriously considered. My guess is there have been none, because such a scheme would offer no dose control, and, would be, as water fluoridation is, very very uneconomical. Uneconomical because, as others have pointed out, typically less than one percent of the medicated water is ingested, the rest, more than ninety-nine percent, is dumped into the environment from washing, bathing, watering lawns, flushing toilets, etc., etc. In terms of the money spent; ninety-nine percent of the total cost of the scheme, that is, promotion costs, chemical cost, equipment costs, operating cost, and management costs) is expended to medicate the water that is simply dumped into the environment. Aloha, Bob

Anonymous - 29/06/2004 10:27

I have two questions. What is pure water? What is (bottled) mineral water? Pure water ie only H2O only exists in the laboratory. Mineral water, like all ground water, has a range of substances in it, such as chlorides and fluorides, from the rocks and soil it passes through and is stored in. Rain water picks up atmospheric components. The making of wines,s beer and whiskies depends on these "impurities" to give regional character. Fluorine is poisonous, as is chlorine. However, neither are put in our water. What goes in are fluorides and chlorides, which any first year secondary student can tell you are entirely different substances. For example, sodium chloride, common salt, is in all our body fluids, and the oceans wouldn't be the same without it. Fluorides and chlorides are among many naturally occuring components of our drinking water. The question is not whether to use fluorides in our water, but how much is a safe level, given it is already in ground water across Europe. Too much of anything, including water, pure or otherwise, is bad for you. We need to base this very important public health debate on evidence.

William(williamgrogan) - 13/04/2005 19:21

British groups publish comprehensive fluoridation report. The British Fluoridation Society, UK Public Health Association, British Dental Association, and Faculty of Public Health have jointly produced a second edition of One in a Million: The Facts about Water Fluoridation. http://www.bfsweb.org/onemillion.html

Joe(joet61) - 19/04/2005 11:19

The message from Anonymous on 29/06/2004 is very mischievous in suggesting that fluorides are not poisonous. As the American Medical Association put it: "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems." -- JAMA, Sept 18, 1943, Editorial. The fluoride used to fluoridate water in Ireland is fluosilicic acid (AKA hydrofluosilicic or hexafluorosilicic acid), chemical formula H2SiF6. It is one of the most toxic substances known. See www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/fluoride.html _ Nobody who learns about that artificial chemical would be happy to drink unmeasured quantities of it. Who wants to be slowly poisoned? Anonymous wrote: "The question is not whether to use fluorides in our water." Excuse me, that IS the question -- whether we let the "health" authorities add a deadly poison to our drinking water, so that we're all forced to drink unmeasured quantities of it. Anonymous may not be aware that the fluoride levels in 99% of Irish water sources were negligible before fluoridation began.

Joe(joet61) - 19/04/2005 11:21

The document William cites, from the British Fluoridation Society, is pro-fluoride propaganda, slicker than in the past, but still just propaganda. There is no solid scientific evidence there. Yes, we do need to base this debate on the evidence. The BFS claims were comprehensively demolished in Barry Groves' 2001 book on Fluoride. Fluoridation is kept going only through cover-up. The latest episode of the cover-up is that the website of the Fluoridation Forum (which was somewhat revealing about the Forum shenanigans) has been deleted -- even though the Irish taxpayers paid for it. So much for openness, transparency and freedom of information. The WHO doesn't care either. See http://tinyurl.com/8zaxs

William(williamgrogan) - 19/04/2005 20:36

Saying, “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons” is a typical tactic of scaremongers. Virtually everything is poisonous if taken in large doses. Most things are not poisonous if taken in sufficiently low doses. The human body has evolved defences against most naturally occurring poisons and even radioactivity. Our bodies contain Mercury, lead, arsenic, radioactive elements including uranium and radium. We breathe in a poison in Carbon Monoxide & carry on as normal. No one has died from poisoning as a result of the fluoridation of water so calling it a poison and then claiming it should not be added to water in miniscule quantities is absurd. I will only discuss Fluoridation in this thread and will answer Joe’s other queries here.

