Tuesday, April 30, 2013



Since writing my first report over 12 months I have received correspondence from other academics including Prof Roger Masters that have also discussed fluorosilicates in drinking water. Chapter 3 of my 2012 report was devoted entirely to this subject.  Some people seem to have difficulty finding it but its there to read plain as day. Since writing this I have found additional references that have also been discussed in follow up reports and correspondence that are also available on my website.

Anyway one of the most interesting observations I received was from Professor Roger  Masters a well known and respected researcher and academic who's work is referenced widely.

Here is what Prof Masters had to say about the Finney et al. report of 2006 on the dissociation of Hexafluorosilicic acid in drinking water in general. Its worthy of serious examination and thats why i have posted it here, so that people may better understand what we are dealing with when we add toxicologically untested man made synthetic fluoride chemicals into our drinking water.

Professor Roger Masters
I strongly urge that, with regard to ANY statement about "fluoridation" (as if it is a SINGLE CHEMICAL PROCESS), emphasis be focused on the DIFFERENT CHEMICALS used for the purpose, and the toxicity of fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride  (which was officially recognized by the National Toxicology Program in the U.S Centers for Disease Control when, in 2002, they formally nominated these compounds for study on the grounds that their "TOXICOLOGY" (that is, their toxic effects on humans) is not fully known.  Approval of sodium fluoride (NaF) does NOT -- as a matter of strict law -- apply to  fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium silicofluoride (Na2SiF6).

In many ways, the MOST definitive statement on this scientific issue of "toxicology" (in terms of the precise chemical consequences of adding these compounds to water which is then ingested by humans) is the following article:

   W. A. Finney, E. Wilson, A.Callender, M. D. Morris, and L. W. Beck, "Reexamination of Hexafluorosilicate Hydrolysis by [19]NMR and pH Measurement," Environmental Science & Technology, 40 (2006) 2572-2577.   This article uses precise chemical tests to make the point that the increased blood lead levels found in children's blood where silicofluorides are in use was NOT from lead atoms within the silicofluoride molecule.   The results of treating water with silicofluorides that are documented in this article include primarily LOWER pH (greater acidity) and a challenge to the assumption that the silicofluorides "dissociate completely".  By complete dissociation, Finney et al use the following chemical formula for the equilibrium result of adding silicofluoride to water (items in brackets are superscripts; "aq" apparently means "aqueous"; "L" -- actually lower case, but in this font that looks like the number ONE == means "liquid"; below, the use of back-slash will be used to show subscripts, so H/2/0 means the familiar H20 where 2 is a subscript meaning two atoms of hydrogen for one of oxygen):

        H/2/SiF/6/[2-] (aq) + 4H/2/O[L]  <----> (bidirectional arrows)   6H[+]  +  6F[-]  + Si(OH/4/) (aq)       (equation 1a)or
             SiF/6/2-] (aq) + 4H/2/O[L]  <----> (bidirectional arrows)   4H[+]  +  6F[-]  + Si(OH/4/) (aq)          (equation 1b)

The second equation obviously provides a cover for sodium silicofluoride; either one means that both the hydrogen and fluoride in fluorosilicic acid (or presumably the sodium in sodium silicofluoride) are indeed totally "dissociated" from the siliocon atom, AND that the silicon remains bonded to 4 OH atoms -- which is to say, there is a residue (which in some cases has been called "silicic acid").    Later in the article, however, these equations are qualified in a way that has substantial implications:

   "Fluorosilicic acid is a very strong acid with a second acid dissociation constant, pK[a2], of -0.65.  Thus, except under very acidic conditions the dominant form in solution will be the hexafluorosilicate ion.  So the equilibrium reaction is generally considered to be of the form given in eq. 1b.  However, this equilibrium is further complicated by the weak acidity of hydrofluoric acid and by the oligomerization of silicic acid to discrete oligosilicates and coloidal silica."
   (THAT LAST SENTENCE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT IN THE LITERATURE.  IT INDICATES THAT THE H(+) AND F(-) ATOMS THAT SPLIT OFF FROM H2SIF6 APPARENTLY FORM "SILICIC ACID" (HF).  I've copied the Wikipedia entry for hydrofluoric acid (HF) below: it is rated as highly toxic according to the report of the European Union's chemical categorization, and in any event is highly corrosive, so that if any HF remains in water treated with fluorosilicic acid, this would automatically be a sign of highly toxic effects not found with sodium fluoride (NaF).  The fact that Equation 1b refers to SiF6[2-] -- not Na2SiF6, which is widely used instead of H2SiF6 -- is curious, but only because it implies that IF sodium silicofluoride differs in its effects on users, it would be due to the difference between NaF (sodium fluoride, not toxic in low amounts) and HF (highly corrosive and toxic).  Such differences are NOT found in our work, but that's because the big difference is the phrase "oligomerization of silicic acid to discrete oligosilicates and coloidal silica"

The word "oligosilicates" refers the chains linking several atoms of silicates -- that is, a chemical residue that is a structure larger than a single silicon atom.  "coloidal silica" refers to sheets or structures of silicon atoms.     From a toxicological point of view, such structures could easily have serious effects on brain cells, since neurons have "receptors"  for neurotransmitters which are segments of the cell membrane that can accommodate a specific neurotransmitter (such as dopamine or norepinephrine, to mention two neurotransmitter functions that some research shows has been reduced where water is treated with silicofluoride.   However, the main point here is that the oligomers may explain greater absorption of lead in the environment that's observed in the blood lead levels of children where silicofluorides are in use.  That is to say, the Finney et al. article provides a plausible hypothesis for some of our findings (such as higher children's blood lead, which we NEVER attributed to lead bonded to the SiF molecule, but rather to a biochemical effect of the silicate residues.

While Finney et al. don't want to think of "silicate oligomers" or "coloidal silicate" as "residues", this is no more than verbal hocus pocus (defining an "intermediate" as a compound of silica and another element).  Besides, Finney et al. admit one effect of water treatment with silicofluorides that should have been on the front page of the NEW YORK TIMES.    The authors summarize their research findings as follows:

"The dissociation of hexafluorosilicate has been reinvestigated due to recent suggestions that fluorosilicate intermediates may be present in appreciable concentrations in drinking water.   19F  NMR spectorscope has been said to search for intermediates in the hydrolysis of hexalfuorosilicate.  No intermediates were observable at 10/-5/  M concentrations under excess fluoride forcing conditions over the pH range of 3.5 - 5.  A single intermediate species, assigned as SiF/5/[-] or its hydrate, was detected below pH 3.5.  A moderate pH values of 4 and 5 silica oligomerization in the solutions studied made it difficult to directly determine the hexafluorosilicate equilibrium constant.  Under more acidic conditions the average pK/a/ , or negative log of the dissociation constant K/d/, determined by the [19]F NMR  measurements, was 30.6.  We also investigated the behavior of hexafluorosilicate in common biological buffer reagents including phosphate /citrate, veronal/HCl buffers, and Ringer's solution.  The buffer capacity of all of these systems was found to be insufficient to prevent acidic shifts in pH when hexafluorosilicate was added.   The pH change is sufficient explanation for the observed inhibition of acetylcholinesterase that was previously attributed to hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis intermediates."  Finney et al., p. 2572.

In short, greater acidity is an unquestioned consequence of adding either silicofluoride to public water supplies that does NOT occur when sodium fluoride is added.  That acidity can affect one's digestion and other physiological conditions ought to be evident to anyone who suffered from gastric acidity (for example, in situations where a product like Pepto Bismol was useful).  More important, Finney et al admit that this effect can have important biochemical effects, since their abstract ends" "The pH change is sufficient explanation for the observed inhibition of acetylcholinesterase that was previously attributed to hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis intermediates."    First of all, this sentence explicitly refers to Johannes Westendorf's thesis (now available in English under <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters>, since he was the only scientist who made the claim that a "residual species" after the incomplete dissociation of silicofluorides was probably responsible for acetylcholinesterase inhibition.    Whether or not "coloidal silicate" or "silicate oligomers" are considered the same as the Silicon atom in the H2SiF6 or Na2SiF6 molecule depends on one's definition of the word "species" in chemistry.  That is, does Westendorf's term "residual species" necessarily mean something in which an atom on silicon is bonded to an atom of another element?   Or could that "residual species" be merely "coloidal silicate" or "silicate oligomers" (that structures of silicon atoms capable of having a biological effect)?

