VIDEO: Demonstrators protest against fluoride in water

Daily Echo: Protestors against fluoridation in Southampton today. Protestors against fluoridation in Southampton today.

 

WAVING placards and shouting their slogans, more than a hundred people made their message loud and clear: no to water fluoridation.

Demonstrators were gathering outside the Guildhall Square in Southampton this afternoon as part of their long running battle against plans to add the chemical to drinking water in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.

But Hampshire Against Fluoridation are calling for the proposed scheme - aimed at improving dental health - to be scrapped. They believe it will actually cause more dental problems and health risks.

The protesters also marched through the city centre before rallying on the Solent University Centre in Above Bar Street for an update on their campaign. They will also hear from Aisling Fitzgibbon who is set to talk about a similar campaign in Ireland, which has the heaviest level of water fluoridation in Europe.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:33pm Sat 11 May 13

jwillie6 says...

Some want you to rely on the government to specify a drug (Hexafluorosilicic acid) for you to be forced to take. It is the only drug on the market not tested and approved as safe and effective for human consumption ( in the USA) by the FDA.

50% of fluoride consumed is retained in the body, in the bones and in the brain resulting in cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.
Some want you to rely on the government to specify a drug (Hexafluorosilicic acid) for you to be forced to take. It is the only drug on the market not tested and approved as safe and effective for human consumption ( in the USA) by the FDA. 50% of fluoride consumed is retained in the body, in the bones and in the brain resulting in cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems. jwillie6
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Sat 11 May 13

Dan Soton says...

Applauded at demo meeting.. up to five years in prison for putting toxic fluoride in drinking water..




PROPOSED BILL WOULD BAN FLUORIDE FROM IRELAND'S WATER

Sinn Féin TD Brian Stanley has introduced the bill, which would see the act of putting fluoride into water made illegal.

Thu, 2:05 PM 15,581

A NEW BILL WOULD SEE PEOPLE PROSECUTED FOR PUTTING FLUORIDE INTO THE WATER SUPPLY IN IRELAND – AND THEY COULD SERVE UP TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.

Sinn Féin spokesperson on Environment, Community and Local Government, Brian Stanley TD published the Health Fluoridation of Water Supplies Repeal Bill 2013 today, in an effort to ensure the substance is removed from Irish water.

Stanley said that the fluoridation of our water started in 1964 after the introduction of the Fluoridation of Water Supplies Act 1960. The proposed bill would repeal this older bill.

In 1964, the late Gladys Ryan took her case to the High Court against water fluoridation, on the basis that citizens had no choice but to drink medicated water.

http://www.thejourna
l.ie/ban-fluoride-ir
eland-902100-May2013
/
Applauded at demo meeting.. up to five years in prison for putting toxic fluoride in drinking water.. PROPOSED BILL WOULD BAN FLUORIDE FROM IRELAND'S WATER Sinn Féin TD Brian Stanley has introduced the bill, which would see the act of putting fluoride into water made illegal. Thu, 2:05 PM 15,581 A NEW BILL WOULD SEE PEOPLE PROSECUTED FOR PUTTING FLUORIDE INTO THE WATER SUPPLY IN IRELAND – AND THEY COULD SERVE UP TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON. Sinn Féin spokesperson on Environment, Community and Local Government, Brian Stanley TD published the Health Fluoridation of Water Supplies Repeal Bill 2013 today, in an effort to ensure the substance is removed from Irish water. Stanley said that the fluoridation of our water started in 1964 after the introduction of the Fluoridation of Water Supplies Act 1960. The proposed bill would repeal this older bill. In 1964, the late Gladys Ryan took her case to the High Court against water fluoridation, on the basis that citizens had no choice but to drink medicated water. http://www.thejourna l.ie/ban-fluoride-ir eland-902100-May2013 / Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Mon 13 May 13

Dan Soton says...

Strange isn't it.. The world has an abundance of cheap naturally occurring Toxic Fluoride.


Yet Fluoridation advocates claim Toxic Fluoride generated by aluminium, steel, fertiliser factories, coal burning power plants etc,. has to be put in Southampton's water supply.
Strange isn't it.. The world has an abundance of cheap naturally occurring Toxic Fluoride. Yet Fluoridation advocates claim Toxic Fluoride generated by aluminium, steel, fertiliser factories, coal burning power plants etc,. has to be put in Southampton's water supply. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Tue 14 May 13

Dan Soton says...

Southampton Toxic Fluoridation, Industrial Waste Free.. The Facts.



Given the below, it would be criminal act to force Fluoridation on anyone

-


ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM.

The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been.

More children are caries free than ever before, up to 40 % lower then just a few years ago.

70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever.


-

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ
R4
Southampton Toxic Fluoridation, Industrial Waste Free.. The Facts. Given the below, it would be criminal act to force Fluoridation on anyone - ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM. The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been. More children are caries free than ever before, up to 40 % lower then just a few years ago. 70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever. - http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ R4 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Wed 15 May 13

Dan Soton says...

Fluoridation Endgame.. Rockhampton is Queensland's 14th council to get rid of fluoride.




December 2008 Southampton's health chiefs hailed Queensland for adding fluoride to the water of 3.7 million residents, saying further proof the city should follow suit,




ROCKHAMPTON TO REMOVE FLUORIDE FROM LOCAL WATER SUPPLY

Submitted by Davell Wilkins on Wed, 05/15/2013 - 09:20.

Rockhampton to Remove Fluoride from Local Water Supply.

Rockhampton Mayor Margaret Strelow said that removal of fluoride from the local water supply in the central Queensland city was the fairest outcome. The State Government amended a mandate from the previous labor administration to remove fluoride from the water supply.

this has made the rockhampton regional council the 14th local government to remove fluoride from the local water supply.

COUNCILLOR STRELOW SAID THE COMMUNITY WAS FRUSTRATED WITH NEVER ENDING DEBATES OVER THE ISSUE. THEY REALLY WANTED THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SOME DECISION.

-

http://topnews.us/co
ntent/255064-rockham
pton-remove-fluoride
-local-water-supply
Fluoridation Endgame.. Rockhampton is Queensland's 14th council to get rid of fluoride. December 2008 Southampton's health chiefs hailed Queensland for adding fluoride to the water of 3.7 million residents, saying further proof the city should follow suit, ROCKHAMPTON TO REMOVE FLUORIDE FROM LOCAL WATER SUPPLY Submitted by Davell Wilkins on Wed, 05/15/2013 - 09:20. Rockhampton to Remove Fluoride from Local Water Supply. Rockhampton Mayor Margaret Strelow said that removal of fluoride from the local water supply in the central Queensland city was the fairest outcome. The State Government amended a mandate from the previous labor administration to remove fluoride from the water supply. this has made the rockhampton regional council the 14th local government to remove fluoride from the local water supply. COUNCILLOR STRELOW SAID THE COMMUNITY WAS FRUSTRATED WITH NEVER ENDING DEBATES OVER THE ISSUE. THEY REALLY WANTED THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SOME DECISION. - http://topnews.us/co ntent/255064-rockham pton-remove-fluoride -local-water-supply Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Sat 18 May 13

Dan Soton says...

Fluoridation Endgame.. Tragic, it's only children that brush their teeth that get Fluorosis




So, ex Health Secretary Alan Johnson's Pro Fluoridation argument is.. Children in deprived areas do not brush their teeth its only children that brush their teeth that get Fluorosis






MINISTERS LAUNCH FLUORIDE DRIVE

Last Updated: Tuesday, 5 February 2008, 09:27 GMT

Health Secretary Alan Johnson has called for fluoride to be added to England's water supplies as a key means of tackling tooth decay.

He wants strategic health authorities (SHAs), which are already able to compel water companies to add the chemical, to use those powers.

Critics argue the long term health risks of fluoridation are unknown.

At present, about 10% of England's water is fluoridated - mainly in the north-east and West Midlands.

FLUORIDE IS ONLY BEING ADDED TO PREVENT TOOTH DECAY AMONG A RELATIVELY SMALL PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION, MOSTLY CHILDREN IN DEPRIVED AREAS WHO DO NOT BRUSH THEIR TEETH

While legislation was introduced in 2003 giving SHAs the final say on whether fluoride should be added to local supplies, so far none of them have made use of those powers.
The government has no power itself to compel SHAs to act.

The last time a fluoridation scheme was introduced was 1985.

Anti-fluoride campaigners say more research is needed to establish the risks. There have been suggestions of a heightened risk of cancer, infertility and bone fractures, but these have never been substantiated.

HOWEVER EXCESS FLUORIDE IS ASSOCIATED WITH DISCOLOURING OF THE TEETH, A CONDITION KNOWN AS FLUOROSIS.


BUT MR JOHNSON SAID THIS ONLY CAME ABOUT WHEN CHILDREN "ATE TOOTHPASTE".


http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/health/722785
9.stm






Mr Alan Johnson, It's never too late to retract a stupid statement
Fluoridation Endgame.. Tragic, it's only children that brush their teeth that get Fluorosis So, ex Health Secretary Alan Johnson's Pro Fluoridation argument is.. Children in deprived areas do not brush their teeth its only children that brush their teeth that get Fluorosis MINISTERS LAUNCH FLUORIDE DRIVE Last Updated: Tuesday, 5 February 2008, 09:27 GMT Health Secretary Alan Johnson has called for fluoride to be added to England's water supplies as a key means of tackling tooth decay. He wants strategic health authorities (SHAs), which are already able to compel water companies to add the chemical, to use those powers. Critics argue the long term health risks of fluoridation are unknown. At present, about 10% of England's water is fluoridated - mainly in the north-east and West Midlands. FLUORIDE IS ONLY BEING ADDED TO PREVENT TOOTH DECAY AMONG A RELATIVELY SMALL PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION, MOSTLY CHILDREN IN DEPRIVED AREAS WHO DO NOT BRUSH THEIR TEETH While legislation was introduced in 2003 giving SHAs the final say on whether fluoride should be added to local supplies, so far none of them have made use of those powers. The government has no power itself to compel SHAs to act. The last time a fluoridation scheme was introduced was 1985. Anti-fluoride campaigners say more research is needed to establish the risks. There have been suggestions of a heightened risk of cancer, infertility and bone fractures, but these have never been substantiated. HOWEVER EXCESS FLUORIDE IS ASSOCIATED WITH DISCOLOURING OF THE TEETH, A CONDITION KNOWN AS FLUOROSIS. BUT MR JOHNSON SAID THIS ONLY CAME ABOUT WHEN CHILDREN "ATE TOOTHPASTE". http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/health/722785 9.stm Mr Alan Johnson, It's never too late to retract a stupid statement Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Sun 19 May 13

Dan Soton says...

Fluoridation Endgame.. The conclusions of the University of York's systematic review of Water Fluoridation





I can't, can anyone here find any evidence within the much lauded/praised ( by fluoridation advocates) York review to justify the Fluoridation of Southampton’s drinking water?




SUMMARY


1) The degree to which caries is reduced, is not clear from the data available.


2) The association between water fluoridation, caries and social class needs further clarification.


3) Negative effects of water fluoridation were examined as broadly as possible. The effects on dental fluorosis are the clearest. There is a dose-response relationship between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis.


4) The outcomes related to infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ indicate a need for further high quality research.


5) The evidence on natural versus artificial fluoride sources was extremely limited, and direct comparisons were not possible for most outcomes.


6) The primary limitation of the review is the quality of the research... Insufficient data prevented statistical pooling of data on social class effects, cancer, other adverse effects, and natural versus artificial fluoride effects.


7) Total fluoride exposure has increased over recent years, particularly in industrialised nations. Exposure to fluoride from sources other than water may alter the amount required in water .


8) The search strategies used in this review did not specifically identify research related to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation


9) The available evidence shows that fluorosis occurs in approximately 48% of the population at water fluoridation levels of 1.0ppm.


10) The two most important factors missing from the current set of studies are adjusting for confounding factors.. frequency of sugar consumption and the level of spending on dental health.





THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF YORK'S SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF WATER FLUORIDATION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

--------------------
--------------------
--------------

OBJECTIVE 1: WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES ON THE INCIDENCE OF CARIES?

The best available evidence (level B) from studies on the initiation and discontinuation of water fluoridation suggests that fluoridation does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries-free and by the mean dmft/DMFT score. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. The range of the mean difference in the proportion (%) of caries-free children is -5.0 to 64%, with a median of 14.6% (interquartile range 5.05, 22.1%). The range of mean change in dmft/DMFT score was from 0.5 to 4.4, median 2.25 teeth (interquartile range 1.28, 3.63 teeth). It is estimtaed that a median of six people need to receive fluoridated water for one extra person to be caries-free (interquartile range of study NNTs 4, 9). The best available evidence on stopping water fluoridation indicates that when fluoridation is discontinued caries prevalence appears to increase in the area that had been fluoridated compared with the control area. Interpreting from this data the degree to which water fluoridation works to reduce caries is more difficult. The studies included for Objective 1 were of moderate quality (level B), and limited quantity.


OBJECTIVE 2: IF FLUORIDATION IS SHOWN TO HAVE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS, WHAT IS THE EFFECT OVER AND ABOVE THAT OFFERED BY THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE INTERVENTIONS AND STRATEGIES?

An effect of water fluoridation was still evident in studies completed after 1974 in spite of the assumed exposure to fluoride from other sources by the populations studied. The meta-regression conducted for Objective 1 confirmed this finding. The studies included for Objective 2 were also of moderate quality (level B), but of limited quantity


OBJECTIVE 3: DOES FLUORIDATION RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF CARIES ACROSS SOCIAL GROUPS AND BETWEEN GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS?

The available evidence on social class effects of water fluoridation in reducing caries appears to suggest a benefit in reducing the differences in severity of tooth decay (as measured by dmft/DMFT) between classes among five and 12 year-old children. No effect on the overall measure of proportion of caries-free children was detected. However, the quality of the evidence is low (level C), and based on a small number of studies. The association between water fluoridation, caries and social class needs further clarification.


OBJECTIVE 4: DOES FLUORIDATION HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS?