Joe(joet61) - 20/04/2005 13:16

Actually, William, it was the AMA that said "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons". Are you calling them "scaremongers"? Is it only the BFS you would not label as "scaremongers"? You regard a fluoride content of 1 mg/litre of water as "minuscule". Yet you agree with claims that this produces wonderful effects on teeth and zero effects on any other parts of the body. Sounds like you believe in magic. The whole fluoridation movement has all the characteristics of a cult -- blind faith, no scientific evidence, intimidation of doubters, cover-up, and vested interests.

William(williamgrogan) - 22/04/2005 17:08

I find the postings of Joe Mullen extremely convincing and defer to his obvious deep knowledge on this subject. Unhealthy teeth also lead to other problems such as dental expense, pain, associated illnesses, psychological problems etc. A relation of my wife’s, an 18 year old young woman, died under anaesthetic in a dental surgery some years back so I know personally that people can actually die because of dental disease. It is always interesting to see what “other” opinions people hold that hold extreme fringe opinions. It is quite clear that virtually all scientists, doctors, dentists and health officials with knowledge of water fluoridation in the world support water fluoridation. 145 million US citizens drink it. On the other hand we have people like Joet61 who also holds fringe beliefs concerning other matters that also by total co-incidence are opposed by all relevant authorities in the world in that particular area. It is clear that Joe and his followers in the Irish Green religion (sorry party) do not accept or perhaps understand the idea of scientific investigation. They cannot understand it when it applies to Fluoridation or CAM or MMR or Vitamin supplements or Nuclear Power for that matter. I see little difference between the various fringe anti’s and any other religious group. Once “faith” in a particular position is established no amount of rational argument or scientific evidence matters one iota. I see that the Green Party in the 2005 UK general election are demanding more access to CAM, another major area of quackery & enormous fraud. There is a clear trend here. Green Party activists, anti- this that and the other new age fundamentalists are a Religion. Like all religions their opinions are based on a total lack of logic, rationality and evidence. There is no difference in structure between Joe and his merry band of anti-fluoridation activists and those that oppose evolution and claim intelligent design. They are all religious people who are outside the scope of rational argument. Ranged against them in *all* their causes are millions of highly trained and intelligent scientists, doctors and other experts. Joe believes MMR causes Autism and that massive does of Vitamin C prevent disease, I can only imagine what other quack ideas Joe subscribes to, perhaps he could give us a list?

Joe(joet61) - 24/04/2005 13:39

Thanks, William. Now will you please show us the evidence? You could start with the amazing biochemical mechanism whereby fluoride produces wonderful effects on the teeth and zero effects on any other part of the body. Or so you and the whole western medical establishment (with honourable exceptions) believe. I've been looking for that evidence for years and can't find it. But you obviously believe it's there. And it is the whole "scientific" justification for fluoridation.

William(williamgrogan) - 25/04/2005 15:29

No amount of evidence, studies or the opinions of experts in this field will be sufficient for you or the other anti’s. This is exactly the same position that all religious people take. **NO amount of evidence** will convince a born again Christian that the world is older than 6,000 years, no amount of evidence convinced the Popes of the middle ages that the world went around the Sun even when Galileo could show them with his telescope that the moons of Jupiter went around Jupiter, no amount of evidence will convince many people that MMR is safe even when the only scientist to say it might not be safe has had his paper withdrawn from the publication that originally printed it, no amount of studies and the opinions of all the worlds scientists will convince those that promote Homeopathy that it is useless, no amount of evidence will convince many people that we evolved or that man walked on the moon or that UFOs buzz people and capture them for experiments. That Fluoride protects the teeth from decay and causes no measurable harm is proven after decades of water fluoridation. If the York Meta Analysis of hundreds of studies is not good enough for you, I cannot help. If the vast majority of experts in this field believe Fluoride is safe and you don’t what is the difference between your position and that of the Intelligent Design proponents who think ALL the world’s biologists are wrong? It’s simple, we must depend on experts, while occasionally they may be wrong, overall they are right, far more right than religious people, the huge number of anti’s and conspiracy theorists, new age hippies, Green Party environmental activists etc.

