Shane Ross - a McKenna moment?

Scofflaw

Oireachtas Debates wrote:

Water Fluoridation

Deputy Shane Ross: Information on Shane P.N. Ross Zoom on Shane P.N. Ross The Minister will be aware of the controversy that has surrounded the insertion of fluoride into our water supply, and it has been heating up recently. I draw his attention to an article in "Hot Press", a magazine I am sure he is familiar with, which discusses the fluoridation of our water.


This serious issue was addressed in an interview with Declan Waugh, who is a well known scientist. He draws attention to some of the more startling facts about fluoridation of water. I do not know if the Minister or other Members are aware that Ireland is the only country in Europe that continues this activity. It started in the 1960s in an effort to increase the strength, cleanliness and health of citizens' teeth. However, the facts that have emerged in this Hot Press interview and elsewhere are quite staggering.


Fluoride is an industrial waste chemical. It is quite alarming that Ireland has one of the highest cancer rates in Europe, as well as one of the highest rates of cardiovascular disease and probably the highest rate of diabetes. Due to the obvious connection, which I will try to trace for the Minister, an independent Irish inquiry is required into whether this fluoridation is causing the high rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. There is evidence not just from Mr. Declan Waugh's interview but also from many international and distinguished investigations that fluoride is the cause of these diseases in many cases.


A very pertinent report was produced by the National Research Council in the United States in 2006. It found that fluoride reduces the body's ability to produce insulin, which is a serious consideration with regard to diabetes. It also found that the connection between fluoride and neurological diseases was very sinister. When we compare the incidence of these diseases here with the incidence in Northern Ireland, where water is not fluoridated, we see a stark comparison. People in the Republic are 4.5 times more likely to suffer from dementia between the ages of 39 and 59 than people in Northern Ireland. We are twice as likely to suffer from diabetes, and we are twice as likely to encounter incidents of Down's syndrome. Indeed, the only country in Europe that has a higher rate of cardiovascular disease is Kyrgyzstan, where fluoridation is just as rife as in the Republic of Ireland. Many studies in Harvard have also detected that neurological diseases are connected to fluoridation.

Populism? Genuine belief? Are all his facts gleaned from a Hot Press article? He cites dementia, Downs' Syndrome, and cardiovascular disease - are there actually serious studies showing a link to fluoride? Why is Ireland one of the few countries in Europe (there are plenty outside Europe) to use water fluoridation?

Now - there is a genuine political debate about whether the individual's right not to be fluoridated trumps the common good of fluoridation. What there doesn't seem to be is good peer-reviewed science showing the kind of harm the Deputy is concerned about. If you're going to attempt to show that there is no common good, I'm afraid I have to ask, as usual, that you provide better evidence than is acceptable in the Dáil - I'm afraid we have to go with reputable peer-reviewed science if we're going to debate the science of harm. Please do not adduce theories about "controlling the populace through chemicals" or attempt to explain the lack of science supporting your case by way of conspiracy theories.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hotblack Desiato

Invariably when a 'well known scientist' is wheeled out to support a minority view, they are way out of their field.

Declan Waugh's Education on LinkedIn
Institute of Technology, Sligo
Environmental Science and Technology, Environmental Science, Water Management, Ecology, Waste Management, Environmental law,
1988 – 1991

Chartered Environmentalist
Member Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Member of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management
Member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
Registered Environmental Auditor
Member Institute of Energy
Member of the Institute of Acoustics



Cork Institute of Technology
Applied Biology
1986 – 1988

Graduated with Credits

Activities and Societies: Member of Basketball club and badminton club.

Presuming the applied biology is a certificate at best. He doesn't even have a primary degree in a biological science.

Also Mr. Ross needs to learn that correlation is not causation.
The claim in relation to Down's Syndrome is pretty despicable, no reputable person has ever suggested that fluoride is a mutagen.

Dementia between 39 and 59 - the numbers here must be very small so the numbers in NI must be tiny. Mr. Ross also needs to learn the dangers of drawing conclusions from very small sample sizes.