The possible negative effects of water fluoridation were examined as broadly as possible. The effects on dental fluorosis are the clearest. There is a dose-response relationship between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis. Fluorosis appears to occur frequently (predicted 48%, 95% CI 40 to 57) at fluoride levels typically used in artificial fluoridation schemes (1 ppm). The proportion of fluorosis that is aesthetically concerning is lower (predicted 12.5%, 95% CI 7.0 to 21.5). Although 88 studies of fluorosis were included, they were of low quality (level C). The best available evidence on the association of water fluoridation and bone fractures (27 of 29 studies evidence level C) show no association. Similarly, the best available evidence on the association of water fluoridation and cancers (21 of 26 studies evidence level C) show no association. The miscellaneous other adverse effects studied did not provide enough good quality evidence on any particular outcome to reach conclusions.

The outcomes related to infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ indicate a need for further high quality research, using appropriate analytical methods to control for confounding factors. While fluorosis can occur within a few years of exposure during tooth development, other potential adverse effects may require long-term exposure to occur. It is possible that this long-term exposure has not been captured by these studies.


OBJECTIVE 5: ARE THERE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION?

The evidence on natural versus artificial fluoride sources was extremely limited, and direct comparisons were not possible for most outcomes. While no major differences were apparent in this review, the evidence is not adequate to reach a conclusion regarding this objective.


LIMITATIONS OF THIS SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

In conducting a large systematic review that extends back to the late 1930's, limitations are inevitable.

The primary limitation of the review is the quality of the research included.

The first limitations revolve around the search strategies. More non-English language databases (particularly Russian and Chinese) could have been searched. The impact of failing to search such databases is unknown and the logistic and financial impact of trying to do so would be significant.

Some reports were difficult to obtain. However, out of over 730 articles, only 14 were not retrieved.

Attempts were made to contact authors to assist in locating further reports, but due to the age of the research were not successful.

Additional difficulties were encountered in obtaining some theses and dissertations. Given the comprehensive nature of the search, the completeness of retrieval, and the openness of the review process to the public, the review team feels that it is unlikely that a key study of sufficient size and quality to change any of the findings was missed.

Even comprehensive searches such as that used here may result in a biased collection of studies.

Since studies showing a statistically significant result are more likely to be published, the set of published studies located may represent a biased sample and over-estimate an effect (positive or negative).

The validity assessment of the included studies (Appendix D) used a checklist scoring system. This approach can be criticised for lack of sensitivity, in that studies are assessed for having done the items on the list, but not necessarily how well they were conducted. For example, a study could receive points for controlling for confounding factors, but the analysis may not have been performed correctly.

The lack of variance data in some studies, particularly for Objectives 1 and 2, limited the amount of data that could be included in the analyses. Insufficient data prevented statistical pooling of data on social class effects, cancer, other adverse effects, and natural versus artificial fluoride effects.

Generally, low to moderate study qualities limit the strength of the possible inferences that can be made.

Some of the studies included in the meta-regression analyses contribute more than one observation to the meta-analysis. It has been assumed in the meta-regression analyses that these observations are independent, and hence each estimate has been treated as though it came from a separate study.

For example for studies that report results stratified by age but present no summary measure, results for all strata are included separately in the analysis. However, this approach may introduce bias in the results. Any confounding factors not controlled for, or bias in the study design is likely to be similar for all estimates coming from the same study. Including these estimates as separate estimates in the regression analyses could have the effect of compounding these sources of bias. Study level variables, such as study length and validity score, will also be the same for all the estimates that come from a single study. The direction or degree of any effect of this potential bias is unknown.


OTHER FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

The scope of this review is not broad enough to answer independently the question 'should fluoridation be undertaken on a broad scale in the UK'? Important considerations outside the bounds of this review include the cost-effectiveness of a fluoridation program, total fluoride exposure from environmental and non-environmental sources other than water environmental and ecological effects of artificial fluoridation and the ethical and legal debates. This review did not include animal or laboratory studies because studies on humans were available and would give more reliable estimates of any potential benefits and harms.


ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

If a benefit of water fluoridation on caries occurrence was demonstrated, the cost-effectiveness of such an intervention relative to other strategies would need to be carefully considered. The search strategies used in this review did not specifically identify research related to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation. A search of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database did not identify any recent studies meeting the criteria for a full economic evaluation.

This review is presenting new information on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in preventing caries and the effects on fluorosis, which previous economic analyses would not have had.


TOTAL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE

There is some suggestion that total fluoride exposure has increased over recent years, particularly in industrialised nations. Exposure to fluoride from sources other than water may alter the amount required in water for optimum caries reduction and is thus a potential confounding factor in studies of the association between water fluoridation and negative effects. Because sources of fluoride exposure vary, this may be a difficult issue to examine, in that exposure would need to be measured at the person level, rather than at the population level. However, if two study areas are comparable, in all respects, the fluoride exposure from non-water sources (e.g. tea) should also be similar. There are studies that have measured total fluoride exposure in people exposed to fluoridated and nonfluoridated water, but these did not meet inclusion criteria for this review (Guha-Chowdhury, 1996, Mansfield, 1999). Because of potential toxicity of very high doses of fluoride, it would seem sensible that any future studies should attempt to measure total fluoride exposure in areas being researched.


INFORMATION TO GUIDE PRACTICE

The available evidence shows that water fluoridation reduces the prevalence of caries. The median difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in the proportion of children who are cariesfree is 14.6%, while the reduction in the number of teeth affected (dmft/DMFT score) is 2.3. The available evidence shows that fluorosis occurs in approximately 48% of the population at water fluoridation levels of 1.0ppm. The proportion who have teeth that are affected enough to cause aesthetic concern is approximately 12.5%. The quality of these data on benefit and harm is in general only low to moderate, and should be interpreted with caution, especially considering the significant heterogeneity between studies. The benefit and harm data need to be considered in conjunction when making decisions about water fluoridation.


IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Although there has been considerable research in this area, the quality is generally low. The research needs that have been identified through this systematic review are described below.


CARIES STUDIES

The two most important factors missing from the current set of studies are adjusting for confounding factors using standard analytic techniques, and reporting variance data. In addition to the potential confounding factors noted in section 4.2.2, frequency of sugar consumption, measurement of total exposure to all sources of fluoride, the number of erupted teeth per child, and the level of spending on dental health in intervention and control areas should be included. Blinding of observers should be attempted and at least standardisation of the assessment would be essential to reduce the potential impact of observer bias. Studies should also consider changes in social class structure over time.

Only one included study addressed the positive effects of fluoridation in the adult population.

Assessment of the long-term benefits of water fluoridation is needed.

It would be logical to include an assessment of adverse effects alongside any future study of caries.

While fluorosis may be evident in young populations within a few years of starting fluoridation, other potential adverse effects may take longer to occur, or may occur largely in an adult population.

Most of the evidence on social class effects of fluoridation was from cross-sectional studies of low quality. If further studies are considered, social class effects could be incorporated into a study of fluoridation efficacy. More research into the most appropriate tool to measure social class in relation to dental health is also needed.


ADVERSE EFFECTS STUDIES

The results of this review suggest that a dose-response relationship exists between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis. Future studies should address the impact of using lower levels of water fluoride content, such as 0.8ppm in a formal way in conjunction with an efficacy study. The potential confounding factors and causes of between study heterogeneity identified in this review should be controlled for in the analysis.

With bone fracture and cancer studies, the evidence is very balanced around the 'no effect' mark. If any further research is considered, controlling for confounding factors and ensuring adequate blinding should be a priority.

The other possible adverse effect studies suffered greatly by not sufficiently controlling for important confounding factors, many of which were discussed by authors in the study reports, but not controlled for. Very few of the possible adverse effects studied appeared to show a possible effect. High quality research that takes confounding factors into account is needed.


ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS

When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of an intervention such as water fluoridation, there are key factors to be considered. The costs of the intervention are weighed against the benefits. A full economic evaluation of water fluoridation should include a complete accounting of the potential costs of the intervention (cost of fluoridating, administration costs, and quality assurance costs) and the benefits. Examples of the benefits that should be included are the reduction in caries that is assumed, any changes in the number of dental visits, procedures, and long-term effects such as changes in the need for dentures. The quality of life (QOL) of those who receive the intervention should be measured, in comparison to those not receiving the intervention (such as the effect of not losing teeth to caries, the effect of having fluorosed teeth, anxiety associated with dental visits, and dental pain).

Indirect costs of travel time and time off work for parents to take children to the dentists could also be included. Such an economic evaluation could be done along side an intervention study measuring actual resource use and costs, or as a modelling exercise using the most accurate efficacy data (e.g. from this systematic review). Differences in dental resource use among social classes should also be investigated.


-


http://www.york.ac.u
k/inst/crd/CRD_Repor
ts/crdreport18.pdf
Fluoridation Endgame.. The conclusions of the University of York's systematic review of Water Fluoridation I can't, can anyone here find any evidence within the much lauded/praised ( by fluoridation advocates) York review to justify the Fluoridation of Southampton’s drinking water? SUMMARY 1) The degree to which caries is reduced, is not clear from the data available. 2) The association between water fluoridation, caries and social class needs further clarification. 3) Negative effects of water fluoridation were examined as broadly as possible. The effects on dental fluorosis are the clearest. There is a dose-response relationship between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis. 4) The outcomes related to infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ indicate a need for further high quality research. 5) The evidence on natural versus artificial fluoride sources was extremely limited, and direct comparisons were not possible for most outcomes. 6) The primary limitation of the review is the quality of the research... Insufficient data prevented statistical pooling of data on social class effects, cancer, other adverse effects, and natural versus artificial fluoride effects. 7) Total fluoride exposure has increased over recent years, particularly in industrialised nations. Exposure to fluoride from sources other than water may alter the amount required in water . 8) The search strategies used in this review did not specifically identify research related to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation 9) The available evidence shows that fluorosis occurs in approximately 48% of the population at water fluoridation levels of 1.0ppm. 10) The two most important factors missing from the current set of studies are adjusting for confounding factors.. frequency of sugar consumption and the level of spending on dental health. THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF YORK'S SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF WATER FLUORIDATION ARE AS FOLLOWS: -------------------- -------------------- -------------- OBJECTIVE 1: WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES ON THE INCIDENCE OF CARIES? The best available evidence (level B) from studies on the initiation and discontinuation of water fluoridation suggests that fluoridation does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries-free and by the mean dmft/DMFT score. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. The range of the mean difference in the proportion (%) of caries-free children is -5.0 to 64%, with a median of 14.6% (interquartile range 5.05, 22.1%). The range of mean change in dmft/DMFT score was from 0.5 to 4.4, median 2.25 teeth (interquartile range 1.28, 3.63 teeth). It is estimtaed that a median of six people need to receive fluoridated water for one extra person to be caries-free (interquartile range of study NNTs 4, 9). The best available evidence on stopping water fluoridation indicates that when fluoridation is discontinued caries prevalence appears to increase in the area that had been fluoridated compared with the control area. Interpreting from this data the degree to which water fluoridation works to reduce caries is more difficult. The studies included for Objective 1 were of moderate quality (level B), and limited quantity. OBJECTIVE 2: IF FLUORIDATION IS SHOWN TO HAVE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS, WHAT IS THE EFFECT OVER AND ABOVE THAT OFFERED BY THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE INTERVENTIONS AND STRATEGIES? An effect of water fluoridation was still evident in studies completed after 1974 in spite of the assumed exposure to fluoride from other sources by the populations studied. The meta-regression conducted for Objective 1 confirmed this finding. The studies included for Objective 2 were also of moderate quality (level B), but of limited quantity OBJECTIVE 3: DOES FLUORIDATION RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF CARIES ACROSS SOCIAL GROUPS AND BETWEEN GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS? The available evidence on social class effects of water fluoridation in reducing caries appears to suggest a benefit in reducing the differences in severity of tooth decay (as measured by dmft/DMFT) between classes among five and 12 year-old children. No effect on the overall measure of proportion of caries-free children was detected. However, the quality of the evidence is low (level C), and based on a small number of studies. The association between water fluoridation, caries and social class needs further clarification. OBJECTIVE 4: DOES FLUORIDATION HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? The possible negative effects of water fluoridation were examined as broadly as possible. The effects on dental fluorosis are the clearest. There is a dose-response relationship between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis. Fluorosis appears to occur frequently (predicted 48%, 95% CI 40 to 57) at fluoride levels typically used in artificial fluoridation schemes (1 ppm). The proportion of fluorosis that is aesthetically concerning is lower (predicted 12.5%, 95% CI 7.0 to 21.5). Although 88 studies of fluorosis were included, they were of low quality (level C). The best available evidence on the association of water fluoridation and bone fractures (27 of 29 studies evidence level C) show no association. Similarly, the best available evidence on the association of water fluoridation and cancers (21 of 26 studies evidence level C) show no association. The miscellaneous other adverse effects studied did not provide enough good quality evidence on any particular outcome to reach conclusions. The outcomes related to infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ indicate a need for further high quality research, using appropriate analytical methods to control for confounding factors. While fluorosis can occur within a few years of exposure during tooth development, other potential adverse effects may require long-term exposure to occur. It is possible that this long-term exposure has not been captured by these studies. OBJECTIVE 5: ARE THERE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION? The evidence on natural versus artificial fluoride sources was extremely limited, and direct comparisons were not possible for most outcomes. While no major differences were apparent in this review, the evidence is not adequate to reach a conclusion regarding this objective. LIMITATIONS OF THIS SYSTEMATIC REVIEW In conducting a large systematic review that extends back to the late 1930's, limitations are inevitable. The primary limitation of the review is the quality of the research included. The first limitations revolve around the search strategies. More non-English language databases (particularly Russian and Chinese) could have been searched. The impact of failing to search such databases is unknown and the logistic and financial impact of trying to do so would be significant. Some reports were difficult to obtain. However, out of over 730 articles, only 14 were not retrieved. Attempts were made to contact authors to assist in locating further reports, but due to the age of the research were not successful. Additional difficulties were encountered in obtaining some theses and dissertations. Given the comprehensive nature of the search, the completeness of retrieval, and the openness of the review process to the public, the review team feels that it is unlikely that a key study of sufficient size and quality to change any of the findings was missed. Even comprehensive searches such as that used here may result in a biased collection of studies. Since studies showing a statistically significant result are more likely to be published, the set of published studies located may represent a biased sample and over-estimate an effect (positive or negative). The validity assessment of the included studies (Appendix D) used a checklist scoring system. This approach can be criticised for lack of sensitivity, in that studies are assessed for having done the items on the list, but not necessarily how well they were conducted. For example, a study could receive points for controlling for confounding factors, but the analysis may not have been performed correctly. The lack of variance data in some studies, particularly for Objectives 1 and 2, limited the amount of data that could be included in the analyses. Insufficient data prevented statistical pooling of data on social class effects, cancer, other adverse effects, and natural versus artificial fluoride effects. Generally, low to moderate study qualities limit the strength of the possible inferences that can be made. Some of the studies included in the meta-regression analyses contribute more than one observation to the meta-analysis. It has been assumed in the meta-regression analyses that these observations are independent, and hence each estimate has been treated as though it came from a separate study. For example for studies that report results stratified by age but present no summary measure, results for all strata are included separately in the analysis. However, this approach may introduce bias in the results. Any confounding factors not controlled for, or bias in the study design is likely to be similar for all estimates coming from the same study. Including these estimates as separate estimates in the regression analyses could have the effect of compounding these sources of bias. Study level variables, such as study length and validity score, will also be the same for all the estimates that come from a single study. The direction or degree of any effect of this potential bias is unknown. OTHER FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED The scope of this review is not broad enough to answer independently the question 'should fluoridation be undertaken on a broad scale in the UK'? Important considerations outside the bounds of this review include the cost-effectiveness of a fluoridation program, total fluoride exposure from environmental and non-environmental sources other than water environmental and ecological effects of artificial fluoridation and the ethical and legal debates. This review did not include animal or laboratory studies because studies on humans were available and would give more reliable estimates of any potential benefits and harms. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS If a benefit of water fluoridation on caries occurrence was demonstrated, the cost-effectiveness of such an intervention relative to other strategies would need to be carefully considered. The search strategies used in this review did not specifically identify research related to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation. A search of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database did not identify any recent studies meeting the criteria for a full economic evaluation. This review is presenting new information on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in preventing caries and the effects on fluorosis, which previous economic analyses would not have had. TOTAL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE There is some suggestion that total fluoride exposure has increased over recent years, particularly in industrialised nations. Exposure to fluoride from sources other than water may alter the amount required in water for optimum caries reduction and is thus a potential confounding factor in studies of the association between water fluoridation and negative effects. Because sources of fluoride exposure vary, this may be a difficult issue to examine, in that exposure would need to be measured at the person level, rather than at the population level. However, if two study areas are comparable, in all respects, the fluoride exposure from non-water sources (e.g. tea) should also be similar. There are studies that have measured total fluoride exposure in people exposed to fluoridated and nonfluoridated water, but these did not meet inclusion criteria for this review (Guha-Chowdhury, 1996, Mansfield, 1999). Because of potential toxicity of very high doses of fluoride, it would seem sensible that any future studies should attempt to measure total fluoride exposure in areas being researched. INFORMATION TO GUIDE PRACTICE The available evidence shows that water fluoridation reduces the prevalence of caries. The median difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in the proportion of children who are cariesfree is 14.6%, while the reduction in the number of teeth affected (dmft/DMFT score) is 2.3. The available evidence shows that fluorosis occurs in approximately 48% of the population at water fluoridation levels of 1.0ppm. The proportion who have teeth that are affected enough to cause aesthetic concern is approximately 12.5%. The quality of these data on benefit and harm is in general only low to moderate, and should be interpreted with caution, especially considering the significant heterogeneity between studies. The benefit and harm data need to be considered in conjunction when making decisions about water fluoridation. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH Although there has been considerable research in this area, the quality is generally low. The research needs that have been identified through this systematic review are described below. CARIES STUDIES The two most important factors missing from the current set of studies are adjusting for confounding factors using standard analytic techniques, and reporting variance data. In addition to the potential confounding factors noted in section 4.2.2, frequency of sugar consumption, measurement of total exposure to all sources of fluoride, the number of erupted teeth per child, and the level of spending on dental health in intervention and control areas should be included. Blinding of observers should be attempted and at least standardisation of the assessment would be essential to reduce the potential impact of observer bias. Studies should also consider changes in social class structure over time. Only one included study addressed the positive effects of fluoridation in the adult population. Assessment of the long-term benefits of water fluoridation is needed. It would be logical to include an assessment of adverse effects alongside any future study of caries. While fluorosis may be evident in young populations within a few years of starting fluoridation, other potential adverse effects may take longer to occur, or may occur largely in an adult population. Most of the evidence on social class effects of fluoridation was from cross-sectional studies of low quality. If further studies are considered, social class effects could be incorporated into a study of fluoridation efficacy. More research into the most appropriate tool to measure social class in relation to dental health is also needed. ADVERSE EFFECTS STUDIES The results of this review suggest that a dose-response relationship exists between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis. Future studies should address the impact of using lower levels of water fluoride content, such as 0.8ppm in a formal way in conjunction with an efficacy study. The potential confounding factors and causes of between study heterogeneity identified in this review should be controlled for in the analysis. With bone fracture and cancer studies, the evidence is very balanced around the 'no effect' mark. If any further research is considered, controlling for confounding factors and ensuring adequate blinding should be a priority. The other possible adverse effect studies suffered greatly by not sufficiently controlling for important confounding factors, many of which were discussed by authors in the study reports, but not controlled for. Very few of the possible adverse effects studied appeared to show a possible effect. High quality research that takes confounding factors into account is needed. ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of an intervention such as water fluoridation, there are key factors to be considered. The costs of the intervention are weighed against the benefits. A full economic evaluation of water fluoridation should include a complete accounting of the potential costs of the intervention (cost of fluoridating, administration costs, and quality assurance costs) and the benefits. Examples of the benefits that should be included are the reduction in caries that is assumed, any changes in the number of dental visits, procedures, and long-term effects such as changes in the need for dentures. The quality of life (QOL) of those who receive the intervention should be measured, in comparison to those not receiving the intervention (such as the effect of not losing teeth to caries, the effect of having fluorosed teeth, anxiety associated with dental visits, and dental pain). Indirect costs of travel time and time off work for parents to take children to the dentists could also be included. Such an economic evaluation could be done along side an intervention study measuring actual resource use and costs, or as a modelling exercise using the most accurate efficacy data (e.g. from this systematic review). Differences in dental resource use among social classes should also be investigated. - http://www.york.ac.u k/inst/crd/CRD_Repor ts/crdreport18.pdf Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Mon 20 May 13

