Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Independent Scientific and Medical Reviews of Fluoride and Implications for Water Fluoridation

We have now had four independent reviews of water fluoridation undertaken this year. Firstly a review  by Declan Waugh titled Human Toxicity, Environmental Impacts and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation published in March 2012. Mr. Waugh is an independent environmental scientist, member of the Chartered Institution of water and Environmental Management and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.  This was followed by Medical Ethics expert Dr. David Shaw, lecturer in Ethics in Dentistry at Glasgow University who recently published a paper in a peer reviewed journal Medical Law International confirming that fluoridation of water supplies is indeed a medicine. In a detailed analysis of European law on medicines, foods and water fluoridation Dr. Shaw concludes that the practice of water fluoridation “appears to contradict legislation and regulations governing food and healthcare in the EU.” This new analysis provides expert confirmation that fluoridated water must now be subject to regulation under the strict provisions of the Medicines Act.

A third review was undertaken by Dr. Awofeso, Professor of Public Health, University of Western Australia, and University of New South Wales, Australia published in the peer reviewed Oxford journal Public Health Ethics. Professor Awofeso concluded that “artificial water fluoridation cannot be justified on major ethical parameters such as effectiveness, proportionality, necessity, least infringement and public justification”. The review also found that “to date, there is no evidence to support the assertion that water fluoridation reduced social disparities in caries incidence internationally” and “ironically found that the most well-known adverse effect of artificial water fluoridation, that is, dental fluorosis is inequitably distributed, with poorer children more likely to develop dental fluorosis than children from socio economically communities.” The review also found that  “Public justification of water fluoridation is anchored in the ‘common good’ utilitarian principle—that is, the best outcome for the greatest number. While this principle is valid in some public health contexts such as mandatory wheat flour fortification with folic acid.. it cannot be justified in the case of water fluoridation given the wide availability of alternative sources whose intake are easier to regulate.” Dr. Awofeso goes on to state that “the fluosilicic acid brands used in artificially fluoridating  water supplies are known to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and mercury—major public health hazards for which no safe level exists.” and “rather than addressing the legitimate concerns of the public with regards to the ethics of fluoridation, pro-fluoridation activists dismiss anti-water fluoridation advocates as misinformed trouble makers intent on undermining public health.” In ending the review summarized that “Water fluoridation fails the precautionary principle test as defined by the (Commission of the European Communities, 2000).

The fourth review was undertake by Dr. Balan, Associate Professor of Public Health published in the Romanian Journal of Internal Medicine, which finds that the fluoride compounds which are put into water for fluoridation have never been tested for human safety while highlighting the potential neurological and general health risks that may be associated with exposure to fluoride including disturbances to central nervous system, osteosclerosis, arthritic symptoms, chronic joint pain and calcification of ligaments. Dr. Balan concluded that "All the recent large-scale studies of water fluoridation have shown that there are no positive effects. A supplementary confirmation is given by the fact that countries without fluoridation have shown an equal improvement in dental health than those with fluoridation. And there are also proofs regarding the fact that excessive fluoride exposure leads to increased levels of caries".

There is also a very important review published in the peer reviewed journal Chemosphere by Dr. Julio Camargo, Ecology Department, Faculty of Science, University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain titled ‘Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms’ in which Dr. Camargo states that “Fluoride accumulation in hard tissues may be viewed as a defense mechanism against fluoride intoxication because of the removal of fluoride from body circulation” and that “The toxic action of fluoride resides in the fact that fluoride ions act as enzymatic poisons, inhibiting enzyme activity and, ultimately, interrupting metabolic processes such as glycolysis and synthesis of proteins” Dr. Camargo’s findings were accepted by the United Nations Environment Programme and World Health Organisation in 2002, in their publication Fluorides- Environmental Health Criteria in which they concluded that “Excess exposure to bioavailable fluoride constitutes a risk to aquatic and terrestrial biota” and “that anthropogenic discharges such as emissions from water treatment plants will lead to increased levels of fluoride in the environment.”

In addition to this we have recent review by Dr. Grandjean et al. Professor of Public Health at the Harvard School of Public Health in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives in which Harvard researchers found that fluoride in drinking water may act as a developmental neurotoxin in children.

All of these important academics point out the lack of ethical validity in water fluoridation as the human health and environmental risks associated with fluoride and water fluoridation. These peer reviewed papers are extremely important in confirming what we already know that fluoridation is a charade founded on medical and legal fiction that results in the accumulation of fluoride in biological systems both within the human body as well as within the wider environment.

How the Department of Health can continue to justify supporting such a policy in light of the mounting scientific evidence is deeply disturbing as it clearly violates the ‘Precautionary Principle’ enshrined in the treaty of Europe as well as the Aarthus Convention which the Government of Ireland ratified in January of 2012. The Government are due to sign a new three year contract for the supply of water fluoridation chemicals later this year. Surely the best and most ethical decision they can now make is to end this policy and use this money for the provision of essential services elsewhere.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Irish Times Letter by Dr. Seamus Hickey and the Irish Expert Body on Fluoride and Health


Dr Seamus Hickey claims (Letter Irish Times 17th August 2012) that the Irish Expert Body (IEB) on Fluoride and Health assessed the same studies as Harvard University and found they were of no relevance to Ireland. The ultimate ruling on scientific issues like this is based upon weighting of scientific evidence in published literature and not on the basis of opinion. I would like to see the evidence to support this statement by the IEB, for if this is true, there would have been no need for Harvard to publish their peer reviewed study. I would also ask, has the IEB commissioned fluoridation/ IQ studies to be performed in Ireland to support this claim? (Answer, NO). 

Furthermore I would also ask, now fluoride in drinking water has been scientifically demonstrated to be a developmental neurotoxin, and given the dramatic increase in neurological disease witnessed in this country, including children suffering autism spectrum disorders, children suffering attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and adults suffering Alzheimer’s disease, do the Irish authorities intend to undertake any studies to demonstrate that fluoride in water is not contributing to this disease burden within our community? or indeed are the IEB simply content to attack the methodology of any study that finds fluoride causes harm to humans or the environment? the only position unfortunately which appears to be their approach to date. 

We do not know the causes for the alarming increases in these diseases but we do know that wherever possible, everything must be done by regulatory agencies and caregivers to protect the brain from known neurotoxins. Fluoride is a known neurotoxin and it is time to stop adding it to public drinking water systems.

As far as the levels at which lowered IQ were found in international studies Ding et al (2011) found lowered IQ between 0.3 - 3 ppm, Xiang estimated a threshold at 1.8 ppm (Xiang et al, 2003 a and b). Both Ding and Xiang found a correlation between the lowering of IQ and the levels of fluoride in urine - a measure of individual exposure. Xiang (2012) found a correlation between plasma fluoride and lowering of IQ - an even better measure of individual exposure.

Dr Hickey should be aware that prior to the recent Harvard Study the same reseachers in a previous peer reviewed published study stated: "In humans, only five substances have so far been documented as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. From this evidence, including our own studies on some of these substances, parallels may be drawn that suggest that fluoride could well belong to the same class of toxins but uncertainties remain…" In their latest study Professor Grandjean goes further and notes that "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” noting that “the effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious”.

Dr Hickey notes that the upper limit for naturally occurring calcium fluoride in the United States is five times higher than the Irish Limit. What he does not mention is that the U.S National Academy of Science's (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) published their review of fluoride in water in 2006 and unanimously found that this level to be unsafe. As a consequence of which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have now reduced the recommended optimum fluoride level to 0.7ppm for drinking water, which is below that recommended in Ireland. Furthermore at least three distinguished panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water entirely including NAS panel member Robert Isaacson, PhD a distinguished professor of neurobehavioral science at the State University of New York and NAS panel member Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD in biochemistry, associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University. 

The NRC devoted a whole chapter on the brain in its 507-page 2006 review and concluded: "it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means."
Of the five IQ studies reviewed by the NRC the panel drew special attention to the study by Xiang et al. which they indicated had the strongest design. This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. The IQ test was administered in a double-blind manner. The high-fluoride area had a mean water concentration of 2.4mg/L and the low-fluoride area had a mean water concentration of 0.36mg/L. The conclusion of this study noted “The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure." In summary, the NRC concluded that “the consistency of results from all five studies appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence."

Incredibly, no fluoridating country including Ireland has followed up on this. 

The IEB also decline to acknowledge that the NRC recommended further research be conducted on the effects of fluoride on the risk of bladder cancer, as well as thyroid, liver, kidney, pancreas, pineal and brain function in addition to fluoride’s possible association with nutritional deficiency with particular emphasis on fluoride’s impact on calcium metabolism. In fact the NRC and the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Health (SCHER) listed over 50 additional epidemiology, toxicology, clinical medicine and environmental exposure assessments required to be undertaken on fluoride. 

Astonishingly not one of these studies has ever been undertaken in Ireland, the only country in Europe and one of only two such countries in the world to maintain a national legislative policy to inject fluoride compounds into public water supplies.  This should be of the utmost importance, given that the All Ireland Cancer Atlas 1995-2007 demonstrates that the prevalence of cancer diseases is considerably higher in the Republic of Ireland, compared to non fluoridated Northern Ireland; as is osteoporosis, a debilitating medical condition that affects over 300,000 people in the Republic, which is double the prevalence found in Northern Ireland or the UK, and acknowledging that a great deal of information is now available internationally linking fluoride exposure with osteoporosis and hip fracture in the elderly.


Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Risk Factors and Cancer Incidence in Ireland and Implications for Water Fluoridation and Public Health.


To:       Dr. Harry Comber, National Cancer Registry Ireland

Cc:       Mr. Enda Kenny T.D. Department of the Taoiseagh

Dr. James O Reilly T.D. Minister for Health

Mr. Simon Coveney T.D.  Minister For Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Mr. Phil Hogan T.D. Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government

Dr. Tony Holohan, Chief Medical Officer, HSE
Dr. Ivan Perry, Professor of Public Health Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College Cork

Ms. Laura Burke, Director General, Environmental Protection Agency




Risk Factors and Cancer Incidence in Ireland and Implications for Water Fluoridation and Public Health.

Dear Sirs


I am writing to you regarding the information provided in the National Cancer Registry Ireland (NCRI) cancer statistic maps. As you know these maps illustrate the geographical spread of cancer diseases and identify areas of high and low risk for the 32 countries of Ireland.

What is one of the most obvious and interesting facts in these illustrations is that Northern Ireland is identified as predominantly the lowest risk area for developing cancer diseases throughout the 32 counties of Ireland. In fact it is astonishing to see that the relative risk of developing cancer actually mirrors the geographic area demarcating the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland for some notable cancers  (see fig 1. attached).




From the position of identifying potential risk factors that may contribute to this notable phenonomen, it is noteworthy that the influence of hexafluorosilicic acid and its various compounds in drinking water was not included as a factor in contributing to cancer disease. This is particularly the case as the only known difference in population exposures to known environmental toxins between Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI) is that the drinking water supply is not fluoridated in NI while it is fluoridated with hexafluorosilicic acid in the ROI.

Of interest to your researchers and data analysts should also be the influence of drinking water chemistry on disease prevalence, in particular how low calcium and magnesium  drinking waters increase the risk of developing cancer as well as other diseases such as cardiovascular and neurological illness. The WHO have published a report[1] highlighting the fact that the concentration of calcium and magnesium in drinking water plays a very significant role in the development of cancer and illhealth amongst the population as a whole.

