Councils 'will be able to turn off fluoride'

Councils 'will be able to turn off fluoride'

Councils 'will be able to turn off fluoride'

First published in News

COUNCILS will be able to turn off fluoride from Hampshire’s water supplies if people don’t want it, new Government guidelines say.

Councillors could scrap the controversial scheme within months once the health authority pushing it is axed, if Department of Health (DoH) proposals are rubber-stamped.

It would mean councillors will be able to vote to axe the project if residents say they are against it, once Strategic Health Authorities are scrapped at the end of this month.

Although the Hampshire fluoridation scheme won’t be in place until next year at the earliest, a new body, Public Health England, could carry on the work to get it up and running.

It is not yet known whether the organisation will actively work to get fluoride put in the water. But even if it does, councillors can vote to say they want the scheme scrapped.

The draft regulations say public opinion is as important a consideration as scientific arguments and ethical concerns when councillors are considering which way to vote.

Councils will be expected to consult people but there is no requirement to hold a public referendum.

The proposals remove the controversial clause that saw South Central SHA ignore negative responses to its plans to put fluoride in the water in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.

Despite 72 per cent of people who responded to the SHA’s consultation saying they didn’t want fluoridation, health bosses unanimously approved the scheme in 2009 because they said they were convinced it would bring health benefits. Government rules at the time said decision-makers had to assess the strength and scientific basis of arguments put forward.

But four years on, that restriction has been removed.

New Forest East MP Dr Julian Lewis, who has campaigned against fluoridation in Hampshire, believes the new rules are an improvement, but don’t go far enough.

He said: “It’s a superficial step in the right direction, but it falls short of any guarantee that public opinion would not be overridden.”

However fears have been raised that Hampshire residents could be forced to drink fluoridated water for 20 years under the new guidelines.

If any attempt to stop fluoridation fails, council must wait two decades before trying again.

Comments (72)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:20am Tue 19 Mar 13

SotonGreen says...

Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different. SotonGreen
  • Score: 0

8:35am Tue 19 Mar 13

Linesman says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:37am Tue 19 Mar 13

hulla baloo says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
People should be left with a choice of whether they want take flouride, not have it forced down them, literally. For those that want, there should be alternative arrangements made.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]People should be left with a choice of whether they want take flouride, not have it forced down them, literally. For those that want, there should be alternative arrangements made. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

8:49am Tue 19 Mar 13

Woolston Lad says...

Unadulterated drinking water is a basic human right. I can choose if I wish to smoke, which I do not, I can choose if I want to eat meat, which I do, I can choose if I want to drink alcohol, again which I do. I should be able to choose if I want to ingest Flouride, which I do not.
It is not for somebody else to decide what is best for me. I would ask our civic leaders to ensure that we do not have this forced upon us. I want to be able to choose.
Unadulterated drinking water is a basic human right. I can choose if I wish to smoke, which I do not, I can choose if I want to eat meat, which I do, I can choose if I want to drink alcohol, again which I do. I should be able to choose if I want to ingest Flouride, which I do not. It is not for somebody else to decide what is best for me. I would ask our civic leaders to ensure that we do not have this forced upon us. I want to be able to choose. Woolston Lad
  • Score: 1

9:01am Tue 19 Mar 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

For someone whose water bill has tripled since the enforced introduction of a meter, I would at least like my opinion heard. I want my water clean, no poison in it no matter how little.
For someone whose water bill has tripled since the enforced introduction of a meter, I would at least like my opinion heard. I want my water clean, no poison in it no matter how little. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 1

9:38am Tue 19 Mar 13

townieboy says...

Is anyone really going to believe that they will just turn it off after all the out lay ???????????
Is anyone really going to believe that they will just turn it off after all the out lay ??????????? townieboy
  • Score: 0

9:46am Tue 19 Mar 13

Facewagon says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
For someone whose water bill has tripled since the enforced introduction of a meter, I would at least like my opinion heard. I want my water clean, no poison in it no matter how little.
The horrible injustice of paying for what you use. You poor chap.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: For someone whose water bill has tripled since the enforced introduction of a meter, I would at least like my opinion heard. I want my water clean, no poison in it no matter how little.[/p][/quote]The horrible injustice of paying for what you use. You poor chap. Facewagon
  • Score: 0

9:59am Tue 19 Mar 13

peenut81 says...

Love the touching faith in the 'experts'. Has it occurred to you soton green that many of the problems the world faces are caused by the 'experts'? I am reminded of Socrates “The ancient oracle said that I was the wisest of all the Greeks. It is because I alone, of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing.”
The same is true of our experts today, knowledge changes and unfortunately the way we organise society with profit in mind often means learning stops when people reach the 'real world', yet they continue to hold their views and beliefs all their lives. Economists in particular are guilty.
Love the touching faith in the 'experts'. Has it occurred to you soton green that many of the problems the world faces are caused by the 'experts'? I am reminded of Socrates “The ancient oracle said that I was the wisest of all the Greeks. It is because I alone, of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing.” The same is true of our experts today, knowledge changes and unfortunately the way we organise society with profit in mind often means learning stops when people reach the 'real world', yet they continue to hold their views and beliefs all their lives. Economists in particular are guilty. peenut81
  • Score: 0

11:25am Tue 19 Mar 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

Facewagon wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
For someone whose water bill has tripled since the enforced introduction of a meter, I would at least like my opinion heard. I want my water clean, no poison in it no matter how little.
The horrible injustice of paying for what you use. You poor chap.
I wasn't complaining, I requested a meter two years before it was made compulsory and was advised against it, as it was inevitable that the increase would happen! So I just let it ride until it was made compulsory, I don't like paying the extra, but it wasn't a surprise when it happened. How many others were in the same boat? Now a proper fee is being charged, maybe later, that the cost will reduce, and it will at least encourage people to waste less water, I have, but I still use plenty and I am happy to pay for it while I can afford it. As a pensioner there is no longer a deep well to dip into.
[quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: For someone whose water bill has tripled since the enforced introduction of a meter, I would at least like my opinion heard. I want my water clean, no poison in it no matter how little.[/p][/quote]The horrible injustice of paying for what you use. You poor chap.[/p][/quote]I wasn't complaining, I requested a meter two years before it was made compulsory and was advised against it, as it was inevitable that the increase would happen! So I just let it ride until it was made compulsory, I don't like paying the extra, but it wasn't a surprise when it happened. How many others were in the same boat? Now a proper fee is being charged, maybe later, that the cost will reduce, and it will at least encourage people to waste less water, I have, but I still use plenty and I am happy to pay for it while I can afford it. As a pensioner there is no longer a deep well to dip into. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:58am Tue 19 Mar 13

Linesman says...

Woolston Lad wrote:
Unadulterated drinking water is a basic human right. I can choose if I wish to smoke, which I do not, I can choose if I want to eat meat, which I do, I can choose if I want to drink alcohol, again which I do. I should be able to choose if I want to ingest Flouride, which I do not.
It is not for somebody else to decide what is best for me. I would ask our civic leaders to ensure that we do not have this forced upon us. I want to be able to choose.
Had it never crossed your mind that chemicals are added to your 'unadulterated drinking water' during the purification process?

Have you never questioned what those chemicals are, because some of them are more toxic than fluoride.
[quote][p][bold]Woolston Lad[/bold] wrote: Unadulterated drinking water is a basic human right. I can choose if I wish to smoke, which I do not, I can choose if I want to eat meat, which I do, I can choose if I want to drink alcohol, again which I do. I should be able to choose if I want to ingest Flouride, which I do not. It is not for somebody else to decide what is best for me. I would ask our civic leaders to ensure that we do not have this forced upon us. I want to be able to choose.[/p][/quote]Had it never crossed your mind that chemicals are added to your 'unadulterated drinking water' during the purification process? Have you never questioned what those chemicals are, because some of them are more toxic than fluoride. Linesman
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Tue 19 Mar 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

Linesman wrote:
Woolston Lad wrote:
Unadulterated drinking water is a basic human right. I can choose if I wish to smoke, which I do not, I can choose if I want to eat meat, which I do, I can choose if I want to drink alcohol, again which I do. I should be able to choose if I want to ingest Flouride, which I do not.
It is not for somebody else to decide what is best for me. I would ask our civic leaders to ensure that we do not have this forced upon us. I want to be able to choose.
Had it never crossed your mind that chemicals are added to your 'unadulterated drinking water' during the purification process?

Have you never questioned what those chemicals are, because some of them are more toxic than fluoride.
I have no idea but you can read about it at
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Water_purif
ication
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woolston Lad[/bold] wrote: Unadulterated drinking water is a basic human right. I can choose if I wish to smoke, which I do not, I can choose if I want to eat meat, which I do, I can choose if I want to drink alcohol, again which I do. I should be able to choose if I want to ingest Flouride, which I do not. It is not for somebody else to decide what is best for me. I would ask our civic leaders to ensure that we do not have this forced upon us. I want to be able to choose.[/p][/quote]Had it never crossed your mind that chemicals are added to your 'unadulterated drinking water' during the purification process? Have you never questioned what those chemicals are, because some of them are more toxic than fluoride.[/p][/quote]I have no idea but you can read about it at http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Water_purif ication OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Tue 19 Mar 13

bazzeroz says...

Don't bother at all! No one wants it ffs! Killer chemicals in your water? No thanks.
Don't bother at all! No one wants it ffs! Killer chemicals in your water? No thanks. bazzeroz
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Tue 19 Mar 13

st1halo says...

Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
Once again you both miss the point.
The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride.
As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax?
I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]Once again you both miss the point. The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride. As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax? I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks. st1halo
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Tue 19 Mar 13

haf says...

Take note of experts' views?

Chief Executive of the British Dental Association loses it!!!


http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=fq8E84PgP
3g
Take note of experts' views? Chief Executive of the British Dental Association loses it!!! http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=fq8E84PgP 3g haf
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Linesman says...

st1halo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
Once again you both miss the point.
The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride.
As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax?
I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.
You claim 'The majority don't want it.'

How do you know?

When was there a survey taken?

Don't assume that, because protesters outnumber supporters on here, the majority of people are against fluoridation.
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]Once again you both miss the point. The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride. As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax? I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.[/p][/quote]You claim 'The majority don't want it.' How do you know? When was there a survey taken? Don't assume that, because protesters outnumber supporters on here, the majority of people are against fluoridation. Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Tue 19 Mar 13

kingnotail says...

bazzeroz wrote:
Don't bother at all! No one wants it ffs! Killer chemicals in your water? No thanks.
Never brush your teeth then?
[quote][p][bold]bazzeroz[/bold] wrote: Don't bother at all! No one wants it ffs! Killer chemicals in your water? No thanks.[/p][/quote]Never brush your teeth then? kingnotail
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Tue 19 Mar 13

kingnotail says...

st1halo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
Once again you both miss the point.
The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride.
As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax?
I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.
The majority sir, are idiots.
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]Once again you both miss the point. The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride. As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax? I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.[/p][/quote]The majority sir, are idiots. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Tue 19 Mar 13

jwillie6 says...

A scientific report published last month shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland (ROI) compared to unfluoridated Northern Ireland (NI) or other European countries.


Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to
non-fluoridated NI. The World Health Organisation has also reported that the overall
incidence of cancer per 100,000 in the RoI is 85% above the European region
average, 43% above the EU average.

The review is here: http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5

For a quick overview, look at the graphs on pages 8, 12 and 14.
A scientific report published last month shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland (ROI) compared to unfluoridated Northern Ireland (NI) or other European countries. Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI. The World Health Organisation has also reported that the overall incidence of cancer per 100,000 in the RoI is 85% above the European region average, 43% above the EU average. The review is here: http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 For a quick overview, look at the graphs on pages 8, 12 and 14. jwillie6
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Inform Al says...

Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Tue 19 Mar 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

kingnotail wrote:
st1halo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
Once again you both miss the point.
The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride.
As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax?
I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.
The majority sir, are idiots.
Obviously you are in the majority too?
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]Once again you both miss the point. The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride. As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax? I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.[/p][/quote]The majority sir, are idiots.[/p][/quote]Obviously you are in the majority too? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Tue 19 Mar 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

kingnotail wrote:
bazzeroz wrote:
Don't bother at all! No one wants it ffs! Killer chemicals in your water? No thanks.
Never brush your teeth then?
Haven't got any left to brush, Fluoride came too late for me.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazzeroz[/bold] wrote: Don't bother at all! No one wants it ffs! Killer chemicals in your water? No thanks.[/p][/quote]Never brush your teeth then?[/p][/quote]Haven't got any left to brush, Fluoride came too late for me. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Tue 19 Mar 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

Linesman wrote:
st1halo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
Once again you both miss the point.
The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride.
As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax?
I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.
You claim 'The majority don't want it.'

How do you know?

When was there a survey taken?

Don't assume that, because protesters outnumber supporters on here, the majority of people are against fluoridation.
What do you not understand about "Despite 72 per cent of people who responded to the SHA’s consultation saying they didn’t want fluoridation",
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]Once again you both miss the point. The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride. As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax? I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.[/p][/quote]You claim 'The majority don't want it.' How do you know? When was there a survey taken? Don't assume that, because protesters outnumber supporters on here, the majority of people are against fluoridation.[/p][/quote]What do you not understand about "Despite 72 per cent of people who responded to the SHA’s consultation saying they didn’t want fluoridation", OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Tue 19 Mar 13

IronLady2010 says...

Putting aside wether flouride is good or bad for you, I feel we should be able to make our own choice and not have this forced upon us.

In this day and age can they not devise some gadget whereby those who want this Flouride can have it released into their water supply from each individual property a bit like how a dishwasher releases rinse aid?

People could then have a choice.
Putting aside wether flouride is good or bad for you, I feel we should be able to make our own choice and not have this forced upon us. In this day and age can they not devise some gadget whereby those who want this Flouride can have it released into their water supply from each individual property a bit like how a dishwasher releases rinse aid? People could then have a choice. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Tue 19 Mar 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Putting aside wether flouride is good or bad for you, I feel we should be able to make our own choice and not have this forced upon us.

In this day and age can they not devise some gadget whereby those who want this Flouride can have it released into their water supply from each individual property a bit like how a dishwasher releases rinse aid?

People could then have a choice.
Another poor spell of whether we are having! That is the point we have all being making, there is NO choice.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Putting aside wether flouride is good or bad for you, I feel we should be able to make our own choice and not have this forced upon us. In this day and age can they not devise some gadget whereby those who want this Flouride can have it released into their water supply from each individual property a bit like how a dishwasher releases rinse aid? People could then have a choice.[/p][/quote]Another poor spell of whether we are having! That is the point we have all being making, there is NO choice. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Tue 19 Mar 13

IronLady2010 says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Putting aside wether flouride is good or bad for you, I feel we should be able to make our own choice and not have this forced upon us.

In this day and age can they not devise some gadget whereby those who want this Flouride can have it released into their water supply from each individual property a bit like how a dishwasher releases rinse aid?

People could then have a choice.
Another poor spell of whether we are having! That is the point we have all being making, there is NO choice.
HAHA nice one! I like it!
I was born in the Midlands which is supposedly the place where Fluoridation has been for years. I have two fillings at the age of almost 40 and still have a full set of teeth.

Although I have to take onboard Inform Al's comments as I was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease whilst living in the Midlands which constantly flared up. Living down South, it rarely plays up!
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Putting aside wether flouride is good or bad for you, I feel we should be able to make our own choice and not have this forced upon us. In this day and age can they not devise some gadget whereby those who want this Flouride can have it released into their water supply from each individual property a bit like how a dishwasher releases rinse aid? People could then have a choice.[/p][/quote]Another poor spell of whether we are having! That is the point we have all being making, there is NO choice.[/p][/quote]HAHA nice one! I like it! I was born in the Midlands which is supposedly the place where Fluoridation has been for years. I have two fillings at the age of almost 40 and still have a full set of teeth. Although I have to take onboard Inform Al's comments as I was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease whilst living in the Midlands which constantly flared up. Living down South, it rarely plays up! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Linesman says...

jwillie6 wrote:
A scientific report published last month shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland (ROI) compared to unfluoridated Northern Ireland (NI) or other European countries.


Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to
non-fluoridated NI. The World Health Organisation has also reported that the overall
incidence of cancer per 100,000 in the RoI is 85% above the European region
average, 43% above the EU average.

The review is here: http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5

For a quick overview, look at the graphs on pages 8, 12 and 14.
There has been no report published that shows that in the Midlands, where the water has been fluoridated for more than half a century, there has been a higher than average incidence of premature death.
[quote][p][bold]jwillie6[/bold] wrote: A scientific report published last month shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland (ROI) compared to unfluoridated Northern Ireland (NI) or other European countries. Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI. The World Health Organisation has also reported that the overall incidence of cancer per 100,000 in the RoI is 85% above the European region average, 43% above the EU average. The review is here: http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 For a quick overview, look at the graphs on pages 8, 12 and 14.[/p][/quote]There has been no report published that shows that in the Midlands, where the water has been fluoridated for more than half a century, there has been a higher than average incidence of premature death. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Linesman says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Linesman wrote:
st1halo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
Once again you both miss the point.
The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride.
As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax?
I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.
You claim 'The majority don't want it.'

How do you know?

When was there a survey taken?

Don't assume that, because protesters outnumber supporters on here, the majority of people are against fluoridation.
What do you not understand about "Despite 72 per cent of people who responded to the SHA’s consultation saying they didn’t want fluoridation",
72% of a total population of how many?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]Once again you both miss the point. The argument about the benefits or risks of flouridation are irrelevant. The majority don't want it and should have the right to veto the process. It's about democracy, not flouride. As for leaving things to 'experts', Would these be amongst the same experts that recommended the single currency in Europe, the Iraq War, De-regulation of the banks, Thalidomide, open door policy on immigration, befriending Gadaffi, Poll tax? I'll take my chances with the knuckle dragging morons thanks.[/p][/quote]You claim 'The majority don't want it.' How do you know? When was there a survey taken? Don't assume that, because protesters outnumber supporters on here, the majority of people are against fluoridation.[/p][/quote]What do you not understand about "Despite 72 per cent of people who responded to the SHA’s consultation saying they didn’t want fluoridation",[/p][/quote]72% of a total population of how many? Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:59pm Tue 19 Mar 13

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
jwillie6 wrote:
A scientific report published last month shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland (ROI) compared to unfluoridated Northern Ireland (NI) or other European countries.


Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to
non-fluoridated NI. The World Health Organisation has also reported that the overall
incidence of cancer per 100,000 in the RoI is 85% above the European region
average, 43% above the EU average.

The review is here: http://tinyurl.com/c


f7zmo5

For a quick overview, look at the graphs on pages 8, 12 and 14.
There has been no report published that shows that in the Midlands, where the water has been fluoridated for more than half a century, there has been a higher than average incidence of premature death.
Wasn't a report documented where it had an effect on IQ levels?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jwillie6[/bold] wrote: A scientific report published last month shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland (ROI) compared to unfluoridated Northern Ireland (NI) or other European countries. Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI. The World Health Organisation has also reported that the overall incidence of cancer per 100,000 in the RoI is 85% above the European region average, 43% above the EU average. The review is here: http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 For a quick overview, look at the graphs on pages 8, 12 and 14.[/p][/quote]There has been no report published that shows that in the Midlands, where the water has been fluoridated for more than half a century, there has been a higher than average incidence of premature death.[/p][/quote]Wasn't a report documented where it had an effect on IQ levels? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

7:22am Wed 20 Mar 13

Dan Germouse says...

Water fluoridation breaks every principle of sound medical practice. Politicians are doing to everyone what no doctor can do to anyone.
1. Industrial grade toxic waste is used, not a pharmaceutical grade chemical, and it's contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other toxins.
2. The dose is uncontrolled, because people drink very different amounts of water, and receive fluoride from other sources.
3. It is completely indiscriminate, being imposed on foetuses, babies, children, people with kidney impairment who are less able to excrete fluoride, people with fluoride sensitivity, people without teeth, and so on. This is the complete opposite of individualised medicine.
4. There is no monitoring by health professionals. Nobody is warned about fluoride sensitivity and other potential adverse effects, and doctors are not trained to recognise fluoride sensitivity or chronic fluoride toxicity.
5. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for medical research, and routine for pharmaceutical drugs, but no randomised controlled trial has ever demonstrated that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless.
6. There is no informed consent, which violates the Nuremberg Code and other statements of medical ethics.
Water fluoridation breaks every principle of sound medical practice. Politicians are doing to everyone what no doctor can do to anyone. 1. Industrial grade toxic waste is used, not a pharmaceutical grade chemical, and it's contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other toxins. 2. The dose is uncontrolled, because people drink very different amounts of water, and receive fluoride from other sources. 3. It is completely indiscriminate, being imposed on foetuses, babies, children, people with kidney impairment who are less able to excrete fluoride, people with fluoride sensitivity, people without teeth, and so on. This is the complete opposite of individualised medicine. 4. There is no monitoring by health professionals. Nobody is warned about fluoride sensitivity and other potential adverse effects, and doctors are not trained to recognise fluoride sensitivity or chronic fluoride toxicity. 5. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for medical research, and routine for pharmaceutical drugs, but no randomised controlled trial has ever demonstrated that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless. 6. There is no informed consent, which violates the Nuremberg Code and other statements of medical ethics. Dan Germouse
  • Score: 0

9:22am Wed 20 Mar 13

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
jwillie6 wrote:
A scientific report published last month shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland (ROI) compared to unfluoridated Northern Ireland (NI) or other European countries.


Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to
non-fluoridated NI. The World Health Organisation has also reported that the overall
incidence of cancer per 100,000 in the RoI is 85% above the European region
average, 43% above the EU average.

The review is here: http://tinyurl.com/c



f7zmo5

For a quick overview, look at the graphs on pages 8, 12 and 14.
There has been no report published that shows that in the Midlands, where the water has been fluoridated for more than half a century, there has been a higher than average incidence of premature death.
Wasn't a report documented where it had an effect on IQ levels?
Not to my knowledge.

If you know of one, let us know who conducted the exercise and published the report.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jwillie6[/bold] wrote: A scientific report published last month shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland (ROI) compared to unfluoridated Northern Ireland (NI) or other European countries. Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI. The World Health Organisation has also reported that the overall incidence of cancer per 100,000 in the RoI is 85% above the European region average, 43% above the EU average. The review is here: http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 For a quick overview, look at the graphs on pages 8, 12 and 14.[/p][/quote]There has been no report published that shows that in the Midlands, where the water has been fluoridated for more than half a century, there has been a higher than average incidence of premature death.[/p][/quote]Wasn't a report documented where it had an effect on IQ levels?[/p][/quote]Not to my knowledge. If you know of one, let us know who conducted the exercise and published the report. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:29am Wed 20 Mar 13

Linesman says...

Dan Germouse wrote:
Water fluoridation breaks every principle of sound medical practice. Politicians are doing to everyone what no doctor can do to anyone.
1. Industrial grade toxic waste is used, not a pharmaceutical grade chemical, and it's contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other toxins.
2. The dose is uncontrolled, because people drink very different amounts of water, and receive fluoride from other sources.
3. It is completely indiscriminate, being imposed on foetuses, babies, children, people with kidney impairment who are less able to excrete fluoride, people with fluoride sensitivity, people without teeth, and so on. This is the complete opposite of individualised medicine.
4. There is no monitoring by health professionals. Nobody is warned about fluoride sensitivity and other potential adverse effects, and doctors are not trained to recognise fluoride sensitivity or chronic fluoride toxicity.
5. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for medical research, and routine for pharmaceutical drugs, but no randomised controlled trial has ever demonstrated that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless.
6. There is no informed consent, which violates the Nuremberg Code and other statements of medical ethics.
What detrimental effect has it had on the Midlands population that has had their water fluoridated for more than half a century?

No need for the 'randomised controlled trial' when you have the evidence of more than fifty years readily available.

There was scare-mongering about the MMR vaccination, based on the thoughts of a discredited doctor, which has resulted in children suffering, when they could have been protected.

There is scare-mongering now, by people, with no scientific background, talking as if they were experts in the field.

I look to 50 years of fluoridation, that has had no detrimental effect, and accept that evidence, rather than anonymous 'experts' on here.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Germouse[/bold] wrote: Water fluoridation breaks every principle of sound medical practice. Politicians are doing to everyone what no doctor can do to anyone. 1. Industrial grade toxic waste is used, not a pharmaceutical grade chemical, and it's contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other toxins. 2. The dose is uncontrolled, because people drink very different amounts of water, and receive fluoride from other sources. 3. It is completely indiscriminate, being imposed on foetuses, babies, children, people with kidney impairment who are less able to excrete fluoride, people with fluoride sensitivity, people without teeth, and so on. This is the complete opposite of individualised medicine. 4. There is no monitoring by health professionals. Nobody is warned about fluoride sensitivity and other potential adverse effects, and doctors are not trained to recognise fluoride sensitivity or chronic fluoride toxicity. 5. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for medical research, and routine for pharmaceutical drugs, but no randomised controlled trial has ever demonstrated that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless. 6. There is no informed consent, which violates the Nuremberg Code and other statements of medical ethics.[/p][/quote]What detrimental effect has it had on the Midlands population that has had their water fluoridated for more than half a century? No need for the 'randomised controlled trial' when you have the evidence of more than fifty years readily available. There was scare-mongering about the MMR vaccination, based on the thoughts of a discredited doctor, which has resulted in children suffering, when they could have been protected. There is scare-mongering now, by people, with no scientific background, talking as if they were experts in the field. I look to 50 years of fluoridation, that has had no detrimental effect, and accept that evidence, rather than anonymous 'experts' on here. Linesman
  • Score: 0

11:23am Wed 20 Mar 13

kingnotail says...

Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Inform Al says...

kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t Inform Al
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Inform Al says...

Linesman wrote:
Dan Germouse wrote:
Water fluoridation breaks every principle of sound medical practice. Politicians are doing to everyone what no doctor can do to anyone.
1. Industrial grade toxic waste is used, not a pharmaceutical grade chemical, and it's contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other toxins.
2. The dose is uncontrolled, because people drink very different amounts of water, and receive fluoride from other sources.
3. It is completely indiscriminate, being imposed on foetuses, babies, children, people with kidney impairment who are less able to excrete fluoride, people with fluoride sensitivity, people without teeth, and so on. This is the complete opposite of individualised medicine.
4. There is no monitoring by health professionals. Nobody is warned about fluoride sensitivity and other potential adverse effects, and doctors are not trained to recognise fluoride sensitivity or chronic fluoride toxicity.
5. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for medical research, and routine for pharmaceutical drugs, but no randomised controlled trial has ever demonstrated that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless.
6. There is no informed consent, which violates the Nuremberg Code and other statements of medical ethics.
What detrimental effect has it had on the Midlands population that has had their water fluoridated for more than half a century?

No need for the 'randomised controlled trial' when you have the evidence of more than fifty years readily available.

There was scare-mongering about the MMR vaccination, based on the thoughts of a discredited doctor, which has resulted in children suffering, when they could have been protected.

There is scare-mongering now, by people, with no scientific background, talking as if they were experts in the field.

I look to 50 years of fluoridation, that has had no detrimental effect, and accept that evidence, rather than anonymous 'experts' on here.
And the first doctor to warn us of the danger of smoking was kicked out. No one is immune from getting it wrong, especially if there is money to be made by going with the flow.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Germouse[/bold] wrote: Water fluoridation breaks every principle of sound medical practice. Politicians are doing to everyone what no doctor can do to anyone. 1. Industrial grade toxic waste is used, not a pharmaceutical grade chemical, and it's contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other toxins. 2. The dose is uncontrolled, because people drink very different amounts of water, and receive fluoride from other sources. 3. It is completely indiscriminate, being imposed on foetuses, babies, children, people with kidney impairment who are less able to excrete fluoride, people with fluoride sensitivity, people without teeth, and so on. This is the complete opposite of individualised medicine. 4. There is no monitoring by health professionals. Nobody is warned about fluoride sensitivity and other potential adverse effects, and doctors are not trained to recognise fluoride sensitivity or chronic fluoride toxicity. 5. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for medical research, and routine for pharmaceutical drugs, but no randomised controlled trial has ever demonstrated that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless. 6. There is no informed consent, which violates the Nuremberg Code and other statements of medical ethics.[/p][/quote]What detrimental effect has it had on the Midlands population that has had their water fluoridated for more than half a century? No need for the 'randomised controlled trial' when you have the evidence of more than fifty years readily available. There was scare-mongering about the MMR vaccination, based on the thoughts of a discredited doctor, which has resulted in children suffering, when they could have been protected. There is scare-mongering now, by people, with no scientific background, talking as if they were experts in the field. I look to 50 years of fluoridation, that has had no detrimental effect, and accept that evidence, rather than anonymous 'experts' on here.[/p][/quote]And the first doctor to warn us of the danger of smoking was kicked out. No one is immune from getting it wrong, especially if there is money to be made by going with the flow. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Inform Al says...

Dan Germouse wrote:
Water fluoridation breaks every principle of sound medical practice. Politicians are doing to everyone what no doctor can do to anyone.
1. Industrial grade toxic waste is used, not a pharmaceutical grade chemical, and it's contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other toxins.
2. The dose is uncontrolled, because people drink very different amounts of water, and receive fluoride from other sources.
3. It is completely indiscriminate, being imposed on foetuses, babies, children, people with kidney impairment who are less able to excrete fluoride, people with fluoride sensitivity, people without teeth, and so on. This is the complete opposite of individualised medicine.
4. There is no monitoring by health professionals. Nobody is warned about fluoride sensitivity and other potential adverse effects, and doctors are not trained to recognise fluoride sensitivity or chronic fluoride toxicity.
5. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for medical research, and routine for pharmaceutical drugs, but no randomised controlled trial has ever demonstrated that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless.
6. There is no informed consent, which violates the Nuremberg Code and other statements of medical ethics.
You forgot the aluminium which if not already, will be affecting those liable to altzheimers or other forms of dementia. As you say we all drink different amounts of water each day and as I tend to drink rather a lot of the stuff I am expecting that one day I will be posting stuff as looney as some of the other inbred cretins that use this site, if our water is poisoned.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Germouse[/bold] wrote: Water fluoridation breaks every principle of sound medical practice. Politicians are doing to everyone what no doctor can do to anyone. 1. Industrial grade toxic waste is used, not a pharmaceutical grade chemical, and it's contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other toxins. 2. The dose is uncontrolled, because people drink very different amounts of water, and receive fluoride from other sources. 3. It is completely indiscriminate, being imposed on foetuses, babies, children, people with kidney impairment who are less able to excrete fluoride, people with fluoride sensitivity, people without teeth, and so on. This is the complete opposite of individualised medicine. 4. There is no monitoring by health professionals. Nobody is warned about fluoride sensitivity and other potential adverse effects, and doctors are not trained to recognise fluoride sensitivity or chronic fluoride toxicity. 5. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for medical research, and routine for pharmaceutical drugs, but no randomised controlled trial has ever demonstrated that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless. 6. There is no informed consent, which violates the Nuremberg Code and other statements of medical ethics.[/p][/quote]You forgot the aluminium which if not already, will be affecting those liable to altzheimers or other forms of dementia. As you say we all drink different amounts of water each day and as I tend to drink rather a lot of the stuff I am expecting that one day I will be posting stuff as looney as some of the other inbred cretins that use this site, if our water is poisoned. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Dan Germouse says...

Linesman, to say that there is "No need for the 'randomised controlled trial' when you have the evidence of more than 50 years readily available" is meaningless. Evidence doesn't just jump out and announce itself to the world. Scumbags like you denied the evidence of harm from asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol and paint for decades. In fact one of the leading promoters of the addition of lead to petrol was Robert Kehoe, who was also one of the leading promoters of water fluoridation.

I actually do have a scientific background, dumbarse, and so do many other opponents of fluoridation, many of whom are highly qualified. I can't see any signs that you know anything about science. If anyone wants to educate themselves, they could start with the following: the Fluoride Action Network website, Declan Waugh's work, the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride, the 2006 US National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water, the book The Case Against Fluoride, and the book The Fluoride Deception.
Linesman, to say that there is "No need for the 'randomised controlled trial' when you have the evidence of more than 50 years readily available" is meaningless. Evidence doesn't just jump out and announce itself to the world. Scumbags like you denied the evidence of harm from asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol and paint for decades. In fact one of the leading promoters of the addition of lead to petrol was Robert Kehoe, who was also one of the leading promoters of water fluoridation. I actually do have a scientific background, dumbarse, and so do many other opponents of fluoridation, many of whom are highly qualified. I can't see any signs that you know anything about science. If anyone wants to educate themselves, they could start with the following: the Fluoride Action Network website, Declan Waugh's work, the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride, the 2006 US National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water, the book The Case Against Fluoride, and the book The Fluoride Deception. Dan Germouse
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Wed 20 Mar 13

beiroot says...

I'm not an expert in any field but am able to make informed decisions about what chemicals I put into my body. I have to ask myself.....is flouride going to do me any good or will it possibly harm my health? As there is a possibility of the latter I would sooner not have it ,thank you!
I'm not an expert in any field but am able to make informed decisions about what chemicals I put into my body. I have to ask myself.....is flouride going to do me any good or will it possibly harm my health? As there is a possibility of the latter I would sooner not have it ,thank you! beiroot
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Wed 20 Mar 13

kingnotail says...

Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Wed 20 Mar 13

kingnotail says...

kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
-from
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.[/p][/quote]-from kingnotail
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Inform Al says...

kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
-from
And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.[/p][/quote]-from[/p][/quote]And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Wed 20 Mar 13

kingnotail says...

Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
-from
And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.
Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.[/p][/quote]-from[/p][/quote]And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.[/p][/quote]Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one.. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Wed 20 Mar 13

kingnotail says...

kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
-from
And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.
Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..
PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride!
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.[/p][/quote]-from[/p][/quote]And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.[/p][/quote]Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..[/p][/quote]PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride! kingnotail
  • Score: 0

6:46pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Inform Al says...

kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
-from
And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.
Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..
PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride!
Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.[/p][/quote]-from[/p][/quote]And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.[/p][/quote]Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..[/p][/quote]PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride![/p][/quote]Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Inform Al says...

Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
-from
And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.
Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..
PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride!
Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of.
PS, toothpaste does not contain the industrial waste that is used in fluoridation of water.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.[/p][/quote]-from[/p][/quote]And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.[/p][/quote]Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..[/p][/quote]PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride![/p][/quote]Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of.[/p][/quote]PS, toothpaste does not contain the industrial waste that is used in fluoridation of water. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Wed 20 Mar 13

pavonine says...

I will be interested to see if the incidence of fluorosis increases. If the scheme goes ahead I would be very wary of allowing my child to have additional fluoride treatments at the dentist's office. One can have too much of a good thing. People should have the ability to control how much fluoride they put into their bodies...it isn't a "one size fits all" situation. I am sure there must be some way to filter it out "in home" if desired.
I will be interested to see if the incidence of fluorosis increases. If the scheme goes ahead I would be very wary of allowing my child to have additional fluoride treatments at the dentist's office. One can have too much of a good thing. People should have the ability to control how much fluoride they put into their bodies...it isn't a "one size fits all" situation. I am sure there must be some way to filter it out "in home" if desired. pavonine
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Inform Al says...

pavonine wrote:
I will be interested to see if the incidence of fluorosis increases. If the scheme goes ahead I would be very wary of allowing my child to have additional fluoride treatments at the dentist's office. One can have too much of a good thing. People should have the ability to control how much fluoride they put into their bodies...it isn't a "one size fits all" situation. I am sure there must be some way to filter it out "in home" if desired.
Yes, but at a cost. I will of course subtract the cost from my water bills if this becomes necessary.
[quote][p][bold]pavonine[/bold] wrote: I will be interested to see if the incidence of fluorosis increases. If the scheme goes ahead I would be very wary of allowing my child to have additional fluoride treatments at the dentist's office. One can have too much of a good thing. People should have the ability to control how much fluoride they put into their bodies...it isn't a "one size fits all" situation. I am sure there must be some way to filter it out "in home" if desired.[/p][/quote]Yes, but at a cost. I will of course subtract the cost from my water bills if this becomes necessary. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Thu 21 Mar 13

kingnotail says...

Inform Al wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
-from
And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.
Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..
PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride!
Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of.
PS, toothpaste does not contain the industrial waste that is used in fluoridation of water.
****. Toothpastes usually contain sodium fluoride, which is the most likely thing to be used for water fluoridation. Another potential compound is sodium hexafluorosilicate. The whole 'industrial waste' is nothing more than the paranoid rantings of idiotic conspiracy theorists.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.[/p][/quote]-from[/p][/quote]And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.[/p][/quote]Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..[/p][/quote]PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride![/p][/quote]Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of.[/p][/quote]PS, toothpaste does not contain the industrial waste that is used in fluoridation of water.[/p][/quote]****. Toothpastes usually contain sodium fluoride, which is the most likely thing to be used for water fluoridation. Another potential compound is sodium hexafluorosilicate. The whole 'industrial waste' is nothing more than the paranoid rantings of idiotic conspiracy theorists. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Linesman says...

Dan Germouse wrote:
Linesman, to say that there is "No need for the 'randomised controlled trial' when you have the evidence of more than 50 years readily available" is meaningless. Evidence doesn't just jump out and announce itself to the world. Scumbags like you denied the evidence of harm from asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol and paint for decades. In fact one of the leading promoters of the addition of lead to petrol was Robert Kehoe, who was also one of the leading promoters of water fluoridation.

I actually do have a scientific background, dumbarse, and so do many other opponents of fluoridation, many of whom are highly qualified. I can't see any signs that you know anything about science. If anyone wants to educate themselves, they could start with the following: the Fluoride Action Network website, Declan Waugh's work, the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride, the 2006 US National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water, the book The Case Against Fluoride, and the book The Fluoride Deception.
"I actually do have a scientific background"

Presumably that is why you consider yourself so superior that you resort to name-calling instead of resorting to proof.

I suppose that, as the research you wish me to look at has taken place in America, it has to be accepted without question as they never get things wrong.

I do not have to cross the Atlantic for my proof. Just a trip to the Midlands is enough for me.

What Scientific research have you done there?

My betting is Sweet F All.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Germouse[/bold] wrote: Linesman, to say that there is "No need for the 'randomised controlled trial' when you have the evidence of more than 50 years readily available" is meaningless. Evidence doesn't just jump out and announce itself to the world. Scumbags like you denied the evidence of harm from asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol and paint for decades. In fact one of the leading promoters of the addition of lead to petrol was Robert Kehoe, who was also one of the leading promoters of water fluoridation. I actually do have a scientific background, dumbarse, and so do many other opponents of fluoridation, many of whom are highly qualified. I can't see any signs that you know anything about science. If anyone wants to educate themselves, they could start with the following: the Fluoride Action Network website, Declan Waugh's work, the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride, the 2006 US National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water, the book The Case Against Fluoride, and the book The Fluoride Deception.[/p][/quote]"I actually do have a scientific background" Presumably that is why you consider yourself so superior that you resort to name-calling instead of resorting to proof. I suppose that, as the research you wish me to look at has taken place in America, it has to be accepted without question as they never get things wrong. I do not have to cross the Atlantic for my proof. Just a trip to the Midlands is enough for me. What Scientific research have you done there? My betting is Sweet F All. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Linesman says...

kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
-from
And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.
Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..
PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride!
Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of.
PS, toothpaste does not contain the industrial waste that is used in fluoridation of water.
****. Toothpastes usually contain sodium fluoride, which is the most likely thing to be used for water fluoridation. Another potential compound is sodium hexafluorosilicate. The whole 'industrial waste' is nothing more than the paranoid rantings of idiotic conspiracy theorists.
Sounds like a hypochondriac, who checks out symptoms on the internet istead of checking with their GP.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.[/p][/quote]-from[/p][/quote]And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.[/p][/quote]Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..[/p][/quote]PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride![/p][/quote]Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of.[/p][/quote]PS, toothpaste does not contain the industrial waste that is used in fluoridation of water.[/p][/quote]****. Toothpastes usually contain sodium fluoride, which is the most likely thing to be used for water fluoridation. Another potential compound is sodium hexafluorosilicate. The whole 'industrial waste' is nothing more than the paranoid rantings of idiotic conspiracy theorists.[/p][/quote]Sounds like a hypochondriac, who checks out symptoms on the internet istead of checking with their GP. Linesman
  • Score: 0

12:25am Fri 22 Mar 13

Inform Al says...

Linesman wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.
Paranoid rubbish.
And you know how? Tw4t
Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.
-from
And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.
Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..
PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride!
Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of.
PS, toothpaste does not contain the industrial waste that is used in fluoridation of water.
****. Toothpastes usually contain sodium fluoride, which is the most likely thing to be used for water fluoridation. Another potential compound is sodium hexafluorosilicate. The whole 'industrial waste' is nothing more than the paranoid rantings of idiotic conspiracy theorists.
Sounds like a hypochondriac, who checks out symptoms on the internet istead of checking with their GP.
Funny aren't you. I don't do hyperchondriac, too busy getting on with my life. I also do not feel pain, been married 3 times, But unlike some of the inbred cretins using this site I am capable of working out when I am inconvenienced by runny guts, and where I am at the time. If you had a usable brain you'ld realise that the so called professionals are expert at getting it wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]That's why I was diagnosed as Coeliac when I returned from a stay in Birmingham, but now have no health problems at all despite not sticking to a gluten fgree diet, unless I'm unfortunately in a fluoridated area, when from experioence I have found the condition returns. Funny isn't it that the Medical Officer for Health is not interested in my offer of a biopsy. Someone somewhere is making money out of putting industrial waste, which is what they use, into our drinking water.[/p][/quote]Paranoid rubbish.[/p][/quote]And you know how? Tw4t[/p][/quote]Coeliac from a stay in Birmingham? Really? That's what caused it? And it was definitely from due to fluorinated water. Stupid c**t.[/p][/quote]-from[/p][/quote]And you know everything don't you, not. My condition has shown itself in more fluoridated areas than just Birmingham, including one last year in an area I didn't even know was fluoridated until I was poisoned. Just carry on in your inbred selfish little world.[/p][/quote]Ha ha someone from Southampton daring to call someone inbred?! Your condition doesn't really show itself more in 'fluorinated areas', you just think it does. Good luck getting a medical professional to back you up on that one..[/p][/quote]PS do you use toothpaste? Because if you do, every time you absorb a little bit of guess what...fluoride![/p][/quote]Actually not from Southampton, and not being an inbred cretin as you appear to be I am quite capable of working out just where my dietary problems come from. As I said earlier I have made an offer to go through the discomfort of a biopsy, which for some reason the medical officer of health for Southampton seems scared of.[/p][/quote]PS, toothpaste does not contain the industrial waste that is used in fluoridation of water.[/p][/quote]****. Toothpastes usually contain sodium fluoride, which is the most likely thing to be used for water fluoridation. Another potential compound is sodium hexafluorosilicate. The whole 'industrial waste' is nothing more than the paranoid rantings of idiotic conspiracy theorists.[/p][/quote]Sounds like a hypochondriac, who checks out symptoms on the internet istead of checking with their GP.[/p][/quote]Funny aren't you. I don't do hyperchondriac, too busy getting on with my life. I also do not feel pain, been married 3 times, But unlike some of the inbred cretins using this site I am capable of working out when I am inconvenienced by runny guts, and where I am at the time. If you had a usable brain you'ld realise that the so called professionals are expert at getting it wrong. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

6:57am Fri 22 Mar 13

Dan Germouse says...

Linesman, have you thought about how ridiculous it is to accuse someone who is against fluoridation of accepting without question research from America, and thinking that Americans never get things wrong? Fluoridation is an American idea, and more Americans receive fluoridated water than people in the rest of the world combined. The 2006 US National Research Council report is far from perfect, but it happens to be the most comprehensive review of fluoride toxicity which has yet been done. The committee of 12 considered research from all over the world. I also mentioned Declan Waugh, who is an Irish environmental scientist, and the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride, which is international. The author of The Fluoride Deception, Christopher Bryson, worked at the BBC. Believe it or not, the laws of nature are not different in the Midlands, and the people who live there are not a different species.
Linesman, have you thought about how ridiculous it is to accuse someone who is against fluoridation of accepting without question research from America, and thinking that Americans never get things wrong? Fluoridation is an American idea, and more Americans receive fluoridated water than people in the rest of the world combined. The 2006 US National Research Council report is far from perfect, but it happens to be the most comprehensive review of fluoride toxicity which has yet been done. The committee of 12 considered research from all over the world. I also mentioned Declan Waugh, who is an Irish environmental scientist, and the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride, which is international. The author of The Fluoride Deception, Christopher Bryson, worked at the BBC. Believe it or not, the laws of nature are not different in the Midlands, and the people who live there are not a different species. Dan Germouse
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Sun 24 Mar 13

Shergold says...

SotonGreen - you really are stupid!!

No one in the world has ever done any long term study on the accumulation of fluoride ever!! period.!!

And to compare it with fluoride with flour additives shows how little you know about this Industrial poisonous waste??!!

If they have to advertise it then they need you to be brainwashed to believe it.

You have fallen right into that trap!!

A
nd that's what they want!! stupid people that dont fight back!!
SotonGreen - you really are stupid!! No one in the world has ever done any long term study on the accumulation of fluoride ever!! period.!! And to compare it with fluoride with flour additives shows how little you know about this Industrial poisonous waste??!! If they have to advertise it then they need you to be brainwashed to believe it. You have fallen right into that trap!! A nd that's what they want!! stupid people that dont fight back!! Shergold
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Tue 26 Mar 13

Dan Soton says...

Fluoridation X-Files.. Fluoride Causes Skeletal Fluorosis


-


Excessive Amounts of Tea Can be Harmful to Health, Concentrations of Fluoride in Black Tea can Cause Skeletal Fluorosis

Kathleen LeesFirst Posted: Mar 22, 2013 03:38 PM EDT

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, doctors at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit saw a 47-year-old woman suffering from excessive lower back, hip, leg and arm pain just because she was a little too sweet on the stuff. She was also missing all of her teeth because they had become so brittle.

Something was wrong with her bones, and sure enough, X-rays revealed that the vertebrae in her spine showed signs of a painful condition called skeletal fluorosis.

When doctors gave her a blood test to measure the concentration of flouride in her system, she only had 0.43 mg per liter. A typical healthy person has less than 0.10 of a milligram of flouride per liter of blood, according to the journal report.

Skeletal fluorosis can strike people who drink water with high concentrations of fluoride (much higher than in parts of the United States that add fluoride to the water supply). Industrial workers who inhale fluoride dust and fumes are also vulnerable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Neither of those conditions was a factor with the Michigan patient. But she did admit to drinking a lot of black tea.


http://tinyurl.com/c
mylb7d
Fluoridation X-Files.. Fluoride Causes Skeletal Fluorosis - Excessive Amounts of Tea Can be Harmful to Health, Concentrations of Fluoride in Black Tea can Cause Skeletal Fluorosis Kathleen LeesFirst Posted: Mar 22, 2013 03:38 PM EDT According to the New England Journal of Medicine, doctors at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit saw a 47-year-old woman suffering from excessive lower back, hip, leg and arm pain just because she was a little too sweet on the stuff. She was also missing all of her teeth because they had become so brittle. Something was wrong with her bones, and sure enough, X-rays revealed that the vertebrae in her spine showed signs of a painful condition called skeletal fluorosis. When doctors gave her a blood test to measure the concentration of flouride in her system, she only had 0.43 mg per liter. A typical healthy person has less than 0.10 of a milligram of flouride per liter of blood, according to the journal report. Skeletal fluorosis can strike people who drink water with high concentrations of fluoride (much higher than in parts of the United States that add fluoride to the water supply). Industrial workers who inhale fluoride dust and fumes are also vulnerable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Neither of those conditions was a factor with the Michigan patient. But she did admit to drinking a lot of black tea. http://tinyurl.com/c mylb7d Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Tue 26 Mar 13

Dan Soton says...

Linesman wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable.

Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.
It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject.

Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.
Fluoridation X-Files.. Fluoride Causes Skeletal Fluorosis.



Linesman says the Midlands have been fluoridated for more than half a century.....

Odd, brummies luv a strong kipper of fluoridated tie, yet according to you no brummie has been diagnosed with Skeletal Fluorosis.


maybe no one's been paid to look for Skeletal Fluorosis?

-



EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF TEA CAN BE HARMFUL TO HEALTH, CONCENTRATIONS OF FLUORIDE IN BLACK TEA CAN CAUSE SKELETAL FLUOROSIS

Kathleen LeesFirst Posted: Mar 22, 2013 03:38 PM EDT

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, doctors at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit saw a 47-year-old woman suffering from excessive lower back, hip, leg and arm pain just because she was a little too sweet on the stuff. She was also missing all of her teeth because they had become so brittle.

Something was wrong with her bones, and sure enough, X-rays revealed that the vertebrae in her spine showed signs of a painful condition called skeletal fluorosis.

When doctors gave her a blood test to measure the concentration of flouride in her system, she only had 0.43 mg per liter. A typical healthy person has less than 0.10 of a milligram of flouride per liter of blood, according to the journal report.

Skeletal fluorosis can strike people who drink water with high concentrations of fluoride (much higher than in parts of the United States that add fluoride to the water supply). Industrial workers who inhale fluoride dust and fumes are also vulnerable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Neither of those conditions was a factor with the Michigan patient. But she did admit to drinking a lot of black tea.


-


http://tinyurl.com/c
mylb7d
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Consultations simply don't work. All you get is a self selecting knuckle dragging moronic minority who frankly would oppose the sun rising if they could. Turnout is always titchy in these things which given the strength of feeling amongst these few idiots the result is is inevitable. Best left to experts who actually understand the concept of things like evidence, and benefit vs risk. We have medicated through food additives in flour etc for decades with proven health benefits this is no different.[/p][/quote]It makes a pleasant change to read a sensible comment on this subject. Why people have take so much notice of what results foreign scientists have produced in laboratories, while disregarding the actual proof of the benefits to the population in the Midlands, who have had fluoridated water for more than half a century, astonishes me.[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Fluoride Causes Skeletal Fluorosis. Linesman says the Midlands have been fluoridated for more than half a century..... Odd, brummies luv a strong kipper of fluoridated tie, yet according to you no brummie has been diagnosed with Skeletal Fluorosis. maybe no one's been paid to look for Skeletal Fluorosis? - EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF TEA CAN BE HARMFUL TO HEALTH, CONCENTRATIONS OF FLUORIDE IN BLACK TEA CAN CAUSE SKELETAL FLUOROSIS Kathleen LeesFirst Posted: Mar 22, 2013 03:38 PM EDT According to the New England Journal of Medicine, doctors at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit saw a 47-year-old woman suffering from excessive lower back, hip, leg and arm pain just because she was a little too sweet on the stuff. She was also missing all of her teeth because they had become so brittle. Something was wrong with her bones, and sure enough, X-rays revealed that the vertebrae in her spine showed signs of a painful condition called skeletal fluorosis. When doctors gave her a blood test to measure the concentration of flouride in her system, she only had 0.43 mg per liter. A typical healthy person has less than 0.10 of a milligram of flouride per liter of blood, according to the journal report. Skeletal fluorosis can strike people who drink water with high concentrations of fluoride (much higher than in parts of the United States that add fluoride to the water supply). Industrial workers who inhale fluoride dust and fumes are also vulnerable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Neither of those conditions was a factor with the Michigan patient. But she did admit to drinking a lot of black tea. - http://tinyurl.com/c mylb7d Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:14am Tue 9 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen
t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:15am Tue 9 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen

t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5
Part Two..



Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.
Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.
This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.


http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Two.. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:15am Tue 9 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen


t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c


f7zmo5
Part Two..



Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.
Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.
This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.


http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5
Part Three..



OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Two.. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Three.. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK ( Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:16am Tue 9 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Part Three..



OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (
Part Three.. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK ( Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen


t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c


f7zmo5
Part Two..



Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.
Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.
This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.


http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5
Part Three..



OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Two.. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Three.. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK ( Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen



t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c



f7zmo5
Part Two..



Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.
Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.
This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.


http://tinyurl.com/c


f7zmo5
Part Three..



OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (
Part Four..


The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI.

It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer.
The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC.

All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor
ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered.

The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI.

The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today.

The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water.

This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement.

Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle.

It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure.


http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Two.. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Three.. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK ([/p][/quote]Part Four.. The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI. It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer. The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC. All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered. The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI. The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today. The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water. This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement. Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle. It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen




t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c




f7zmo5
Part Two..



Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.
Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.
This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.


http://tinyurl.com/c



f7zmo5
Part Three..



OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (
Part Four..


The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI.

It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer.
The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC.

All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor

ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered.

The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI.

The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today.

The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water.

This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement.

Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle.

It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure.


http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5
Part Five..


The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI.

Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI.

The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix."


Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west."

The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland.

The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses.

The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI.

IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT.

http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Two.. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Three.. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK ([/p][/quote]Part Four.. The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI. It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer. The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC. All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered. The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI. The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today. The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water. This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement. Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle. It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Five.. The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI. Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI. The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix." Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west." The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland. The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses. The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI. IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen





t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c





f7zmo5
Part Two..



Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.
Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.
This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.


http://tinyurl.com/c




f7zmo5
Part Three..



OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (
Part Four..


The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI.

It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer.
The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC.

All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor


ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered.

The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI.

The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today.

The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water.

This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement.

Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle.

It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure.


http://tinyurl.com/c


f7zmo5
Part Five..


The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI.

Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI.

The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix."


Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west."

The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland.

The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses.

The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI.

IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT.

http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5
Part Six..


Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development.

To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region.

While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar.

Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI.

These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality

A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body.

FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES

The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99

The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas.

The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101



http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Two.. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Three.. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK ([/p][/quote]Part Four.. The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI. It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer. The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC. All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered. The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI. The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today. The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water. This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement. Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle. It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Five.. The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI. Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI. The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix." Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west." The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland. The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses. The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI. IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Six.. Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development. To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region. While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar. Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI. These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99 The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101 http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen






t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c






f7zmo5
Part Two..



Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.
Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.
This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.


http://tinyurl.com/c





f7zmo5
Part Three..



OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (
Part Four..


The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI.

It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer.
The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC.

All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor



ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered.

The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI.

The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today.

The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water.

This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement.

Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle.

It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure.


http://tinyurl.com/c



f7zmo5
Part Five..


The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI.

Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI.

The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix."


Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west."

The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland.

The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses.

The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI.

IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT.

http://tinyurl.com/c


f7zmo5
Part Six..


Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development.

To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region.

While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar.

Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI.

These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality

A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body.

FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES

The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99

The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas.

The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101



http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5
Part Seven...


It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer.

Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap.


FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS

AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT.

The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems.

Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland.
Boiling fluoridated tap water increases the concentrations of fluoride in water and food. The concentration of fluoride in tea beverages is significantly increased by using boiled fluoridated water to make tea. This may add up to 25% more fluoride to a tea beverage that is already high in fluoride content thereby contributing further to the daily exposure of an individual to fluoride. The European Food Safety Authority noted that if fluoridated water were drunk and used for the preparation of food and tea (1-2 L of water/day; 500 mL of tea (2 cups) with a fluoride concentration of 5 mg/L) 3.5 to 4.0 mg fluoride would be added to the daily dietary intake of an individual.

The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to >10mg for all sources
The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake.

It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH.

It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day

The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006).

THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE.

There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006).



http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Two.. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Three.. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK ([/p][/quote]Part Four.. The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI. It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer. The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC. All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered. The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI. The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today. The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water. This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement. Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle. It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Five.. The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI. Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI. The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix." Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west." The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland. The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses. The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI. IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Six.. Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development. To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region. While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar. Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI. These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99 The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101 http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Seven... It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer. Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT. The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems. Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland. Boiling fluoridated tap water increases the concentrations of fluoride in water and food. The concentration of fluoride in tea beverages is significantly increased by using boiled fluoridated water to make tea. This may add up to 25% more fluoride to a tea beverage that is already high in fluoride content thereby contributing further to the daily exposure of an individual to fluoride. The European Food Safety Authority noted that if fluoridated water were drunk and used for the preparation of food and tea (1-2 L of water/day; 500 mL of tea (2 cups) with a fluoride concentration of 5 mg/L) 3.5 to 4.0 mg fluoride would be added to the daily dietary intake of an individual. The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to >10mg for all sources The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake. It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH. It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006). THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE. There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006). http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen







t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c







f7zmo5
Part Two..



Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.
Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.
This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.


http://tinyurl.com/c






f7zmo5
Part Three..



OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (
Part Four..


The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI.

It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer.
The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC.

All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor




ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered.

The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI.

The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today.

The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water.

This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement.

Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle.

It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure.


http://tinyurl.com/c




f7zmo5
Part Five..


The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI.

Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI.

The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix."


Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west."

The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland.

The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses.

The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI.

IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT.

http://tinyurl.com/c



f7zmo5
Part Six..


Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development.

To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region.

While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar.

Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI.

These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality

A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body.

FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES

The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99

The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas.

The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101



http://tinyurl.com/c


f7zmo5
Part Seven...


It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer.

Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap.


FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS

AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT.

The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems.

Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland.
Boiling fluoridated tap water increases the concentrations of fluoride in water and food. The concentration of fluoride in tea beverages is significantly increased by using boiled fluoridated water to make tea. This may add up to 25% more fluoride to a tea beverage that is already high in fluoride content thereby contributing further to the daily exposure of an individual to fluoride. The European Food Safety Authority noted that if fluoridated water were drunk and used for the preparation of food and tea (1-2 L of water/day; 500 mL of tea (2 cups) with a fluoride concentration of 5 mg/L) 3.5 to 4.0 mg fluoride would be added to the daily dietary intake of an individual.

The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to >10mg for all sources
The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake.

It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH.

It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day

The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006).

THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE.

There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006).



http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5
Part Eight..



The EFSA has documented that with increasing fluoride incorporation into bone clinical stage I and II with pain and stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of both cortical and cancelleous bone, osteophytes and calcification of ligaments develop.

Crippling skeletal fluorosis (clinical stage III) may be associated with movement restriction of joints, skeletal deformities, severe calcification of ligaments, muscle wasting and neurological symptoms. The EFSA also highlighted that patients with renal insufficiency are at increased risk of fluoride toxicity.

The NRC scientific committee observed that people living in fluoridated communities will have accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potential have very high fluoride concentration in their bones, this would certainly apply to many personsliving in Ireland who have extremely high dietary fluoride exposure. The NRC noted that the bone system is where immune cells develop and fluoride could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals.

The WHO has consistently and correctly stated that "in the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered." It is astonishing and deeply worrying that considering this common sense recommendation from the WHO that no proper dietary fluoride risk assessment has been undertaken in the ROI and that no database is readably available for the public to examine or calculate their fluoride exposure form foodstuffs and beverages. As with tea any beverage produced in Ireland that uses public water supplies will have elevated fluoridated levels. This includes soft drinks, alcoholic beverages and fruit drinks.

The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water similarly recommend that "when setting national standards for fluoride that it is particularly important to consider volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources.

Unfortunately, it is clearly evident that these recommendations were never applied by the Health Authorities in Ireland, and were subsequently overlooked by the Forum for Fluoridation (2002) in addition to the current Irish Expert Body on Fluorides. This is a matter that I have communicated repeatedly with the Government of Ireland and its agencies over the past twelve months and to which I have never received any reply.

It is a certain fact that dietary exposure to fluoride for persons living in the ROI is significantly greater than for individuals residing in NI mainly from consuming fluoridated drinking water and other foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated water.

Other dietary sources will add significantly to the dietary intake especially through the consumption of tea. The consumption of tea in both regions of the island is expected to be similar.

However human exposures aluminofluorides are far greater for persons living in the ROI compared to NI due to the combination of aluminum and fluoride sources in drinking water.

Aluminum in drinking water comes from the alum used as a flocculent or coagulant in water treatment. Artificial fluoridation also results in increasing the concentration of free fluoride ions that will bind to substances such as aluminum which is already present in high concentrations in tea.

Exposure to aluminum fluoride and silicofluorides compounds has many serious health implications for consumers.


WATER FLUORIDATION AND DENTAL HEALTH OF ADULTS

The NHS York review on fluoridation (2000) found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterized as "just a cosmetic issue". The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5%

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) review of water fluoridation (2010) found that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited, that the caries preventive effect of systemic fluoride treatment from fluoridation of community drinking water is rather poor and that the improved dental health in countries that do not fluoridate suggests that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improved dental health.



http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Two.. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Three.. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK ([/p][/quote]Part Four.. The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI. It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer. The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC. All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered. The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI. The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today. The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water. This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement. Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle. It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Five.. The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI. Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI. The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix." Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west." The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland. The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses. The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI. IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Six.. Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development. To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region. While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar. Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI. These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99 The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101 http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Seven... It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer. Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT. The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems. Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland. Boiling fluoridated tap water increases the concentrations of fluoride in water and food. The concentration of fluoride in tea beverages is significantly increased by using boiled fluoridated water to make tea. This may add up to 25% more fluoride to a tea beverage that is already high in fluoride content thereby contributing further to the daily exposure of an individual to fluoride. The European Food Safety Authority noted that if fluoridated water were drunk and used for the preparation of food and tea (1-2 L of water/day; 500 mL of tea (2 cups) with a fluoride concentration of 5 mg/L) 3.5 to 4.0 mg fluoride would be added to the daily dietary intake of an individual. The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to >10mg for all sources The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake. It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH. It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006). THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE. There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006). http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Eight.. The EFSA has documented that with increasing fluoride incorporation into bone clinical stage I and II with pain and stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of both cortical and cancelleous bone, osteophytes and calcification of ligaments develop. Crippling skeletal fluorosis (clinical stage III) may be associated with movement restriction of joints, skeletal deformities, severe calcification of ligaments, muscle wasting and neurological symptoms. The EFSA also highlighted that patients with renal insufficiency are at increased risk of fluoride toxicity. The NRC scientific committee observed that people living in fluoridated communities will have accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potential have very high fluoride concentration in their bones, this would certainly apply to many personsliving in Ireland who have extremely high dietary fluoride exposure. The NRC noted that the bone system is where immune cells develop and fluoride could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals. The WHO has consistently and correctly stated that "in the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered." It is astonishing and deeply worrying that considering this common sense recommendation from the WHO that no proper dietary fluoride risk assessment has been undertaken in the ROI and that no database is readably available for the public to examine or calculate their fluoride exposure form foodstuffs and beverages. As with tea any beverage produced in Ireland that uses public water supplies will have elevated fluoridated levels. This includes soft drinks, alcoholic beverages and fruit drinks. The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water similarly recommend that "when setting national standards for fluoride that it is particularly important to consider volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources. Unfortunately, it is clearly evident that these recommendations were never applied by the Health Authorities in Ireland, and were subsequently overlooked by the Forum for Fluoridation (2002) in addition to the current Irish Expert Body on Fluorides. This is a matter that I have communicated repeatedly with the Government of Ireland and its agencies over the past twelve months and to which I have never received any reply. It is a certain fact that dietary exposure to fluoride for persons living in the ROI is significantly greater than for individuals residing in NI mainly from consuming fluoridated drinking water and other foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated water. Other dietary sources will add significantly to the dietary intake especially through the consumption of tea. The consumption of tea in both regions of the island is expected to be similar. However human exposures aluminofluorides are far greater for persons living in the ROI compared to NI due to the combination of aluminum and fluoride sources in drinking water. Aluminum in drinking water comes from the alum used as a flocculent or coagulant in water treatment. Artificial fluoridation also results in increasing the concentration of free fluoride ions that will bind to substances such as aluminum which is already present in high concentrations in tea. Exposure to aluminum fluoride and silicofluorides compounds has many serious health implications for consumers. WATER FLUORIDATION AND DENTAL HEALTH OF ADULTS The NHS York review on fluoridation (2000) found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterized as "just a cosmetic issue". The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5% The European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) review of water fluoridation (2010) found that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited, that the caries preventive effect of systemic fluoride treatment from fluoridation of community drinking water is rather poor and that the improved dental health in countries that do not fluoridate suggests that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improved dental health. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

9:30pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen








t fluoridation advocates are investigated.



Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post.




PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.



http://tinyurl.com/c








f7zmo5
Part Two..



Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.
Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.
This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.


http://tinyurl.com/c







f7zmo5
Part Three..



OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (
Part Four..


The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI.

It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer.
The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC.

All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor





ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered.

The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI.

The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today.

The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water.

This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement.

Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle.

It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure.


http://tinyurl.com/c





f7zmo5
Part Five..


The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI.

Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI.

The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix."


Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west."

The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland.

The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses.

The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI.

IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT.

http://tinyurl.com/c




f7zmo5
Part Six..


Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development.

To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region.

While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar.

Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI.

These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality

A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body.

FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES

The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99

The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas.

The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101



http://tinyurl.com/c



f7zmo5
Part Seven...


It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer.

Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap.


FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS

AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT.

The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems.

Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland.
Boiling fluoridated tap water increases the concentrations of fluoride in water and food. The concentration of fluoride in tea beverages is significantly increased by using boiled fluoridated water to make tea. This may add up to 25% more fluoride to a tea beverage that is already high in fluoride content thereby contributing further to the daily exposure of an individual to fluoride. The European Food Safety Authority noted that if fluoridated water were drunk and used for the preparation of food and tea (1-2 L of water/day; 500 mL of tea (2 cups) with a fluoride concentration of 5 mg/L) 3.5 to 4.0 mg fluoride would be added to the daily dietary intake of an individual.

The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to >10mg for all sources
The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake.

It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH.

It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day

The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006).

THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE.

There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006).



http://tinyurl.com/c


f7zmo5
Part Eight..



The EFSA has documented that with increasing fluoride incorporation into bone clinical stage I and II with pain and stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of both cortical and cancelleous bone, osteophytes and calcification of ligaments develop.

Crippling skeletal fluorosis (clinical stage III) may be associated with movement restriction of joints, skeletal deformities, severe calcification of ligaments, muscle wasting and neurological symptoms. The EFSA also highlighted that patients with renal insufficiency are at increased risk of fluoride toxicity.

The NRC scientific committee observed that people living in fluoridated communities will have accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potential have very high fluoride concentration in their bones, this would certainly apply to many personsliving in Ireland who have extremely high dietary fluoride exposure. The NRC noted that the bone system is where immune cells develop and fluoride could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals.

The WHO has consistently and correctly stated that "in the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered." It is astonishing and deeply worrying that considering this common sense recommendation from the WHO that no proper dietary fluoride risk assessment has been undertaken in the ROI and that no database is readably available for the public to examine or calculate their fluoride exposure form foodstuffs and beverages. As with tea any beverage produced in Ireland that uses public water supplies will have elevated fluoridated levels. This includes soft drinks, alcoholic beverages and fruit drinks.

The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water similarly recommend that "when setting national standards for fluoride that it is particularly important to consider volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources.

Unfortunately, it is clearly evident that these recommendations were never applied by the Health Authorities in Ireland, and were subsequently overlooked by the Forum for Fluoridation (2002) in addition to the current Irish Expert Body on Fluorides. This is a matter that I have communicated repeatedly with the Government of Ireland and its agencies over the past twelve months and to which I have never received any reply.

It is a certain fact that dietary exposure to fluoride for persons living in the ROI is significantly greater than for individuals residing in NI mainly from consuming fluoridated drinking water and other foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated water.

Other dietary sources will add significantly to the dietary intake especially through the consumption of tea. The consumption of tea in both regions of the island is expected to be similar.

However human exposures aluminofluorides are far greater for persons living in the ROI compared to NI due to the combination of aluminum and fluoride sources in drinking water.

Aluminum in drinking water comes from the alum used as a flocculent or coagulant in water treatment. Artificial fluoridation also results in increasing the concentration of free fluoride ions that will bind to substances such as aluminum which is already present in high concentrations in tea.

Exposure to aluminum fluoride and silicofluorides compounds has many serious health implications for consumers.


WATER FLUORIDATION AND DENTAL HEALTH OF ADULTS

The NHS York review on fluoridation (2000) found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterized as "just a cosmetic issue". The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5%

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) review of water fluoridation (2010) found that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited, that the caries preventive effect of systemic fluoride treatment from fluoridation of community drinking water is rather poor and that the improved dental health in countries that do not fluoridate suggests that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improved dental health.



http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5
Part Nine..



HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, UNITED KINGDOM. 2008

Recent independent scientific reviews undertaken by Hampshire County Council rejected artificial fluoridation of water on the precautionary principle owing to the lack of scientific evidence available to prove that fluoridation does not impact negatively on individual health and the plausibility that it may result in serious health impacts on the population. In regard to the lack of available information examining the potential health impacts of fluoridation the review panel noted in particular the following “It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.”

The review raised concerns regarding the misrepresentation of the NHS York review by proponents of water fluoridation and raised concerns regarding the lack of accurate scientific information on what is a safe ’optional dose’ particular for bottle fed infants where fluoridated water is used to prepare infant formula.

The review found that the inconclusive evidence of fluoridation impacts on human health requires that a precautionary approach be adopted and that the balance of risks and benefits of such a policy had not been properly explained to the public.

The review found that

 Adding fluoride to drinking water has the potential to result in an increase in moderate to severe fluorosis in the communities affected.

 There may be harms other than fluorosis as a result of adding fluoride to drinking water.

 The plausibility of other serious health impacts from the fluoridation of water reinforces the view of the Review Panel that a precautionary approach is needed until such time as additional research has been done. It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.

 Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the recommended level in drinking water.

 Individual exposure will be affected by the addition of fluoride to drinking water as well as other sources, i.e. fluoridated water being used for cooking or for preparation of food or beverages.

 Taking account of the plausibility of harm a precautionary approach to the addition of fluoride to water be adopted until such time that clear evidence of benefit and harm has been established.

 Concerns regarding infant formula reinforce the need to adopt a precautionary approach.

 There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this.

 There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride.

The Review panel concluded: “Most significantly the Review Panel has been persuaded not to support the proposal by the lack of robust and reliable scientific evidence produced to support this proposal. It is clear that scientists and health professionals recognise that there are ‘unknowns’ with regard to the need to understand the effect of fluoride on the body (not just teeth). This work has simply
not taken place. In the absence of scientific evidence of sufficient quality the Review Panel based its evaluation on the findings of the York Review informed by the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics



http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5




To Conclude..


Fluoride is a highly toxic substance, the above evidence is overwhelming.


The TV Fluoride Toothpaste Jingles have stopped, the pretence is over, It's time for a criminal investigation into the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Fluoridation advocates.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Part One.. it's only a matter of time before the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority board, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Healthcare/Governmen t fluoridation advocates are investigated. Sorry folks.. the powers that be have limited me to a few paragraphs per post. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Two.. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Three.. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK ([/p][/quote]Part Four.. The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI. It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer. The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC. All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered. The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI. The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today. The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water. This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement. Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle. It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Five.. The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI. Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI. The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix." Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west." The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland. The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses. The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI. IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Six.. Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development. To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region. While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar. Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI. These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99 The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101 http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Seven... It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer. Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT. The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems. Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland. Boiling fluoridated tap water increases the concentrations of fluoride in water and food. The concentration of fluoride in tea beverages is significantly increased by using boiled fluoridated water to make tea. This may add up to 25% more fluoride to a tea beverage that is already high in fluoride content thereby contributing further to the daily exposure of an individual to fluoride. The European Food Safety Authority noted that if fluoridated water were drunk and used for the preparation of food and tea (1-2 L of water/day; 500 mL of tea (2 cups) with a fluoride concentration of 5 mg/L) 3.5 to 4.0 mg fluoride would be added to the daily dietary intake of an individual. The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to >10mg for all sources The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake. It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH. It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006). THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE. There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006). http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Eight.. The EFSA has documented that with increasing fluoride incorporation into bone clinical stage I and II with pain and stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of both cortical and cancelleous bone, osteophytes and calcification of ligaments develop. Crippling skeletal fluorosis (clinical stage III) may be associated with movement restriction of joints, skeletal deformities, severe calcification of ligaments, muscle wasting and neurological symptoms. The EFSA also highlighted that patients with renal insufficiency are at increased risk of fluoride toxicity. The NRC scientific committee observed that people living in fluoridated communities will have accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potential have very high fluoride concentration in their bones, this would certainly apply to many personsliving in Ireland who have extremely high dietary fluoride exposure. The NRC noted that the bone system is where immune cells develop and fluoride could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals. The WHO has consistently and correctly stated that "in the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered." It is astonishing and deeply worrying that considering this common sense recommendation from the WHO that no proper dietary fluoride risk assessment has been undertaken in the ROI and that no database is readably available for the public to examine or calculate their fluoride exposure form foodstuffs and beverages. As with tea any beverage produced in Ireland that uses public water supplies will have elevated fluoridated levels. This includes soft drinks, alcoholic beverages and fruit drinks. The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water similarly recommend that "when setting national standards for fluoride that it is particularly important to consider volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources. Unfortunately, it is clearly evident that these recommendations were never applied by the Health Authorities in Ireland, and were subsequently overlooked by the Forum for Fluoridation (2002) in addition to the current Irish Expert Body on Fluorides. This is a matter that I have communicated repeatedly with the Government of Ireland and its agencies over the past twelve months and to which I have never received any reply. It is a certain fact that dietary exposure to fluoride for persons living in the ROI is significantly greater than for individuals residing in NI mainly from consuming fluoridated drinking water and other foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated water. Other dietary sources will add significantly to the dietary intake especially through the consumption of tea. The consumption of tea in both regions of the island is expected to be similar. However human exposures aluminofluorides are far greater for persons living in the ROI compared to NI due to the combination of aluminum and fluoride sources in drinking water. Aluminum in drinking water comes from the alum used as a flocculent or coagulant in water treatment. Artificial fluoridation also results in increasing the concentration of free fluoride ions that will bind to substances such as aluminum which is already present in high concentrations in tea. Exposure to aluminum fluoride and silicofluorides compounds has many serious health implications for consumers. WATER FLUORIDATION AND DENTAL HEALTH OF ADULTS The NHS York review on fluoridation (2000) found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterized as "just a cosmetic issue". The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5% The European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) review of water fluoridation (2010) found that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited, that the caries preventive effect of systemic fluoride treatment from fluoridation of community drinking water is rather poor and that the improved dental health in countries that do not fluoridate suggests that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improved dental health. http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5[/p][/quote]Part Nine.. HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, UNITED KINGDOM. 2008 Recent independent scientific reviews undertaken by Hampshire County Council rejected artificial fluoridation of water on the precautionary principle owing to the lack of scientific evidence available to prove that fluoridation does not impact negatively on individual health and the plausibility that it may result in serious health impacts on the population. In regard to the lack of available information examining the potential health impacts of fluoridation the review panel noted in particular the following “It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.” The review raised concerns regarding the misrepresentation of the NHS York review by proponents of water fluoridation and raised concerns regarding the lack of accurate scientific information on what is a safe ’optional dose’ particular for bottle fed infants where fluoridated water is used to prepare infant formula. The review found that the inconclusive evidence of fluoridation impacts on human health requires that a precautionary approach be adopted and that the balance of risks and benefits of such a policy had not been properly explained to the public. The review found that  Adding fluoride to drinking water has the potential to result in an increase in moderate to severe fluorosis in the communities affected.  There may be harms other than fluorosis as a result of adding fluoride to drinking water.  The plausibility of other serious health impacts from the fluoridation of water reinforces the view of the Review Panel that a precautionary approach is needed until such time as additional research has been done. It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.  Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the recommended level in drinking water.  Individual exposure will be affected by the addition of fluoride to drinking water as well as other sources, i.e. fluoridated water being used for cooking or for preparation of food or beverages.  Taking account of the plausibility of harm a precautionary approach to the addition of fluoride to water be adopted until such time that clear evidence of benefit and harm has been established.  Concerns regarding infant formula reinforce the need to adopt a precautionary approach.  There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this.  There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride. The Review panel concluded: “Most significantly the Review Panel has been persuaded not to support the proposal by the lack of robust and reliable scientific evidence produced to support this proposal. It is clear that scientists and health professionals recognise that there are ‘unknowns’ with regard to the need to understand the effect of fluoride on the body (not just teeth). This work has simply not taken place. In the absence of scientific evidence of sufficient quality the Review Panel based its evaluation on the findings of the York Review informed by the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 To Conclude.. Fluoride is a highly toxic substance, the above evidence is overwhelming. The TV Fluoride Toothpaste Jingles have stopped, the pretence is over, It's time for a criminal investigation into the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Fluoridation advocates. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

UK/IRELAND.. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION INTO FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE



http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5



PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

(142 pages )

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.

Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.

This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.

OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (10%) ALSO CONSUME ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER.

The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI.

It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer.
The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC.

All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor
ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered.

The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI.

The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today.

The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water.

This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement.

Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle.

It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure.

The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI.

Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI.

The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix."


Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west."

The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland.

The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses.

The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI.

IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT.

Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development.

To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region.

While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar.

Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI.

These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality

A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body.

FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES

The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99

The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas.

The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101

It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer.

Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap.


FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS

AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT.

The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems.

Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland.

BOILING FLUORIDATED TAP WATER INCREASES THE CONCENTRATIONS OF FLUORIDE IN WATER AND FOOD. THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN TEA BEVERAGES IS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED BY USING BOILED FLUORIDATED WATER TO MAKE TEA. THIS MAY ADD UP TO 25% MORE FLUORIDE TO A TEA BEVERAGE THAT IS ALREADY HIGH IN FLUORIDE CONTENT THEREBY CONTRIBUTING FURTHER TO THE DAILY EXPOSURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO FLUORIDE. THE EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY NOTED THAT IF FLUORIDATED WATER WERE DRUNK AND USED FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD AND TEA (1-2 L OF WATER/DAY; 500 ML OF TEA (2 CUPS) WITH A FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION OF 5 MG/L) 3.5 TO 4.0 MG FLUORIDE WOULD BE ADDED TO THE DAILY DIETARY INTAKE OF AN INDIVIDUAL.

The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to 10mg for all sources

The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake.

It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH.

It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day

The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006).

THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE.

There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006).


The EFSA has documented that with increasing fluoride incorporation into bone clinical stage I and II with pain and stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of both cortical and cancelleous bone, osteophytes and calcification of ligaments develop.

Crippling skeletal fluorosis (clinical stage III) may be associated with movement restriction of joints, skeletal deformities, severe calcification of ligaments, muscle wasting and neurological symptoms. The EFSA also highlighted that patients with renal insufficiency are at increased risk of fluoride toxicity.

The NRC scientific committee observed that people living in fluoridated communities will have accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potential have very high fluoride concentration in their bones, this would certainly apply to many personsliving in Ireland who have extremely high dietary fluoride exposure. The NRC noted that the bone system is where immune cells develop and fluoride could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals.

The WHO has consistently and correctly stated that "in the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered." It is astonishing and deeply worrying that considering this common sense recommendation from the WHO that no proper dietary fluoride risk assessment has been undertaken in the ROI and that no database is readably available for the public to examine or calculate their fluoride exposure form foodstuffs and beverages. As with tea any beverage produced in Ireland that uses public water supplies will have elevated fluoridated levels. This includes soft drinks, alcoholic beverages and fruit drinks.

The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water similarly recommend that "when setting national standards for fluoride that it is particularly important to consider volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources.

Unfortunately, it is clearly evident that these recommendations were never applied by the Health Authorities in Ireland, and were subsequently overlooked by the Forum for Fluoridation (2002) in addition to the current Irish Expert Body on Fluorides. This is a matter that I have communicated repeatedly with the Government of Ireland and its agencies over the past twelve months and to which I have never received any reply.

It is a certain fact that dietary exposure to fluoride for persons living in the ROI is significantly greater than for individuals residing in NI mainly from consuming fluoridated drinking water and other foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated water.

Other dietary sources will add significantly to the dietary intake especially through the consumption of tea. The consumption of tea in both regions of the island is expected to be similar.

However human exposures aluminofluorides are far greater for persons living in the ROI compared to NI due to the combination of aluminum and fluoride sources in drinking water.

Aluminum in drinking water comes from the alum used as a flocculent or coagulant in water treatment. Artificial fluoridation also results in increasing the concentration of free fluoride ions that will bind to substances such as aluminum which is already present in high concentrations in tea.

Exposure to aluminum fluoride and silicofluorides compounds has many serious health implications for consumers.


WATER FLUORIDATION AND DENTAL HEALTH OF ADULTS

The NHS York review on fluoridation (2000) found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterized as "just a cosmetic issue". The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5%

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) review of water fluoridation (2010) found that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited, that the caries preventive effect of systemic fluoride treatment from fluoridation of community drinking water is rather poor and that the improved dental health in countries that do not fluoridate suggests that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improved dental health.



HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, UNITED KINGDOM. 2008

Recent independent scientific reviews undertaken by Hampshire County Council rejected artificial fluoridation of water on the precautionary principle owing to the lack of scientific evidence available to prove that fluoridation does not impact negatively on individual health and the plausibility that it may result in serious health impacts on the population. In regard to the lack of available information examining the potential health impacts of fluoridation the review panel noted in particular the following “It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.”

The review raised concerns regarding the misrepresentation of the NHS York review by proponents of water fluoridation and raised concerns regarding the lack of accurate scientific information on what is a safe ’optional dose’ particular for bottle fed infants where fluoridated water is used to prepare infant formula.

The review found that the inconclusive evidence of fluoridation impacts on human health requires that a precautionary approach be adopted and that the balance of risks and benefits of such a policy had not been properly explained to the public.

The review found that

 Adding fluoride to drinking water has the potential to result in an increase in moderate to severe fluorosis in the communities affected.

 There may be harms other than fluorosis as a result of adding fluoride to drinking water.

 The plausibility of other serious health impacts from the fluoridation of water reinforces the view of the Review Panel that a precautionary approach is needed until such time as additional research has been done. It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.

 Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the recommended level in drinking water.

 Individual exposure will be affected by the addition of fluoride to drinking water as well as other sources, i.e. fluoridated water being used for cooking or for preparation of food or beverages.

 Taking account of the plausibility of harm a precautionary approach to the addition of fluoride to water be adopted until such time that clear evidence of benefit and harm has been established.

 Concerns regarding infant formula reinforce the need to adopt a precautionary approach.

 There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this.

 There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride.

The Review panel concluded: “Most significantly the Review Panel has been persuaded not to support the proposal by the lack of robust and reliable scientific evidence produced to support this proposal. It is clear that scientists and health professionals recognise that there are ‘unknowns’ with regard to the need to understand the effect of fluoride on the body (not just teeth). This work has simply
not taken place. In the absence of scientific evidence of sufficient quality the Review Panel based its evaluation on the findings of the York Review informed by the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics



http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5




To Conclude..