Dan Soton says...

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



Thanks to this independent report 2 million Canadians in four Cities no longer drink Fluoridated Water.

Using this report.. The former (retired last year) Chief Water Sanitation engineer for Israel, who first introduced Fluoridation is taking a historic High Court case against the Israeli State to End Fluoridation .



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 begins to present in a healthy population after the age of 65 therefore the fact that significantly more individuals under 60 (who have been longer exposed to fluoride in drinking water) have dementia in the ROI compared to NI or that there are more adults under the age of 59 with dementia compared to the age group between 60-64 or 65 to 70 years of age raises urgent and serious Public Health Investigation of Epidemiological data on Disease and Mortality in Ireland related to Water Fluoridation concerns regarding the contribution of exposure to aluminofluorides and fluoride in drinking water to high levels of dementia in the ROI.

The risk of developing dementia increases exponentially with age, it is known that the prevalence of dementia doubles every five years from the age of 65 years onwards. The significance of this frightening variation in early offset dementia in the ROI is clearly represented in the stark differences in prevalence of young dementia present in the Republic of Ireland compared to non-fluoridated Northern Ireland.

There are 396 cases of young offset dementia for people under 65 years of age in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland compared to 4505 in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland. The population of NI is 1,789,000 and the ROI is 4,487,000. The population adjusted number of young offset dementia cases for NI when compared to ROI would be equivalent to 990.

THE FACT THAT THE RATE OF YOUNG OFFSET DEMENTIA IN THE FLUORIDATED REGION OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND IS 4.5 TIMES THAT OF NON-FLUORIDATED NI IS DEEPLY WORRYING AND DEMONSTRATES BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT A CLEAR ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INCREASED EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE AND AIF ARE SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTORS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS DISEASE IN THE ROI.

AUTISM

Autism is a lifelong disability which affects the social and communication centre of the brain. The prevalence of autism in Ireland is estimated to be 1.1% which is similar to the recently reported figure of 1/100 (0.9% by the Centre for Disease Control in the US.
These are among the highest rates of autism in any population in the world and they continue to rise.

A survey by the Office of National Statistics of the mental health of children and young people in Great Britain found a prevalence rate of 0.9% while a recent briefing the National Autistic Society in the UK found the prevalence of autism to be 0.58 % of children in the UK. This gives a potential increased prevalence in autism between 89% and 22% (mean of 55%) between the Republic of Ireland and UK. It is widely acknowledged that the prevalence of autism has increased 10 fold per decade since earlier epidemiology studies in the 1970's. This represents the period post commencement of fluoridation in the ROI.

By late 1970 over 52% of the population of Ireland were provided with fluoridated water. Although it was widely maintained that the increase in incidence was until recently, in part largely attributed to better diagnostic procedures, Hertz-Picciotto and Delwiche concluded in a recent major examination of autism that "younger ages at diagnosis, differential migration, changes in diagnostic criteria, and inclusion of milder cases do not fully explain the observed increases." After publication of the article, the author noted that some environmental toxin/contaminant must be responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism

COMPARISON WITH NORTHERN IRELAND AND EUROPE

ACCORDING TO FIGURES FROM THE CARDIAC REHABILITATION UNIT, WEXFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL, THE NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE IN IRELAND IS 60,7 PER 100,000, ALMOST TWICE THE EU AVERAGE OF 32.6. IN COMPARISON THE AGE STANDARDIZED DEATH RATE FROM CHD IN NORTHERN IRELAND IS 60.44 FOR MEN AND WOMEN 21.01. THE HIGHER MORTALITY RATES IN SOUTHERN IRELAND ARE UNEXPECTED GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE THAT EDUCATION, POVERTY, STRESS AND SOCIAL CONFLICT PLAY IN HEART DISEASE.

The influence of the these factors and period of the 'Troubles' is clearly evident in the mortality rates for within NI. Significantly higher CHD prevalence is noted in the geographic areas with the highest social inequality, poverty and unemployment.

These same areas not only represent those that are the most socially deprived but also where conflict and trauma were most prevalent during the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland. For example significantly higher CHD rates for males are to be found in Derry (80.09), Belfast.(89.05) and Ballymena (115.45) compared to more rural areas such as Castlereagh (30.08) Antrim (24.9) and Moyle (33.48).

In comparing CHD in Ireland with Europe the Age-standardized Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 100,000 for CHD, stroke and other CVD, provides further insights to the impact of CHD and the gap between Ireland and other European Member States. The DALYS for CHD for Ireland is calculated at 671 compared to the UK (657), Iceland (470), Norway (503), for Sweden (506), Denmark (478), Germany (574), France (259), Spain (367) and the Netherlands (460). A similar pattern is provided for CVS.418

COMPARISON WITH UK AND EUROPE.

FOR 2004 THE AGE-STANDARDIZED DEATH RATES PER 100,000 POPULATION FROM DISEASES OF THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM FOR EU, EUROPE, UK AND IRELAND WERE 52, 57, 86 AND 101 RESPECTIVELY. IRELAND HAD A 17% INCREASED MORTALITY COMPARED TO UK AND APPROXIMATELY 100% HIGHER MORTALITY COMPARED TO THE EUROPEAN REGION.

CANCER KEY FINDINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

The NRC noted several studies which found associations between fluoride exposure and bladder cancer, osteosarcoma, thyroid cancer, oral-Pharyngeal cancer, uterine cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, colorectal cancer, and lip
cancer and concluded:

? "Alternations in DNA suggest that Fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential.., Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers."

? "Aluminium Fluoride complexes impair the polymerization-depol
arization cycle of tubulin."

? "The plausibility of the bladder as a target for fluoride is supported by the tendency of hydrogen fluoride to form under physiological acid conditions, such as in urine. Hydrogen fluoride is caustic and might increase potential for cellular damage, including genotoxicity.

? "Alternations in DNA suggest that the chemical (Fluoride) has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential."

? "Fluoride has a role in p53 mutations that could influence the development of osteosarcoma"

? "Human leukemic cells lines may also be susceptible to the effects of hexafluorosilicicate the compound used for fluoridation."

? "PERHAPS THE SINGLE CLEAREST EFFECT OF FLUORIDE ON THE SKELETON IS ITS STIMULATION OF OSTEOBLAST PROLIFERATION. BECAUSE FLUORIDE STIMULATES OSTEOBLASTS PROLIFERATION, THERE IS A THEORETICAL RISK THAT IT MIGHT INDUCE A MALIGNANT CHANGE IN THE EXPANDING CELL POPULATION."

? "Fluorides increases the production of free radicals in the brain" According to the peer reviewed Journal of Free Radical Biology and Medicine (Volume 2 Issue 2, 1988) "Free radicals participate in the development of carcinogenesis, particularly tumour promotion.

This is position is supported by the National Cancer Institute at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The European Journal of Cancer (Jan 1996 32A(30-8)) similarly concluded that "(a large body of evidence suggests important roles of oxygen free radical in the expansion of tumour clones and the acquisition of malignant properties. In view of these facts, oxygen free radicals may be considered as an important class of carcinogens.

The U.S Public Health Service published the findings of a study (1991) that examined Fluoridation of Drinking Water and subsequent Cancer Incidence and Mortality, in which they found increases in soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, colorectal cancer and lip cancer in people living in Fluoridated communities. (Ref: U.S. National Research Council, Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review, 2006). An association of uterine cancer (combination of cervical and corpus uteri) with fluoridation was reported by Tohyama425 (1996), who observed mortality rates in Okinawa before and after fluoridation was terminated, controlling for socio-demographics.

Ireland has been found to have the highest incidence rate of Prostate and Ovarian cancer in Europe, as well as higher incidence rates of colorectal, lung, nonHodgkin's Lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers compared to the European average.

CANCER INCIDENCE IN IRELAND

The National Research Council report highlighted published reports which found that fluoride may contribute to bladder cancer, brain cancer, leukemic and lymphoma cell lines, uterine cancer skin cancers as well as other cancers such as nonHodgkin's lymphoma. The scientific committee highlighted the carcinogenic potential of fluoride and unanimously concluded that fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate and promote cancers.

An annual average of 29,745 cancer cases was registered during the three year period 2007-2009 This represents an increase of 12% from the annual average over the previous three year period (2004-2006) and is approximately 50% more cancers per year than in the mid 1990's when data on cancer in Ireland was first collected on a national basis. This equates to 681 cases per 100,000 persons per year.