Joe(joet61) - 28/04/2005 10:07

It's important to set the record straight here. The York Review, cited by William, did not show fluoridation to be safe, nor did it claim that. "The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis." So said Professor Trevor Sheldon, the founding director of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York, who chaired the advisory board which oversaw the whole review process (www.fluoridealert.org/sheldon.htm). Sheldon wrote a pointed reiteration of the York Review's findings in order to correct misrepresentations by William's favourite quango, the British Fluoridation Society, and by the BDA and others. The York Review also found that "There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health." We got the opposite story from the BFS, and from Dr Shane Allwright, a senior lecturer in public health, on one of the last occasions when an Irish medical doctor spoke in public about fluoridation. That was back in 1997, on Pat Kenny's RTE1 radio show. Allwright chided Green TD Trevor Sargent (who had earlier criticized fluoridation) for his "middle-class attitude" and "selfish perspective" in objecting to fluoridation. Allwright's justification for fluoridation was that it helped poor people -- those who wouldn't buy fluoride toothpaste or toothbrushes. However, Dr Seamus O'Hickey, the former Chief Dental Officer who is now Chairman of the Government's Expert Body on Fluorides & Health, stated: "[Fluoridation] is equitable, in that rich and poor would benefit equally." (www.anc.org.za/anc/newsbrief/1997/news0531) The WHO has also used the "equitable" argument. (For more about the WHO experts on fluoride, see http://tinyurl.com/8zaxs) Whom would you believe? Whom can you believe? Which of these people work in pleasant offices with healthy mineral water supplied daily, paid for by taxpayers? (Remember: YOU have no choice about fluoride in your water.) In 41 years of Irish fluoridation, no research has ever been carried out on the effects of fluoridation apart from on human teeth. Not one study. Even though the fluoridation law specifically commands the Minister for Health to carry out such studies "from time to time". I think William would do us a favour if he would stay on topic and also research the topic before launching attacks on his perceived enemies.

William(williamgrogan) - 28/04/2005 11:31

I’m not off topic. Read the major point in my previous post again. There are a class of people who hold extreme views on a number of subjects. You seem to be one of them. Do you not see the similarity between the people who hold views contrary to mainstream science, such as anti-MMR, Intelligent Design, anti-Fluoridation, pro-Homeopathy, pro mega does of Vitamin supplements, anti-Bit Pharm etc.. As I said no amount of studies would sway these people. ID types still persist in claiming we didn’t evolve for 150 years now even as acres of scientific print has clearly proven we did.

Anonymous - 25/06/2006 23:05

After reading elaborately footnoted literature referencing many court cases and statistics, the only conclusion that seems sane is that the pro-fluoride stats are suspiciously askew. Can so many be lying? Yes. The profits from the smelting industry\'s waste product is huge and two-fold: Rather than the immense cost of properly disposing their toxic by-product, (which would involve owning insanely large land areas that would be good for nothing else), they are selling it us! To be blunt, there\'s enough cash to bribe whoever needs to be bribed.

Bill - 27/06/2006 08:16

Aah! The old conspiracy theory. The great thing about conspiracy theories is that the greater the lack of any evidence the more the conspiracy theorists are convinced. It must have been suppressed. The Irish chemicals that are added to the water do not come from waste. Did you just make up this daft theory?

Joe(joet61) - 27/10/2006 22:19

Bill, once again I must correct you. It's not a theory; there IS a conspiracy behind fluoridation. It's detailed in U.S. government documents collected in Christopher Bryson's extraordinary exposé "The Fluoride Deception" (now available in paperback). As for suppression, what do you think of the fact that the Dept of Health has just deleted the website of the Forum on Fluoridation; it was at www.fluoridationforum.ie. It had all the minutes of meetings and many other important documents, and now it's no longer available to us members of the public (who paid for the whole Forum). And Bill, you wrote: "The Irish chemicals that are added to the water do not come from waste. Did you just make up this daft theory?" The fact is that the fluoride added to Irish water WAS untreated toxic waste for most of the 42 years of Irish fluoridation. The Government (or whoever controls Irish fluoridation) switched the source from toxic waste to a "manufactured product" shortly before the Forum began in 2000. That enabled the Forum to declare that Ireland doesn't use toxic waste in fluoridation. The Forum avoided mentioning what had been going on for so many years. Now that's what I call suppression. By the way, there's no evidence that the fluoride used at present is any less toxic than the toxic waste version used in the past. It's hydrofluorosilicic acid, one of the most toxic chemicals known to science.

Bill - 31/10/2006 11:15

As you have been told many many times Joe, “toxic” means absolutely nothing unless the dosage, delivery method etc is stated. The fact that you keep ignoring this point to try and scare people proves clearly that your intentions are malicious and are not in any way an attempt to get at the truth. Everything is toxic, including water in certain doses and likewise virtually everything is not toxic in low enough doses. Most people would regard radioactivity as toxic but about 300 atoms of Uranium disintegrate and give off ionizing radiation every day in your body, doesn’t kill you does it? Tiny doses of Vitamins are beneficial but Vitamin C has been shown to be carcinogenic in high doses. We need Iron but too much Iron in your blood can kill. Even red wine seems to be beneficial in doses of 1 or 2 glasses per day but drink say two bottles per day and you will be dead within 10 to 20 years with liver failure. Fluoride is NOT toxic in the doses that Irish people absorb it, it’s beneficial. Just because some writer writes a book to make money from gullible conspiracy theorists does not prove anything what so ever. Many conspiracy books are written every year and make their writers vast sums of money. Most are total nonsense.

Joe(joet61) - 25/01/2007 01:02

Hey Bill, that's quite an insult to a great writer and investigative journalist, Christopher Bryson. I take it you haven't read the book. I suggest you take a little time out from reading the Quackwatch and Spiked websites and enlighten yourself. You say, not for the first time, "Vitamin C has been shown to be carcinogenic", but you always refuse to show us any evidence. Your statement is complete nonsense. Why, even the US FDA has given approval of a clinical trial on intravenous vitamin C as a cancer treatment (see www.physorg.com/news87833644.html) -- because they have reason to think it could cure cancer. We're talking massive doses of vitamin C. Are you going to alert the FDA to your "evidence"?

Anonymous - 11/10/2007 18:30

This may be a bit late but fluoride as used in Ireland came from the Albatross fertiliser plant in New Ross Co. Wexford. Any claims to the contrary are complete fiction.

Joe(joet61) - 12/10/2007 13:40

You're out of touch, Anonymous (11/10/2007). Albatros had the contract to supply fluoride (in the form of deadly hydrofluorosilicic acid) for Irish water supplies until the early 1990s. They lost the contract to the Shannon company Chemifloc for a while, but then regained the contract when Brendan Howlin was Minister for Health. Albatros were then sourcing the fluoride from a Dutch fertilizer factory (I think Albatros had given up manufacturing phosphate fertilizer themselves). However, they lost the contract again just before the Fluoridation Forum started seven years ago, presumably because the Forum didn't want to admit that fertilizer factory toxic waste was being used. A Spanish chemicals company, Derivados del Fluor, took over the contract for another few years. Then Chemifloc regained the contract, and that seems to be the current state of affairs. However, the health authorities don't want us to know about these things, so they don't tell us who is doing what or what exactly is being put in the water. You can glean some of this info from the website of the Expert Body on Fluorides & Health, who are running the fluoridation show. You'll have to wade through unbelievable amounts of gobbledygook to find the useful info. By the way, there's no evidence that the fluoride currently added to Irish water is any less toxic than the fertilizer factory toxic waste. And the Irish Medicines Board is washing its hands of the whole business.

Anonymous - 12/10/2007 15:29

Joe, I am not defending in the slightest fluoridation. My father worked for Albatross and the waste was donated to the councils to "remove the bugs from the water". The councils may have paid for the maintenance of the trucks and transportation of the waste to the treatment plants but they certainly did not pay for the fluoride. It is waste disposal and the Department appointing dentists to monitor fluoridation is a farce. The whole thing is a farce and an assault on our human rights and democracy. This is a scandal and will in the future be the subject of tribunals and hopefully criminal convictions.

Teresa(BVI65642) - 13/10/2007 21:28

I have just installed an OS filter system for drinking water. The testing equipment shows a level of 2 supposed to mean minimal solids in the water. Tap water shows 81 solids. Bottled water shows from 130 to 340. In Clonmel for the last 12 weeks people are boiling water to drink with boil notice still effective in the town. Why is nobody from Clonmel shouting about thi?. Are people happy to keep this quiet. What about the people with poor immune systems which are not coping. Is it all about tourism and money nowadays?

COMMENT
Nickname: to be used for all future posts.
Notification: Tick this box if you wish to receive e-mail notifications of further posts on this topic