The importance of these facts was examined in some detail in an independent scientific report[2] published in March of this year, which highlighted large geographic areas of the country and their respective populations who consume fluoridated low calcium and magnesium waters, present in many parts of Ireland, where the calcium levels can be <20mg/L in comparison to other geographic areas of the country where the calcium level in drinking water may be in excess of 300mg/l.

The bioavailability of calcium and magnesium was addressed by the WHO in their report[3] when they stated that:

 "The bioavailability of calcium from water is likely to be influenced by the same factors that affect calcium bioavailability from food, which has been reviewed. The presence of anions in certain waters can influence the bioavailability of calcium from either water or other sources in the diet."

Current scientific knowledge clearly accepts that Fluoride influences the bioavailability of calcium in drinking water. It is now known that the lower the calcium content in water the higher the blood plasma fluoride content in consumers who drink fluoridated water.  Furthermore the prestigious U.S. National Research Council (NRC), in their published report[4] on fluoride, stated that:

Fluoride clearly has the effect of decreasing serum calcium and increasing the calcium requirement in some or many exposed persons.”

Fluoride’s interaction with calcium was also noted by Masters et al[5] when they
reported that:

“apart from the possibility of direct toxicity the dissociated fluoride ions is known to bind calcium. If diets are low in calcium the products of silicofluoride dissociation can exacerbate the competition between calcium and lead for bone and soft tissue sites.”

It is widely known that dietary calcium severely restricts fluoride assimilation from the GI tract into the bloodstream.[6],[7] In other words diets high in calcium lower blood plasma fluoride levels from drinking fluoride water. In the same manner it is now known that diets low in calcium enhance the effects of fluoride on total plasma calcium.[8],[9],[10],[11] It has been reported by Teotia et al.[12] that fluoride appears to exaggerate the metabolic effects of calcium deficiency on bone and Tiwari et al.[13] provides a description of a mechanism by which fluoride exposure in the presence of calcium deficiency further increases the dietary requirement for calcium, namely by altering the expression of genes necessary for calcium absorption from the gastrointestinal tract. It is now well established that the indirect action of fluoride induces a net increase in bone formation[14] and also decreases calcium absorption from the gastrointestinal tract,[15],[16],[17] both of these effects lead to an increase in the body’s calcium requirement.[18],[19] If dietary calcium is inadequate to support the increased requirement, the response is an increase in secondary hyperparathyroidism.[20] This view was supported by Krishnamachari in his review[21] when he found that in the presence of inadequate calcium, fluoride directly or indirectly stimulates the parathyroid glands, causing secondary hyperparathyroidism leading to bone loss. It is also now known that secondary hyperparathyroidism in response to calcium deficiency may contribute to a number of diseases, including osteoporosis, hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular dystrophy, and colorectal carcinoma.[22]

It is further known that calcium deficiency induced or exacerbated by fluoride exposure may contribute to other adverse health effects.[23] For example, Goyer[24] indicates that low dietary calcium increases the concentration of lead in critical organs and the consequent toxicity.

As noted in the report entitled Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal
Implications of Water Fluoridation the interaction of fluoride and calcium was a matter of some concern to the British Medical Research Council[25] who stated that:

“the question of the bioavailability of ingested fluoride is important, especially with respect to the possible influence of water hardness on uptake and differences between naturally fluoridated and artificially fluoridated water.”

The British Medical Research Council (BMRC) also observed that:

“a major area of uncertainty concerns the bioavailability of fluoride. This is particularly important with respect to the possible differential absorption of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated water and the role of water hardness (calcium levels).”[26]

The BMRC has further stated in this regard that:

“If the bioavailability of ingested fluoride can vary significantly, this might need to be taken into account in the interpretation of epidemiological studies.”

As noted in the Waugh report[27] no such studies have ever taken place in Ireland and unfortunately neither water fluoridation nor water chemistry were included in any of the risk characteristics examined by the NCRI for the published cancer incidence maps of Ireland. 

It is evident that these risk characteristics should have been included given the published findings in a peer-reviewed cancer research journal[28] in 2006 which reported a five-fold increased risk of developing osteosarcoma among teenage boys exposed to fluoridated water at ages 6, 7, and 8 as reported by Dr. Elise Bassin and a team of Harvard University scientists. From available epidemiological data it is also a known fact that there is a significant increased risk of developing this disease in the ROI compared to NI. It is also known that the U.S. National Toxicology Program[29] found 'equivocal evidence' in animal experiments that fluoride was carcinogenic in 1990.


This would further support the inclusion of fluoride as a possible contributory factor to an increased risk of cancers as noted in your maps. Indeed the trade union representing some 7,000 scientists, toxicologists and professionals in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency believe that this former classification is incorrect and that fluoride should be classified as a known carcinogen.

Also of note is the research by Dr. Yiamouyiannis which documented that fluoride can increase tumour growth rate by 25% at only 1 ppm, can produce melanotic tumours, can transform normal cells into cancer cells and can increase the carcinogenesis of other chemicals.[30]

In addition, epidemiological studies undertaken by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Dr. Yiamouyiannis determined that fluoridation increased the incidence of cancer deaths.[31]  Other research resurfaced by Dr. Dean Burk, documented studies examining cancer prevalence between the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation and the 10 largest without. What researchers found was that following fluoridation, deaths from cancer went up immediately- in as little as a year.[32] As a result of which, the United States Congress ordered animal studies[33] to determine whether fluoride causes cancer under laboratory conditions.

The U.S. Public Health Service conducted these tests as the National Toxicology Program, with oral, liver, and bone cancer receiving special attention. The results were released in 1990 and revealed that fluoride could be a carcinogen. The results were released in 1990 and revealed that fluoride is a carcinogen. Not only did precancerous changes occur in the animals’ oral squamous cells as a result of increasing levels of fluoride in their drinking water, but there was an increase of tumors and cancers in these cells, a rare form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) occurred only in animals given fluoride in their drinking water, there was an increase in the incidence of thyroid follicular cell tumors, and a rare form of liver cancer (hepatocholangiocarcinoma) occurred in animals given fluoride in their drinking water.

Furthermore  it was reported by Takahashi et al.[34] in the Journal of Epidemiology that researchers found 23 of 36 cancer sites (63.9%) were associated positively with fluoridation status, using World Health Organization data and the U.S. Fluoridation Census. The authors concluded that:

 “The likelihood of fluoride acting as a genetic cause of cancer requires consideration.”

This view appears to be supported by the prestigious U.S. National Research Council (NRC) in their report on fluoride in water and fluoride toxicity, when they stated that:

 “Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone…,”[35]

The NRC further recommended further research be conducted on the effects of fluoride on the risk of bladder cancer, as well as thyroid, liver, kidney, pancreas, pineal and brain function in addition to fluoride’s possible association with nutritional deficiency with particular emphasis on fluoride’s impact on calcium metabolism. In total the  NRC listed over 50 additional epidemiology, toxicology, clinical medicine and environmental exposure assessments required to be undertaken on fluoride. Not one of these studies has ever been undertaken in Ireland or elsewhere since the publication of the report over six years ago. A full list of such studies is included in the Waugh  report.[36]

Notwithstanding the above what is also clearly evident from the NRCI cancer incidence maps is that the highest risk cancer geographic areas for all cancers include the lowest calcium drinking water areas that are artificially fluoridated; an act that dramatically increases the bioavailability and toxicity of fluoride compounds for consumers in these areas. This is extremely important given that silicofluorides and fluoride compounds are toxic substances.