ACCORDING TO WHO DATA IN THE YEAR 2000 THE CANCER INCIDENT IN THE POPULATION OF IRELAND WAS 583.03 PER 100,000, THE HIGHEST IN WESTERN EUROPE. THIS WAS 68% ABOVE THE MEAN FOR THE EUROPEAN REGION AND 30% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE. IN 2008 THE CANCER INCIDENCE HAD RISEN 20% TO 698.1 PER 100,000, 85% ABOVE THE CORRESPONDING INCIDENCE RATE FOR EUROPEAN REGION AND 43% ABOVE THE EU INCIDENCE RATE.

The All Ireland Cancer Atlas (1995-2007)427 provides an examination of eighteen cancers sites in both ROI and NI. Of these seven demonstrated significant increased risk in the ROI compared to NI. In addition increased risk was also observed in the ROI compared to NI for colorectal cancer, stomach, kidney, ovarian and cancer of the corpus uteri. Separately the WHO have recorded that overall cancer incidence per 100,000 in the ROI is 38% higher than for the UK as a whole.

A small number of cancers were found to be or higher risk in NI compared to ROI, however similar incidences were also recorded in geographic areas in the South.

The risk of lung cancer was significantly higher in NI compared to ROI for both men (by 11%) and women (by 7%). The highest risk was to be found in urban areas of Belfast (NI), Dublin (ROI), Derry (NI) and Cork (ROI), and also in Louth, Kildare, Carlow and Wicklow (all-ROI). As with other cancers the increased risk was associated with increased population density, unemployment and low levels of education. The fact is, that similar incidence of lung cancers were found in major cities and urban areas in ROI compared to NI. One clearly cannot discount the significant impact of 'the 'Troubles' on consumption of tobacco as it is well documented that smoking rates are significantly higher among persons exposed to a traumatic event relative to those without such exposure. It is evident that the reduced incidence or risk of lung cancer in the population of ROI is therefore largely due to the impact of the 'Troubles' in NI with associated increased stress including post-traumatic stress, higher incidence of smoking. It is also evident that a larger rural population resident in ROI (mostly with non-fluoridated water, similar to NI) as well as lower levels of unemployment and better levels of education compared to NI would also be significant factors in reducing the overall mean incidence for the ROI. Compared to ROI, the risk of head and neck cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was greater for women but not men in NI, this however would be expected due to the increase risk of lung cancer as cigarette smoking has also been found to increase the risk of developing follicular lymphoma.

Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI.431 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 and 43% above the EU average.

THESE ARE STARK AND ALARMING VARIATIONS AND UNEXPECTED GIVEN THAT THE PRIMARY RISK FACTORS (EXCLUDING FLUORIDE EXPOSURE) FOR DEVELOPING CANCER ARE LOWER IN ROI THAN ALMOST EVERY OTHER COUNTRY INCLUDING NI. THE INCIDENCE OF PROSTATE, COLORECTAL AND BREAST CANCER ARE HIGHER IN ROI COMPARED TO NI, HIGHER INCIDENCE RATES OF THESE CANCERS ARE ALSO TO BE FOUND IN CANADA, NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA.

Prostate cancer incidence was 29% higher in the ROI compared to NI. The incidence of prostate cancer in the ROI is the highest of all 30 European countries and was over 60% higher than the EU average. In fact the incidence for Ireland is 180 per 100,000 ranking it number one in the world for this cancer followed by fluoridated Australia/New Zealand at 104 per 100,000 compared to the Western European average of 93 per 100,000. Cancer screening and PSA testing is common in all these countries, as well as Ireland.434 According to the European Environment Agency there is evidence linking foetal exposure to EDCs with prostate cancer.
Water fluoridation chemicals are now recognised as EDCs at low dose levels.

Similar incidence rates of prostate cancer are to be found in Australia, Canada,New Zealand and the United States. Each of these countries practice artificial fluoridation.

Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) was the most common cancer in Ireland, accounting for 27% of all malignant neoplasms. . During 1995-2007, the number of new cases increased by approximately 3% per annum; since 2002 it has been increasing by around 6% in RoI. The risk of developing NMSC before the age of 75 was 1 in 12 for women and 1 in 8 for men and was higher in RoI than in NI for both men and women. The National Cancer Registry in their ALL Ireland Cancer Atlas report noted that Individuals who are immune suppressed have a greatly increased risk of developing Non-melanoma skin cancer, however no mention was made of fluorides ability to interfere with the immune system or that fluoride was a known endocrine disruptor (EDC). It is well established that EDCs can play a role in the development of immune-related disorders.

THE NATIONAL CANCER REGISTRY ALSO STATE THAT RESIDUES OF ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER MAY CONTRIBUTE TO NMSC. THEIR REPORT WARNS THAT .ARSENIC IS CARCINOGENIC (INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, 1987; INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, 2004A) AND INGESTION OF ARSENIC AND INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS CAUSES NMSC. NO MENTION IS GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT ARSENIC IS A KNOWN AND MEASURED CONTAMINANT IN WATER FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS.

The All Ireland Cancer Atlas found that the risk of NMSC was 13% higher in the ROI compared to NI. This difference increased to 19% when population density and area-based socioeconomic factors were taken into account. For men once age, population density and socio-economic factors were adjusted for the relative risk of NMSC was 23% higher in ROI compared to NI.

The incidence rates for malignant melanoma is 19% higher in the RoI compared to NI. The incidence is 14.5 per 100,000 for males and 18.9 for females in RoI compared to 12.2 and 16.1 for males and females respectively in NI. The combined incidence for RoI is 16.7 per 100,000 compared to 14 per 100,000 for NI and 16.2 for UK.

IRISH FEMALE COLORECTAL CANCER INCIDENCE WAS 15% HIGHER THAN THE EU AVERAGE AND MALES 11% HIGHER. RANKING OF THE MOST COMMONLY DIAGNOSED INVASIVE CANCERS (EXCLUDING NMSC) IN THE PERIOD 2007-2009. SIMILAR INCIDENCE RATES OF COLORECTAL CANCER ARE TO BE FOUND IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND.

Leukaemia, the most common invasive cancer diagnosed in children and in Ireland in 2007-2009, is 23% higher in ROI compared to NI. Brain cancer incidence is 20% higher in ROI; bladder cancer was 14% higher, skin cancer 18%, uterine cancer 11%, while other cancers such as oesophageal cancer were 8%, higher in the RoI compared to NI.

Overall the most commonly diagnosed cancers are female breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma, melanoma, bladder, stomach, kidney, oesophagus, leukaemia, pancreas, head and neck, brain and other central nervous system cancers and testis.

Data from Cancer Research UK (2008) and their examination of European AgeStandardised Incidence Rates, for all EU-27 Countries, Ireland has the highest incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (for females) in all 27 EU Member States.

THE RATE OF NEW CASES OF NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA HAS BEEN SLOWLY BUT STEADILY RISING FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS. THE HSE HAVE NOTED THAT IF THE OCCURRENCE OF NONHODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA CONTINUES TO RISE AT THE CURRENT RATE, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT IT WILL BE AS COMMON AS BREAST OR LUNG CANCER BY 2025. GLOBALLY THE HIGHEST INCIDENCE OF THIS DISEASE IS TO BE FOUND IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOLLOWED BY AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND.

Fluoridation of drinking water is practised in each of these countries. According to the HSE, the high incidence in Ireland is for reasons that are not understood, including the possibility of some unknown environmental factor (i.e. chemical toxin, for which fluoride is one).

Ireland has been found to have the highest incidence rate of ovarian cancer in Western Europe, as well as higher incidence rates of colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers compared to the European average. Irish female colorectal cancer incidence was 3% higher than NI and 15% higher than the EU average. Mortality rates for ovarian cancer in Ireland are the highest in Europe.

A significantly higher incidence rate is to be found in the south of the country compared to Dublin-mid Leinster, Dublin North East and West of Ireland.

OSTEOSARCOMA IS A RARE MALIGNANT BONE TUMOUR, COMMONLY OCCURRING IN THE AGE GROUP OF 10-24 YEARS. BONE IS THE PRINCIPAL SITE OF FLUORIDE ACCUMULATION. IN IRELAND MALIGNANT BONE TUMOURS ACCOUNT FOR 4% OF CHILDHOOD CANCERS OVERALL AND 8% OF ALL CANCERS DIAGNOSED IN 10-14YEAR OLDS. THE INCIDENCE RATE IN IRELAND IS HIGHER THAN FOR THE ENTIRE UK AND SIMILAR TO THAT FOUND IN FLUORIDATED UNITED STATES.

For the period 1994-2000 the incidence rate were 33% higher in fluoridated Republic of Ireland (0.27/100,000) compared to non-fluoridated northern Ireland (0.21/100,000).

A more recent short non-peer reviewed study448 published by the National Cancer Registry (2009) shows a rate of osteosarcoma in the ROI of 0.25 /100,000 for the period 1994 to 2007 compared to 0.21 /100,000 for Northern Ireland. This represents a16% increased incidence for this disease in the ROI. However on closer examination of the data provided in the study the incidence figures found 185 new cases between 1994 and 2006 of which 147 cases were in the ROI and 38 in NI; the incidence rate, when correlated to population under 18 years of age for both regions, shows a 37% increased incidence of osteosarcoma in the ROI compared to NI. In either case a 16-37% increased incidence of this disease in fluoridated ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI would clearly support the observations of the NRC scientific committee when they noted that fluoride could have an influence on the development of this cancer.

Recent reports have indicated however that there is a direct link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma.449, 450, 451 In vitro studies have shown that exposure to fluoride cause osteoblast proliferation and malignant transformation. 452 Also a link between p53 mutations and fluoride bone content has been reported in tissue samples form osteosarcoma patients.453 Most recently Kharb et al. 454 (2012) examined fluoride levels in serum and drinking water of osteosarcoma patients and found serum fluoride levels were significantly elevated in patients with osteosarcoma compared to controls. There was also a positive correlation (r=0.85, P 0.01) between drinking water fluoride and serum fluoride levels in the osteosarcoma group patients. Samples of drinking water from the homes of these patients also showed a higher fluoride content (1.302 ±0.760) compared to the control group (0.475±0.243). Mean serum fluoride concentrations in the osteosarcoma group were 0.183 ± 0.105mg/L compared to the control group 0.042±0.035mg/L. This represents a very significant four-fold increase in plasma fluoride levels, at fluoride exposure levels within the range as found in fluoridated water in Ireland. The study concluded that finding a high serum fluoride levels in osteosarcoma patients along with high drinking water fluoride level (range 0.54ppm - 2.06ppm) suggest a link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, again supporting the findings of the NRC review.

It is interesting to note also the findings of a published study examining chemical contamination of water and cancer which found that most common cancer sites statistically associated with various measures of population exposure to chemicals in water were bladder, stomach, colon and rectum although other sites showing statistically significant relationships were oesophagus, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, kidney, prostate, lung and breast. Five case-control studies were reviewed in the study (Alavanja et al., 1979, Struba, 1979, Brenniman et al.1980, Young et al., 1981, Gottlieb et al., 1982) representing New York County, North Carolina, Illinois, Wisconsin and Southern Louisiana. Significant associations with water quality were found for: bladder cancer in two studies, colon cancer in three and rectal cancer in four. While the study intended to examine the link between water chlorination and cancer, it did not report the fact that the water supplies in each of these regions were fluoridated.

Finally, in considering the possibility of fluoride contribution to cancer one must take into consideration the findings of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2003) when they concluded that the ecologic studies performed to date for fluoride and cancer did not have sensitivities to detect less than 10% to 20% increases in cancer risk.

It is astonishing therefore to note how the National Cancer Ireland Registry recently stated that fluoride exposure has no relevance to the increased cancer incidence in ROI and did so without undertaking any epidemiological studies and without considering the findings of the NRC scientific committee or other scientific publications highlighting the carcinogenicity of fluoride.

UNDOCUMENTED TOXINS IN FOODS AND BEVERAGES

The NRC scientific committee acknowledged that silicofluorides may be present in certain foods prepared from fluoridated drinking water and highlighted that biological effects of exposure to these chemicals may occur.

The NRC also highlighted the serious neuro-toxicological impacts of increased exposure to aluminofluorides resulting from artificial fluoridation of drinking water. This concern was raised in my original report titled Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation. It was also addressed in a follow up report dated September 2102.

This should of course be a major public health concern given the inherent risk of adding significant concentrations of free fluoride ions, in addition to silicofluorides compounds, to beverages such as tea, which already contain elevated levels of aluminium and fluoride as well as other heavy metals. Such a policy clearly exposes consumers to considerable risk and may explain the alarming prevalence of early onset dementia in the population of the ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI.

This concern was previously documented in my original study and in subsequent communications to the Government of Ireland, its agencies as well as the IFA and Consumers Rights Association. I have yet to receive any acknowledgement to the c
Part One: UK/IRELAND.. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION INTO FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Thanks to this independent report 2 million Canadians in four Cities no longer drink Fluoridated Water. Using this report.. The former (retired last year) Chief Water Sanitation engineer for Israel, who first introduced Fluoridation is taking a historic High Court case against the Israeli State to End Fluoridation . 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 begins to present in a healthy population after the age of 65 therefore the fact that significantly more individuals under 60 (who have been longer exposed to fluoride in drinking water) have dementia in the ROI compared to NI or that there are more adults under the age of 59 with dementia compared to the age group between 60-64 or 65 to 70 years of age raises urgent and serious Public Health Investigation of Epidemiological data on Disease and Mortality in Ireland related to Water Fluoridation concerns regarding the contribution of exposure to aluminofluorides and fluoride in drinking water to high levels of dementia in the ROI. The risk of developing dementia increases exponentially with age, it is known that the prevalence of dementia doubles every five years from the age of 65 years onwards. The significance of this frightening variation in early offset dementia in the ROI is clearly represented in the stark differences in prevalence of young dementia present in the Republic of Ireland compared to non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. There are 396 cases of young offset dementia for people under 65 years of age in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland compared to 4505 in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland. The population of NI is 1,789,000 and the ROI is 4,487,000. The population adjusted number of young offset dementia cases for NI when compared to ROI would be equivalent to 990. THE FACT THAT THE RATE OF YOUNG OFFSET DEMENTIA IN THE FLUORIDATED REGION OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND IS 4.5 TIMES THAT OF NON-FLUORIDATED NI IS DEEPLY WORRYING AND DEMONSTRATES BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT A CLEAR ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INCREASED EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE AND AIF ARE SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTORS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS DISEASE IN THE ROI. AUTISM Autism is a lifelong disability which affects the social and communication centre of the brain. The prevalence of autism in Ireland is estimated to be 1.1% which is similar to the recently reported figure of 1/100 (0.9% by the Centre for Disease Control in the US. These are among the highest rates of autism in any population in the world and they continue to rise. A survey by the Office of National Statistics of the mental health of children and young people in Great Britain found a prevalence rate of 0.9% while a recent briefing the National Autistic Society in the UK found the prevalence of autism to be 0.58 % of children in the UK. This gives a potential increased prevalence in autism between 89% and 22% (mean of 55%) between the Republic of Ireland and UK. It is widely acknowledged that the prevalence of autism has increased 10 fold per decade since earlier epidemiology studies in the 1970's. This represents the period post commencement of fluoridation in the ROI. By late 1970 over 52% of the population of Ireland were provided with fluoridated water. Although it was widely maintained that the increase in incidence was until recently, in part largely attributed to better diagnostic procedures, Hertz-Picciotto and Delwiche concluded in a recent major examination of autism that "younger ages at diagnosis, differential migration, changes in diagnostic criteria, and inclusion of milder cases do not fully explain the observed increases." After publication of the article, the author noted that some environmental toxin/contaminant must be responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism COMPARISON WITH NORTHERN IRELAND AND EUROPE ACCORDING TO FIGURES FROM THE CARDIAC REHABILITATION UNIT, WEXFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL, THE NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE IN IRELAND IS 60,7 PER 100,000, ALMOST TWICE THE EU AVERAGE OF 32.6. IN COMPARISON THE AGE STANDARDIZED DEATH RATE FROM CHD IN NORTHERN IRELAND IS 60.44 FOR MEN AND WOMEN 21.01. THE HIGHER MORTALITY RATES IN SOUTHERN IRELAND ARE UNEXPECTED GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE THAT EDUCATION, POVERTY, STRESS AND SOCIAL CONFLICT PLAY IN HEART DISEASE. The influence of the these factors and period of the 'Troubles' is clearly evident in the mortality rates for within NI. Significantly higher CHD prevalence is noted in the geographic areas with the highest social inequality, poverty and unemployment. These same areas not only represent those that are the most socially deprived but also where conflict and trauma were most prevalent during the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland. For example significantly higher CHD rates for males are to be found in Derry (80.09), Belfast.(89.05) and Ballymena (115.45) compared to more rural areas such as Castlereagh (30.08) Antrim (24.9) and Moyle (33.48). In comparing CHD in Ireland with Europe the Age-standardized Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 100,000 for CHD, stroke and other CVD, provides further insights to the impact of CHD and the gap between Ireland and other European Member States. The DALYS for CHD for Ireland is calculated at 671 compared to the UK (657), Iceland (470), Norway (503), for Sweden (506), Denmark (478), Germany (574), France (259), Spain (367) and the Netherlands (460). A similar pattern is provided for CVS.418 COMPARISON WITH UK AND EUROPE. FOR 2004 THE AGE-STANDARDIZED DEATH RATES PER 100,000 POPULATION FROM DISEASES OF THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM FOR EU, EUROPE, UK AND IRELAND WERE 52, 57, 86 AND 101 RESPECTIVELY. IRELAND HAD A 17% INCREASED MORTALITY COMPARED TO UK AND APPROXIMATELY 100% HIGHER MORTALITY COMPARED TO THE EUROPEAN REGION. CANCER KEY FINDINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE The NRC noted several studies which found associations between fluoride exposure and bladder cancer, osteosarcoma, thyroid cancer, oral-Pharyngeal cancer, uterine cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, colorectal cancer, and lip cancer and concluded: ? "Alternations in DNA suggest that Fluoride has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential.., Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers." ? "Aluminium Fluoride complexes impair the polymerization-depol arization cycle of tubulin." ? "The plausibility of the bladder as a target for fluoride is supported by the tendency of hydrogen fluoride to form under physiological acid conditions, such as in urine. Hydrogen fluoride is caustic and might increase potential for cellular damage, including genotoxicity. ? "Alternations in DNA suggest that the chemical (Fluoride) has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential." ? "Fluoride has a role in p53 mutations that could influence the development of osteosarcoma" ? "Human leukemic cells lines may also be susceptible to the effects of hexafluorosilicicate the compound used for fluoridation." ? "PERHAPS THE SINGLE CLEAREST EFFECT OF FLUORIDE ON THE SKELETON IS ITS STIMULATION OF OSTEOBLAST PROLIFERATION. BECAUSE FLUORIDE STIMULATES OSTEOBLASTS PROLIFERATION, THERE IS A THEORETICAL RISK THAT IT MIGHT INDUCE A MALIGNANT CHANGE IN THE EXPANDING CELL POPULATION." ? "Fluorides increases the production of free radicals in the brain" According to the peer reviewed Journal of Free Radical Biology and Medicine (Volume 2 Issue 2, 1988) "Free radicals participate in the development of carcinogenesis, particularly tumour promotion. This is position is supported by the National Cancer Institute at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The European Journal of Cancer (Jan 1996 32A(30-8)) similarly concluded that "(a large body of evidence suggests important roles of oxygen free radical in the expansion of tumour clones and the acquisition of malignant properties. In view of these facts, oxygen free radicals may be considered as an important class of carcinogens. The U.S Public Health Service published the findings of a study (1991) that examined Fluoridation of Drinking Water and subsequent Cancer Incidence and Mortality, in which they found increases in soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, colorectal cancer and lip cancer in people living in Fluoridated communities. (Ref: U.S. National Research Council, Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review, 2006). An association of uterine cancer (combination of cervical and corpus uteri) with fluoridation was reported by Tohyama425 (1996), who observed mortality rates in Okinawa before and after fluoridation was terminated, controlling for socio-demographics. Ireland has been found to have the highest incidence rate of Prostate and Ovarian cancer in Europe, as well as higher incidence rates of colorectal, lung, nonHodgkin's Lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers compared to the European average. CANCER INCIDENCE IN IRELAND The National Research Council report highlighted published reports which found that fluoride may contribute to bladder cancer, brain cancer, leukemic and lymphoma cell lines, uterine cancer skin cancers as well as other cancers such as nonHodgkin's lymphoma. The scientific committee highlighted the carcinogenic potential of fluoride and unanimously concluded that fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate and promote cancers. An annual average of 29,745 cancer cases was registered during the three year period 2007-2009 This represents an increase of 12% from the annual average over the previous three year period (2004-2006) and is approximately 50% more cancers per year than in the mid 1990's when data on cancer in Ireland was first collected on a national basis. This equates to 681 cases per 100,000 persons per year. ACCORDING TO WHO DATA IN THE YEAR 2000 THE CANCER INCIDENT IN THE POPULATION OF IRELAND WAS 583.03 PER 100,000, THE HIGHEST IN WESTERN EUROPE. THIS WAS 68% ABOVE THE MEAN FOR THE EUROPEAN REGION AND 30% ABOVE THE EU AVERAGE. IN 2008 THE CANCER INCIDENCE HAD RISEN 20% TO 698.1 PER 100,000, 85% ABOVE THE CORRESPONDING INCIDENCE RATE FOR EUROPEAN REGION AND 43% ABOVE THE EU INCIDENCE RATE. The All Ireland Cancer Atlas (1995-2007)427 provides an examination of eighteen cancers sites in both ROI and NI. Of these seven demonstrated significant increased risk in the ROI compared to NI. In addition increased risk was also observed in the ROI compared to NI for colorectal cancer, stomach, kidney, ovarian and cancer of the corpus uteri. Separately the WHO have recorded that overall cancer incidence per 100,000 in the ROI is 38% higher than for the UK as a whole. A small number of cancers were found to be or higher risk in NI compared to ROI, however similar incidences were also recorded in geographic areas in the South. The risk of lung cancer was significantly higher in NI compared to ROI for both men (by 11%) and women (by 7%). The highest risk was to be found in urban areas of Belfast (NI), Dublin (ROI), Derry (NI) and Cork (ROI), and also in Louth, Kildare, Carlow and Wicklow (all-ROI). As with other cancers the increased risk was associated with increased population density, unemployment and low levels of education. The fact is, that similar incidence of lung cancers were found in major cities and urban areas in ROI compared to NI. One clearly cannot discount the significant impact of 'the 'Troubles' on consumption of tobacco as it is well documented that smoking rates are significantly higher among persons exposed to a traumatic event relative to those without such exposure. It is evident that the reduced incidence or risk of lung cancer in the population of ROI is therefore largely due to the impact of the 'Troubles' in NI with associated increased stress including post-traumatic stress, higher incidence of smoking. It is also evident that a larger rural population resident in ROI (mostly with non-fluoridated water, similar to NI) as well as lower levels of unemployment and better levels of education compared to NI would also be significant factors in reducing the overall mean incidence for the ROI. Compared to ROI, the risk of head and neck cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was greater for women but not men in NI, this however would be expected due to the increase risk of lung cancer as cigarette smoking has also been found to increase the risk of developing follicular lymphoma. Overall cancers incidence was significantly higher in fluoridated ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI.431 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 and 43% above the EU average. THESE ARE STARK AND ALARMING VARIATIONS AND UNEXPECTED GIVEN THAT THE PRIMARY RISK FACTORS (EXCLUDING FLUORIDE EXPOSURE) FOR DEVELOPING CANCER ARE LOWER IN ROI THAN ALMOST EVERY OTHER COUNTRY INCLUDING NI. THE INCIDENCE OF PROSTATE, COLORECTAL AND BREAST CANCER ARE HIGHER IN ROI COMPARED TO NI, HIGHER INCIDENCE RATES OF THESE CANCERS ARE ALSO TO BE FOUND IN CANADA, NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA. Prostate cancer incidence was 29% higher in the ROI compared to NI. The incidence of prostate cancer in the ROI is the highest of all 30 European countries and was over 60% higher than the EU average. In fact the incidence for Ireland is 180 per 100,000 ranking it number one in the world for this cancer followed by fluoridated Australia/New Zealand at 104 per 100,000 compared to the Western European average of 93 per 100,000. Cancer screening and PSA testing is common in all these countries, as well as Ireland.434 According to the European Environment Agency there is evidence linking foetal exposure to EDCs with prostate cancer. Water fluoridation chemicals are now recognised as EDCs at low dose levels. Similar incidence rates of prostate cancer are to be found in Australia, Canada,New Zealand and the United States. Each of these countries practice artificial fluoridation. Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) was the most common cancer in Ireland, accounting for 27% of all malignant neoplasms. . During 1995-2007, the number of new cases increased by approximately 3% per annum; since 2002 it has been increasing by around 6% in RoI. The risk of developing NMSC before the age of 75 was 1 in 12 for women and 1 in 8 for men and was higher in RoI than in NI for both men and women. The National Cancer Registry in their ALL Ireland Cancer Atlas report noted that Individuals who are immune suppressed have a greatly increased risk of developing Non-melanoma skin cancer, however no mention was made of fluorides ability to interfere with the immune system or that fluoride was a known endocrine disruptor (EDC). It is well established that EDCs can play a role in the development of immune-related disorders. THE NATIONAL CANCER REGISTRY ALSO STATE THAT RESIDUES OF ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER MAY CONTRIBUTE TO NMSC. THEIR REPORT WARNS THAT .ARSENIC IS CARCINOGENIC (INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, 1987; INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, 2004A) AND INGESTION OF ARSENIC AND INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS CAUSES NMSC. NO MENTION IS GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT ARSENIC IS A KNOWN AND MEASURED CONTAMINANT IN WATER FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS. The All Ireland Cancer Atlas found that the risk of NMSC was 13% higher in the ROI compared to NI. This difference increased to 19% when population density and area-based socioeconomic factors were taken into account. For men once age, population density and socio-economic factors were adjusted for the relative risk of NMSC was 23% higher in ROI compared to NI. The incidence rates for malignant melanoma is 19% higher in the RoI compared to NI. The incidence is 14.5 per 100,000 for males and 18.9 for females in RoI compared to 12.2 and 16.1 for males and females respectively in NI. The combined incidence for RoI is 16.7 per 100,000 compared to 14 per 100,000 for NI and 16.2 for UK. IRISH FEMALE COLORECTAL CANCER INCIDENCE WAS 15% HIGHER THAN THE EU AVERAGE AND MALES 11% HIGHER. RANKING OF THE MOST COMMONLY DIAGNOSED INVASIVE CANCERS (EXCLUDING NMSC) IN THE PERIOD 2007-2009. SIMILAR INCIDENCE RATES OF COLORECTAL CANCER ARE TO BE FOUND IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND. Leukaemia, the most common invasive cancer diagnosed in children and in Ireland in 2007-2009, is 23% higher in ROI compared to NI. Brain cancer incidence is 20% higher in ROI; bladder cancer was 14% higher, skin cancer 18%, uterine cancer 11%, while other cancers such as oesophageal cancer were 8%, higher in the RoI compared to NI. Overall the most commonly diagnosed cancers are female breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma, melanoma, bladder, stomach, kidney, oesophagus, leukaemia, pancreas, head and neck, brain and other central nervous system cancers and testis. Data from Cancer Research UK (2008) and their examination of European AgeStandardised Incidence Rates, for all EU-27 Countries, Ireland has the highest incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (for females) in all 27 EU Member States. THE RATE OF NEW CASES OF NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA HAS BEEN SLOWLY BUT STEADILY RISING FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS. THE HSE HAVE NOTED THAT IF THE OCCURRENCE OF NONHODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA CONTINUES TO RISE AT THE CURRENT RATE, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT IT WILL BE AS COMMON AS BREAST OR LUNG CANCER BY 2025. GLOBALLY THE HIGHEST INCIDENCE OF THIS DISEASE IS TO BE FOUND IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOLLOWED BY AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND. Fluoridation of drinking water is practised in each of these countries. According to the HSE, the high incidence in Ireland is for reasons that are not understood, including the possibility of some unknown environmental factor (i.e. chemical toxin, for which fluoride is one). Ireland has been found to have the highest incidence rate of ovarian cancer in Western Europe, as well as higher incidence rates of colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers compared to the European average. Irish female colorectal cancer incidence was 3% higher than NI and 15% higher than the EU average. Mortality rates for ovarian cancer in Ireland are the highest in Europe. A significantly higher incidence rate is to be found in the south of the country compared to Dublin-mid Leinster, Dublin North East and West of Ireland. OSTEOSARCOMA IS A RARE MALIGNANT BONE TUMOUR, COMMONLY OCCURRING IN THE AGE GROUP OF 10-24 YEARS. BONE IS THE PRINCIPAL SITE OF FLUORIDE ACCUMULATION. IN IRELAND MALIGNANT BONE TUMOURS ACCOUNT FOR 4% OF CHILDHOOD CANCERS OVERALL AND 8% OF ALL CANCERS DIAGNOSED IN 10-14YEAR OLDS. THE INCIDENCE RATE IN IRELAND IS HIGHER THAN FOR THE ENTIRE UK AND SIMILAR TO THAT FOUND IN FLUORIDATED UNITED STATES. For the period 1994-2000 the incidence rate were 33% higher in fluoridated Republic of Ireland (0.27/100,000) compared to non-fluoridated northern Ireland (0.21/100,000). A more recent short non-peer reviewed study448 published by the National Cancer Registry (2009) shows a rate of osteosarcoma in the ROI of 0.25 /100,000 for the period 1994 to 2007 compared to 0.21 /100,000 for Northern Ireland. This represents a16% increased incidence for this disease in the ROI. However on closer examination of the data provided in the study the incidence figures found 185 new cases between 1994 and 2006 of which 147 cases were in the ROI and 38 in NI; the incidence rate, when correlated to population under 18 years of age for both regions, shows a 37% increased incidence of osteosarcoma in the ROI compared to NI. In either case a 16-37% increased incidence of this disease in fluoridated ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI would clearly support the observations of the NRC scientific committee when they noted that fluoride could have an influence on the development of this cancer. Recent reports have indicated however that there is a direct link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma.449, 450, 451 In vitro studies have shown that exposure to fluoride cause osteoblast proliferation and malignant transformation. 452 Also a link between p53 mutations and fluoride bone content has been reported in tissue samples form osteosarcoma patients.453 Most recently Kharb et al. 454 (2012) examined fluoride levels in serum and drinking water of osteosarcoma patients and found serum fluoride levels were significantly elevated in patients with osteosarcoma compared to controls. There was also a positive correlation (r=0.85, P 0.01) between drinking water fluoride and serum fluoride levels in the osteosarcoma group patients. Samples of drinking water from the homes of these patients also showed a higher fluoride content (1.302 ±0.760) compared to the control group (0.475±0.243). Mean serum fluoride concentrations in the osteosarcoma group were 0.183 ± 0.105mg/L compared to the control group 0.042±0.035mg/L. This represents a very significant four-fold increase in plasma fluoride levels, at fluoride exposure levels within the range as found in fluoridated water in Ireland. The study concluded that finding a high serum fluoride levels in osteosarcoma patients along with high drinking water fluoride level (range 0.54ppm - 2.06ppm) suggest a link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, again supporting the findings of the NRC review. It is interesting to note also the findings of a published study examining chemical contamination of water and cancer which found that most common cancer sites statistically associated with various measures of population exposure to chemicals in water were bladder, stomach, colon and rectum although other sites showing statistically significant relationships were oesophagus, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, kidney, prostate, lung and breast. Five case-control studies were reviewed in the study (Alavanja et al., 1979, Struba, 1979, Brenniman et al.1980, Young et al., 1981, Gottlieb et al., 1982) representing New York County, North Carolina, Illinois, Wisconsin and Southern Louisiana. Significant associations with water quality were found for: bladder cancer in two studies, colon cancer in three and rectal cancer in four. While the study intended to examine the link between water chlorination and cancer, it did not report the fact that the water supplies in each of these regions were fluoridated. Finally, in considering the possibility of fluoride contribution to cancer one must take into consideration the findings of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2003) when they concluded that the ecologic studies performed to date for fluoride and cancer did not have sensitivities to detect less than 10% to 20% increases in cancer risk. It is astonishing therefore to note how the National Cancer Ireland Registry recently stated that fluoride exposure has no relevance to the increased cancer incidence in ROI and did so without undertaking any epidemiological studies and without considering the findings of the NRC scientific committee or other scientific publications highlighting the carcinogenicity of fluoride. UNDOCUMENTED TOXINS IN FOODS AND BEVERAGES The NRC scientific committee acknowledged that silicofluorides may be present in certain foods prepared from fluoridated drinking water and highlighted that biological effects of exposure to these chemicals may occur. The NRC also highlighted the serious neuro-toxicological impacts of increased exposure to aluminofluorides resulting from artificial fluoridation of drinking water. This concern was raised in my original report titled Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation. It was also addressed in a follow up report dated September 2102. This should of course be a major public health concern given the inherent risk of adding significant concentrations of free fluoride ions, in addition to silicofluorides compounds, to beverages such as tea, which already contain elevated levels of aluminium and fluoride as well as other heavy metals. Such a policy clearly exposes consumers to considerable risk and may explain the alarming prevalence of early onset dementia in the population of the ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI. This concern was previously documented in my original study and in subsequent communications to the Government of Ireland, its agencies as well as the IFA and Consumers Rights Association. I have yet to receive any acknowledgement to the c Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Mon 20 May 13