When I heard the Hot Press ad on the radio, I thought 'Are they still going?' Seems like a big publicity stunt for them, perhaps a last roll of the dice.

KyussBishop

One of the claims brought up by the fluoride scaremongers was that of cancer incidence, so since there is no supporting evidence to show how fluoridation causes that, and since Ireland appears to have particularly high cancer rates (iirc), then why is there not a rather big amount of effort on behalf of the state, to investigate that and find the actual causes?

Could be the one beneficial thing to come from this; since it's obvious enough fluoridate is not causing these issues, it brings greater attention to asking what is the cause of higher incidence, of some of these illnesses?

Fromthetrees

1. What gives the Irish government the right to add a chemical to our public water supply that doesn't improve its safety and quality?

2. We copy the E.U. in almost everything we do here in Ireland so why are we essentially the only country that does fluoridate the public water supply?

3. What use is adding fluoride to our drinking water for children and babies with temporary or no teeth? What use is adding fluoride to our drinking water for old people with no teeth?

4. Why don't we add fluoride to salt or milk so people can choose, as we realistically cannot avoid treated water in our everyday lives, it's the most intrusive way to do it; cooking, washing, drinking, cleaning ect.

5. Why do Irish people have terrible teeth anyway?

6. Why spend millions of tax payers money to do something that may or may not be of benefit to the public?

7. Why is fluoride added to the water of people with perfectly good and well looked after teeth?

8. Why doesn't the government spend more money on educating people in oral health?

9. Why is this issue dismissed as a conspiracy theory when it's about morals, health and human rights?
Opium and cigarettes were thought of as harmless until they weren't.

10. Why don't we add other substances to the drinking water in the interest of 'public health'?

11. Would the oral health of our population really decline if we stopped adding fluoride to our water?

12. Was it necessary for me to express my misgivings about the fluoridation of our public water supply in the form of a list?

baalthor

Fromthetrees wrote: »

5. Why do Irish people have terrible teeth anyway?

Apparently we don't ...

http://www.economist.com/node/15060097?subjectid=7933596&story_id=15060097

Scofflaw

Opium and cigarettes were thought of as harmless until they weren't.

Opium and cigarettes hadn't even been tested for being hazardous when they were thought to be safe, even to the extent that such testing was either thought of or possible. Fluoride, on the contrary, has been extensively tested in the modern era, and none of those tests have shown any conclusive results indicating harm. This sort of argument is frankly silly.

The question of whether people should be medicated effectively without their consent, and only able, in urban areas at least, to opt out with some difficulty (although you can buy chemical filters or non-fluoridated water quite easily), is a fair one, but it gains nothing from throwing into the mix a heap of unproven claims that fluoride is actually bad for you. It doesn't have to bad for you for you not to like or want it, and there isn't a public health obligation as there is for vaccination against infectious diseases.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Seaneh

The problem is that fluoride DOES have negative effects on a large amount of people (well, everyone really, but most people cope).

Fluoride interferes with the thyroid gland's ability to absorb iodine (you cannot produce thyroid hormone, which every function of your body needs, without enough iodine) and in effect displaces iodine intake in your body which leads to hypothyroidism which in turn leads to all sorts of other problems. And if you are unlucky enough to have a thyroid disease like Hashimoto's, then the increased effect of fluoride in drinking water can be absolutely debilitating.

For that reason alone, fluoride shouldn't be in public drinking water. Inducing hypothyroidism in thousands and thousands of people which severely decreases their standard of living and can cause symptoms as varied as chronic pain to psychosis and depression and compounding auto-immune problems in others is not an acceptable risk when the supposed benefits aren't even proven and have been dismissed by a large proportion of the developed world as possibilities at best and fantasy as worst.

Iodine and Fluoride (Fluorine) are both Halogens but Fluoride/Fluorine is more active and more easily absorbed and more accumulative, so even if someone with Hypothyroidism induced by iodine deficiency is receiving "enough" iodine through their diet and medications like levothyroxine, excess un-needed foreign halogen's in their diet like Fluoride/Fluorine will basically eject the iodine from their system as the thyroid gland will absorb the fluoride/fluorine rather than the needed iodine.

The problem with getting anyone to give a **** about this is that Thyroid Diseases are "invisible" diseases and it's hard enough to get doctors who are treating you to give a crap or even diagnose people properly never mind anyone else.

Scofflaw

Again, you're reprising the medical angle, making large claims of harm that aren't scientifically proven, and discounting benefits that are. Public health policy requires proven science, and a study or two showing possible effects don't fit that bill.

That's not to say that fluoride can't be harmful, but that your claims that it's "inducing hypothyroidism in thousands and thousands of people which severely decreases their standard of living" aren't demonstrably true. There are thousands of people with hypothyroidism, yes, and there are a couple of studies that suggest fluoride may in some circumstances exacerbate hypothyroidism, but connecting the two without evidence is the worst sort of pseudo-science.

Anti-fluoride campaigners and advocates constantly have to reach for explanations why the "obvious harm" they see as "scientifically proven" isn't taken up at the policy level. The answer is simple - because it's not scientifically proven, and the benefits are. That still doesn't mean that medicating people in this way is right, but regrettably it does mean we'll never have that policy discussion, because those who might advocate against it put themselves out of the running by their unwillingness to accept that they don't have a provable medical case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Robbo

Why am I reminded as to David Amess being duped by Chris Morris. It really is incredible what a combination of thinking there might be a vote in it and being overwhelmed at "science" will lead to a politician getting behind.

Also, Gladys Ryan recently died at the age of 91.

Seaneh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, you're reprising the medical angle, making large claims of harm that aren't scientifically proven, and discounting benefits that are. Public health policy requires proven science, and a study or two showing possible effects don't fit that bill.

That's not to say that fluoride can't be harmful, but that your claims that it's "inducing hypothyroidism in thousands and thousands of people which severely decreases their standard of living" aren't demonstrably true. There are thousands of people with hypothyroidism, yes, and there are a couple of studies that suggest fluoride may in some circumstances exacerbate hypothyroidism, but connecting the two without evidence is the worst sort of pseudo-science.

Anti-fluoride campaigners and advocates constantly have to reach for explanations why the "obvious harm" they see as "scientifically proven" isn't taken up at the policy level. The answer is simple - because it's not scientifically proven, and the benefits are. That still doesn't mean that medicating people in this way is right, but regrettably it does mean we'll never have that policy discussion, because those who might advocate against it put themselves out of the running by their unwillingness to accept that they don't have a provable medical case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Actually, no, what I have stated is documented, academically accepted fact.

Fluoride is, without any doubt in the scientific of medical communities, a endocrine disruptor[1].

In fact, it was used until the 50's in europe to treat Hyperthyroidism because it's such an effective iodine blocker.[2]

Your thyroid gland is be the most sensitive tissue in your body to fluoride with more fluoride accumulating in your thyroid than many other soft tissues [3]

Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations" with "similar effects on T4 and T3…reported in experimental animals[1]

Altered thyroid function is associated with fluoride intakes as low as 0.05-0.1 mg fluoride per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day), or 0.03 mg/kg/day with iodine deficiency. Increased prevalence of goiter (>20 percent) is associated with fluoride intakes of 0.07-0.13 mg/kg/day, or 0.01 mg/kg/day with iodine deficiency[1]

[1] National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

[2] Maumené E. 1854. Compt Rend Acad Sci 39:538. & May W. 1935. Antagonismus Zwischen Jod und Fluor im Organismus. Klinische Wochenschrift 14:790-92.

[3] Shashi A. 1988. Biochemical effects of Fluoride on thyroid gland duringexperimental fluorosis. Fluoride 21:127–130. & Monsour PA, Kruger BJ. 1985. Effect of fluoride on soft tissue in vertebrates. Fluoride 18:53-61. / Call RA, Greenwood DA, LeCheminant H, et al. 1965. Histological and chemical studies in man on effects of fluoride. Pub Health Reports 80(6):529-38.



And that is citing just 6 of hundreds of studies which back what I've said up.

Like I said:

fluoride DOES have negative effects on a large amount of people (well, everyone really, but most people cope).

It might just be a minority of people who it effects to the point where their standard of living is disrupted, but even that is not acceptable when the supposed benefits are constantly being undermined by the rest of Europe's ability to cope just fine without the stuff in their water.

Scofflaw

Seaneh wrote: »

Actually, no, what I have stated is documented, academically accepted fact.

Fluoride is, without any doubt in the scientific of medical communities, a endocrine disruptor[1].

In fact, it was used until the 50's in europe to treat Hyperthyroidism because it's such an effective iodine blocker.[2]

Your thyroid gland is be the most sensitive tissue in your body to fluoride with more fluoride accumulating in your thyroid than many other soft tissues [3]

Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations" with "similar effects on T4 and T3…reported in experimental animals[1]

Altered thyroid function is associated with fluoride intakes as low as 0.05-0.1 mg fluoride per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day), or 0.03 mg/kg/day with iodine deficiency. Increased prevalence of goiter (>20 percent) is associated with fluoride intakes of 0.07-0.13 mg/kg/day, or 0.01 mg/kg/day with iodine deficiency[1]

[1] National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

[2] Maumené E. 1854. Compt Rend Acad Sci 39:538. & May W. 1935. Antagonismus Zwischen Jod und Fluor im Organismus. Klinische Wochenschrift 14:790-92.

[3] Shashi A. 1988. Biochemical effects of Fluoride on thyroid gland duringexperimental fluorosis. Fluoride 21:127–130. & Monsour PA, Kruger BJ. 1985. Effect of fluoride on soft tissue in vertebrates. Fluoride 18:53-61. / Call RA, Greenwood DA, LeCheminant H, et al. 1965. Histological and chemical studies in man on effects of fluoride. Pub Health Reports 80(6):529-38.



And that is citing just 6 of hundreds of studies which back what I've said up.

Like I said:

I haven't argued that there are no studies showing some harm, or showing a mechanism for harm. I have pointed out that the medical case against fluoride is not proven to a degree that influences policy, which is the case. I'm not interested even slightly in debating whether fluoride does harm to any great degree, since it's not a matter for debate but for scientific proof by people working in the field. All I observe is the outcome, which is a failure on the part of anti-fluoride campaigners to show demonstrable harm to a degree sufficient to affect policy, whatever individual facts may be "academically accepted" (by whom?).

Seaneh wrote: »

It might just be a minority of people who it effects to the point where their standard of living is disrupted, but even that is not acceptable when the supposed benefits are constantly being undermined by the rest of Europe's ability to cope just fine without the stuff in their water.

That comes back to the political question which is under discussion, but contains another false claim. Switzerland, for example, uses fluoridated salt, and there are other fluoridation systems in use in other parts of Europe, plus the places where the natural water is high in fluorides, so it is not the case that "the rest of Europe" gets by without it as a blanket claim.

However, there are certainly other ways of achieving similar falls in caries, and other countries have achieved such falls without water fluoridation, so it's clear that the same effects can be achieved without a system that's difficult to opt out of.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

Forget fluoride, the water in the drinking water is scientifically proven to be lethal!

Stop contaminating our drinking water with dihydrogen monoxide now!

SeanW

The Corinthian wrote: »

Forget fluoride, the water in the drinking water is scientifically proven to be lethal!

Stop contaminating our drinking water with dihydrogen monoxide now!

Thing is, you can choose how much water to drink. You can't choose for yourself if you want to drink flouride, unless you only drink bottled water (which may not be any better, and in any case is both financially and environmentally irresponsible) or import your supply from Northern Ireland :P or something like that.

Even with the best filtration system you can't get that stuff out of your water supply.

A reasonable person could come to the conclusion that benefit:risk ratio is not satisfactory and should, in a free, civilised society, have the right to choose whether to take the 'medicine' or not, especially in cases of thyroid problems as outlined earlier.

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not interested even slightly in debating whether fluoride does harm

QED