Friday, September 28, 2012

Irish Children the most exposed to fluoride in EU study

As a chartered environmental scientist I am ethically responsible for sharing information on the health risks of toxins in our drinking water as soon as I become aware of concerns to protect the most vulnerable members of society. I am appealing directly to the decision-makers to act quickly to protect the unborn, formula-fed newborn and young children (as well as the wider public) from silicofluoride contaminants in our drinking water.

I have just become aware of a recent EU study funded under the FLINT Project examining the fluoride levels in children’s urine. Ireland participated in the study and children in Cork City were tested for both fluoride levels in urine and incidence of dental fluorosis, which is a biomarker for chronic overexposure to fluoride.

Compared to all other European communities children tested in Cork City, which is representative of the wider population in Ireland, had the highest level of fluoride in their urine.

The study also found that infant children under one who drink less than 500mls of fluoridated tap water a day constituted in formula milk or drinking water on its own were in the highest risk category for developing fluorosis which is a biomarker for chronic overexposure to fluoride in their diet.

Astonishingly, the study compared dental fluorosis levels in both fluoridated and none fluoridated communities in Ireland and found that for children up to age 8 in fluoridated areas up to 24% had abnormal teeth due to exposure to fluoride.

For children up to age 12, 37% had abnormal teeth due to fluoride overexposure. In non fluoridated communities for children up to age 8 < 10% had abnormal teeth and for children up to age 12 approximately 17% had abnormal teeth. Incredibly the study found that the level of dental fluorosis was 100% higher in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated communities.

Not surprisingly the EU study also found that Ireland had the highest level of dental fluorosis amongst children and teenagers.

What is even more alarming is that most of the fluoride consumed remained in the children bodies, where it is bound to calcified tissue, bone and organs such as the pineal gland.

As a parent I want to give my child the best start possible in life and am extremely concerned that infants in Ireland are exposed to the risk of fluoride overexposure due to water fluoridation with a dangerous synthetic silicofluoride chemicals that has been scientifically linked to increasing the bioavailability of other toxins such as lead or aluminium that may result in long term health and neurological impacts.

The fact that Irish children are the most fluoridated in the EU is deeply disturbing and since the HSE have never examined the long term health impacts of this policy on consumers in Ireland, we can only learn from experiences elsewhere. This is even more alarming when neither the HSE nor the manufacturer of hexafluorosilicic acid (the chemical used for water fluoridation) have never undertaken detailed toxicological testing of the chemical to examine its human health or ecological toxicity.

The European Parliament wrote to me this week outlining that it is up to individual member EU states to determine the risk management criteria for reducing the risk of overexposure of sensitive sectors of society to the harmful effects of fluoride, and noted that given the EU have no policy on water fluoridation and that all other EU countries have either discontinued the policy or never support it to begin, it is primarily a matter for the Irish Government. For EU countries that did once practice artificial water fluoridation independent reviews by Governments, including and environmental and health authorities advised that they should comply with the precautionary principle and terminate the policy to protect the public health.

Why do different standards of risk management exist in every other EU country compared to Ireland? especially when scientific studies have shown that fluoride is a neurotoxin and may cause cancer or promote cancer, and why, when the state is trying to save money and is cutting budgets for health care services, are we continuing to pay for dangerous chemicals being added to our water that are poisoning our population.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Finding a cure for the HSE

According to the National Cancer Registry Ireland (NCRI) one quarter of all deaths in Ireland are from cancer, up to 50% of sufferers are likely not to survive their disease beyond 5 years. The number of new cancer cases a year now stands at almost 30,000 new cases a year with over 8,500 deaths a year now recorded. According to the NCRI the incidence of cancer is expected to double by 2020 placing a catastrophic burden on the HSE and on society in general. International reports have established that it can cost up to €200,000 per patient from detection of cancer to death.

The fact is that the U.S Academy of Sciences, National Research Council determined in 2006 that fluoride “is known to cause or promote cancers”, the Californian EPA published a report on the carcinogenicity of fluoride in 2011, while the European Commissions Scientific Committee for Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) concluded last year that there is evidence to show that fluoride may cause osteosarcoma, an often fatal bone cancer in children. These findings only highlight the risks to public health of adding fluoride based chemicals to drinking water, yet no studies have even been conducted in Ireland to examine the wider medical implications of artificial fluoridation on peoples health. Without this data we have no idea how artificial fluoridation may actually be affecting peoples general health.

What is known, however, it is that the prevalence of certain cancers is up to 60% higher in the Republic of Ireland compared to the EU average as well as the highest premature deaths from ischemic heart disease in all 25 members EU States, we also have one of the highest prevalence of neurological illness with the highest prevalence of prescribed medication for depression in the world, as well as one of the highest incidences of epilepsy, osteoporosis and dental fluorosis, not to mention arthritis, diabetes and hypothyroidism.

One can only assume that no studies are undertaken because it's not in the State’s financial or legal interest to conduct any trials at all.

The EU commission have recently found (CM\911493EN August 2012) that the responsibility for ensuring adequate risk assessments to protect the most vulnerable from overexposure to fluoride, lies with member states that support water fluoridation. Vulnerable groups include for example bottle fed babies, diabetics and iodine deficient individuals. Why no safety standards exist in Ireland to protect these most vulnerable individuals is quite alarming, especially when, for example, in Canada and the USA parents are warned by medical and dental organisations that to prevent fluoride overexposure infants they should not use fluoridated tap water to make up formula milk.

There is now plenty of independent scientific evidence demonstrating that fluoride is dangerous while also highlighting that further research is urgently needed yet bizarrely the very public bodies that mandate that the public must consume fluoridated water refuse to undertake these studies or examine its potential wider health effects on the population.
Without this information the public and medical professionals cannot make informed decisions. This is why we need wider access to toxicological and clinical medical trials on water fluoridation and its there absence to end mandatory water fluoridation immediately. When we are fed bad data or no data at all, we make the wrong decisions, inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering, and perhaps death, on the citizens we are obliged to protect.
By ending water fluoridation in line with other European countries the wider benefit for the economy, society and the HSE may be immense. This ONE simply act would immediately reduce the overall populations exposure to a known toxin and could do more to reduce the overall budget costs for the HSE , while ultimately improving the health and wellbeing of Irish citizens.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Sacrificing your Health and Wellbeing for Water Fluoridation

I have worked as a professional environmental scientist for over twenty years specialising in environmental management, water and waste management, due diligence and sustainable development. As with the majority of individuals, prior to my undertaking an in-depth scientific review and due diligence on water fluoridation I had no reason to doubt or question the benefits of artificial fluoridation, or the health and environmental risks associated with fluoridation of water supplies.

Some time ago I was asked by a friend an engineer to investigate the subject of fluoridation of drinking water and I must admit that my response at first was one of bewilderment and scepticism. As an environmental scientist and water manager I had no reason to doubt the science behind water fluoridation and decided initially to do a brief examination of peer reviewed scientific studies from which I was certain I would conclusively prove that there was indeed no risk or concerns associated with this public health policy.

What I had intended to be a brief examination of this subject area lead to one of the most astonishing periods of my professional career, one that ultimately demanded of me to question the very beliefs that I had been indoctrinated with and to re-examine in the most detailed manner every piece of scientific information I could find on this subject area. Most of the past ten years of my career have been involved in undertaking due diligence and risk assessments, all of these have required me to investigate in detail the known and potential risks associated with contaminated industrial sites and industry. All of this work was undertaken for clients wishing to purchase sites for redevelopment or to acquire a company as a going concern. In every instance the client would have been taking on the historical and future liability associated with past activities. As you may imagine, in such circumstances attention to detail, examination of facts and protecting my client from any future unknown liability was paramount. I believe the same principles should exist for elected officials and public servants who are charged with protecting the health and wellbeing of the people they are honoured to represent.

What I have learnt in my personal journey of discovery is that the science behind water fluoridation is deeply flawed and the evidence of risk greatly outweighs the minor benefits associated with this policy. At a basic level it is commonly known that the World Health Organisation endorse water fluoridation but they do so only where health authorities have demonstrated that the dietary intake of fluoride for all sectors of society, including the most sensitive subgroups of the population, are known and quantified. It is now accepted that large sectors of the population are overexposed to fluoride from many sources including fluoridated water, foods products contaminated with fluoride residues from water fluoridation and fluoride based pesticides and fertilisers, fluoridated toothpastes, fluoridated pharmaceuticals and other dietary sources that contain high levels of fluoride such as tea. In communities that fluoridate drinking water supplies it is impossible to control the fluoride intake of individuals and ensure that they do not exceed the maximum optimal level of fluoride.

As the scientific understanding of this subject area develops what we have seen is that what was once accepted as fact, no longer applies. In the few countries that support water fluoridation the standards for fluoride continue to drop alarmingly. What we were once told was safe and effective we now know to be unsafe and dangerous. The most recent example of this is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, when earlier this year following the comprehensive review published by the U.S National Academy of Sciences Scientific Committee on fluoride in drinking water in 2006 they reduced the recommended optimal level of fluoride to 0.7ppm. The National Academy is sometimes referred to as the ‘Supreme Court of Science’, an organization that sets up unbiased (or balanced) committees to review scientific issues of concern to Americans.

I urge you to read this report which is available to download at the following website

A recent review was similarly undertaken in Europe by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) for the European Commission. Their review ultimately determined that water fluoridation plays a relatively minor role in the improvement of dental health and that the direct topical application fluoride is the most effective way to prevent tooth decay. The review documented that systemic exposure via drinking water is unlikely to benefit people whose teeth have already grown, that there has been a consistent decline over time in tooth decay in 12 year old children from the mid-1970s, regardless of whether drinking water, milk or salt are fluoridated and that the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay are limited. In particluar they noted that a very narrow margin exists between achieving the maximal beneficial effects of fluoride in caries prevention and the adverse effects of fluoride overexposure and that the upper tolerable intake level (UL) was exceeded in babies and children living in areas with fluoridated drinking water (<0.8 mg/L).

They also concluded that there is equivocal evidence linking fluoride in drinking water to the development of Osteosarcoma an often fatal aggressive bone cancer that affects children and young adults; which is also the most common bone tumour in dogs. Sadly in the past few months I have met individuals who have lost a child or brother to this type of cancer and cannot understand how, where there is evidence demonstrating that fluoridation may contribute to this condition, that any politician, citizen or public health official would willingly place their own citizens and families at increased risk to this terribly painful life threatening disease.

Apart from increasing the risk of cancer it is quite astonishing that in the 21st century the reality of water fluoridation is that nobody knows how silicofluoride chemicals that are added to water to increase fluoride levels may ultimately effect human health. Is is staggering to say the least, that both the U.S National Academy of Sciences and the EU review both acknowledged that the toxicology of hexafluorosilicic acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid), the active substance used for water fluoridation, remains largely unknown. It is also worth noting that every country in mainland Europe have independently reviewed and examined the information on water fluoridation and withdrawn support for or terminated water fluoridation programmes on public health, ethical and environmental grounds.

This is not the least surprising as no data is currently available from the manufacturer, promoters or marketers of Hexafluorosilicic acid on:

Ø    Development toxicity
Ø    Toxicity to animals
Ø    Teratogenic effects
Ø    Chronic long term effects on humans
Ø    Carcinogenic effects   
Ø    Ecotoxicity
Ø    Mutagenic effects
Ø    Biodegradation

Numerous scientific reviews have found that no comprehensive scientific examination of the toxicology, human health risks or ecotoxicity have been undertaken on Hexafluorosilicic acid products used for water fluoridation. Only incomplete studies and analyses exist to test or measure the various dissociated derivative compounds that may exist in treated water and no detailed toxicological assessments exist to demonstrate their safety for human consumption or environmental toxicity.

It is of particular concern for policy makers to note that Chapter 10 of the National Academy of Sciences NRC report (NRC 2006a) which reviewed available human and animal studies of carcinogenicity, in addition to genotoxicity studies for fluoride, that the committee unanimously concluded based on available evidence that "Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers."

Furthermore in July 2011 the California Environmental Protection Agency published a report titled “Evidence on the carcinogenicity of Fluoride and its salts” and determined that multiple lines of evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data appear to support several plausible hypotheses: that fluoride is incorporated into bones (especially rapidly growing bones), where it can i) stimulate cell division of osteoblasts via direct mitogenicity and indirectly via effects on thyroid function and parathyroid function; ii) induce genetic changes; iii) induce other cellular changes leading to malignant transformation, and iv) alter cellular immune response, resulting in increased inflammation and/or reduced immune surveillance, thereby increasing the risk of development of osteosarcomas.”

It is even more alarming that the National Academy of Sciences NRC report 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. Astonishingly, not one of these studies has ever been undertaken by health authorities in countries that practice water fluoridation. Yet remarkably, in the absence of scientific study promoters of water fluoridation continue to claim that water fluoridation is safe and effective as a public health policy. Clearly a lack of evidence is not fact. In my professional opinion, I never accept ‘beliefs’ or information that is not backed up by scientific fact based on proper scientific review.

This is even more remarkable given that three U.S. courts having reviewed all of the information by both sides promoting and opposing water fluoridation found water fluoridation to be injurious to human health, specifically that it may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer and genetic damage.[1]

I urge all politicians and public health officials to consider these facts in their deliberations on this subject and consider the risks which imposing such a dangerous policy may have on the health and wellbeing of our citizens.

I will end with the findings of a recent peer reviewed study published in the official scientific Journal of the Spanish Neurology Society (Neurología. 2011;26(5):297—300) on the effects of fluoride on the central nervous system.

The authors found that “Fluoride can accumulate in the body, and it has been shown that continuous exposure to it causes damaging effects on body tissues, particularly the nervous system directly without any previous physical malformations. Several clinical and experimental studies have reported that the F induces changes in cerebral morphology and biochemistry that affect the neurological development of individuals as well as cognitive processes, such as learning and memory. F can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects they are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident.”

Ultimately water fluoridation is a political decision enacted by parliament (or local government in certain jurisdictions) through legislation voted on by elected public representatives. It can easily be stopped if there is political will and social pressure. For citizens, parents, consumers in countries that remain fluoridated I urge you to put social pressure on your politicians to end this dangerous policy. For politicians I say that the action you take on this policy will have long lasting consequences for your population. If you continue to support this, you place your community at unnecessary risk and in doing so violate the ethics of public office. I urge you therefore to err on the side of caution and adhere to the ‘precautionary principle’ and support and end to this policy. Failure to do so in years to come, in light of mounting scientific evidence demonstrating harm, will only result in catastrophic liability for all concerned . Ultimately in the end, the taxpayer and consumer will pay the price.

Yours sincerely

Declan Waugh
Chartered Environmental Scientist and Water Manager
EnviroManagement Services, 11 Riverview, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland.

[1] Graham, J.R., and Morin, P.J. 1999. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. J. Land Use &
Environmental Law 14(2):195-242.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Professor Hardy Limeback Member of the U.S National Academy of Sciences in support of Declan Waugh's report on Human Toxicity and Environmental Impacts of Water Fluoridation

To: the Irish Expert Body                                                                                                Sept., 2012

Re: A letter of support for the recent:

Technical Report: HUMAN TOXICITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION. Overview of the Health and Environmental Risks of Fluoride and Silicafluoride Compounds requiring Priority Attention for the Safe Management of Drinking Water for Human Consumption.
Declan Waugh B.Sc. C.Env. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM

My background

I am a recently retired Full Professor of Preventive Dentistry from the University of Toronto and a dentist. I continue to practice dentistry today in Canada.

I served 3.5 years on the US National Academies of Sciences Subcommittee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. The NAS is sometimes referred to as the ‘Supreme Court of Science’, an organization that sets up unbiased (or balanced) committees to review scientific issues of concern to Americans.   The committee on which I served examined the health effects of fluoride in drinking water. Our report, published March 22, 2006 and can be found online at

Our committee was funded by the US EPA – we did not examine the benefit of fluoridation but we certainly reviewed all relevant literature on the toxicity of fluoride, including those at low levels of intake, and the effects of fluoridation.

It has taken more than 5 years for the EPA to respond to our report.  It now acknowledges that fluoride in drinking water poses a problem and it has lowered its recommendation for levels of fluoride in drinking water  to 0.7 mg/L (ppm). The American Dental Association and the Center for Disease Control in the US both agree that fluoridated tap water should not be used to make up infant formula, since that increases the risk of dental fluorosis. To me, dental fluorosis is a biomarker for fluoride poisoning. Public Health Officials have made no effort to inform expectant mothers and mothers of newborn babies to avoid using fluoridated city tap water for making up infant formula.  Their inaction is regrettable.

I have personally conducted years of funded research at the University of Toronto on the topic of fluorosis (fluoride poisoning) and bone effects of fluoride intake.  A bone study, for which we received national funding, comparing hip bones of people who live in Toronto (fluoridated since 1963) to the bones of people from Montreal (Montreal has never been fluoridated), suggests disturbing negative changes in the bone quality of Torontonians. This is NOT GOOD.

Since we studied a cross section of the population as they were selected for hip replacement, we were unable to examine only those people who were exposed to fluoridation for a lifetime. If we had been able to do this, we would have seen a much greater negative effect of fluoride since fluoride accumulates with age (our study confirmed that). Studies like ours indicate that not only does extra fluoride in the water cause defective enamel (that is VERY expensive to treat) but also defective bone.

The NAS committee examined the literature on the effects of fluoride on bone up until 2006. Since that time  there have been more studies to confirm the link between fluoridation and bone changes, as well as a link to bone cancer. Our Toronto vs Montreal study was not included in the 2006 review by the US National Academies of Sciences because it only just got published in 2010.

I am also the co-author of studies that show that too much fluoride accumulation in the dentin of teeth (the tissue that supports enamel) causes its properties to change as well. Fluoride has NOT been shown to be safe and effective. In fact, as more and more peer-reviewed studies on fluoride toxicity appear in the literature, it has become clear to me that the pendulum is certainly shifting to ‘Not safe, and no longer effective’.

Mandatory fluoridation in Ireland

Along with several expert scientists concerned about fluoridation, especially mandatory fluoridation, I testified at the 2000 Fluoridation Forum in Ireland. We expressed our concerns about the side effects of fluoridation in Ireland.  Those concerns were ignored. 

It has been 10 years since the Fluoridation Forum was published. Since then, other European countries have examined the issue of fluoridation and admitted that fluoride was not an essential element and that

“There is a risk for dental fluorosis in children with systemic fluoride exposure, and a
threshold cannot be detected (emphasis added)” (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks-CHER. Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health  effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water. May 2011)

A particularly thorough review was submitted Feb. 2012 to the Government of Ireland and European Commission by Declan Waugh B.Sc. C.Env. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM, Evironmental Scientist. It can be found here

I found this review to be quite complete in its examination of the literature, especially the environmental literature. Quite often, fluoridation is reviewed only by dental scientists who have little knowledge of animal or human toxicological principles or how anthropogenic hazards affect human health. Close examination of the composition of various review committees, including those in Europe, reveals that they have been overwhelmingly ‘stacked’ with members in favour of fluoridation who are incapable of assessing the entire literature on fluoride.

My opposition to fluoridation.
As a practicing dentist, I have been diagnosing and treating patients with dental fluorosis for close to 20 years. My research on dental fluorosis (confirmed by the studies reported in the 2006 NRC report as well as the York review) show fluoridation significantly increases the numbers of patients seeking expensive cosmetic repairs. No one in public health has ever accounted for the added costs in treating dental fluorosis when considering the cost-benefit ratio of fluoridation.

Our 2006 NRC (NAS) report also concluded that there is a likelihood that fluoride can promote bone cancer. On page 336 it is stated Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). This alone should force the EPA to set a fluoride maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride in drinking water at ZERO (as it did for arsenic). The EPA has not yet made a decision as to fluoride’s carcinogenicity.

I have looked at this from all angles and I have to conclude that fluoridated cities would save money on fluoridation costs, parents would save on costly dental bills treating dental fluorosis, dental decay rates would remain unchanged or even continue to decline (as has been demonstrated in many modern fluoridation cessation studies) and the health of city residents would improve when  industrial waste products are no longer added to the drinking water.

I find it absurd that industrial toxic waste is shipped to the water treatment plants in large tanker trucks and trickled into the drinking water of major cities in North America. This not only puts water fluoridation employees at risk for serious injury, but if a major spill should occur,  releasing the highly corrosive and poisonous hydrofluosilicic acid into the atmosphere, people’s lives would be at stake.

In Canada individual municipalities set fluoridation policies. Health Canada only sets guidelines for fluoridation but has no responsibility or liability should something happen and its recommendations  result in harm to Canadians.

That means that each city is responsible for the practice of fluoridation. Several American and Canadian cities have decided it is not worth continuing the practice of fluoridation. Recently Quebec City in the Province of Quebec decided to halt fluoridation. So did Waterloo in Ontario and Calgary in Alberta. In the US Juneau stopped fluoridating as did Pinellas County just recently in Florida. There have been so many tragic fluoridation accidents (Hooper Bay Alaska was a wll documented one where the entire town got sick and one person died) would be enough for towns to use the precautionary principle. Continuing fluoridation MIGHT save one dental cavity over the next 20 years but in that time you risk the health of so many residents.

There is no doubt in my mind that fluoridation has next to no benefit in terms of reduced dental decay.
The modern literature is clear on that. Fluoridation cessation studies fail to show an increase in dental decay. In fact, caries rates continue to drop. Since fluoride intake delays tooth eruption, water fluoridation studies that do not make a correction for that are flawed. The York reviewers recognized this problem. Even the York review is flawed because of this. Additionally, in their systematic review, the York reviewers made a grave error in estimating benefits by lumping modern studies with very old studies when decay rates were a lot higher. In the 1950’s, when fluoridation started to catch on, it was claimed that there was as much as a 40% benefit. Despite the evidence being very weak, fluoridation might have been worthwhile, especially since fluoridated toothpastes were not introduced until the late 1960’s. After that, the benefit of fluoridation declined. Now, if there is any benefit at all, one could expect perhaps a 5-10% benefit in children. If half the children are already cavity free and the average decay rates are only two cavities per child it means cities have to fluoridate for 20 years in order to save one decayed surface for every fifth child. Clearly, that is NOT a policy that demonstrates fiscal responsibility and cities that do not do due diligence in terms of cost-benefit analysis are wasting tax payers money and may actually be putting their councillors in a position of liability. The claim that for every $1 spent on fluoridation saves $38 was never accurate and is currently exceedingly misleading. It simply is a lie.

The following is a formal discussion (deposition) of the above with proper citation of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This literature cited is not junk science, as claimed by fluoridation promoters.


Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS
Professor Emeritus, Former Head, Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry University of Toronto

STATEMENT BY DR. HARDY LIMEBACK                                    Sept. 2012

I would like to outline my arguments that fluoridation is ineffective and a harmful public health policy.

1. Fluoridation is no longer effective.

Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al, 2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation works are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous MODERN studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas (e.g. Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96).

Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).

Public health services will claim there is still a dental decay crisis. With the national average in Europe of only two decayed teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more than 15 decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half of all children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable success has been achieved in most European countries without fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay often mentioned is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is obviously not helping.

The families of these children with rampant dental decay need professional assistance. It appears they are not getting it. Children who grow up in low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot afford dental care.Untreated dental decay and lack of professional intervention result in more dental decay. The York review was unable to show that fluoridation benefited poor people to any greater extent than other groups of the population. The York review, and others that followed, including the Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation conducted recently in Australia
and Health Canada’s review of fluoridated water
failed to identify even one double-blinded, randomized prospective clinical trial to prove the fluoridation works, after correcting for diet and delay in tooth eruption.

This means that the reviewers failed to show the level of evidence for efficacy that is required in North America for a medicine to be approved. Furthermore, most reviews admit that there is not enough evidence for safety, since properly conducted clinical trials were not designed to measure adverse health effects.

None of the reviews conducted to date addressed whether fluoridation can reduce the prevalence or severity of early dental decay in nursing infants (baby bottle syndrome). A very large percentage of dentists in North America do not accept patients on government assistance because they lose money treating these patients.
In my experience, many dentists support fluoridation because it supposedly absolves them of their responsibility to provide assistance to those who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities where water fluoridation has been in effect for years are reporting similar dental "crises."

In my opinion, Public health officials responsible for community programs are misleading the public by stating that ingesting fluoride "makes the teeth stronger." Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It does not make developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay before they erupt into the oral environment.  The small benefit that fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of "topical" exposure while the teeth are rebuilding from acid challenges brought on by daily sugar and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control.

2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis.

Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled when only one concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is available in the drinking water.  Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). The American Dental Association and the Dental Forum in Ireland have admitted that fluoridated tap water should not be used to reconstitute infant formula.

We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis, the prevalence of which is higher in fluoridated areas and is not insignificant in terms of proportions of the population affected, seek extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars per patient. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).

3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety.

All the animal cancer studies were done using sodium fluoride. There is more than enough evidence to show that even this form of fluoride has the potential to promote cancer because it accumulates in the bone and produces levels that are high enough to induce cancer (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Some communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is industrial grade fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to fluoridate the drinking water.

In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000, Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134). None of these issues have ever been addressed by the various government sponsored reviews.

4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.

Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has been identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the over 500% increase risk of bone cancer in young boys. The long-awaited study published by her former PhD supervisor (Dr. Chester Douglass) in no way negated these findings. The NAS committee was unsure about designating fluoride as a potential carcinogen in 2006 because we wanted to wait for the final study from the Harvard group. Now that it is published, nothing has changed (Kim FM et al. 2011, J Dent Res. 90(10):1171-6).

Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people with renal disease. Additionally, Brits are known for their tea drinking and since tea itself contains fluoride, using fluoridated tap water puts many heavy tea drinkers dangerously close to threshold for bone fracture.

Our recently published study on fluoride in bone from fluoridation (Chachra et al, J Dent Res 89(11):1219-1223, 2010) shows a negative trend in changes that have occurred in the bone of Torontonians who have lived only a portion of their lives in fluoridated Toronto. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients who retain too much fluoride.

Adverse thyroid function: Our National Academy of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be halted on the basis that endocrine function has never been studied in relation to total fluoride intake.

Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. Several recent studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006).
Researchers at Harvard recently conducted a meta analysis of 27 studies that examined fluoride in drinking water and IQ as an outcome. The results showed a CONSISTENT negative effect of fluoride in drinking water and an average downgrading of 7 IQ points (Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Jul 20)

In my opinion, having served on the NAS Committee in the US for more than 3 years, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and cities that avoid thoroughly considering ALL the recent data do so, in my opinion, at risk of future legal action.

Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS
Professor Emeritus and Former Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Banned Biocide/Pesticide used to fluoridated Water Supplies in Ireland

Banned Biocide used for water fluoridation

Hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) also known as Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, Hydrofluosilicic acid, Silicofluoric acid,  Fluosilicic acid, Fluorosilicic acid or Hydrogen hexafluorosilicate, is used as an active substance for water fluoridation in Ireland and parts of the UK. It was also used as a biocide until it was banned by the EU due to a lack of toxicological data to show that it was safe for humans or the environment.

See list below: Last entry is for Hexafluorosilicic acid. Clink on this, go to last item on page Regulations on restriction/ Prohibition of Substances, enter more information.

Directive 98/8/EC covers biocidal products placed on the EU market. In the EU biocidal products must not be used, if they are not authorised.

The Health Authority in Ireland until recently sourced Hexafluorosilicic acid (a listed Biocidal product) for water fluoridation from Spain . The company that imports the product is Chemifloc Ltd.

Biocides definition:
preparations containing one or more active substances that are intended to control harmful organisms by either chemical or biological, but not physical means.

In June 2003 the EU prepared a list of Notified substances, including hexafluorosilicic acid, that were subject to new regulation that required detailed supporting information to be provided to the EU, for the protection of human health and the environment by March 2004.

Hexafluoorosilicic acid list on page 24. EC number: 241-034-8: CAS number16961-83-4

Spain was requested as a manufacturer of this biocide to provide a dossier of information to the EU on the toxicology of the substance to include toxicological and metabolic studies, ecotoxicological studies, reproductive toxicity, medical data including medical surveillance data, epidemiological studies on general population, skin sensitivity studies and allergenicity studies, carcinogenicity studies, mutagenicity studies, sub chronic toxicity studies and measures to protect humans and the environment.

A full list of the assessment procedures are provided in pages 33 to 179 of this link from EU.

Where information was not provided the substance could no longer be used as active substances in biocidal products on the EU market.

No information was provided.

The substance was subsequently removed as an authorised biocide within EU.  The phase out date was set as 01/09/2006. In 2006 France stopped producing Hexafluorosilicic acid.

Despite the lack of toxicological data or human health risk assessments, 
this remains the active substance that is used for water fluoridation of public water supplies in Ireland.  No country in mainland Europe add this product to their water supplies on medical, environmental and ethical grounds.

The U.S National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council called for similar testing (in the interest of public safety) as requested by the EU in their report published in 2006.

In excess of fifty comprehensive epidemiological, toxicological, clinical medicine, and environmental exposure assessments were identified requiring further testing and examination by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC); similarly the European Commission‘s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) also called for further examination of human health risks of fluoridation due to a lack of available accurate data.

The undertaking of these studies is regarded as of paramount importance for the protection of public health in communities where water fluoridation is practised.

Both the NAS and SCHER found that the toxicological profile of Hexafluorisilicic Acid used for water fluoridation was incomplete.

No data has yet been provided subsequent to the NRC publication (2006) or the SCHER publication in 2010.

n the absence of any toxicological or health risk data the Health Authorities in Ireland continue to advise that the chemical is safe for consumers and the environment.

Under Annex IIIA of the Biocidal Directive Part iv, Additional data for active substances part VIII; fluoride is a identified substance requiring measures necessary to protect humans, animals and the environment. Fluoride is a list 2 substance under Directive 80/68/EC.

Separate to this the EU classification system for carcinogens and the EU Council Directive 67/548/EEC contains rules for the classification of dangerous substances.

Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances lists fluoride as a list 2 dangerous substance.

According to EU regulations Fluoride would be classified as a category 2 carcinogen, based on available evidence from the US. NTP. If not a category 2 then most definitely a category 3 carcinogen.

Category 2: Substances which should be regarded as if they are carcinogenic to man. There is sufficient evidence to provide a strong presumption that human exposure to a substance may result in the development of cancer, generally on the basis of:
- appropriate long-term animal studies,
- other relevant information.

Category 3: Substances which cause concern for man owing to possible carcinogenic effects but in respect of which the available information is not adequate for making a satisfactory assessment

The U.S NTP found 'equivocal evidence' that fluoride was carcinogenic

Ref: 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.

This is supported by published findings by Bassin et al. in the cancer research journal, Cancer Causes and Control in 2006.

Ref: Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17:

Finally fluorosilicates are derivative compounds of hexafluorosilicic acid in water, fluorosilicates are classified as a health, physicochemical and/or ecotoxicological hazard, according to the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) Approved Criteria for Classifying Hazardous Substances.