Dan Soton says...

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





Thanks to this independent report 2 million Canadians in four Cities no longer drink Fluoridated Water.

Using this report.. The former (retired last year) Chief Water Sanitation engineer for Israel, who first introduced Fluoridation is taking a historic High Court case against the Israeli State to End Fluoridation .





UNDOCUMENTED TOXINS IN FOODS AND BEVERAGES

The NRC scientific committee acknowledged that silicofluorides may be present in certain foods prepared from fluoridated drinking water and highlighted that biological effects of exposure to these chemicals may occur.

The NRC also highlighted the serious neuro-toxicological impacts of increased exposure to aluminofluorides resulting from artificial fluoridation of drinking water. This concern was raised in my original report titled Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation. It was also addressed in a follow up report dated September 2102.

This should of course be a major public health concern given the inherent risk of adding significant concentrations of free fluoride ions, in addition to silicofluorides compounds, to beverages such as tea, which already contain elevated levels of aluminium and fluoride as well as other heavy metals. Such a policy clearly exposes consumers to considerable risk and may explain the alarming prevalence of early onset dementia in the population of the ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI.

This concern was previously documented in my original study and in subsequent communications to the Government of Ireland, its agencies as well as the IFA and Consumers Rights Association. I have yet to receive any acknowledgement to the concerns raised.

GIVEN THE RECENT PUBLIC OUTCRY REGARDING CONTAMINATION OF FOODSTUFFS WITH HORSE MEAT THIS SHOULD BE A CAUSE OF MAJOR CONCERN FOR THE FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY IN IRELAND.



POISON REGULATIONS

In the latter report it was highlighted that fluoride ions have a strong tendency to form complexes with heavy metal ions such as aluminium fluoride in water. It is acknowledged that the toxic potential of inorganic fluorides is mainly associated with this behaviour and the formation of insoluble fluorides such as aluminium fluoride (AIF3). In Ireland the POISONS REGULATIONS, 1982 lists alkali metal fluorides as poisons.

By adding Hexafluorosilicic acid to water one is not only creating silicofluoride compounds but alkali metal fluorides compounds that are poisonous to public health. Aluminium fluoride complexes are also created in the stomach at low pH where it acts in competition with hydrofluoric acid. Aluminium fluoride is far more bioavailable than is the free aluminium ion which is quantitatively eliminated out the GI tract. Animal studies have found that aluminium fluoride complexes (AlF3) in drinking water will result in increased Aluminium levels in the brain and kidney as well as causing significant changes to brain cellular structure and neuronal integrity.

FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES REGULATIONS

The addition of any substance that is capable of a deleterious or injurious effect upon health is a violation of the Fluoridation of Water Supplies Regulations 2007. Fully or partially dissociated silicofluoride compound may also cause a health hazard because the fluoride ion, the undissociated and the re-associated fluorosilicate and the arsenic and lead present in the chemical are all hazardous to fetal and infant central nervous system development and function.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT OF RYAN V. A.G

The Supreme Court Judgment of Ryan v. A.G. (1965) specifically forbids the addition of any amount of substances to water that may be harmful to human health including lead or arsenic. Both arsenic and lead are known to be present in water fluoridation chemicals.

CURRENT STATUS OF FLUORIDATION IN EUROPE

At present almost none of the public water supplies in Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Belorussia, Bosnia & & Herzegovina Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kosovo Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldavia, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland are artificially fluoridated.

Water fluoridation was previously practised in a few countries in mainland Europe but was discontinued following a review of policy and over concerns regarding ethical and legal issues, health concerns (precautionary principle) and environmental sustainability.

This included the Czech Republic (discontinued in 1989), Finland (discontinued 1992), Hungary (discontinued 1960), the Netherlands (discontinued 1976), the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany-discontinued in 1950's), German Democratic Republic (East Germany-discontinued in 1990), Sweden (discontinued in 1971) and Switzerland (Basel the last city in Switzerland to be fluoridated discontinued in 2003).

IRELAND REMAINS THE ONLY COUNTRY WITHIN THE EUROPEAN REGION WITH A LEGISLATIVE MANDATORY POLICY REQUIRING THE FLUORIDATION OF ALL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES. WATER FLUORIDATION IS ALSO PRACTISED IN A LIMITED AREA OF ENGLAND AND TO A SMALLER EXTENT IN SPAIN, PRINCIPALLY IN THE BASQUE REGION OF NORTHERN SPAIN.

EU MEMBER STATES SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL REVIEWS OF WATER FLUORIDATION

Independent risk assessments concerning water fluoridation have been undertaken in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, the Czech Republic and more recently in the city of Brisbane Australia, Basel Switzerland and Romania.

THE NETHERLANDS 1976

In 1952, Dutch health authorities, following the lead of the United States, began fluoridating the public water supply in the city of Tiel with Culemborg as the control city. On March 20th, 1972, the city of Amsterdam began fluoridating its water supplies. This had a widespread effect on surrounding communities who derived their drinking water from the Amsterdam water suppliers, such as Heemstede, Bennebroek, Hoofddorp, Haarlemmerliede and many others.

Dr. Moolenburgh organized a group of practitioners and researchers to study the effects of fluoridation on health. All the doctors came from fluoridated communities and many did not believe in the existence of the side-effects, as the health authorities had emphatically denied their existence. In addition to the original 12 physicians practicing in Haarlem and some of its surrounding fluoridated areas, various individuals with training in biology, chemistry, and neurology also participated in the above study.

To obtain unassailable proof that nothing but fluoride in the water was responsible and that the ill effects were not imaginary, Dr. Moolenburgh's group conducted a double-blind experiment, the results of which were published in a noted journal. The list of the most common complaints they could readily identify with the exposure to fluoridation included;

? Stomach and intestinal pains

? Mouth ulcers

? Excessive thirst

? Skin irritation and eczema

? Migraine-like headaches

? Visual disturbances (blurred vision)

? Worsening of known allergic complaints

? Mental depression

? Stomatitis

? Joint pains

? Muscular weakness, and extreme tiredness.

A definite relationship between the symptoms and fluoride in water was clearly established. DR. MOOLENBURGH CONCLUDED "AS A SUMMARY OF OUR RESEARCH, WE ARE NOW CONVINCED THAT FLUORIDATION OF THE WATER SUPPLIES CAUSES A LOW GRADE INTOXICATION OF THE WHOLE POPULATION, WITH ONLY THE APPROXIMATELY 5% MOST SENSITIVE PERSONS SHOWING ACUTE SYMPTOMS. THE WHOLE POPULATION BEING SUBJECTED TO LOW GRADE POISONING MEANS THAT THEIR IMMUNE SYSTEMS ARE CONSTANTLY OVERTAXED. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities. It is in the light of this constant low grade poisoning that the substantial evidence of increased cancer death rate due to fluoridation needs to be considered and understood." Following publication of their research results water fluoridation in Holland was discontinued in 1976.

DENMARK 1977

Denmark did not accept fluoridation when its National Agency for Environmental Protection, after consulting the widest possible range of scientific sources, pointed out that the long-term effects of low fluoride intakes on certain groups in the population (for example, persons with reduced kidney function), were insufficiently known.

SWEDEN 1970'S

In Sweden, the Government sought the advice of the Nobel Institute. A research group including Dr. Anders Thylstrup, PhD, Cariology Professor at the University of Copenhagen, Dr. Gillberg, Dr. Jan Sallstrom- Associate Professor of Experimental Pathology and Dr Agnetha Sallstrom revealed that the Government experts of the National Board of Health and Welfare who were advocating fluoridation of water were both ignorant concerning basic physiological knowledge and were providing misleading statistics on caries reduction and fluorosis. The review group advised against continuing with water fluoridation and subsequently the Swedish Government discontinued the policy Sweden ultimately rejected water fluoridation on the recommendation of a special Fluoride Commission, which included among its reasons that: "(t)he combined and long-term environmental effects of fluoride are insufficiently known"

GERMANY 1950'S & 1990 ON REUNIFICATION

In Germany the Government sought the advice of the oldest technical and scientific water association in the world, the DVGW, who represent 13,000 professionals, with a full time staff of 400 centered in three research institutes. Germany rejected water fluoridation on multiple grounds including concerns regarding adding medicinal chemicals to public drinking water supplies, the risk of potential long term health effects on the population from the uncontrolled intake of fluorides, the safety of lifelong accumulation of fluorides from consumption of fluoridated water, it's unacceptable ecological impact and the violation of bodily integrity.

CZECK REPUBLIC 1993

The Czech Republic undertook water fluoridation of water supplies for a period up to 1993 when the practice was terminated on the ground of being uneconomical (only 0.54 per cent of fluoridated water was used for drinking) the policy being environmentally unsustainable, unethical (forced medication of the population) and over concerns that with water fluoridation it is not possible to control the individual dose or dietary fluoride intake of individuals which can lead to health risks for certain individuals.

SWITZERLAND 2003

Following a cost benefit analysis and scientific review Basel was the last city in Switzerland to discontinue water fluoridation in 2003.

UNITED KINGDOM

In the UK approximately 10% of the population are provided with fluoridated water. Independent reviews undertaken in the UK on behalf of the NHS and individual reviews undertaken by Local authorities
.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination the University of York, Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation, September 2000

The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal.

The review found that whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from "massive".

The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised 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 review found that there was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health. There appears to be some evidence that water fluoridation reduces the inequalities in dental health across social classes in 5 and 12 year-olds, using the dmft/DMFT measure, however this effect was not seen in the proportion of caries-free children among 5 year-olds and the data for the effects in children of other ages did not show an effect.