Finney et al. explicit ACCEPT the latter outcome as a matter of their scientific conclusions -- and that outcome is of immense BEHAVIORAL importance for the safety of silicofluoride use in water treatment.    The question they never ask is: WHAT IS THE BIOCHEMICAL EFFECT AND CONSEQUENCE OF ACETYLCHOLINESTERASE INHIBITION?    This depends on the enzyme's function: acetylcholine (ACh) is a major "agonic" neurotransmitter -- that is, it is a neurotransmitter that has excitatory effect on body movement.    Acetylchoinesterase (AChE) is an enzyme that breaks down acetylcholine (ACh), a function that prevents accumulation excess quantities of the neurotransmitter linked with body activity.

There's an obvious conclusion that has not occurred to either critics or supporters of water fluoridation.   If ACh is like the ON switch for bodily motor behavior, and AChE is an OFF switch (to lower activity), then destroying the OFF switch means the ON switch is more active.
VOILA: finally there's an explanation for the emergence and higher frequency of the behavioral phenotypes described as ADHD ("ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER").

I suspect many readers of this email won't have gotten through all these details.   It's time to get scientific about this matter, however:  over 90% of fluoridated water in the U.S. uses UNTESTED and TOXIC compounds who are admitted to have biological effects, even by those proclaiming their safety (Finney et al being the only major scientific study of the precise chemical effects of dissolving SiF in water -- the process called "hydrolysis").   The effects, as we have shown, can all be traced to weaker behavioral inhibition.  Greater lead absorption is one reason for this effect: lead reduces the activity of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that's a key to learning because in some neural pathways it has INHIBITORY functions.   Finney et al., agree with Westendorf that SiF also acts as an AChE inhibitor -- another factor in poor inhibition and more hyperactivity.

Our peer-reviewed findings documented -- WITHOUT REFERENCE to AChE inhibition or other mechanisms involved -- the statistically significant "association" between SiF and:

               1) higher blood lead levels.
               2) higher rates of violent crime
               3) higher rates of arrests for driving under the influence of cocaine
               4) lower scores on standardized educational tests & higher rates of learning disabilities

Poor attentional control (especially in school settings) and weak behavioral self-control are common factors in the dysfunctions we've documented.  Note that PROPERTY CRIME did NOT have the same degree of association with SiF use that we found with VIOLENT CRIME. Could this be explained by the fact that to be successful, the thief has to PLAN what he's going to do (e.g., rob the house when the owners
are on vacation or at least at work?)

I'm hopeful that the recipients of this email will realize that in the U.S., our top priority should be getting SiF on the list of chemicals prohibited from routine commercial sale under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): "The Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601-1692) consists of Public Law 94-469 (Oct. 11, 1976; 90 Stat.2003 and the amendments made by subsequent enactments."   Under the law, this action can be taken by the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency when there is EVIDENCE that a chemical MAY BE harmful.   Look up the law -- or if you can't find it I'll send the file.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

If you dont look you wont find, yet another case of medical malpractice in Ireland

In the same week that the Minister for Health in Israel signs new regulations ending mandatory fluoridation of drinking water, the Irish Department of Health confirm their support for its continuation, thus making Ireland one of only two countries remaining in the world with a mandatory national legislative policy dictating that every citizen (and visitor) must consume untested dangerous chemicals in their drinking water. The other country in case you don't know is Singapore (where water fluoridation is at half the recommended level practised in Ireland).

Even more alarming however is the Department of Healths response this week to a parliamentary question by Deputy Joanne Tuffy T.D. (dated 16th April 2013) that a bio-monitoring survey to establish the Total Fluoride exposure of the Irish population will NOT NOW COMMENCE as previously agreed.

The Irish Expert Body on Fluoride and Health-a political appointed body largely composed of pro fluoridation lobbyists; have instead recommended that an assessment of dental fluorosis be used a marker of total fluoride intake of the population.

It is scientifically recognised and accepted internationally by all scientific organisations including the U.S Department of Health and Human Services Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that only children younger than 8 years of age can develop dental fluorosis. As noted[1] by the CDC:

“Once the teeth erupt through the gums and are in the mouth, they can no longer develop fluorosis.  The teeth of children older than 8 years, adolescents, and adults cannot develop dental fluorosis.”

What the Irish Expert Body and Department of Health have decided provides absolutely no measure whatsoever of the Total Fluoride intake of adults or teenagers. Neither does it provide an accurate assessment to quantify the exact fluoride exposure of children. A recent EU study determined that Irish children (from Cork City) had the highest exposure to fluoride compared to other EU member states. So instead of repeating this assessment they have decided to bury the evidence entirely.

Why such an clearly erroneous decision was made and accepted by the Minster for Health, Dr James Reilly T,D, himself a medical physician and Mr. Ivan White T.D. Minister of State at the Department of Health with responsibility for fluoridation, raises many very serious questions, not least regarding the scientific objectivity and credibility of the Irish Expert Body who propose to use a method that has no scientific basis or ability to determine or measure the actual total fluoride exposure of individuals, but also of the Minister for Health who is ultimately in charge of the Department.

This is yet another glaringly obvious gross injustice to the citizens of Ireland who’s general health has been greatly compromised directly and indirectly from overexposure to fluorides and their toxic effect on the human body. A fact that is clearly evident from  the health data on disease and mortality in Fluoridated Republic of Ireland compared to non fluoridated Northern Ireland or mainland European countries.

By refusing to undertake a proper scientifically validated bio-monitoring study assessing the fluoride content of foods and beverages as well as pharmaceutical medications and by refusing to measure the fluoride level in blood, urine or tissue samples of citizens forced to consume fluoridated water, the Department of Health continue to hide from the facts and the place the health and welfare of Irish citizens at further significant risk to serious harm from fluoride intoxication.

This decision is nothing short of a national disgrace and represents criminal negligence by the Department of Health and the Irish Expert Body that can only be regarded as reckless and intentional to hide the truth from Irish citizens.

Monday, April 15, 2013

The Pharmacology of Fluoride and its contribution to Diabetes and Obesity

The Pharmacology of Fluoride and its contribution to Diabetes and Obesity.

In 1950 GUSTAV WM. RAPP, Ph. D. Professor of chemistry and physiology, Chicago College of Dental Surgery published the findings of his research on the Pharmacology of Fluoride.[1]

The most important factors that influence  absorption of fluoride were identified as:
  • the solubility of the fluoride source,
  • the concentration of fluoride in the source,
  • the amount of fluoride available for absorption,
  • the pH of the medium in which absorption takes place and
  • the presence or absence of fluoride-insolubilizing substances.

In consideration of the first factor it was noted that naturally occuring calcium fluoride is largely insoluble compared to water fluoridation chemicals which are soluble. Further is was noted that the higher the calcium level in water the lower the absorption of fluoride. This means that where the same level of fluoride is added to low calcium waters compared to hard waters the absorption of fluoride in consumers will be significantly higher in those areas with soft water.

In consideration of the concentration of fluoride it was noted that in general the greater the amount ingested the greater the amount will be retained in the body. However, importantly, it was also found that more fluoride will be retained if it is given in small multiple doses than when a similar amount is given in a larger dose.  

This means fluoridation of drinking water results in greater retention of fluoride overall as water is consumed over the course of a day over a persons entire lifetime.

A factor that was identified to influence fluoride retention is the age of the subject exposed to fluoride. The younger the person the more fluoride is retained in the body.

Professor Gustav noted that fluorides are accumulated throughout the entire body not just in hard tissues such as teeth and bone. Fluoride is distributed in normal body in tissues such as blood, brain, liver, Kidney, heart, spleen, muscles and bone. Professor Gustav also stated that: “fluoride passes the placental barrier. The importance of this is that the fetus has already accumulated fluoride during its development.”

Professor Gustav noted that the activity of fluoride in each of these areas will vary and that higher absorption will be found in individuals with higher metabolic rates and noted in paprticular that:

“in the human body the physiologic systems that are affected by fluorides are the bones, teeth, skin, hair, viscera, circulatory system, and genito-urinary system. The manner in which each of these systems is affected varies with the concentration of the drug, the length of time it is allow in contact, and the individual susceptibility of the system to fluorides.”

Professor Gustuc observed that “fluorides exert effects upon enzymes, cells and calcifying tissues.”

In the case of enzymes Professor Gustov stated that “one of the most important systems of enzymes that are susceptible to fluorides are those involved with phosphate transport.” 

He further highlighted the fact that “phosphate transport systems are important in the absorption of carbohyrates from the small intestine”  and points out that “when these enzymes are absent or poisoned in any manner, sugar absorption takes place more slowly.” 

Importantly Professor Gustav stated that “these enzymes are also important in the utilization of carbohyates in the body as well as indirectly in the metabolism of fats and proteins” and that in the presence of fluorides, “these enzymes are poisoned, affecting normal sugar metabolism.”

Professor Gustav compared the blood sugar, muscle and liver glycogen, and blood lactic acid concentration under the influence of fluorides and indicates that “the effects are very similar to those obtained in a diabetic animal” and observes that “the presense of fluorides seem to interfere with metabolic systems similar to those affected by the insufficiency of insulin.”

Professor  Gustav further noted that fluorides can remove calcium ions and interfere with blood clotting mechanisms. 

He further observed that:

“the effect of fluorides on cells is of importance” and that “all cells are affected by fluoride to a greater or lesser degree. The extent of the effect on a cell seems to be directly related to the cells dependence on carbohydrate metabolism.”

While Professor Gustav acknowledged that there seems to be no doubt that fluoride content of natural water may have beneficial effects for dental health he highlights that there are still many important questions that need answering and raises the concern that until research fully addresses the impact of fluorides on living systems fluoridation remains experimental and warns that until such times as all questions are answered “we must not draw hasty, unwarranted and perhaps regrettable conclusions.”

It is now acknowledged that the countries internationally with the highest incidence of diabetes and obesity are those that practice artificial fluoridation of public water supplies including the USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as Argentina and Chile.

The prevalence of obesity in the U.S is 35% for males and 36% for females, in Canada 37% for males and 23% for females, Australia 35.6% for males and 21% for females, New Zealand 25% for males and 26% for females.

In Ireland, based on the findings from the 2008-10 National Adult Nutrition Survey (NANS), estimated prevalence of overweight in adults is 37%, with a further 24% meeting current body mass index (BMI) criteria for obesity with 26% for males and 21% for females documented as obese. The prevalence of obesity in 18-64 year old adults has increased significantly between 1990 and 2011, from 8% to 26% in men, and from 13% to 21% in women, with the greatest increase observed in men aged 51-64 years.

According to the WHO the SDR for diabetes (2010) in Ireland for all ages is 9.5 per 100,000 compared to 5.97 for the UK. That’s 60% higher incidence than the UK.

Yet this figure does not reflect the recent alarming findings of a large scale study[2] conducted by VHI Healthcare which tested over 11,000 adults who had no previous diagnosis of diabetes between the age of 45-75 years of age in Ireland, and found that in this group, up to 11% were diabetic or prediabetic and 63% were either overweight or obese. This in a further increase on the percentage found in 2003 for the same age group where an incidence of 9.2% was recorded.[3] Add to this the 200,000 individuals who are already known to be diabetic in Ireland and the incidence of diabetes is very alarming.

Remarkably to my knowledge, no study since the publication in 1950 of Professor Gustav’s groundbreaking research has ever comprehensively examined the impact of artificial water fluoridation on diabetes or obesity. Yet the evidence on the ground clearly seems to indicate many regrettable health outcomes. In 2006 the U.S. National Academies of Sciences Medicine and Engineering, National Research Councils Scientific Committee on Fluoride made several recommendations for further scientific examination of the effects of fluoride on biological systems to include the effects of low fluoride exposure on endocrine function, immune function, the development of glucose intolerance and diabetes and on kidney and liver function in humans. The health authorities have yet to commence any such studies.

[1]  [The Pharmacology of Fluoride BY GUSTAV W.M. RAPP, Ph.D. Reprinted from the April 1950 issue of  THE BUR, REPRINT NO. 53
Original paper available to view at http://tinyurl.com/cvu6l83

[2] Sinnott M, Carr BM, Walsh C et al. Combination of FINDRISC and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in screening for type 2 diabetes in an Irish population: the type 2 diabetes mellitus and vascular health initiative (DMVHI). Diabetologia 2011; 54(Suppl. 1):S102.
 [3]Smith SM, Holohan J, McAuliffe A, Firth RG. Irish diabetes detection programme in general practice. Diabetic Med 2003; 20: 717-722.

Monday, April 8, 2013

False and Inaccurate Statements by Expert Body of Fluorides and Health

When the spokeperson for the organisation that is entrusted for protectionn of public health from exposures to fluroide does not even know the true statistics on health for this country and continues to misrepresent and downplay the alarming statistics for Ireland, the public should be very concerned.

It is important to challenges these inaccurate misrepresentations of official data from the World Health Organization as they are often used by proponents of fluoridation to support their opinions that there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that fluoridation has contributed to increased illhealth, disease or mortality.

Official data from the WHO health database for Europe shown below clearly shows that these comments by Dr Joe Mullens are inaccurate. What this data clearly and unequivocally demonstrate is that the cancer incidence rate for the Republic of Ireland is TWICE the European incidence level. Cancer incident rates in Ireland are approximately 40%, 32% and 18% higher than France, Norway and Denmark.

Within the entire continent of Europe and Euro-Asia only one country has a higher cancer incident rate than Ireland and that is Hungary.

Comparisons between Ireland an original member of the EU 15 and Hungary is difficult. The risk factors for cancer in Ireland are lower than Hungary for example the prevalence of regular smokers among the population aged 15 years and over is significantly higher in Hungary compared to Ireland while both countries have similar levels of alcohol consumption. Air quality in particular PM10 in cities in Hungary is significantly worse than in Ireland.[1],[2]

However rather than examining the overall cancer incidence one needs to examine the data for cancers that are particularly relevant to Ireland being the only EU country with a policy mandating the intoxication of its public with water fluoridation chemicals.

Water fluoridation chemicals are low dose endocrine disrupting chemicals. These types of chemicals are associated with endocrine cancers, for example, breast, prostate and uterine cancers. 

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

The National Cancer Registry Ireland have suggested that the higher incidence of prostate cancer in Ireland is due to PSA screening, Yet this statement is directly contracted by published facts. The world’s largest prostate cancer screening study – the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) which commenced in 1992 and involved eight European countries including Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland did not include the RoI. According to one of the world leading prostate cancer specialists Dr. Catalona Ramon Guiteras, PSA screening is widely used in countries such Sweden, Austria, France and Spain. Dr Guiteras further observed that prostate cancer death rates continue to increase in countries where PSA screening has not been widely adopted such as: Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Bulgaria, and Belgium.[3]

In addition Ireland has been found to have the highest incidence rate of Ovarian cancer in Europe, as well as higher incidence rates of colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers compared to the European average. Furthermore the incidence colorectal cancer was 15% higher than the EU average for females and 11% higher for males.[4]

It is a fact Ireland has the highest incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (for females) in all 27 EU Member States. The HSE have noted that if the occurrence of non- Hodgkin's lymphoma continues to rise at the current rate, it is estimated that it will be as common as breast or lung cancer by 2025.[5]

Interestingly globally the highest incidence of this disease is to be found in the United States of America, followed by Australia/New Zealand. Fluoridation of drinking water is also practiced in each of these countries.

It has been reported that within the last two decades thyroid cancer has become the fastest rising neoplasm among women in North America (Holt, 2010).[6] In Ireland since the early 1970’s there has been a documented 2.5 fold increase in thyroid cancers.[7] This period happens to also coincide with water fluoridation in Ireland. It is interesting to observe that thyroid cancer rates in Sweden reduced by 18 per cent in the period after cessation of water fluoridation.[8]

Dr Joe Mullins has not corrected his false statements of which this was just one of many. In fact the Irish Expert Body have yet to reply to the rebuttal of Dr Mullens unprofessional and inaccurate appraisal of Declan Waughs report last year. When the Expert Body were asked by a journalist recently if they intend to respond to this comprehensive submission they replied they will not be responding. Says a lot for standards of governance and transparency in such a publicly funded organisation.

[1] European Health for All Database.

[2] The European health report 2012, WHO.

[3] Dr. Catalona Ramon Guiteras Lecture, American Urological Association. 2011
[4] Cancer in Ireland 2011: Annual report of the National Cancer Registry
[5] Lymphona Forum of Ireland, Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Malignant
[6] Holt EH (2010). Care of the pregnant thyroid cancer patient. Current Opinion in
Oncology, 22(1):1-5.
[7] O'Neill JP. Anaplastic thyroid cancer Irish epidemiology and novel chemotherapeutic
strategies. [MD Thesis].Dublin: Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland; 2009
[8] State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals 2012 / edited by Åke Bergman, Jerrold J. Heindel, Susan Jobling, Karen A. Kidd and R. Thomas Zoeller.Table 2.5.Page 135 International variation in thyroid cancer incidence rates, 1973-1977 to 1998-2002 (world age-standardized rates). (From: