# Ireland and Fluoride, an update



## roker (9 Mar 2014)

*By Dr. Mercola*
Ingesting fluoride – a toxic fertilizer-industry byproduct – in drinking water for the sake of preventing tooth decay is an outdated, dangerous practice that is damaging human health and the environment.
The research on this is very clear, and although the US government has been slow to acknowledge it, other nations are ending this tragic "public health" measure. 
Quite simply, the truth is out about fluoride, and the more people become informed, the less tolerance they have for this toxic drug-like substance to remain in their drinking water.
This is precisely the case in Europe, where 98 percent of countries have rejected water fluoridation either by removing it from their water supplies or never adding it to begin with.
Except for Ireland. Ireland is the only country in Europe that has mandatory fluoridation – a practice that hopefully won't be long for this world, thanks to the efforts of nutritionist Aisling FitzGibbon, better known as "The Girl Against Fluoride." ​*The Girl Against Fluoride Takes on Ireland's High Court*

FitzGibbon is in the process of taking a High Court legal action against the Irish government in an effort to end the country's mandatory water fluoridation. The campaign was started after her own recovery from depression, which she attributes to drinking fluoride-free water.
Court case proceedings began in January 2014, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing a Supreme Court ruling in 1963 that mandated water fluoridation in Ireland. As FitzGibbon said, they are "fighting for our democratic right to clean water."1
Last year, three town councils in Ireland said they backed an end to water fluoridation but so far the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health has rejected anti-fluoridation arguments. In *Bantry, Ireland,* for instance, town councilors voted _unanimously_ for an immediate end to fluoridation throughout Ireland. 
Now, in an open letter to Irish Water, FitzGibbon has stated the agency and its board members will be held accountable for personal injury caused by the consumption of excess fluoride in drinking water. 
She also pointed out that they have a "legal duty" to warn consumers about fluoride's toxic effects and said customers will refuse to make contracts with Irish Water, while current customers will withhold payment for artificially fluoridated water. According to the letter:2
_"Irish Water has now been informed of the imminent actions of an ever-increasing and already large number of people who are gravely concerned about the dangers to human health caused by the over-consumption of fluoride [adding that they] are no longer prepared to tolerate being forced to consume it by a nanny state."_

_"Knowing that Ireland is the only country in Europe which has mandatory fluoridation, those promoting this outdated practice must have been disturbed to hear the news from Queensland that the new government there has dropped mandatory statewide fluoridation and there has been a stampede by many communities to end fluoridation or not start it, even though in one case the equipment was already installed._
_…Even better from our perspective was when the Minister of Health in Israel announced that fluoridation would no longer be mandatory there in 2014. This sets a wonderful precedent for Ireland to follow… It was particularly satisfying… when John Gormley, former mayor of Dublin and former Minister of the Environment, finally released his report (while serving on the Parliamentary committee for Health and Children) in which he recommended that fluoridation be halted in Ireland. _​_…Finally, there is the good news from nearby unfluoridated Scotland where the government has reported very positive results in their low-cost educational program to fight tooth decay. So fluoridation promoters in Ireland cannot argue that if fluoridation is halted it will result in chaos. Scotland has shown there is a better, safer, and more rational way of fighting tooth decay without forcing it on people who don't want this treatment via the public water supply."_​


----------



## delgirl (10 Mar 2014)

Great post Roker, just signed up recently to the campaign for fluoride-free water in Ireland here.

We switched some time ago to bottled spring water as we have someone at home recovering from cancer and there are [broken link removed].


----------



## ajapale (11 Mar 2014)

*[broken link removed]*

Have a look at this excellent blog "three men make a tiger" for an interesting take (counter view) on the flouride discussion.



> Fluoride is in some respects a sideshow; the crux of the matter is that  if we base our decisions on emotive and poorly formed ideas, everyone  suffers. This is especially true in health, as should be clear to anyone  who remembers the cost in human suffering if misinformed panic over  vaccination a decade ago - suffering that, incidentally, is still  ongoing.


And this blog from Gerry Byrne http://gerbyrne.blogspot.ie/2014/02/inside-mind-of-anti-fluoridationist.html?m=1
and Radio Debate  [broken link removed]
http://gerbyrne.blogspot.ie/2014/02/inside-mind-of-anti-fluoridationist.html?m=1


----------



## roker (13 Mar 2014)

The same argument must have been used in all other countries to stop or hold on to Fluoridation, so why do we need this hassle again. We are also getting another dose from our toothpaste which could be putting us over a safe limit.


----------



## ajapale (14 Mar 2014)

roker said:


> .. so why do we need this hassle again?



I would rather use the availiable scientific evidence than simply blindly follow some irrational hysteria whipped up in other juristicitions.

What do you think of the NZ approach where each council hold a plebecite on the isssue?

http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/fluoridation New Zealand Dept of Health Website live website.
 Communities with Flouridated Supplies NZ 24.October.2013


----------



## roker (15 Mar 2014)

I notice one article is not dated, and the other is 2001


----------



## ajapale (15 Mar 2014)

Hi roker,

Ive edited my links to include references to the age of the article.

What do you think of the NZ approach? Each community has its own debate and decides whether or not to flouridate.

My own view is that such decisions (as with all matters of public health policy) should be based on valid scientific evidence.



> .... the crux of the matter  is that  if we base our decisions on emotive and poorly formed ideas,  everyone  suffers. This is especially true in health, as should be clear  to anyone  who remembers the cost in human suffering if misinformed  panic over  vaccination a decade ago - suffering that, incidentally, is  still  ongoing.



aj


----------



## RainyDay (15 Mar 2014)

roker said:


> Except for Ireland. Ireland is the only country in Europe that has mandatory fluoridation – a practice that hopefully won't be long for this world, thanks to the efforts of nutritionist Aisling FitzGibbon, better known as "The Girl Against Fluoride."
> [/INDENT]*The Girl Against Fluoride Takes on Ireland's High Court*
> 
> FitzGibbon is in the process of taking a High Court legal action against the Irish government in an effort to end the country's mandatory water fluoridation. The campaign was started after her own recovery from depression, which she attributes to drinking fluoride-free water.
> ...



The girl is not the most credible source;

http://www.geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2013/11/girl-against-fluoride-f-minus-for-effort.html?m=1
http://www.geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2013/11/girl-against-fluoride-vaccine.html?m=1
http://www.geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2013/12/fluoride-girls-creative-director-links.html?m=1


----------



## roker (15 Mar 2014)

As I said earlier, do we really need Fluoride in water when we get it in most toothpastes, at least we have a choice, People on wells can choose Fluoride toothpaste if they require, others do not have a choice, they get a double dose.


----------



## delgirl (17 Mar 2014)

[broken link removed] have recently classified fluoride as a neurotoxicant and the piece states:-

_"Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency.  Industrial chemicals (including fluoride) that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence."_

A Harvard School of Public Health meta-analysis study found 'strong indications' that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.

If there's any doubt at all about the potentially harmful effects of fluoride, as a neurotoxin or carcinogen, it should be removed from our drinking water.


----------



## PMU (18 Mar 2014)

Have we not been down this path before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OcHNYenN7OY


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Mar 2014)

delgirl said:


> A Harvard School of Public Health meta-analysis study found 'strong indications' that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.



Hi delgirl

Either you or Wikipedia is miquotiing this study 




> A meta analysis conducted on epidemiological studies conducted in China  concluded that exposure to "high" levels of fluoride (variously defined)  in childhood was associated with a reduction in IQ of about 7 points.[
> 
> The authors of the meta analysis noted that this research is not applicable to the safety of artificial water fluoridation  because the adverse effects on IQ was found with fluoride levels that  were much higher than typically found in artificially fluoridated water.[15



And from RationalWiki



> the study compared children in areas with _recommended_ levels of  fluoride in water — the same levels that are introduced in the process  of water fluoridation (0.5-1.5 mg/l) — to children in areas with high  fluoride levels (above 1.5 mg/l). In other words, and yet again, this  paper documents the risks of chronic fluoride toxicity, not the very  notion of water fluoridation.





Agree fully with AJ:



> I would rather use the availiable scientific evidence than simply  blindly follow some irrational hysteria whipped up in other  juristicitions.


Check out RationalWiki on Water fluoridation  and Chemophobia   (Look at my nice cavity free teeth)


----------



## ClubMan (19 Mar 2014)

roker said:


> As I said earlier, do we really need Fluoride in water when we get it in most toothpastes, at least we have a choice, People on wells can choose Fluoride toothpaste if they require, others do not have a choice, they get a double dose.


I can choose not to drink tap water.
But I choose to do so.


----------



## roker (20 Mar 2014)

ClubMan said:


> I can choose not to drink tap water.
> But I choose to do so.


I tried not to drink tap water,, and bought large bottles of mineral water but it was not practical because of the large amounts required. It also raised another issue, the chemicals leaching out of the plastic.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2014)

roker said:


> It also raised another issue, the chemicals leaching out of the plastic.



That's a non-issue; the amounts are between tiny and none. If you don't want plastic to breakdown then don't store it in direct sunlight.


----------



## ajapale (21 Mar 2014)

roker said:


> chemicals leaching out of the plastic.


Yes, that dihydrogen oxide can be very dangerous. http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/plasticbottles.asp


----------



## roker (22 Mar 2014)

Further update on Fluoride:
*Conspiracy to label toxic chemicals "fluoride" and get the public to drink them* - It is an historical fact that the fluoride and dental industries have conspired to mislead people into believe "fluoride" is a naturally occurring substance. The fact is, the fluorine compounds used in the public water supply are really byproducts of fertilizer processing or phosphate mining operations, and they often contain heavy metals.

Even many mainstream scientists now conclude that fluoride lowers IQs and damages the brain function of children. So why are we still being told that fluoride is a "public health measure" that helps everyone?

_Attend any city council or other government agency deciding on whether or not to fluoridate your local water supply, and you'll get health officials asserting that fluoride is natural, and thus safe. They don't bother to mention that naturally occurring fluoride is calcium fluoride, while the stuff purchased by communities to fluoridate their water is sodium fluoride, an extremely toxic mix of hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride._


----------



## ajapale (23 Mar 2014)

Hi Roker, do you have a link to the original Harvard metastudy?

It seems that the group studied in China used drinking water with very high* naturally*  occurring levels of fluoride.

aj





> It...claims that there  are “hundreds of scientific studies that say  that fluoride reduces IQs  in children.” Actually, there is one study  that is the basis for this  claim. It is out of Harvard University and  it is what we refer to in the  scientific literature as a  “meta-analysis” or robust review of  previously published research.  Sophisticated statistical procedures are  used to find trends across a  panel of experiments reported by other  workers.
> 
> The Harvard authors did not do the actual research but examined  25  papers, 23 of which were from China. They concluded that when   communities in China used drinking water with very high* naturally*   occurring levels of fluoride (in the range of 7 ppm or about 7 times   the concentration used as an additive in the U.S.), a drop of about 7 IQ   points was found, compared to the control group.





> This  might seem of  concern  at first glance, but if you go to the original  papers (which we  geeky  scientists have an annoying habit of doing), you  see striking  numbers.  The control group, that is, the group with the  higher IQs, were   drinking from water sources with a fluoride  concentration of 0.8 ppm,   right in the range used to fluoridate U.S.  water systems!
> 
> And what’s  more, the adults in the communities with the high fluoride levels  actually had a statistically significant _increase_ in longevity over those in the control or lower fluoride group.
> 
> The authors of the  Harvard study made this statement concerning the use of their own work: *   “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible    levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation  in   the U.S.”*


----------



## RainyDay (25 Apr 2014)

Interesting view here;

[broken link removed]


----------



## Latrade (28 Apr 2014)

roker said:


> Further update on Fluoride:
> *Conspiracy to label toxic chemicals "fluoride" and get the public to drink them* - It is an historical fact that the fluoride and dental industries have conspired to mislead people into believe "fluoride" is a naturally occurring substance. The fact is, the fluorine compounds used in the public water supply are really byproducts of fertilizer processing or phosphate mining operations, and they often contain heavy metals.
> 
> Even many mainstream scientists now conclude that fluoride lowers IQs and damages the brain function of children. So why are we still being told that fluoride is a "public health measure" that helps everyone?
> ...


 
You know you can easily check a lot of this stuff you're cutting and pasting and you'd see they are misleading.

But just your IQ point. Mass fluoridation began in the 50s and 60s, IQ testing began in the 30s. Since the 30s there has been a measurable increase in IQ, around 3 points per decade. It even has a name, the Flynn Effect. 

So you cut and paste from sites that wrongly use the evidence of one report in one specific area, yet we have over 80 years of IQ testing before and after fluoridation and that shows increases in IQ (even after standardising of testing and results). And thats in all parts of the world and in both countries that do and don't fluoridate.

There was no dip in those countries that started fluoridation and no spike when countries stopped, just a general increase in IQ every year, every decade. 

Just thought you should know that.

And actually there are arguments to cease fluoridation, good ones too in my opinion, but none of this pseudoscience stuff. 

The education of populations on and the increase in dental hygiene probably means the serious risks faced in the 40s are no longer an issue and there is also greater access to dentists. From an economic point of view, is it needed? Cost/benefits is a good argument, not cut and paste pseudoscience.

And there is no mainstream acceptance of IQ lower as you pasted. The one area that scientists do debate and are divided on is the ethics of mass medication. Not because of any medical concerns, just the general ethics of medicating on mass, when doctors tend to wish to individually medicate people based upon individual circumstances and needs.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Apr 2014)

ajapale said:


> Yes, that dihydrogen oxide can be very dangerous. http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/plasticbottles.asp



I must admit that it took me a moment.

However as a weekend cyclist I can confirm that the water in my plastic bottle tastes foul if left for a week. I don't think the same taste would come from a glass bottle.


----------



## Leo (30 Apr 2014)

cremeegg said:


> I must admit that it took me a moment.
> 
> However as a weekend cyclist I can confirm that the water in my plastic bottle tastes foul if left for a week. I don't think the same taste would come from a glass bottle.



Plastic bottles are waterproof, but they will allow certain molecules, particularly odours, to pass through whereas glass is impenetrable to odours. That's the reason bottled water comes with a best before date, poor storage can lead to odours being absorbed, and that in turn could damage the producers reputation.


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2014)

cremeegg said:


> I must admit that it took me a moment.
> 
> However as a weekend cyclist I can confirm that the water in my plastic bottle tastes foul if left for a week. I don't think the same taste would come from a glass bottle.



The off taste can also be caused by Acetaldehyde, a naturally occurring chemical that is generated in very small amounts as PET degrades. It's smelly but harmless. From this link;

_Acetaldehyde

Acetaldehyde is a colorless, volatile substance with a fruity smell. Although it forms naturally in some fruit, it can cause an off-taste in bottled water. Acetaldehyde forms by degradation of PET through the mishandling of the material. High temperatures, (PET decomposes above 300 °C or 570 °F), high pressures, extruder speeds (excessive shear flow raises temperature), and long barrel residence times all contribute to the production of acetaldehyde. When acetaldehyde is produced, some of it remains dissolved in the walls of a container and then diffuses into the product stored inside, altering the taste and aroma. This is not such a problem for non-consumables (such as shampoo), for fruit juices (which already contain acetaldehyde), or for strong-tasting drinks like soft drinks. For bottled water, however, low acetaldehyde content is quite important, because, if nothing masks the aroma, even extremely low concentrations (10–20 parts per billion in the water) of acetaldehyde can produce an off-taste._


----------