THE REVIEW DID NOT SHOW WATER FLUORIDATION TO BE SAFE. THE QUALITY OF THE RESEARCH WAS TOO POOR TO ESTABLISH WITH CONFIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT ADVERSE EFFECTS IN ADDITION TO THE HIGH LEVELS OF FLUOROSIS. THE REPORT RECOMMENDED THAT MORE RESEARCH WAS NEEDED.

The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation.

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..



As the TV Fluoride Toothpaste Jingles become a distant memory and fade into the archive vaults, (the pretense 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.
Part Two: UK/IRELAND.. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTIGATION INTO FLUORIDATION AND FLUORIDE EXPOSURE Thanks to this independent report 2 million Canadians in four Cities no longer drink Fluoridated Water. Using this report.. The former (retired last year) Chief Water Sanitation engineer for Israel, who first introduced Fluoridation is taking a historic High Court case against the Israeli State to End Fluoridation . UNDOCUMENTED TOXINS IN FOODS AND BEVERAGES The NRC scientific committee acknowledged that silicofluorides may be present in certain foods prepared from fluoridated drinking water and highlighted that biological effects of exposure to these chemicals may occur. The NRC also highlighted the serious neuro-toxicological impacts of increased exposure to aluminofluorides resulting from artificial fluoridation of drinking water. This concern was raised in my original report titled Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation. It was also addressed in a follow up report dated September 2102. This should of course be a major public health concern given the inherent risk of adding significant concentrations of free fluoride ions, in addition to silicofluorides compounds, to beverages such as tea, which already contain elevated levels of aluminium and fluoride as well as other heavy metals. Such a policy clearly exposes consumers to considerable risk and may explain the alarming prevalence of early onset dementia in the population of the ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI. This concern was previously documented in my original study and in subsequent communications to the Government of Ireland, its agencies as well as the IFA and Consumers Rights Association. I have yet to receive any acknowledgement to the concerns raised. GIVEN THE RECENT PUBLIC OUTCRY REGARDING CONTAMINATION OF FOODSTUFFS WITH HORSE MEAT THIS SHOULD BE A CAUSE OF MAJOR CONCERN FOR THE FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY IN IRELAND. POISON REGULATIONS In the latter report it was highlighted that fluoride ions have a strong tendency to form complexes with heavy metal ions such as aluminium fluoride in water. It is acknowledged that the toxic potential of inorganic fluorides is mainly associated with this behaviour and the formation of insoluble fluorides such as aluminium fluoride (AIF3). In Ireland the POISONS REGULATIONS, 1982 lists alkali metal fluorides as poisons. By adding Hexafluorosilicic acid to water one is not only creating silicofluoride compounds but alkali metal fluorides compounds that are poisonous to public health. Aluminium fluoride complexes are also created in the stomach at low pH where it acts in competition with hydrofluoric acid. Aluminium fluoride is far more bioavailable than is the free aluminium ion which is quantitatively eliminated out the GI tract. Animal studies have found that aluminium fluoride complexes (AlF3) in drinking water will result in increased Aluminium levels in the brain and kidney as well as causing significant changes to brain cellular structure and neuronal integrity. FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES REGULATIONS The addition of any substance that is capable of a deleterious or injurious effect upon health is a violation of the Fluoridation of Water Supplies Regulations 2007. Fully or partially dissociated silicofluoride compound may also cause a health hazard because the fluoride ion, the undissociated and the re-associated fluorosilicate and the arsenic and lead present in the chemical are all hazardous to fetal and infant central nervous system development and function. SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT OF RYAN V. A.G The Supreme Court Judgment of Ryan v. A.G. (1965) specifically forbids the addition of any amount of substances to water that may be harmful to human health including lead or arsenic. Both arsenic and lead are known to be present in water fluoridation chemicals. CURRENT STATUS OF FLUORIDATION IN EUROPE At present almost none of the public water supplies in Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Belorussia, Bosnia & & Herzegovina Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kosovo Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldavia, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland are artificially fluoridated. Water fluoridation was previously practised in a few countries in mainland Europe but was discontinued following a review of policy and over concerns regarding ethical and legal issues, health concerns (precautionary principle) and environmental sustainability. This included the Czech Republic (discontinued in 1989), Finland (discontinued 1992), Hungary (discontinued 1960), the Netherlands (discontinued 1976), the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany-discontinued in 1950's), German Democratic Republic (East Germany-discontinued in 1990), Sweden (discontinued in 1971) and Switzerland (Basel the last city in Switzerland to be fluoridated discontinued in 2003). IRELAND REMAINS THE ONLY COUNTRY WITHIN THE EUROPEAN REGION WITH A LEGISLATIVE MANDATORY POLICY REQUIRING THE FLUORIDATION OF ALL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES. WATER FLUORIDATION IS ALSO PRACTISED IN A LIMITED AREA OF ENGLAND AND TO A SMALLER EXTENT IN SPAIN, PRINCIPALLY IN THE BASQUE REGION OF NORTHERN SPAIN. EU MEMBER STATES SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL REVIEWS OF WATER FLUORIDATION Independent risk assessments concerning water fluoridation have been undertaken in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, the Czech Republic and more recently in the city of Brisbane Australia, Basel Switzerland and Romania. THE NETHERLANDS 1976 In 1952, Dutch health authorities, following the lead of the United States, began fluoridating the public water supply in the city of Tiel with Culemborg as the control city. On March 20th, 1972, the city of Amsterdam began fluoridating its water supplies. This had a widespread effect on surrounding communities who derived their drinking water from the Amsterdam water suppliers, such as Heemstede, Bennebroek, Hoofddorp, Haarlemmerliede and many others. Dr. Moolenburgh organized a group of practitioners and researchers to study the effects of fluoridation on health. All the doctors came from fluoridated communities and many did not believe in the existence of the side-effects, as the health authorities had emphatically denied their existence. In addition to the original 12 physicians practicing in Haarlem and some of its surrounding fluoridated areas, various individuals with training in biology, chemistry, and neurology also participated in the above study. To obtain unassailable proof that nothing but fluoride in the water was responsible and that the ill effects were not imaginary, Dr. Moolenburgh's group conducted a double-blind experiment, the results of which were published in a noted journal. The list of the most common complaints they could readily identify with the exposure to fluoridation included; ? Stomach and intestinal pains ? Mouth ulcers ? Excessive thirst ? Skin irritation and eczema ? Migraine-like headaches ? Visual disturbances (blurred vision) ? Worsening of known allergic complaints ? Mental depression ? Stomatitis ? Joint pains ? Muscular weakness, and extreme tiredness. A definite relationship between the symptoms and fluoride in water was clearly established. DR. MOOLENBURGH CONCLUDED "AS A SUMMARY OF OUR RESEARCH, WE ARE NOW CONVINCED THAT FLUORIDATION OF THE WATER SUPPLIES CAUSES A LOW GRADE INTOXICATION OF THE WHOLE POPULATION, WITH ONLY THE APPROXIMATELY 5% MOST SENSITIVE PERSONS SHOWING ACUTE SYMPTOMS. THE WHOLE POPULATION BEING SUBJECTED TO LOW GRADE POISONING MEANS THAT THEIR IMMUNE SYSTEMS ARE CONSTANTLY OVERTAXED. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities. It is in the light of this constant low grade poisoning that the substantial evidence of increased cancer death rate due to fluoridation needs to be considered and understood." Following publication of their research results water fluoridation in Holland was discontinued in 1976. DENMARK 1977 Denmark did not accept fluoridation when its National Agency for Environmental Protection, after consulting the widest possible range of scientific sources, pointed out that the long-term effects of low fluoride intakes on certain groups in the population (for example, persons with reduced kidney function), were insufficiently known. SWEDEN 1970'S In Sweden, the Government sought the advice of the Nobel Institute. A research group including Dr. Anders Thylstrup, PhD, Cariology Professor at the University of Copenhagen, Dr. Gillberg, Dr. Jan Sallstrom- Associate Professor of Experimental Pathology and Dr Agnetha Sallstrom revealed that the Government experts of the National Board of Health and Welfare who were advocating fluoridation of water were both ignorant concerning basic physiological knowledge and were providing misleading statistics on caries reduction and fluorosis. The review group advised against continuing with water fluoridation and subsequently the Swedish Government discontinued the policy Sweden ultimately rejected water fluoridation on the recommendation of a special Fluoride Commission, which included among its reasons that: "(t)he combined and long-term environmental effects of fluoride are insufficiently known" GERMANY 1950'S & 1990 ON REUNIFICATION In Germany the Government sought the advice of the oldest technical and scientific water association in the world, the DVGW, who represent 13,000 professionals, with a full time staff of 400 centered in three research institutes. Germany rejected water fluoridation on multiple grounds including concerns regarding adding medicinal chemicals to public drinking water supplies, the risk of potential long term health effects on the population from the uncontrolled intake of fluorides, the safety of lifelong accumulation of fluorides from consumption of fluoridated water, it's unacceptable ecological impact and the violation of bodily integrity. CZECK REPUBLIC 1993 The Czech Republic undertook water fluoridation of water supplies for a period up to 1993 when the practice was terminated on the ground of being uneconomical (only 0.54 per cent of fluoridated water was used for drinking) the policy being environmentally unsustainable, unethical (forced medication of the population) and over concerns that with water fluoridation it is not possible to control the individual dose or dietary fluoride intake of individuals which can lead to health risks for certain individuals. SWITZERLAND 2003 Following a cost benefit analysis and scientific review Basel was the last city in Switzerland to discontinue water fluoridation in 2003. UNITED KINGDOM In the UK approximately 10% of the population are provided with fluoridated water. Independent reviews undertaken in the UK on behalf of the NHS and individual reviews undertaken by Local authorities . NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination the University of York, Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation, September 2000 The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal. The review found that whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from "massive". The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised 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 review found that there was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health. There appears to be some evidence that water fluoridation reduces the inequalities in dental health across social classes in 5 and 12 year-olds, using the dmft/DMFT measure, however this effect was not seen in the proportion of caries-free children among 5 year-olds and the data for the effects in children of other ages did not show an effect. THE REVIEW DID NOT SHOW WATER FLUORIDATION TO BE SAFE. THE QUALITY OF THE RESEARCH WAS TOO POOR TO ESTABLISH WITH CONFIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT ADVERSE EFFECTS IN ADDITION TO THE HIGH LEVELS OF FLUOROSIS. THE REPORT RECOMMENDED THAT MORE RESEARCH WAS NEEDED. The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation. 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.. As the TV Fluoride Toothpaste Jingles become a distant memory and fade into the archive vaults, (the pretense 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

4:12pm Tue 21 May 13

Dan Soton says...

Fluoridation Endgame.. The Union Of Environmental Protection Agency Scientists issue a clear statement, why they oppose Water Fluoridation..





SUMMARY




1) The lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion..


2) Hazards to human health include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.


3) EPA FIRED THE OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER'S CHIEF TOXICOLOGIST, DR. WILLIAM MARCUS, WHO ALSO WAS OUR LOCAL UNION'S TREASURER AT THE TIME, FOR REFUSING TO REMAIN SILENT ON THE CANCER RISK.


4) Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.


5) Data was manipulated to support fluoridation in English speasking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand.


6) CALL FOR AN IMMEDIATE HALT TO THE USE OF THE NATION'S DRINKING WATER RESERVOIRS AS DISPOSAL SITES FOR THE TOXIC WASTE OF THE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY.


7) The union has filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.






US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNION OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

The Hot Press Newsdesk, 15 May 2013

The letter is headlined "Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Oppose Fluoridation" and begins by explaining that the Union comprises and represents 1,500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA headquarters.

To read the full text, click here:

-

http://www.hotpress.
com/news/US-Environm
ental-Protection-Age
ncy-Union-opposes-fl
uoridation/9840187.h
tml






WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

“Why EPA Headquarters’ Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation.”

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

THE UNION FIRST BECAME INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE RATHER BY ACCIDENT. LIKE MOST AMERICANS, INCLUDING MANY PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS, MOST OF OUR MEMBERS HAD THOUGHT THAT FLUORIDE'S ONLY EFFECTS WERE BENEFICIAL – REDUCTIONS IN TOOTH DECAY, ETC. WE TOO BELIEVED ASSURANCES OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF WATER FLUORIDATION.

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.

SINCE THEN OUR OPPOSITION TO DRINKING WATER FLUORIDATION HAS GROWN, BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE DOCUMENTING THE INCREASINGLY OUT-OF-CONTROL EXPOSURES TO FLUORIDE, THE LACK OF BENEFIT TO DENTAL HEALTH FROM INGESTION OF FLUORIDE AND THE HAZARDS TO HUMAN HEALTH FROM SUCH INGESTION. THESE HAZARDS INCLUDE ACUTE TOXIC HAZARD, SUCH AS TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED KIDNEY FUNCTION, AS WELL AS CHRONIC TOXIC HAZARDS OF GENE MUTATIONS, CANCER, REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS, NEUROTOXICITY, BONE PATHOLOGY AND DENTAL FLUOROSIS. FIRST, A REVIEW OF RECENT NEUROTOXICITY RESEARCH RESULTS.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride – as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain – those that form the membrane of brain cells – were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats – rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm.

In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston .

FROM A RISK ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE, ALL THESE BRAIN EFFECT DATA ARE PARTICULARLY COMPELLING AND DISTURBING BECAUSE THEY ARE CONVERGENT

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue . The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding – that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey , Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997 . Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.\16. The latest publication \on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation – until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speasking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.

Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health. However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste\22. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

IN ANY EVENT, A PERSON CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO USE FLUORIDATED TOOTH PASTE OR NOT (ALTHOUGH FINDING NON-FLUORIDATED KINDS IS GETTING HARDER AND HARDER), BUT ONE CANNOT AVOID FLUORIDE WHEN IT IS PUT INTO THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES.

So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled – and apparently uncontrollable – exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media\23, that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America's children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York\17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

THUS, WE TOOK THE STAND THAT A POLICY WHICH MAKES THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY A VEHICLE FOR DISSEMINATING THIS TOXIC AND PROPHYLACTICALLY USELESS (VIA INGESTION, AT ANY RATE) SUBSTANCE IS WRONG.

We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al. data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

THE IMPLICATION FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF THESE CALCULATIONS IS CLEAR. RECENT, PEER-REVIEWED TOXICITY DATA, WHEN APPLIED TO EPA'S STANDARD METHOD FOR CONTROLLING RISKS FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS, REQUIRE AN IMMEDIATE HALT TO THE USE OF THE NATION'S DRINKING WATER RESERVOIRS AS DISPOSAL SITES FOR THE TOXIC WASTE OF THE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY.

This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.

-


www.fluoride-class-a
ction.com/epa-scient
ists-oppose-fluorida
tion
Fluoridation Endgame.. The Union Of Environmental Protection Agency Scientists issue a clear statement, why they oppose Water Fluoridation.. SUMMARY 1) The lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion.. 2) Hazards to human health include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. 3) EPA FIRED THE OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER'S CHIEF TOXICOLOGIST, DR. WILLIAM MARCUS, WHO ALSO WAS OUR LOCAL UNION'S TREASURER AT THE TIME, FOR REFUSING TO REMAIN SILENT ON THE CANCER RISK. 4) Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. 5) Data was manipulated to support fluoridation in English speasking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. 6) CALL FOR AN IMMEDIATE HALT TO THE USE OF THE NATION'S DRINKING WATER RESERVOIRS AS DISPOSAL SITES FOR THE TOXIC WASTE OF THE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY. 7) The union has filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNION OPPOSES FLUORIDATION The Hot Press Newsdesk, 15 May 2013 The letter is headlined "Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Oppose Fluoridation" and begins by explaining that the Union comprises and represents 1,500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA headquarters. To read the full text, click here: - http://www.hotpress. com/news/US-Environm ental-Protection-Age ncy-Union-opposes-fl uoridation/9840187.h tml WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION “Why EPA Headquarters’ Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation.” The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C. THE UNION FIRST BECAME INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE RATHER BY ACCIDENT. LIKE MOST AMERICANS, INCLUDING MANY PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS, MOST OF OUR MEMBERS HAD THOUGHT THAT FLUORIDE'S ONLY EFFECTS WERE BENEFICIAL – REDUCTIONS IN TOOTH DECAY, ETC. WE TOO BELIEVED ASSURANCES OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF WATER FLUORIDATION. Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it. We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail. SINCE THEN OUR OPPOSITION TO DRINKING WATER FLUORIDATION HAS GROWN, BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE DOCUMENTING THE INCREASINGLY OUT-OF-CONTROL EXPOSURES TO FLUORIDE, THE LACK OF BENEFIT TO DENTAL HEALTH FROM INGESTION OF FLUORIDE AND THE HAZARDS TO HUMAN HEALTH FROM SUCH INGESTION. THESE HAZARDS INCLUDE ACUTE TOXIC HAZARD, SUCH AS TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED KIDNEY FUNCTION, AS WELL AS CHRONIC TOXIC HAZARDS OF GENE MUTATIONS, CANCER, REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS, NEUROTOXICITY, BONE PATHOLOGY AND DENTAL FLUOROSIS. FIRST, A REVIEW OF RECENT NEUROTOXICITY RESEARCH RESULTS. In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride – as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain – those that form the membrane of brain cells – were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride. Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats – rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm. In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years. Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston . FROM A RISK ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE, ALL THESE BRAIN EFFECT DATA ARE PARTICULARLY COMPELLING AND DISTURBING BECAUSE THEY ARE CONVERGENT We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue . The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding – that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request. The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey , Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired. Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997 . Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above. Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.\16. The latest publication \on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston. John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation – until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speasking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation. Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health. However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste\22. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride. IN ANY EVENT, A PERSON CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO USE FLUORIDATED TOOTH PASTE OR NOT (ALTHOUGH FINDING NON-FLUORIDATED KINDS IS GETTING HARDER AND HARDER), BUT ONE CANNOT AVOID FLUORIDE WHEN IT IS PUT INTO THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES. So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled – and apparently uncontrollable – exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media\23, that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America's children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York\17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best. THUS, WE TOOK THE STAND THAT A POLICY WHICH MAKES THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY A VEHICLE FOR DISSEMINATING THIS TOXIC AND PROPHYLACTICALLY USELESS (VIA INGESTION, AT ANY RATE) SUBSTANCE IS WRONG. We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al. data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees. THE IMPLICATION FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF THESE CALCULATIONS IS CLEAR. RECENT, PEER-REVIEWED TOXICITY DATA, WHEN APPLIED TO EPA'S STANDARD METHOD FOR CONTROLLING RISKS FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS, REQUIRE AN IMMEDIATE HALT TO THE USE OF THE NATION'S DRINKING WATER RESERVOIRS AS DISPOSAL SITES FOR THE TOXIC WASTE OF THE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY. This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683. - www.fluoride-class-a ction.com/epa-scient ists-oppose-fluorida tion Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Wed 22 May 13

Dan Soton says...

Youtube Video: Toxicologist Dr. Marcus Wins lawsuit.. Refusing To Remain Silent On Fluoridation Cancer Risk.





FYI: This is Union Of Environmental Protection Agency Scientists related, Dr. William Marcus was the Union's Treasure.. who knows, his ripple back in 1992 could be triggering a Tsunami today.



-


Youtube Video..For Dr. William Marcus Skip to 0:11mins.




http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=zpw5fGt4U
vI




-


FLUORIDEGATE AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY.

Sunday, February 17th, 2013.

FLUORIDEGATE the movie is a new documentary film that reveals the tragedy of how the United States government, industry, and trade associations protect and promote a policy known to cause harm to our country and especially small children, who suffer more than any other segment of the population. While the basis of their motivation remains uncertain, the outcome is crystal clear: it is destroying our nation.

Fluoride is a human carcinogen. Fluoride can cross the placenta and the blood-brain barrier. Excess fluoride causes an adverse health effect called dental fluorosis. Studies show that babies fed on formula made from fluoridated water, are receiving fluoride doses that exceed the EPA’s guidelines. Fluorides can cause lead to be released into water from lead in pipes. The poor and minority communities are at higher risk than other groups. Fluoridation is government policy arisen from corruption and collusion.

The policy is to take known hazardous waste and add it to the water supply. This policy is protected and promoted by the regulatory and watchdog agencies, and espoused by the politicians who are in the pocket of the Fluoride industry and its proponents, and the truth is thereby prevented from being officially disclosed.

Beginning to look like a conspiracy yet? Or perhaps insanity?

When you have the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Center for Disease Control (CDC), United States Public Health Service (PHS), American Dental Association (ADA), American Medical Association (AMA)

SUPPRESSING ANY INTERNAL DISSENT, REAL EVALUATION, STONEWALLING AND BLATANT CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO HIDE THE TRUTH, AS TYPIFIED BY THE EPA FIRING DR. WILLIAM MARCUS PHD, ITS OWN SENIOR SCIENCE ADVISOR AND ITS ONLY BOARD CERTIFIED TOXICOLOGIST, FOR CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFICACY OF FLUORIDATION AND A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF WHAT THE SAFE LEVELS SHOULD BE IN DRINKING WATER, THEN IT ALSO BEGINS TO WALK LIKE A CONSPIRACY.

HE TOOK THEM TO COURT AND WAS ULTIMATELY REINSTATED, BUT WAS THEN HARRASSED BY THEM, TOOK THEM TO COURT AND WON THAT ALSO. THOSE IN THE EPA RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ILLEGAL RETALIATION, SHREDDING OF DOCUMENTS, PERJURY, FORGERY, TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES, HAD NO ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THEM. I THINK IT REASONABLE TO SAY, THAT THIS NOW SOUNDS LIKE AND IS A CONSPIRACY.


-

http://thearrowsoftr
uth.com/tag/dr-willi
am-marcus-phd/
Youtube Video: Toxicologist Dr. Marcus Wins lawsuit.. Refusing To Remain Silent On Fluoridation Cancer Risk. FYI: This is Union Of Environmental Protection Agency Scientists related, Dr. William Marcus was the Union's Treasure.. who knows, his ripple back in 1992 could be triggering a Tsunami today. - Youtube Video..For Dr. William Marcus Skip to 0:11mins. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=zpw5fGt4U vI - FLUORIDEGATE AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY. Sunday, February 17th, 2013. FLUORIDEGATE the movie is a new documentary film that reveals the tragedy of how the United States government, industry, and trade associations protect and promote a policy known to cause harm to our country and especially small children, who suffer more than any other segment of the population. While the basis of their motivation remains uncertain, the outcome is crystal clear: it is destroying our nation. Fluoride is a human carcinogen. Fluoride can cross the placenta and the blood-brain barrier. Excess fluoride causes an adverse health effect called dental fluorosis. Studies show that babies fed on formula made from fluoridated water, are receiving fluoride doses that exceed the EPA’s guidelines. Fluorides can cause lead to be released into water from lead in pipes. The poor and minority communities are at higher risk than other groups. Fluoridation is government policy arisen from corruption and collusion. The policy is to take known hazardous waste and add it to the water supply. This policy is protected and promoted by the regulatory and watchdog agencies, and espoused by the politicians who are in the pocket of the Fluoride industry and its proponents, and the truth is thereby prevented from being officially disclosed. Beginning to look like a conspiracy yet? Or perhaps insanity? When you have the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Center for Disease Control (CDC), United States Public Health Service (PHS), American Dental Association (ADA), American Medical Association (AMA) SUPPRESSING ANY INTERNAL DISSENT, REAL EVALUATION, STONEWALLING AND BLATANT CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO HIDE THE TRUTH, AS TYPIFIED BY THE EPA FIRING DR. WILLIAM MARCUS PHD, ITS OWN SENIOR SCIENCE ADVISOR AND ITS ONLY BOARD CERTIFIED TOXICOLOGIST, FOR CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFICACY OF FLUORIDATION AND A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF WHAT THE SAFE LEVELS SHOULD BE IN DRINKING WATER, THEN IT ALSO BEGINS TO WALK LIKE A CONSPIRACY. HE TOOK THEM TO COURT AND WAS ULTIMATELY REINSTATED, BUT WAS THEN HARRASSED BY THEM, TOOK THEM TO COURT AND WON THAT ALSO. THOSE IN THE EPA RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ILLEGAL RETALIATION, SHREDDING OF DOCUMENTS, PERJURY, FORGERY, TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES, HAD NO ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THEM. I THINK IT REASONABLE TO SAY, THAT THIS NOW SOUNDS LIKE AND IS A CONSPIRACY. - http://thearrowsoftr uth.com/tag/dr-willi am-marcus-phd/ Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

1:39am Thu 23 May 13

Dan Soton says...

Fluoridation Endgame..






FLUORIDE WON'T BE ADDED TO PORTLAND, ORE. WATER, VOTERS DECIDE

BS/AP/ May 22, 2013, 4:23 PM

PORTLAND, ORE.Portland, Oregon officials had hoped to add fluoride to the city's water supply, after the City Council approved a plan last September in the largest city to hold out on fluoridation.

On Wednesday, however, Portland's mayor conceded defeat in the measure following a public vote.

With more than 80 percent of the expected ballots counted late Tuesday night, the Multnomah County election website showed the fluoride proposal failing, 60 percent to 40 percent.

Mayor Charlie Hales supported fluoridation and said "the measure lost despite my own 'yes' vote."

"That's sure disappointing, but I accept the will of the voters," he said in a statement.

WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED LAST YEAR TO ADD FLUORIDE TO THE WATER SUPPLY THAT SERVES ABOUT 900,000 PEOPLE, OPPONENTS MET THE NEWS WITH PROTESTS AND QUICKLY GATHERED ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO FORCE A VOTE ON THE SUBJECT.




http://www.cbsnews.c
om/8301-204_162-5758
5759/fluoride-wont-b
e-added-to-portland-
ore-water-voters-dec
ide/
Fluoridation Endgame.. FLUORIDE WON'T BE ADDED TO PORTLAND, ORE. WATER, VOTERS DECIDE BS/AP/ May 22, 2013, 4:23 PM PORTLAND, ORE.Portland, Oregon officials had hoped to add fluoride to the city's water supply, after the City Council approved a plan last September in the largest city to hold out on fluoridation. On Wednesday, however, Portland's mayor conceded defeat in the measure following a public vote. With more than 80 percent of the expected ballots counted late Tuesday night, the Multnomah County election website showed the fluoride proposal failing, 60 percent to 40 percent. Mayor Charlie Hales supported fluoridation and said "the measure lost despite my own 'yes' vote." "That's sure disappointing, but I accept the will of the voters," he said in a statement. WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED LAST YEAR TO ADD FLUORIDE TO THE WATER SUPPLY THAT SERVES ABOUT 900,000 PEOPLE, OPPONENTS MET THE NEWS WITH PROTESTS AND QUICKLY GATHERED ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO FORCE A VOTE ON THE SUBJECT. http://www.cbsnews.c om/8301-204_162-5758 5759/fluoride-wont-b e-added-to-portland- ore-water-voters-dec ide/ Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

3:58am Wed 5 Jun 13

Dan Soton says...

VIDEO: Bedfordshire reveals fluoride supply has been cut off since 2009




VIDEO:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=RBKZUPPgt
Lw




VIDEO: Campaigner Paul Connett speaks out over fluoride in Bedford.

Written by.

RUPERT MARQUAND.

Published: 04/06/2013 17:20.

AN anti-fluoridation campaigner, who will talk in Bedford tonight (June 4), has warned of the dangers of the mineral in water supplies.

Fluoridation has been a prominent issue in Bedfordshire lately as we revealed in March that the fluoride supply has been cut off in the county since 2009 without the public being told.

Dr Paul Connett spoke to us earlier today about the problem, before he was due to appear at a public meeting held at Bedford’s Corn Exchange at 7pm for a debate on the topic.
VIDEO: Bedfordshire reveals fluoride supply has been cut off since 2009 VIDEO: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=RBKZUPPgt Lw VIDEO: Campaigner Paul Connett speaks out over fluoride in Bedford. Written by. RUPERT MARQUAND. Published: 04/06/2013 17:20. AN anti-fluoridation campaigner, who will talk in Bedford tonight (June 4), has warned of the dangers of the mineral in water supplies. Fluoridation has been a prominent issue in Bedfordshire lately as we revealed in March that the fluoride supply has been cut off in the county since 2009 without the public being told. Dr Paul Connett spoke to us earlier today about the problem, before he was due to appear at a public meeting held at Bedford’s Corn Exchange at 7pm for a debate on the topic. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree