Comments on: Why have science when you can have John Gormely.

By: James J. Gormley

James J. Gormley — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:04:44 +0000

Dear Simon,
Perhaps I feel a certain name kinship to the John Gormley you lambaste in your editorial (and whose name you spelled incorrectly in the headline), however, whatever the reason, I must try to clear up a few misconceptions (partly with help from Dr. Mercola’s web posts on this) regarding water-supply fluoridation evident in your blog.
First, I believe that much of Europe has rejected water fluoridation, including: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.
Second, fluoride is not an essential nutrients and no human disease (including dental decay) has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency.
Third, the fluoride used to fluoridate water is an industrial waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is an unprocessed hazardous waste, contaminated with a number of toxins, particularly arsenic.
Fourth, fluoridation adds between 0.1 and 1.6 parts per billion (ppb) of arsenic to drinking water, and therefore violates the U.S. EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic – which is 0 ppb.
Fifth, hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are the chemicals used to fluoridate 91% of fluoridated water in at least the US, have never been tested for safety and effectiveness.
Fluoride is, in truth, a very toxic substance, which is why it is the active ingredient in a number of pesticides. Just 2 grams of fluoride is enough to kill an adult, and just 500 mg is enough to kill a child.
In the U.S., for example, people have died, and many have become sick, when faltering fluoridation equipment has pumped excess fluoride into the water.
Poor nutrition exacerbates the toxic effects of fluoride exposure, which is a further reason why it’s wrong to target poor communities with fluoridation (as poor nutrition is more prevalent in low income communities).
According to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems.”
Sixth, most dental authorities now concede that there is little, if any, benefit from swallowing fluoride, and that fluoride’s benefits (whatever they are) come from topical application.
When water fluoridation began 50 years ago, it was believed that fluoride needed to be ingested in order to be effective. This is not any longer the prevailing view of the dental establishment in the U.S., for example, which now generally concedes that fluoride’s benefits are, to reiterate, derived primarily from topical application.
According, for instance, to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.”
So while I will confess complete ignorance of the niceties of eco-politics in Dublin South East or of Mr. John Gormley, it very much appears that a fellow Gormley has very much gotten it right regarding water fluoridation.
Many thanks.
James
Senior Policy Advisor, Citizens for Health US (www.citizens.org)

By: The PD’s are F**Ked at Irish Election

The PD’s are F**Ked at Irish Election — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:56:56 +0000

[...] leaflet are highlighted over on politics.ie and many are wrong. Although the fluorine one is not wide off the mark.(How can you chose if your water is fluoridated or not. It is done by the council for everyone.) [...]

By: EUES Ireland

EUES Ireland — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:27:52 +0000

National Confectioners Association
supports fluoridation, lol

By: EUES Ireland

EUES Ireland — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:24:02 +0000

Anyone interested in tracking the WHO connection should have a look at this article:

http://www.thenhf.com/fluoridation_33.htm

By: EUES Ireland

EUES Ireland — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:13:50 +0000

Constant referencing by supporters of fluoridation of the WHO and the Irish Forum on Fluoridation would do well to note that Dr Seamus O’Hickey and Dr Dennis O’Mullane of the Forum are the same two experts that acted as consultants to the South African government and advised them to mass fluoridate. Impartial? I don’t think so. Dr O’Mullane is also one of the foremost advisors to the WHO, surprise, surprise. It doesn’t stop him referencing the WHO constantly as being the major world-wide organisation (supposedly also impartial) that supports fluoridation. He just forgets to mention that he formulates a lot of their policy!! For my money, I would rather listen to the voice of the York Report 2000. A review, which started as an effort by the UK government to find support for their fluoridation plans. They examined ALL the fluoride research and literature available worldwide for nearly two years. The Report found, and I quote:”
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight dis-benefit to children’s teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.”
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
The American Dental Association publishes an impressive list of supporting organisations, but it’s a list that has shrunk over the years for two reasons: Some organisations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union42, were erroneously listed as supporters and thus had to ask to be removed from the list; other organisations have withdrawn support they once gave for fluoridation in light of the growing evidence of the dangers it poses. Those who have withdrawn support (and WITHDRAWING support is more proactive) for fluoridation since 1990 (or who never supported it to begin with but were none-the-less listed as supporters) include, among many others:

American Academy of Allergy and Immunology

American Academy of Diabetes

American Cancer Society

American Chiropractic Association

American Civil Liberties Union

American Diabetes Association

American Nurses Association

American Parent-Teachers Association

American Psychiatric Association

Child Study Association of America

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Activation Network

Commission on Chronic Illness

Environmental Protection Agency

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

Joint Committee on Health Problems in Education

National Institute of Municipal Law Officers

Society of Toxicology

In May 1999, a union made up of approximately 1500 Environmental Protection Agency scientists and other professionals issued a statement of their opposition to water fluoridation. The following year, they also called for a moratorium on fluoridation based on prolific scientific evidence of the dangers it poses.

Now, this list is not any bigger than the one mentioned above, but if you take out the word dental from the above list, how many “independent” organisations does that leave?

Finally, this is not just about fluorosis. Fluorosis is an indicator of system toxicity. It affects all the bones, not just the ones we can see. There are many other health related actions of fluoride. Before I go, just a question. Do you know how fluoride actually “works”? Well, I’ll tell you anyway. Fluoride kills the enzymes in the mouth. When we ingest sugars and starches, the enzymes start beavering away at them, excreting acid as they go. This acid eats into the enamel causing caries. The fluoride comes into contact with them and kills them. Dead. Unfortunately, enzymes are basic neuro-transmitters essential throughout the body, and the fluoride doesn’t know the white hats from the black hats. It just kills them. Everywhere it finds them. Talk about a blunt instrument! That is why it is important to realise it should only be applied topically, which is something then ADA only admitted ten or so years ago. And even why it would make more sense to brush teeth before eating, not that we will ever get into that habit. BTW, fluoride’s action on caries reduction was discovered in 1920 through an investigation of bad fluorosis in naturally occurring fluoride areas in the US. From 1920 to 1952 the ADA and AMA were AGAINST fluoride in the water. Then the money arrived. GL JG!

By: Pidge

Pidge — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:21:59 +0000

You’re saying that water without fluoride is damaging to people’s health?

Or is it more that fluoride is seen to beneficial? Because if you follow that argument, then you say that banning vitamin additives in the water supply is “damaging to peoples health”.

As for it not being “phycopathic drugs”, that’s hardly the point. If I want fluoride, I’ll bloody well add it myself. If I don’t want fluoride, then I won’t add it. This is an example of that choice being taken away from me, simply because experts say that it is healthier.

By: Simon

Simon — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:52:53 +0000

If everyone on that list agreed with spiking everyone’s food with harmless medication, without their specific consent, would you support it?

Would you disagree with the government banning certain dangerous additives that damage peoples health? Because if you listen to the experts they say banning this is damaging to peoples health.

Anyway the forced medication point it bullshit in fairness. this is not mind altering phycopathic drugs we are talking about here. It is fluoridation of water supplies.

By: Pidge

Pidge — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:39:49 +0000

I think that you, and to a certain extent, John Gormley missed the point.

If everyone on that list agreed with spiking everyone’s food with harmless medication, without their specific consent, would you support it?

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:58:30 +0000

ya I am getting the error thing to. I will see what I can do about it

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:57:57 +0000

It’s all debatable – so what’s your problem with somebody like John Gormley debating it?
Of course everything is debatable. Hence the existence of this post. I never said that he could not debate the issue. My point is the as the WHO says “consensus among dental experts is that fluoridation is the single most important intervention to reduce dental caries” that we should be listening to what the dentists say on this one. I mean many politicians like Bush go on about climate change but should we not listen to the experts on that one? (basis of my climate change thingy nothing to do with the global effects) Why should we not listen to the experts on this one?