Fluoride is a highly toxic substance, the above evidence is overwhelming.


The TV Fluoride Toothpaste Jingles have stopped, the pretence is over, It's time for a criminal investigation into the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Fluoridation advocates.
UK/IRELAND.. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION INTO FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 (142 pages ) SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (10%) ALSO CONSUME ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER. The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI. It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer. The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC. All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered. The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI. The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today. The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water. This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement. Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle. It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure. The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI. Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI. The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix." Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west." The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland. The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses. The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI. IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT. Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development. To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region. While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar. Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI. These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99 The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101 It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer. Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT. The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems. Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland. BOILING FLUORIDATED TAP WATER INCREASES THE CONCENTRATIONS OF FLUORIDE IN WATER AND FOOD. THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN TEA BEVERAGES IS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED BY USING BOILED FLUORIDATED WATER TO MAKE TEA. THIS MAY ADD UP TO 25% MORE FLUORIDE TO A TEA BEVERAGE THAT IS ALREADY HIGH IN FLUORIDE CONTENT THEREBY CONTRIBUTING FURTHER TO THE DAILY EXPOSURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO FLUORIDE. THE EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY NOTED THAT IF FLUORIDATED WATER WERE DRUNK AND USED FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD AND TEA (1-2 L OF WATER/DAY; 500 ML OF TEA (2 CUPS) WITH A FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION OF 5 MG/L) 3.5 TO 4.0 MG FLUORIDE WOULD BE ADDED TO THE DAILY DIETARY INTAKE OF AN INDIVIDUAL. The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to 10mg for all sources The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake. It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH. It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006). THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE. There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006). The EFSA has documented that with increasing fluoride incorporation into bone clinical stage I and II with pain and stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of both cortical and cancelleous bone, osteophytes and calcification of ligaments develop. Crippling skeletal fluorosis (clinical stage III) may be associated with movement restriction of joints, skeletal deformities, severe calcification of ligaments, muscle wasting and neurological symptoms. The EFSA also highlighted that patients with renal insufficiency are at increased risk of fluoride toxicity. The NRC scientific committee observed that people living in fluoridated communities will have accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potential have very high fluoride concentration in their bones, this would certainly apply to many personsliving in Ireland who have extremely high dietary fluoride exposure. The NRC noted that the bone system is where immune cells develop and fluoride could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals. The WHO has consistently and correctly stated that "in the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered." It is astonishing and deeply worrying that considering this common sense recommendation from the WHO that no proper dietary fluoride risk assessment has been undertaken in the ROI and that no database is readably available for the public to examine or calculate their fluoride exposure form foodstuffs and beverages. As with tea any beverage produced in Ireland that uses public water supplies will have elevated fluoridated levels. This includes soft drinks, alcoholic beverages and fruit drinks. The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water similarly recommend that "when setting national standards for fluoride that it is particularly important to consider volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources. Unfortunately, it is clearly evident that these recommendations were never applied by the Health Authorities in Ireland, and were subsequently overlooked by the Forum for Fluoridation (2002) in addition to the current Irish Expert Body on Fluorides. This is a matter that I have communicated repeatedly with the Government of Ireland and its agencies over the past twelve months and to which I have never received any reply. It is a certain fact that dietary exposure to fluoride for persons living in the ROI is significantly greater than for individuals residing in NI mainly from consuming fluoridated drinking water and other foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated water. Other dietary sources will add significantly to the dietary intake especially through the consumption of tea. The consumption of tea in both regions of the island is expected to be similar. However human exposures aluminofluorides are far greater for persons living in the ROI compared to NI due to the combination of aluminum and fluoride sources in drinking water. Aluminum in drinking water comes from the alum used as a flocculent or coagulant in water treatment. Artificial fluoridation also results in increasing the concentration of free fluoride ions that will bind to substances such as aluminum which is already present in high concentrations in tea. Exposure to aluminum fluoride and silicofluorides compounds has many serious health implications for consumers. WATER FLUORIDATION AND DENTAL HEALTH OF ADULTS The NHS York review on fluoridation (2000) found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterized as "just a cosmetic issue". The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5% The European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) review of water fluoridation (2010) found that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited, that the caries preventive effect of systemic fluoride treatment from fluoridation of community drinking water is rather poor and that the improved dental health in countries that do not fluoridate suggests that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improved dental health. HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, UNITED KINGDOM. 2008 Recent independent scientific reviews undertaken by Hampshire County Council rejected artificial fluoridation of water on the precautionary principle owing to the lack of scientific evidence available to prove that fluoridation does not impact negatively on individual health and the plausibility that it may result in serious health impacts on the population. In regard to the lack of available information examining the potential health impacts of fluoridation the review panel noted in particular the following “It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.” The review raised concerns regarding the misrepresentation of the NHS York review by proponents of water fluoridation and raised concerns regarding the lack of accurate scientific information on what is a safe ’optional dose’ particular for bottle fed infants where fluoridated water is used to prepare infant formula. The review found that the inconclusive evidence of fluoridation impacts on human health requires that a precautionary approach be adopted and that the balance of risks and benefits of such a policy had not been properly explained to the public. The review found that  Adding fluoride to drinking water has the potential to result in an increase in moderate to severe fluorosis in the communities affected.  There may be harms other than fluorosis as a result of adding fluoride to drinking water.  The plausibility of other serious health impacts from the fluoridation of water reinforces the view of the Review Panel that a precautionary approach is needed until such time as additional research has been done. It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.  Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the recommended level in drinking water.  Individual exposure will be affected by the addition of fluoride to drinking water as well as other sources, i.e. fluoridated water being used for cooking or for preparation of food or beverages.  Taking account of the plausibility of harm a precautionary approach to the addition of fluoride to water be adopted until such time that clear evidence of benefit and harm has been established.  Concerns regarding infant formula reinforce the need to adopt a precautionary approach.  There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this.  There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride. The Review panel concluded: “Most significantly the Review Panel has been persuaded not to support the proposal by the lack of robust and reliable scientific evidence produced to support this proposal. It is clear that scientists and health professionals recognise that there are ‘unknowns’ with regard to the need to understand the effect of fluoride on the body (not just teeth). This work has simply not taken place. In the absence of scientific evidence of sufficient quality the Review Panel based its evaluation on the findings of the York Review informed by the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 To Conclude.. Fluoride is a highly toxic substance, the above evidence is overwhelming. The TV Fluoride Toothpaste Jingles have stopped, the pretence is over, It's time for a criminal investigation into the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Fluoridation advocates. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

12:32am Sat 13 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

Dan Soton wrote:
UK/IRELAND.. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION INTO FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE



http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5



PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

(142 pages )

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.

The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.

Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.

This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.

OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (10%) ALSO CONSUME ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER.

The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI.

It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer.
The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC.

All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor

ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered.

The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI.

The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today.

The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water.

This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement.

Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle.

It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure.

The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI.

Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI.

The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix."


Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west."

The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland.

The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses.

The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI.

IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT.

Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development.

To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region.

While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar.

Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI.

These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality

A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body.

FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES

The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99

The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas.

The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101

It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer.

Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap.


FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS

AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT.

The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems.

Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland.

BOILING FLUORIDATED TAP WATER INCREASES THE CONCENTRATIONS OF FLUORIDE IN WATER AND FOOD. THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN TEA BEVERAGES IS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED BY USING BOILED FLUORIDATED WATER TO MAKE TEA. THIS MAY ADD UP TO 25% MORE FLUORIDE TO A TEA BEVERAGE THAT IS ALREADY HIGH IN FLUORIDE CONTENT THEREBY CONTRIBUTING FURTHER TO THE DAILY EXPOSURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO FLUORIDE. THE EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY NOTED THAT IF FLUORIDATED WATER WERE DRUNK AND USED FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD AND TEA (1-2 L OF WATER/DAY; 500 ML OF TEA (2 CUPS) WITH A FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION OF 5 MG/L) 3.5 TO 4.0 MG FLUORIDE WOULD BE ADDED TO THE DAILY DIETARY INTAKE OF AN INDIVIDUAL.

The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to 10mg for all sources

The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake.

It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH.

It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day

The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006).

THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE.

There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006).


The EFSA has documented that with increasing fluoride incorporation into bone clinical stage I and II with pain and stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of both cortical and cancelleous bone, osteophytes and calcification of ligaments develop.

Crippling skeletal fluorosis (clinical stage III) may be associated with movement restriction of joints, skeletal deformities, severe calcification of ligaments, muscle wasting and neurological symptoms. The EFSA also highlighted that patients with renal insufficiency are at increased risk of fluoride toxicity.

The NRC scientific committee observed that people living in fluoridated communities will have accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potential have very high fluoride concentration in their bones, this would certainly apply to many personsliving in Ireland who have extremely high dietary fluoride exposure. The NRC noted that the bone system is where immune cells develop and fluoride could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals.

The WHO has consistently and correctly stated that "in the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered." It is astonishing and deeply worrying that considering this common sense recommendation from the WHO that no proper dietary fluoride risk assessment has been undertaken in the ROI and that no database is readably available for the public to examine or calculate their fluoride exposure form foodstuffs and beverages. As with tea any beverage produced in Ireland that uses public water supplies will have elevated fluoridated levels. This includes soft drinks, alcoholic beverages and fruit drinks.

The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water similarly recommend that "when setting national standards for fluoride that it is particularly important to consider volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources.

Unfortunately, it is clearly evident that these recommendations were never applied by the Health Authorities in Ireland, and were subsequently overlooked by the Forum for Fluoridation (2002) in addition to the current Irish Expert Body on Fluorides. This is a matter that I have communicated repeatedly with the Government of Ireland and its agencies over the past twelve months and to which I have never received any reply.

It is a certain fact that dietary exposure to fluoride for persons living in the ROI is significantly greater than for individuals residing in NI mainly from consuming fluoridated drinking water and other foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated water.

Other dietary sources will add significantly to the dietary intake especially through the consumption of tea. The consumption of tea in both regions of the island is expected to be similar.

However human exposures aluminofluorides are far greater for persons living in the ROI compared to NI due to the combination of aluminum and fluoride sources in drinking water.

Aluminum in drinking water comes from the alum used as a flocculent or coagulant in water treatment. Artificial fluoridation also results in increasing the concentration of free fluoride ions that will bind to substances such as aluminum which is already present in high concentrations in tea.

Exposure to aluminum fluoride and silicofluorides compounds has many serious health implications for consumers.


WATER FLUORIDATION AND DENTAL HEALTH OF ADULTS

The NHS York review on fluoridation (2000) found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterized as "just a cosmetic issue". The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5%

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) review of water fluoridation (2010) found that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited, that the caries preventive effect of systemic fluoride treatment from fluoridation of community drinking water is rather poor and that the improved dental health in countries that do not fluoridate suggests that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improved dental health.



HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, UNITED KINGDOM. 2008

Recent independent scientific reviews undertaken by Hampshire County Council rejected artificial fluoridation of water on the precautionary principle owing to the lack of scientific evidence available to prove that fluoridation does not impact negatively on individual health and the plausibility that it may result in serious health impacts on the population. In regard to the lack of available information examining the potential health impacts of fluoridation the review panel noted in particular the following “It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.”

The review raised concerns regarding the misrepresentation of the NHS York review by proponents of water fluoridation and raised concerns regarding the lack of accurate scientific information on what is a safe ’optional dose’ particular for bottle fed infants where fluoridated water is used to prepare infant formula.

The review found that the inconclusive evidence of fluoridation impacts on human health requires that a precautionary approach be adopted and that the balance of risks and benefits of such a policy had not been properly explained to the public.

The review found that

 Adding fluoride to drinking water has the potential to result in an increase in moderate to severe fluorosis in the communities affected.

 There may be harms other than fluorosis as a result of adding fluoride to drinking water.

 The plausibility of other serious health impacts from the fluoridation of water reinforces the view of the Review Panel that a precautionary approach is needed until such time as additional research has been done. It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.

 Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the recommended level in drinking water.

 Individual exposure will be affected by the addition of fluoride to drinking water as well as other sources, i.e. fluoridated water being used for cooking or for preparation of food or beverages.

 Taking account of the plausibility of harm a precautionary approach to the addition of fluoride to water be adopted until such time that clear evidence of benefit and harm has been established.

 Concerns regarding infant formula reinforce the need to adopt a precautionary approach.

 There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this.

 There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride.

The Review panel concluded: “Most significantly the Review Panel has been persuaded not to support the proposal by the lack of robust and reliable scientific evidence produced to support this proposal. It is clear that scientists and health professionals recognise that there are ‘unknowns’ with regard to the need to understand the effect of fluoride on the body (not just teeth). This work has simply
not taken place. In the absence of scientific evidence of sufficient quality the Review Panel based its evaluation on the findings of the York Review informed by the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics



http://tinyurl.com/c

f7zmo5




To Conclude..


Fluoride is a highly toxic substance, the above evidence is overwhelming.


The TV Fluoride Toothpaste Jingles have stopped, the pretence is over, It's time for a criminal investigation into the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Fluoridation advocates.
Don't know whats worse, being poisoned by fluoride or trying to read an hours worth of post.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: UK/IRELAND.. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION INTO FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM February 2013 (142 pages ) SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006) The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production. Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome. Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures. Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer. Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism. Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases. Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride. Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium, iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for neurotoxic effects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health. Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders. Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland. The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population. THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight. The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans. The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination. The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children. The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems. THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT. As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population. Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population. Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water. All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago. This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states. This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries. IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE. OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (10%) ALSO CONSUME ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER. The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI. It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer. The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC. All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered. The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI. The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today. The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water. This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement. Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle. It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure. The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI. Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI. The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix." Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west." The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland. The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses. The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI. IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT. Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development. To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region. While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar. Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI. These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99 The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101 It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer. Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap. FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT. The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems. Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland. BOILING FLUORIDATED TAP WATER INCREASES THE CONCENTRATIONS OF FLUORIDE IN WATER AND FOOD. THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN TEA BEVERAGES IS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED BY USING BOILED FLUORIDATED WATER TO MAKE TEA. THIS MAY ADD UP TO 25% MORE FLUORIDE TO A TEA BEVERAGE THAT IS ALREADY HIGH IN FLUORIDE CONTENT THEREBY CONTRIBUTING FURTHER TO THE DAILY EXPOSURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO FLUORIDE. THE EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY NOTED THAT IF FLUORIDATED WATER WERE DRUNK AND USED FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD AND TEA (1-2 L OF WATER/DAY; 500 ML OF TEA (2 CUPS) WITH A FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION OF 5 MG/L) 3.5 TO 4.0 MG FLUORIDE WOULD BE ADDED TO THE DAILY DIETARY INTAKE OF AN INDIVIDUAL. The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to 10mg for all sources The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake. It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH. It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006). THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE. There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006). The EFSA has documented that with increasing fluoride incorporation into bone clinical stage I and II with pain and stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of both cortical and cancelleous bone, osteophytes and calcification of ligaments develop. Crippling skeletal fluorosis (clinical stage III) may be associated with movement restriction of joints, skeletal deformities, severe calcification of ligaments, muscle wasting and neurological symptoms. The EFSA also highlighted that patients with renal insufficiency are at increased risk of fluoride toxicity. The NRC scientific committee observed that people living in fluoridated communities will have accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potential have very high fluoride concentration in their bones, this would certainly apply to many personsliving in Ireland who have extremely high dietary fluoride exposure. The NRC noted that the bone system is where immune cells develop and fluoride could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals. The WHO has consistently and correctly stated that "in the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered." It is astonishing and deeply worrying that considering this common sense recommendation from the WHO that no proper dietary fluoride risk assessment has been undertaken in the ROI and that no database is readably available for the public to examine or calculate their fluoride exposure form foodstuffs and beverages. As with tea any beverage produced in Ireland that uses public water supplies will have elevated fluoridated levels. This includes soft drinks, alcoholic beverages and fruit drinks. The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water similarly recommend that "when setting national standards for fluoride that it is particularly important to consider volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources. Unfortunately, it is clearly evident that these recommendations were never applied by the Health Authorities in Ireland, and were subsequently overlooked by the Forum for Fluoridation (2002) in addition to the current Irish Expert Body on Fluorides. This is a matter that I have communicated repeatedly with the Government of Ireland and its agencies over the past twelve months and to which I have never received any reply. It is a certain fact that dietary exposure to fluoride for persons living in the ROI is significantly greater than for individuals residing in NI mainly from consuming fluoridated drinking water and other foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated water. Other dietary sources will add significantly to the dietary intake especially through the consumption of tea. The consumption of tea in both regions of the island is expected to be similar. However human exposures aluminofluorides are far greater for persons living in the ROI compared to NI due to the combination of aluminum and fluoride sources in drinking water. Aluminum in drinking water comes from the alum used as a flocculent or coagulant in water treatment. Artificial fluoridation also results in increasing the concentration of free fluoride ions that will bind to substances such as aluminum which is already present in high concentrations in tea. Exposure to aluminum fluoride and silicofluorides compounds has many serious health implications for consumers. WATER FLUORIDATION AND DENTAL HEALTH OF ADULTS The NHS York review on fluoridation (2000) found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterized as "just a cosmetic issue". The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5% The European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) review of water fluoridation (2010) found that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited, that the caries preventive effect of systemic fluoride treatment from fluoridation of community drinking water is rather poor and that the improved dental health in countries that do not fluoridate suggests that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improved dental health. HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, UNITED KINGDOM. 2008 Recent independent scientific reviews undertaken by Hampshire County Council rejected artificial fluoridation of water on the precautionary principle owing to the lack of scientific evidence available to prove that fluoridation does not impact negatively on individual health and the plausibility that it may result in serious health impacts on the population. In regard to the lack of available information examining the potential health impacts of fluoridation the review panel noted in particular the following “It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.” The review raised concerns regarding the misrepresentation of the NHS York review by proponents of water fluoridation and raised concerns regarding the lack of accurate scientific information on what is a safe ’optional dose’ particular for bottle fed infants where fluoridated water is used to prepare infant formula. The review found that the inconclusive evidence of fluoridation impacts on human health requires that a precautionary approach be adopted and that the balance of risks and benefits of such a policy had not been properly explained to the public. The review found that  Adding fluoride to drinking water has the potential to result in an increase in moderate to severe fluorosis in the communities affected.  There may be harms other than fluorosis as a result of adding fluoride to drinking water.  The plausibility of other serious health impacts from the fluoridation of water reinforces the view of the Review Panel that a precautionary approach is needed until such time as additional research has been done. It is of serious concern that, despite this point being made repeatedly in the literature, credible research is still not available.  Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the recommended level in drinking water.  Individual exposure will be affected by the addition of fluoride to drinking water as well as other sources, i.e. fluoridated water being used for cooking or for preparation of food or beverages.  Taking account of the plausibility of harm a precautionary approach to the addition of fluoride to water be adopted until such time that clear evidence of benefit and harm has been established.  Concerns regarding infant formula reinforce the need to adopt a precautionary approach.  There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this.  There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride. The Review panel concluded: “Most significantly the Review Panel has been persuaded not to support the proposal by the lack of robust and reliable scientific evidence produced to support this proposal. It is clear that scientists and health professionals recognise that there are ‘unknowns’ with regard to the need to understand the effect of fluoride on the body (not just teeth). This work has simply not taken place. In the absence of scientific evidence of sufficient quality the Review Panel based its evaluation on the findings of the York Review informed by the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics http://tinyurl.com/c f7zmo5 To Conclude.. Fluoride is a highly toxic substance, the above evidence is overwhelming. The TV Fluoride Toothpaste Jingles have stopped, the pretence is over, It's time for a criminal investigation into the members of the defunct South Central Strategic Health Authority, Southampton City Primary Care Trust and all Fluoridation advocates.[/p][/quote]Don't know whats worse, being poisoned by fluoride or trying to read an hours worth of post. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

10:40am Sat 13 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

ISRAEL ANNOUNCES END TO MANDATORY FLUORIDATION

Health Minister Yael German has decided to end the mandatory fluoridation of Israel's drinking water within a year...

Newsdesk, 12 Apr 2013

On Thursday, April 11, Israeli Health Minister Yael German signed off on historic regulations that negate the mandatory fluoridation of Israel's drinking water.

As well as the decision to end tap water fluoridation, the regulations also call for reducing the permitted bacteria concentration in water to zero, and to increase water inspection. These new regulations are pending legal confirmation at the Ministry of Health, and will take effect starting in 2014.

Once these regulations are fully in place, Israel will join the likes of China, Germany, Holland, Sweden and France as countries that don't have mandatory fluoridation of drinking water.

We asked: Would it make more sense to target children with education for better dental hygiene and diet? And suggested the initiation of a campaign to get children to consume less sugar and take personal responsibility for care of their teeth.

http://tinyurl.com/b
mslu5q
ISRAEL ANNOUNCES END TO MANDATORY FLUORIDATION Health Minister Yael German has decided to end the mandatory fluoridation of Israel's drinking water within a year... Newsdesk, 12 Apr 2013 On Thursday, April 11, Israeli Health Minister Yael German signed off on historic regulations that negate the mandatory fluoridation of Israel's drinking water. As well as the decision to end tap water fluoridation, the regulations also call for reducing the permitted bacteria concentration in water to zero, and to increase water inspection. These new regulations are pending legal confirmation at the Ministry of Health, and will take effect starting in 2014. Once these regulations are fully in place, Israel will join the likes of China, Germany, Holland, Sweden and France as countries that don't have mandatory fluoridation of drinking water. We asked: Would it make more sense to target children with education for better dental hygiene and diet? And suggested the initiation of a campaign to get children to consume less sugar and take personal responsibility for care of their teeth. http://tinyurl.com/b mslu5q Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Update: UK/IRELAND.. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION INTO FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE


http://tinyurl.com/c
f7zmo5





PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ON DISEASE AND MORTALITY IN IRELAND RELATED TO WATER FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

Report for The Government of Ireland The European Commission and World Health Organisation

Prepared By Declan Waugh BSc. CEnv. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

February 2013

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NRC REPORT (2006)

The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases insulin production.

Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's. Cytogenetic effects of fluoride exposure may contribute to Down's syndrome.

Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk of fractures.

Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency, osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy and colorectal cancer.

Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets.

Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.

Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.

Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to silicofluorides or fluoride.

FLUORIDE ALSO FORMS COMPLEXES WITH OTHER ELEMENTS INCLUDING ALUMINIUM, SODIUM, IRON, CALCIUM, MAGNESIUM, COPPER AND HYDROGEN THAT MAY HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR NEUROTOXIC EFFECTS.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HEALTH REVIEW FINDINGS

This report demonstrates how overexposure of a population to fluorides through artificial fluoridation of public water supplies applied to almost the entire population of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is perhaps the largest single overall contributor to the disease burdens present in Ireland today. Fluoridation of public water has significantly increased the total dietary exposure of the population to fluorides regardless of the individual's nutritional status or health in an uncontrolled manner impacting on every aspect of health.

Apart from the debate over causality, chemical intolerance to fluoride may also have significantly increased certain medical and psychiatric conditions among the population in the Republic of Ireland. Previous peer reviewed studies in the Netherlands, Finland and U.S have shown that a percentage of the population are intolerant to fluoride and that exposure to fluoride in water/food resulted in dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological disorders.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that chemical intolerance and increased exposure to fluorides through fluoridation of public water supplies may be viewed as one of the largest single causes of preventable death and health inequality in the Republic of Ireland.
The complete lack of any public-health surveillance on the population of the RoI over the previous half century to interpret the risks posed by low-level exposure to fluorides and silicofluroides is astonishing. Not only have no detailed epidemiologic, toxicologic, or exposure assessment studies been undertaken by the Health authorities responsible for fluoridation but they have failed to adequately incorporate bio-monitoring data for interpretation of health risks at the individual, community, and population levels especially for the most sensitive subgroups with in the population.

THE LACK OF TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION OR ENVIRONMENT IS UNDENIABLE. THE FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH TO RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NRC REPORT PUBLISHED IN 2006 IS SHOCKING, AS IS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO PURSUE ANY OF THE WIDE RANGING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THIS REPORT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.

The NRC scientific committee clearly identified children as a high priority risk group requiring special consideration because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight.

The scientific committee highlighted the lack of toxicity data on silicofluorides and the lack of appropriate safety standards for children for fluoride exposure or its long term toxicity on humans.

The committee highlighted other potential significant sources of fluoride such as occupational, industrial, and therapeutic sources and outlined how certain environmental, metabolic, and disease conditions may cause more fluoride to be retained in the body. For example, fluoride retention might be affected by environments or conditions that chronically affect urinary pH, including diet, drugs and certain diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). It is also affected by renal function, because renal excretion is the primary route of fluoride elimination.

The committee also identified Individuals with renal disease as a subgroup of particular concern because their ability to excrete fluoride can be seriously inhibited, causing greater accumulation of fluoride in their bodies. Another category of individuals in need of special consideration includes those who are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. For example, Downs syndrome children.

The NRC also identified the elderly as another sector of the population of concern, because of their long-term accumulation of fluoride into their bones. The NRC further noted that there are also Individuals with medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride. An example would be individuals with thyroid disorders or individuals with compromised immune systems.

THE ABJECT FAILURE OF THE IRISH EXPERT BODY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE FROM FLUORIDE INTOXICATION IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR PREGNANT MOTHERS, FOR FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO ALARMINGLY HIGH LEVELS OF TOXICITY FROM FLUORIDES, ALUMINOFLUORIDES AND SILICOFLUORIDES THAT MAY CLEARLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED INCIDENCE OF SIDS, DOWNS SYNDROME, HYPOTHYROIDISM, BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LEARNING DISORDERS, DENTAL FLUOROSIS, GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND OFTEN FATAL DISEASES SUCH AS OSTEOSARCOMA, LEUKAEMIA OR OTHER DISEASE OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT.

As with exposure to any chemical these agencies have a duty of care to ensure that information needed for health and environmental assessment of fluoridation chemicals was available prior to commencement of fluoridation as well as providing detailed information on the total dietary exposure of the Irish population.

Any such risk assessment should have included information on acute toxicity, irritation, hypersensitivity corrosivity, sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and toxicity for reproduction. Investigations should have been undertaken on the toxicokinetics of the chemical substance used and its derivative compounds including silicofluorides and aluminofluorides compounds as well as the bioavailability of fluoride compounds in varying water chemistry, in particular examining the impact of water hardness on fluoride toxicity of the population.

Human population studies must examine the high risk subgroups of the population including infants, people with nutrition deficiencies, and individuals with endocrine disorders, while also providing for risk characterisation for diabetics and workers or athletes who consume large volumes of water.

All of these important recommendations and more were provided by the NRC in their report in 2006, some were identified by the British Medical Research Council 8 in their report (2002) and ignored by the Irish authorities. In addition the legislation for fluoridation in Ireland requires for on-going human health data to be monitored yet no epidemiological studies have ever been undertaken by the public health authorities in Ireland examining the impact of fluoridation on public health since this policy was first implemented almost fifty years ago.

This report examines approximately 28 disease categories and the prevalence or incidence of disease burden for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities all living on the same island of Ireland from published and available data sources. The variation in disease burdens between the RoI and Northern Ireland (NI) was calculated for each of the categories with a persistent and significant increase documented for the population across all diseases for persons living in the RoI, compared to non-fluoridated NI or other EU member states.

This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI compared to NI or other European countries.

IN EACH OF THE DISEASE CATEGORIES A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASED BURDEN OF DISEASE HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND WITH THE MOST PRONOUNCED VARIATION BEING EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA (450%) FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (300%), SARCOIDOSIS (250%), CONGENITAL HYPOTHYROIDISM (220%), OSTEOPOROSIS (100%) DOWNS SYNDROME (83%), DEPRESSION (78%), RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (60%) DIABETES (60%) AND CANCER WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK FOR A WIDE RANGE OF CANCERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI AND EUROPE.

OVERALL CANCERS INCIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED ROI COMPARED TO NON-FLUORIDATED NI. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE OVERALL INCIDENCE OF CANCER PER 100,000 IN THE ROI IS 85% ABOVE THE EUROPEAN REGION AVERAGE, 43% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE AND 38% ABOVE THE UK INCIDENCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OVER 6MILLION CITIZENS IN THE UK (10%) ALSO CONSUME ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER.

The overall significance of the alarming increased incidence of disease in RoI compared to non-fluoridated NI clearly demonstrates the possibility of causality in the association between water quality and the impact of low level intoxication of the population with fluoridation chemicals and their role in the development of disease.10 The findings when examined in light of the recommendations and observations of the NRC scientific committee clearly demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that fluoridation of drinking water is contributing to increased disease prevalence and mortality in the RoI.

It is apparent based on the disease prevalence among the population, that exposure to fluoridation chemicals in drinking water combined with fluorides and silicofluorides ability to increase the bioavailability of other harmful elements such as aluminium and lead, and fluorides competition and interaction with calcium, magnesium, iodine and other essential elements, that fluoride is a significant contributor to the disease burden in RoI. This impact is reflected most strikingly with the increased incidence of neurological diseases followed by increased disorders of the immune system, endocrine disorders, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer.

The potential and known contribution of fluoride to each of these diseases was previously examined by the NRC scientific committee who recommended wide ranging detailed toxicological and epidemiological investigations on fluoride and its impact on human health. To my knowledge public health authorities who promote fluoridation have never undertaken or investigated any of the critical important recommendations provided by the NRC.

All of the NRC recommendations were noted in my original report dated Feb 2012 and many of the serious and hugely significant concerns raised regarding fluoride/silicofluor
ides exposure and the current disease burdens present in Ireland were ignored and remain unanswered. Subsequent independent reports by this author submitted to the Minister for Health, Chief Medical Officer and the National Cancer Register Ireland addressing specific concerns regarding infant toxicity, cardiovascular health, cancer incidence, periodontal disease, neurological disease and other concerns have also remained unanswered.

The following sections of this report will address the principle findings and observations of the NRC Scientific committee under specific categories followed by specific information on the incidence of each disease in Ireland with comparisons to NI the UK and Europe. What is clearly evident however is that for each of the major categories, effects on the neurological, immune system, endocrine system and musculoskeletal system are profoundly compromised for people living in the RoI compared to NI.

The astonishing increased prevalence of disease in each of these categories unquestionably demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that increased exposure to fluoride both directly, from exposure to fluoridated water, and indirectly from contamination of the food chain amongst is contributing to the catastrophic disease burdens present in the population in the population of southern Ireland today.

The significance of increased fluoride exposure and its contribution to disease burdens and morbidity in the RoI should clearly have been identified and reported before now; the failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the Expert Body and other State agencies with responsibility for public safety, protection of the most vulnerable and the provision of safe drinking water.

This is particularly so given the obvious association between certain increased disease burdens present in the RoI and the known effect of fluoride toxicity on humans in particular the many preclinical stages of fluorosis such as arthritis, musculoskeletal pain as well as the mechanisms of the neurotoxicity of fluoride. The lack of any attempt in the RoI to examine the disease and mortality burden in regard to exposure to fluorides and silicofluorides also raises many serious questions, not least that not a single epidemiological or risk assessment study has been undertaken in the five decades since commencement.

Furthermore the lack of examination or even consideration by public health bodies of the health implications of mass fluoride intoxication is deeply disturbing. Their inability and unwillingness to apply the precautionary approach to protect infants from overexposure to fluoridation chemicals or acknowledge, as other EU countries have done, that individual dietary exposure cannot be controlled when public drinking water is fluoridated, their dismissal of the potential of increased fluoride exposure contributing to a wide range of diseases is unscientific and presents a clear violation of the precautionary principle.

It is also alarming how the authors of two important All Ireland health studies examining cancer incidence, disease burdens and mortality between the RoI and NI did not include or entirely overlooked fluoridation of drinking water and increased dietary fluoride exposure in the RoI as a key risk factor in the alarming and clearly identifiable increased burden of disease prevalent in ROI compared to NI. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf using data from the report published from the Institute of Public Health (2001). What is absolutely clear in the data is the alarmingly high mortality in the RoI for certain diseases that are directly related to fluoride exposure.

The All Ireland Mortality study documents a significantly higher incidence of mortality for disease resulting from endocrine disorders, immune disorders, neurological disorders, metabolic disorders, hormone related cancers, musculoskeletal diseases and bone diseases such as arthritis among the population of the RoI, compared to NI. For example, mortality from diabetes was 470% higher, endocrine and metabolic disorders (350%) rheumatoid arthritis (277%) and diseases of the musculoskeletal system (228%) in the RoI compared to NI.

Based on the observations in the NRC report (2006) regarding fluoride and cancer it is not surprising that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas (2011) clearly demonstrates significantly increased cancer prevalence in the RoI compared to NI.

The authors of All Ireland Cancer Atlas report stated: "The risk of developing many of the cancers presented was higher in RoI than in NI. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, leukaemia, bladder, pancreas and brain/central nervous system cancers was significantly higher for both sexes in RoI. For men, the risk of prostate cancer was higher in RoI and, for women, cancer of the oesophagus and cervix."

Furthermore the authors concluded that: "There was a marked geographical variation in the risk of some common cancers..— the most consistent geographical distribution of cancer risk was seen for three cancers (pancreas, brain/central nervous system and leukaemia) which showed an increasing gradient of risk from northeast to south-west."

The report documents that the risk for bladder cancer was up to 14% higher in the ROI, leukaemia up to 23%, Pancreatic cancer up to 22%, skin cancer up to 18%, prostate cancer 29%, oesophageal cancer up to 8%, brain cancer up to 20% and cancer of the cervix and uterus up to 11% higher compared to Northern Ireland.

The NRC (2006) scientific committee observed: "fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential". Yet remarkably no mention was made of fluoride as a possible contributor to the increased cancer incidence. This is even more remarkable as systemic inflammation, immune dysfunction and immune cancers such as lymphoma and leukaemia in humans have been associated with EDC exposures. It is also known that hormone related cancers such as prostate, pancreatic and uterus may be directly related to endocrine disruptor (EDCs) at low level doses.

The All-Ireland study by Balanda and Wilde documented significantly increased mortality from these diseases in the RoI compared to NI.

IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT ALTHOUGH SKELETAL FLUOROSIS HAS BEEN STUDIED INTENSELY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, NO RESEARCH AT ALL HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ROI TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE EARLIER STAGES OF THE DISEASE, PARTICULARLY THE PRECLINICAL STAGES SUCH AS ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN. BECAUSE SOME OF THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS MIMIC ARTHRITIS, THE FIRST TWO CLINICAL PHASES OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS COULD BE EASILY MISDIAGNOSED. THE LATE DR. GEORGE WALDBOTT STATED THAT THE SYMPTOMS AND SEVERITY OF FLUORIDE POISONING DEPEND ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S AGE, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, ENVIRONMENT, KIDNEY FUNCTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALLERGIES, AND HE ALSO SUGGESTED MOST PHYSICIANS KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT CHRONIC FLUORIDE POISONING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LOOK FOR IT.

Deaths from drug dependence, alcohol abuse and mental disorders are over 1500% higher in the lower income groups in the RoI, the mortality rates are significantly higher than for a similar sub-group of the population in NI. Deaths from tuberculosis, congenital malformations and chromosomal abnormalities are over 1000% higher in lower income groups in the RoI, followed by death from ulcers of stomach and disease of the musculoskeletal system at over 800% increased mortality. The RoI has the highest incidence of mortality from deaths from congenital disorders in the EU Region The most common serious congenital disorders are heart defects, neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. According to the WHO It is estimated that about 94% of serious birth defects occur in middle- and low-income countries, where mothers are more susceptible to macronutrient and micronutrient malnutrition and may have increased exposure to any agent or factor that induces or increases the incidence of abnormal prenatal development.

To my knowledge no study has ever been undertaken to examine if fluoride exposure combined with nutritional status may be a contributory factor to the alarming levels of congenital defects in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated countries. As is evident from Figure 6 both New Zealand and Australia also have higher mortality from congenital defects compared to the EU region.

While variations in the classification of occupational classes may exist between NI and the RoI, it is accepted that the descriptions of the two highest and the two lowest occupational classes are similar.

Even allowing for differences in data gathering the increased mortality among the lower income groups in RoI compared to NI is very significant In almost every disease category the difference in mortality rate in RoI between low income and high income is significantly higher in some instances over 1000% compared to NI. For all causes of death the mortality ratio for lower income groups to higher income groups is over 100% higher in the RoI compared to NI.

These are important facts to observe as distinguished medical physicians and scientists have found that lower income groups with poorer nutritional status are much more susceptible to fluoride toxicity and will have a higher burden of disease and mortality as a consequence of fluoridation of drinking water. Understanding the Variation in disease and Mortality

A recent scientific review by Vandenberg et al. (2012) examining low dose exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) lists water fluoridation additives added to prevent dental caries as EDCs with reported low dose effects in animals or humans. The report documents that they inhibit insulin secretion, inhibit parathyroid hormone secretion and reduce thyroid hormone output. The review states that it is well established in the endocrine literature that natural hormones act at extremely low serum concentrations. The report highlights that the endocrine system is particularly tuned to respond to very low concentrations of hormone and that recent epidemiological studies reveal links between environmentally relevant low concentrations and disease prevalence. The review reports that there is also evidence that EDCs work additively or even synergistically with other chemicals and natural hormones in the body.

FLUORIDE INTAKE OF BABIES

The NRC noted that a baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest. Ireland has the highest incidence of bottle fed babies in Europe. At three months of age less than 23% of babies are breast fed in Ireland compared to the European average of over 70%. At six months of age less than 10% are breast fed compared to the European average of over 40%.99
The NRC reported that the total fluoride intake for formula fed babies using fluoridated water (up to 6 months in age) is substantially higher than for breast fed babies (up to186 times greater). For children aged 7 months to 4 years the scientific committee reported that the total fluoride intake from food, water and household products (excluding medication) may be up to 3.5 times higher for children in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas.

The NRC also found that when body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated who are less than one year old are exposed to a fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults. The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, is 0.01mg/l.101

It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants in Ireland less than 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples this recommended level. It is also evident, as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer.

Neither the Irish nor European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have established a safe dietary Upper Limit for fluoride for infants who represent the most sensitive subgroup to fluoride exposure. The EFSA however clearly observed that infants who consume powered formula milk will exceed the maximum limit set for infant formula established by the EU Scientific Committee on Food, if water containing more than 0.7 mg/L is used for its preparation. The upper fluoride limit for fluoridated drinking water in Ireland is 0.8mg/L and boiled fluoridated tap water will have a higher concentration than water delivered from the tap.

FLUORIDE INTAKE OF ADULTS

AS NOTED BY THE NRC THE DIETARY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE BY ADULTS IN THE UK INCLUDING NI IS EXPECTED TO BE HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA DUE LARGELY TO THE CONSUMPTION OF POPULAR BEVERAGES SUCH AS TEA WHICH CAN RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL DIETARY EXPOSURE OF UP TO 9MG OF FLUORIDE A DAY FOR AN ADULT.

The NRC committee noted that the fluoride content of commercial instant teas can be substantial and that the combination of exposures from tea and fluoridated drinking water can lead to higher than expected fluoride intake with associated musculoskeletal problems.

Ireland has the second highest consumption of tea in the world surpassing the UK in the consumption of tea by consuming on average 20% more tea than the average UK tea drinker. Consequentially the potential fluoride dietary intake for a significant subgroup of the adult population in Ireland is greater for many individuals compared to the risk for consumers in the UK. A further and significant risk factor for the population of Ireland is that less than 10% of the UK population compared to (75-80%) of the Irish population are provided with artificially fluoridated water the majority of the population in Ireland.

BOILING FLUORIDATED TAP WATER INCREASES THE CONCENTRATIONS OF FLUORIDE IN WATER AND FOOD. THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN TEA BEVERAGES IS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED BY USING BOILED FLUORIDATED WATER TO MAKE TEA. THIS MAY ADD UP TO 25% MORE FLUORIDE TO A TEA BEVERAGE THAT IS ALREADY HIGH IN FLUORIDE CONTENT THEREBY CONTRIBUTING FURTHER TO THE DAILY EXPOSURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO FLUORIDE. THE EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY NOTED THAT IF FLUORIDATED WATER WERE DRUNK AND USED FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD AND TEA (1-2 L OF WATER/DAY; 500 ML OF TEA (2 CUPS) WITH A FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION OF 5 MG/L) 3.5 TO 4.0 MG FLUORIDE WOULD BE ADDED TO THE DAILY DIETARY INTAKE OF AN INDIVIDUAL.

The EFSA noted that even more extreme scenarios are possible and not completely unrealistic; for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to 10mg for all sources

The total dietary exposure of an individual is the sum of exposure from all food and other sources consumed in a day. Because of the wide variability of exposures to fluoride it is impossible to control the total dietary intake of fluoride for any individual. Nevertheless the risk factors for increased exposures to fluoride increase significantly when public water supplies are fluoridated and dietary exposures cannot be controlled to protect the health and welfare of citizens when such a policy is enacted. When fluoridated water is used for the preparation of hot beverages such as tea the measured increase in fluoride content for the beverage may increase by up to 1.5mg/L. This is very significant when examining total dietary fluoride intake. It is also significant that tea beverages are acidic and depending on the length of time left to brew will fall in the range 5.5 - 6.3 pH.

It is important to note that there are no published studies documenting in detail the total fluoride dietary intakes for either adults or children in Ireland and no public database exists providing the fluoride content of foods, beverages or medicines. Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland. As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day

The WHO have documented that total intakes of fluoride above about 6 mg fluoride per day may cause skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures. The total dietary intake for an individual from consuming four cups of tea a day, constituted with fluoridated water, would exceed 5mg fluoride from this single food source alone. Dietary fluoride exposure will also be increased by the consumption of any other beverage of foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated tap water. Typical examples include beer, stout, fruit drinks, soft drinks, soup and foods such as processed chicken which all combine to add further substantial contributions to an individual's total fluoride intake (NRC 2006).

THE EFSA DETERMINED THAT USE OF FLUORIDATED WATER TO COOK FOOD MAY INCREASE THE FLUORIDE CONTENT OF ALL FOOD BY AT LEAST 0.5 MG/KG, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DIETARY SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FLUORIDE ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY FLUORIDATED DENTAL PRODUCTS INCLUDING TOOTHPASTES, DENTAL MOUTHWASHES AND OTHER DENTAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES, VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND FROM RESIDUES OF FLUORIDE BASED PESTICIDES AND FUMIGANTS (NRC 2006). ANOTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF FLUORIDE ARE CIGARETTES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CONTAIN VERY HIGH LEVELS OF FLUORIDE.

There are many atmospheric sources of fluoride that also exist including emissions from coal powered stations, combustion of coal in the home, aluminum production plants, chemical production facilities, steel mills and brick manufacturing (NRC 2006).

The EFSA has documented that with increasing fluoride incorporation into bone clinical stage I and II with pain and stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of both cortical and cancelleous bone, osteophytes and calcification of ligaments develop.

Crippling skeletal fluorosis (clinical stage III) may be associated with movement restriction of joints, skeletal deformities, severe calcification of ligaments, muscle wasting and neurological symptoms. The EFSA also highlighted that patients with renal insufficiency are at increased risk of fluoride toxicity.

The NRC scientific committee observed that people living in fluoridated communities will have accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potential have very high fluoride concentration in their bones, this would certainly apply to many personsliving in Ireland who have extremely high dietary fluoride exposure. The NRC noted that the bone system is where immune cells develop and fluoride could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals.

The WHO has consistently and correctly stated that "in the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered." It is astonishing and deeply worrying that considering this common sense recommendation from the WHO that no proper dietary fluoride risk assessment has been undertaken in the ROI and that no database is readably available for the public to examine or calculate their fluoride exposure form foodstuffs and beverages. As with tea any beverage produced in Ireland that uses public water supplies will have elevated fluoridated levels. This includes soft drinks, alcoholic beverages and fruit drinks.

The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water similarly recommend that "when setting national standards for fluoride that it is particularly important to consider volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources.

Unfortunately, it is clearly evident that these recommendations were never applied by the Health Authorities in Ireland, and were subsequently overlooked by the Forum for Fluoridation (2002) in addition to the current Irish Expert Body on Fluorides. This is a matter that I have communicated repeatedly with the Government of Ireland and its agencies over the past twelve months and to which I have never received any reply.

It is a certain fact that dietary exposure to fluoride for persons living in the ROI is significantly greater than for individuals residing in NI mainly from consuming fluoridated drinking water and other foodstuffs prepared with fluoridated water.

Other dietary sources will add significantly to the dietary intake especially through the consumption of tea. The consumption of tea in both regions of the island is expected to be similar.

However human exposures aluminofluorides are far greater for persons living in the ROI compared to NI due to the combination of aluminum and fluoride sources in drinking water.

Aluminum in drinking water comes from the alum used as a flocculent or coagulant in water treatment. Artificial fluoridation also results in increasing the concentration of free fluoride ions that will bind to substances such as aluminum which is already present in high concentrations in tea.

Exposure to aluminum fluoride and silicofluorides compounds has many serious health implications for consumers.

WATER FLUORIDATION AND DENTAL HEALTH OF ADULTS

The NHS York review on fluoridation (2000) found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterized as "just a cosmetic issue". The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5%

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) review of water fluoridation (2010) found that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited, that the caries preventive effect of systemic fluoride treatment from fluoridation of community drinking water is rather poor and that the improved dental health in countries that do not fluoridate suggests that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improved dental health.

NEUROLOGICAL ILLNESS IN IRELAND

It is estimated by the HSE that over 725,000 people in the Republic of Ireland suffer from neurological conditions.340 It is noteworthy that while neurological disorders constitute 6.3% of the global burden of disease the figure is 17.9% in Ireland representing over twice the global average neurological disease burden. In a study on depressive disorders in Europe Ireland had the highest prevalence of depressive disorders significantly about those for Finland, Norway, Spain and UK.

Alarmingly, the HSE reported that there are over 43,000 newly diagnosed cases each year and it is estimated that the number of people in Ireland developing neurological conditions is set to increase dramatically to over 869,143 by 2021 as our population ages.
Neurological disease has other consequences, as currently 62,000 people care for persons with neurological conditions at home, placing a significant burden on society as a whole.

There appears however to be a significant underestimation of the prevalence of mental health problems among the Irish population. Ireland has a serious self-harm and suicide problem, with around 11,000 episodes of deliberate self-harm presenting at hospital A&E departments each year (National Suicide Research Foundation) and up to 500 suicide deaths reported.

IN THE LAST FEW DECADES, LARGE INCREASES IN RATES OF SUICIDE HAVE BEEN REPORTED ACROSS MOST REGIONS OF THE WORLD, PARTICULARLY IN NEW ZEALAND, THE UNITED STATES AND IRELAND. IT IS INTERESTING TO OBSERVE THAT EACH OF THESE THREE COUNTRIES FLUORIDATE THEIR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES.

On a provincial basis on the entire island of Ireland it has recently been reported based on the latest census data from the Central Statistics Office that Munster has the highest suicide rate at 13.8 deaths per 100,000 followed by Connacht (11.9), Leinster (10.2) and Ulster (9.5). 346 Similarly the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety in NI have reported that the overall suicide rate in Northern Ireland is 9.7 per 100,000 persons.347The higher suicide rates in the ROI is alarming as it has been found that children who grew up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles are more prone to suicide, according to a new study carried out by
Queens University Belfast than children elsewhere in the UK. Researchers found that young people who grew up in the worst years of the violence in the 1970s have the highest and most rapidly increasing suicide rates.348 It has been estimated that around a quarter more people suffer from mental health disorders in Northern Ireland than in England and Scotland.

Many people in disadvantaged or broken families, trapped in worklessness and impacted by the 'Troubles' suffer from mental health problems. There is an especially high prevalence of mental ill-health among men; much of this is attributable to the turbulent history. The extent of this is revealed in the alarming numbers of people who use prescription medication – close to 90,000 people are using anti-depressants on a monthly basis, and this is one in ten 35 – 64 year olds.

In comparison in 2005 according to official government figures a total of 176,123 medical-card holders in the ROI were prescribed anti-depressants for medication.

This figure does not include private patients not including in the medical card scheme. Dr Michael Corry, a consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine in Dun Laoghaire says that "The use of anti-depressants is rising at a rate of 10 per cent per year." The HSE argues that it is not possible to state the exact numbers of people who take anti-depressant medication. A spokesperson for the service, Paul O'Hare, said, "The figure of 250,000 is consistent with the estimated number of people in Ireland who are suffering from depressive illness at any given time whether diagnosed or not." Clearly, people whose depressive illness is
undiagnosed will not have been prescribed anti-depressant medication. Also, some people present with symptoms of physical illness such as stomach complaints or fatigue which may result from or be made worse by underlying, undiagnosed depressive illness. This second group of patients may not be prescribed antidepressants either.

Given the significance of the 'Troubles' in NI on the mental and general health of the population as well as its contribution to social conflict, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, family breakdown, alcoholism and drug abuse, it is remarkable to find a greater incidence of mental health problems and burdens of disease in the ROI.

According the Department of Health the Samaritans and Aware are the best known organizations which help people with mental health problems In Ireland. Aware is a voluntary organisation formed in 1985 by a group of interested patients, relatives and mental health professionals. It aims to assist people whose lives are directly affected by depression.

YOUNG ONSET DEMENTIA

Dementia normally