Fluoride has been shown to be toxic, not only to the skeletal tissues, but also to the non-skeletal tissues such as the brain, liver, pancreas, endocrines and kidney.[37],[38] Recent peer-reviewed research now clearly establishes fluoride as a neurotoxin that can have a serious adverse impact on the developing brain.[39],[40],[41] In addition the WHO has advised in respect of fluoride toxicity that:

“Patients with kidney dysfunction may be particularly susceptible to fluoride toxicity.” [42]


There is now a growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates that silicofluorides and their derivative compounds in drinking water may be regarded as insidious poisons that accumulate in the human body and environment over time. As with any poison the severity of the health problems depends on how much fluoride an individual is exposed to and at what stage in their development. In many respects, the toxicity of fluoride is similar to both lead and arsenic.  In fact the publication Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products ranks fluoride above lead in terms of toxicity. As with both of these harmful substances, young children are most susceptible to their negative impact, which is one of the principle reasons that lead was banned as an additive to petrol and paint substances. Since 2006, lead and its inorganic compounds have been classified by the German Research Foundation as being "carcinogenic in animal experiments" similar to the findings for fluoride by the U.S. National Toxicology Program.

The toxicity of fluoride is associated with its high chemical and biological activity. Fluoride is known for its aggressive interactivity properties and actively seeks out essential elements like calcium and magnesium and interferes with their capacity to fulfil important metabolic processes in the body. Fluoride induced apoptosis (cell injury death) was demonstrated in the cells from different organs and tissues including lungs, kidneys, liver, brain, pancreas thymus, endometrium, bone marrow, hair follicles, erythrocytes and leukemic cells. It has been found that fluoride is a toxic anion that stimulates cellular oxygen consumption producing highly destructive free radicals such as superoxide radicals that can damage cell membranes and lead to oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is also a common mechanism by which chemical toxicity can occur in the liver. Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis.

Fluoride inhibits AdoHydrae and homocysteine metabolism which is linked to cardiovascular disease, atherosclerotic disease, congenital heart defects, Down Syndrome, neurodegenerative disorders including depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, epilepsy, behavioural disorders, Alzheimers disease and carcinogenesis.

Peer-reviewed scientific research has found an inverse association between fluoride in drinking water and decreased intelligence in children. Harvard School of Public Health last month published a scientific study in which it concluded that fluoride in drinking water was a developmental neurotoxin.[43]

In the study researchers stated amongst other observations the following:

 "A recent cross-sectional study based on individual-level measure of exposures suggested that low levels of water fluoride (range 0.24 to 2.84 mg/L) had significant negative associations with child’s intelligence (Ding et al. 2011)." AND "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta (ATSDR 2003). Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature (US EPA 2011).""

Professor Grandjean ( Professor of Environmental Health - Department of Environmental Health - Harvard School of Public Health) one of the principle researchers of the study and one of the world’s leading environmental and public health professionals noted the following regarding their findings:

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain, the effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious”.

Fluoride has also been found to depress melatonin synthesis in the pineal gland and induce accelerated sexual maturity in both humans and animals. It is also accepted that fluoride has profound effects on the skeleton. It has been found to cause decreased cortical bone mineral density, poor bone quality, increased skeletal fragility, osteomalacia, rickets, periodontal disease, osteoporosis, osteoporotic hip fractures and is positively associated with rhematopid arthritis, bone pain and proximal myopathy (neuromuscular disease resulting in muscle weakness).

These observations are supported by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons[44] in their review of water fluoridation in which they concluded:

"There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it damages both teeth and bones. Other medical problems may also occur, including neurological damage."

In conclusion, it is evident from the NRCI maps that the highest risk areas for cancer disease are those where the population consumes artificially fluoridated water, especially soft water areas of Ireland with low calcium and magnesium levels.

Within the ROI areas that were identified as low risk, included are geographic locations where there is an increased dependence on drinking water abstracted from private wells or community water schemes that are non-fluoridated or locations where more alkaline waters with higher calcium and magnesium concentrations are present, thereby reducing the exposure, bioavailability and toxicity of fluoride for humans.

For disease such as blood cancers the incidence and risk of cancer is so uniform in NRCI maps that the influence of fluoride cannot be discounted as a major contributory factor to this disease burden on the Irish population. Similarly with pancreatic cancer, the influence of fluoridated foods and blood plasma fluoride levels cannot be discounted as a contributory factor for the development of this disease, especially as fluoride is scientifically documented to be an enzymatic poison and metabolic inhibitor.

I would ask therefore that you strongly recommend, in light of recently published scientific findings demonstrating the human health impacts of fluoride and in particular the remarkable correlation of the NCRI cancer incidence maps with exposure of the population to fluoridated water, noting how the maps clearly identify that citizens of Northern Ireland (being also the only geographic region of this island where the population is not exposed to fluoride in drinking water) have a lower risk of developing cancer diseases and that the evidence is convergent in demonstrating that fluoride may play a significant role in the development of such diseases.

In such circumstances it is clearly incumbent on the Irish Government to uphold its moral and legal obligation, to comply with the ‘precautionary principle’ and to call for an immediate cessation of this policy in line with other European nation states many of whom ceased fluoridation of water supplies on human health risk grounds.

In doing so the population of the entire island of Ireland will be provided with non-fluoridated drinking water, a basic legal right provided to the remaining 98% of the population of Europe.

Yours sincerely

Declan Waugh


[1] World health Organisation (WHO) document titled Calcium and magnesium in Drinking Water; Public Health Significance 2009.
[2] Waugh D. Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation, Submitted to Government of Ireland, March 2012.
[3] World health Organisation (WHO) document titled Calcium and magnesium in Drinking Water; Public HEALTH significance 2009.
[4] USA National Research Council, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA‘s Standards, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, (2006), Page 251
[5] R.D.Masters, M,J,Coplan, B.T.Hone, J.E. Dykes, Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology 21(6) 1091-1100, 2000.
[6] USA National Research Council, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA‘s Standards, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, (2006)
[7] Whitford. G.M, Effects of plasma fluoride and dietary calcium concentrations.
Calcified Tissue International, Volume 54, Number 5 (1994), 421-425,
[8] M. Joost Larsen, A. Richards and O. Fejerskov, Calcified Tissue International Volume 33, Number 1 (1981), 541-544, DOI: 10.1007/BF02409486
[9] Teotia, M., S.P. Teotia, and K.P. Singh. 1998. Endemic chronic fluoride toxicity and dietary calcium deficiency interaction syndromes of metabolic bone disease and deformities in India: Year 2000. Indian J. Pediatr. 65(3):371-381.
[10] Gupta, S.K., T.I. Khan, R.C. Gupta, A.B. Gupta, K.C. Gupta, P. Jain, and A. Gupta. 2001. Compensatory hyperparathyroidism following high fluoride ingestion—a clinico- Biochemical correlation. Indian Pediatr. 38(2):139-146.
[11] Krishnamachari, K.A. 1986. Skeletal fluorosis in humans: A review of recent progress in the understanding of the disease. Prog. Food Nutr. Sci. 10(3-4):279-314.
[12] Rosenquist, J.B., P.R. Lorentzon, and L.L. Boquist. 1983. Effect of fluoride on
parathyroid activity of normal and calcium-deficient rats. Calcif. Tissue Int. 35(4-
5):533-537.
[13] Tiwari, S., S.K. Gupta, K. Kumar, R. Trivedi, and M.M. Godbole. 2004. Simultaneous exposure of excess fluoride and calcium deficiency alters VDR, CaR, and Calbindin D
9 k mRNA levels in rat duodenal mucosa. Calcif. Tissue Int. 75(4):313-320.
[14] Chavassieux, P., P. Pastoureau, G. Boivin, M.C. Chapuy, P.D. Delmas, and P.J.
Meunier. 1991. Dose effects on ewe bone remodeling of short-term sodium fluoride administration—a histomorphometric and biochemical study. Bone 12(6):421-427.
[15] Krishnamachari, K.A. 1986. Skeletal fluorosis in humans: A review of recent progress in the understanding of the disease. Prog. Food Nutr. Sci. 10(3-4):279-314.
[16] Stamp, T.C., M.V. Jenkins, N. Loveridge, P.W. Saphier, M. Katakity, and S.E. MacArthur. 1988. Fluoride therapy in osteoporosis: Acute effects on parathyroid and mineral homoeostasis. Clin. Sci. 75(2):143-146.
[17] Ekambaram, P., and V. Paul. 2001. Calcium preventing locomotor behavioral and dental toxicities of fluoride by decreasing serum fluoride level in rats. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 9(4):141-146
[18] Pettifor, J.M., C.M. Schnitzler, F.P. Ross, and G.P. Moodley. 1989. Endemic skeletal fluorosis in children: Hypocalcemia and the presence of renal resistance to parathyroid hormone. Bone Miner. 7(3):275-288.
[19] Ekambaram, P., and V. Paul. 2001. Calcium preventing locomotor behavioral and dental toxicities of fluoride by decreasing serum fluoride level in rats. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 9(4):141-146
[20] USA National Research Council, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA‘s Standards, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, (2006), Page 250
[21] Krishnamachari, K.A. 1986. Skeletal fluorosis in humans: A review of recent progress in the understanding of the disease. Prog. Food Nutr. Sci. 10(3-4):279-314.
[22] Fujita, T., and G.M. Palmieri. 2000. Calcium paradox disease: Calcium deficiency prompting secondary hyperparathyroidism and cellular calcium overload. J. Bone Miner. Metab. 18(3):109-125.
[23] USA National Research Council, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA‘s Standards, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, (2006), Page 251
[24] Goyer, R.A. 1995. Nutrition and metal toxicity. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 61(3 Suppl.):646S
[25] UK Medical Research Council Working Group Report: Water Fluoridation and
Health, September 2002, Page 11.
[26] UK Medical Research Council Working Group Report: Water Fluoridation and
Health, September 2002, Page 15.
[27] Waugh D. Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation, Submitted to Government of Ireland, March 2012.
[28] Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water & Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes & Control 17: 421-8.
[29] National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
[30] Yiamouyiannis (1993). Fluoridation and Cancer. The Biology and Epidemiology of Bone and Oral Cancer Related to Fluoridation. Fluoride, 26, 83-96.
[31] Yiamouyiannis J & Burk D (1977) Fluoridation and cancer: age-dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation. Fluoride, 10, 102-123
[32] Burk D & Yiamouyiannis J (1975) Letter July 8, 1975, to Hon. James J Delaney. In Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 94th Congress. First Session. House of Representatives, July 21, 1975, 23729-23732
[33] National Toxicology Program (NTP) Tech Rep Ser. 1990 Dec;393:1-448. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride (CAS No. 7681-49-4)in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies).
[34] J Epidemiol. 2001 Jul;11(4):170-9.Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACR/IARC (WHO) data (1978-1992). International Agency for Research on Cancer, by Takahashi K, Akiniwa K, Narita K.
[35] U.S National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C.
[36] Waugh. D. Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and legal Implications of Water Fluoridation, Submitted to the government of Ireland March 2012, Pages 276-281.
[37] WHO. Fluorides and oral health. Technical Report Series-846. WHO,Geneva 1984.
[38] Zhavoronkov AA. Non-skeletal forms of fluorosis. Arch Pathol 1977; 39: 83-91.
[39] Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P, 2012, Harvard School of Public Health, Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ Health Perspect doi:10.1289/ehp.1104912
[40] Spittle B. 2011. Neurotoxic effects of fluoride. Fluoride 44(3):117-124.
[41] P Grandjean, PJ Landrigan, Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals,
The Lancet, Volume 368 November 8, 2006
[42] International Programme on Chemical Safety. (1984). Environmental Health Criteria 36: Fluorine and Fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
[43] Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P, 201 2 Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives on July 20, 2012.
[44] Kauffman J. M. Ph.D. Water Fluoridation: A Review of Recent Research and Actions, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Volume 10 Number 2 Summer 2005).