There is a strong anti-fluoridation campaign targeting city and county councillors throughout the State. This campaign seeks to have motions passed calling for the fluoridation of water to end in the area of the relevant council.

The benefits for oral health of adding fluoride to water are well established. There is no scientific evidence that fluoride, at the rate at which it is added to Irish water, is a threat to any aspect of the health of our citizens.

We are asking councillors to review the published scientific information before supporting a motion, which if implemented by Government, would damage people’s oral health for years.

The 2002 North South Survey of Children’s Oral Health showed measurable benefits in oral health among those aged five and 15 in areas with fluoridated water in the Republic of Ireland when measured against the oral health of children in Northern Ireland where the water is not fluoridated. The only negative demonstrated by the research was a slight increase in mild discolouration of teeth, which resulted in a decrease from 0.9 parts per million to 0.7 parts per million in the rate of fluoridation.

If you remove fluoride from water, even allowing for the presence of fluoride in toothpastes, our citizens will suffer from increases in tooth decay with all its associated pain and financial cost. At a time when the Government provides almost no support for the oral health of our citizens, and when the public dental service is severely strained because of cutbacks and the moratorium on recruitment, the removal of fluoride would be a retrograde step….

Dr Peter Gannon, President Irish Dental Association, Fintan Hourihan, CEO Irish Dental Association and Professor Leo Fa Stassen, Trinity College.


irish Times letters

222 thoughts on “Fluoride On

  1. Donal

    you would think that after the measles outbreak in california that the pseudo-science idiots would bugger off for a while

    1. Dan Germouse

      The pseudoscientific idiots Peter Gannon, Fintan Hourihan, and Leo Fa Stassen and the rest of the forced-fluoridation fanatics should bugger off, I agree.

          1. seanie88

            they may be qualified but they seem determined to alienate any possibility that this forced medication MIGHT in some way be wrong morally or indeed unnecessary, moderately harmful. Its not ok that we’re forced to ingest it, when will they accept that part?

  2. jade

    “The only negative demonstrated by the research was a slight increase in mild discolouration of teeth,” I have very noticible Fluorosis white spots on my teeth which led to me being very self concious and never wanting to openly smile. Also I had cavities no thanks to fuoride.

    1. Mick Flavin

      Personal anecdotes are not a counterargument to scientific studies. I’m out after this because I’ve seen you in action before on fluoride threads, Jade, and you won’t change your mind, no matter how people present the evidence to you.

    2. Rob_G

      Mild discolouration of the teeth can also be due to other factors, including childhood illness (I know because I have it too)


      1. Clampers Outside!

        Hey look, a Doctor, a dental doctor has spoken about this, and quoted research and all…. but hey, let’s wait and see what a bunch of councillors who know nothing more about this than you or I to make the decisions because they have ‘people pleasing’ quotas to reach to ensure they stay in their jobs, rather than make proper decisions.

        So, I’ll wait for the councillors because they won’t be swayed by the ant-flouride hyperbole at all at all, they’ll make decisions based on facts and research, and informed people like this here doctor fella.

        1. d4n

          The complaints about floiuridation aren’t actually about its effects on teeth though are they? So why care what a dentist says? Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought the issue was wrt side effects and personal choice, I haven’t heard anyone claim flouride is bad for your teeth.

          1. Dan Germouse

            Why don’t you look it up? Do you always expect to be spoonfed?

            Here’s some quotes from the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.
            “Excessive intake of fluoride during enamel development can lead to enamel [i.e. dental] fluorosis, a condition of the dental hard tissues in which the enamel covering of the teeth fails to crystallise properly, leading to defects that range from barely discernible markings to brown stains and surface pitting.”
            “The improper mineralisation that occurs with enamel fluorosis is thought to be due to inhibition of the matrix proteinases responsible for removing amelogenin fragments. The delay in removal impairs crystal growth and makes the enamel more porous.… Fluoride apparently interferes with protease activities by decreasing free Ca2+ [calcium ion] concentration in the mineralising milieu.”
            “There appears to be general acceptance in today’s dental literature that enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect of fluoride intake”
            “Moderate and severe dental fluorosis have been reported in diabetes insipidus patients in other countries with drinking water containing fluoride at 0.5 mg/L (Klein 1975) or 1 mg/L (Seow and Thomsett 1994)”

          2. Stephanenny

            That’s ok Dan, I did look it up. I wasn’t asking you because I wanted to find out the definition. I wanted to show that you don’t know what it is. That’s probably because it’s a random term you’ve thrown together so you can use the word “toxic” to frighten people for God knows what end.

            Im aware of dental fluorosis, what you seemingly refuse to acknowledge is that there are no real actual negative health consequences to dental fluorosis. You’re just shouting scientific terms at people who aren’t scientists.

          3. Stephanenny

            Also if you’re trying to convince people of something you might want to be less of an outright prick.

          4. RGA

            believe the lies their telling ya. or the find the truth yourself. Dr. Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus of the National Cancer Institute published a paper in 1975 that detailed an increase in cancer deaths in fluoridated areas. According to Burk, “In point of fact, fluoride causes more cancer, and causes it faster, than any other chemical”

          5. Mick Flavin

            I know it’s only a blog, but it raises some questions about Dr. Burk’s work in relation to fluoridation, and about those claims in particular.

            It does provide links to subsequent studies providing evidence contrary to Burk’s views:

          6. chris

            “Conclusion: This study’s findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis.” Iida, Hiroko, Kumar, Jayanth V., The Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2009 vol. 140 no. 7, 855-862

            Fluorosis does not degrade the health of a tooth. In fact, studies have shown that teeth with fluorosis are more resistant to cavities:

            “Conclusion: This study’s findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis.” Iida, Hiroko, Kumar, Jayanth V., The Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2009 vol. 140 no. 7, 855-862


    3. PaddyIrishMan

      While this is certainly unfortunate and I would not like to downplay your situation, national health policy has to be based on overall impact and not individual cases.

      1. Dan Germouse

        Those who push or enforce the forced-fluoridation experiment may want to take a look at Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which is on the UNESCO website.
        “Article 6 – Consent
        1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.”
        Clearly the forced-fluoridation experiment (i.e. the dumping of toxic industrial fluoride waste into public water supplies) violates human rights.

        1. paulk

          irish constition, the WHO, CDC and irish medicines board say it is not medication but minerilisation

          1. Dan Germouse

            I suppose you think that leaded gasoline was harmless too, because being exposed to it was just “mineralisation”. US pathologist Robert Kehoe was a key promoter of both leaded gasoline and fluoridated water, by the way. If you are going to claim forced-fluoridation is not medication, you have to stop making any health claims for it. You can’t have it both ways.

        2. Stephanenny

          Furthermore consent can be easily withdrawn by using bottled water or installing a fluoride filter (like the ones sold by the girl against fluoride, gosh it’s almost like she has a financial interest in spreading disinformation).

          1. Dan Germouse

            Those who push or enforce the forced-fluoridation experiment may want to take a look at Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which is on the UNESCO website.
            “Article 6 – Consent
            1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.”
            Clearly the forced-fluoridation experiment (i.e. the dumping of toxic industrial fluoride waste into public water supplies) violates human rights.

            What part of “without disadvantage” don’t you understand?

        3. chris

          I like this statement by Dr. John Harris of the Department of Ethics and Social Policy at the University of Manchester, UK:
          “We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.”

        4. chris

          How many times does the Court need to reject the allegation that fluoridation is forced medication.

          This concept has been rejected time and time again all across the USA. Courts have ruled that not only is fluoridation not medication, they are not forced to drink the water.

          Opponents are really only saying that THEY don’t want it in THEIR water and rather than buy a $150 reverse osmosis filter, or move to a home with well water like a spoiled child they demand the water meet their personal chemical specifications, the public good be damned.

          Over 100 prestigious scientific and professional organizations recognize the importance of community water fluoridation. It simply prevents cavities. There are no harms from optimally fluoridated water. We have 69 years of experience behind that belief.

          Say America’s pediatricians: “Fluoride plays a very important role in the prevention of dental caries. Although the primary mechanism of action of fluoride in preventing dental caries is topical, systemic mechanisms are also important. ”

          “Water fluoridation is a cost-effective means of preventing dental caries, with the lifetime cost per person equaling less than the cost of 1 dental restoration. In short, fluoridated water is the cheapest and most effective way to deliver anticaries benefits to communities.” (American Academy of Pediatrics).

    4. paulk

      only 25 percent of dental fluorisis is caused by water fluoridation. new zealand publuc health survey.

  3. Grouse

    Can someone explain how countries (the majority) that have no fluoridation in the water explain their reasoning? Do they just support greater dental intervention? Are they bowing to popular concerns? I’m speaking especially about countries such as those Scandinavian ones that have discontinued fluoridation.

    I’m not against fluoridation at all, it’s just very hard to get any unbiased information about it. How is it presented as clearcut here when so many first-world countries don’t bother? Is there more consensus internationally amongst dental scientists (as opposed to government)? Is it something particular to our water hardness or genetics?

      1. Limey Tank

        There are many areas in which water supplies which have naturally occurring fluorine in them, and entire populations have been drinking these sources for thousands of years. There’s no need to add any more in these cases.

        1. Limey Tank

          You may also find that a reason for not fluorinating municipal supplies would be cost and infrastructure limitations. Perhaps fluorinating huge supply areas is difficult so best to stick with high population centres.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      Most of those countries that have taken it out of water did so by compensating that loss by putting it into foodstuffs like salt.

      But the anti-flouride hysterics brigade will never mention that.

      Also, the majority of those countries that removed it from water did not remove it for the reasons the anti-flouride muppets often state, but did so because they were able to get it to the public by other means.

      1. newsjustin

        I’m 100% convinced of the merits of the case for fluoride in the water. I’m 100% happy to drink the water myself and give it to my children.

        It strikes me that the only case that anti-fluoride people have (and it would be the same if it were in water, salt or milk) is the rights/wrongs of putting such additives in water (at least with milk or salt once can, I guess, avoid it). I think they would be wise to focus on the “enforced medication argument” rather than the crappy science.

        As I say, I’m 100% OK with it. But I do have a niggling doubt as to the rights of putting something (anything) in drinking water that need not, strictly speaking, be there to make it potable.

        Is there another area of life that this happens? Breakfast cereals have lots of added vitamins and minerals – but you can avoid these.

      2. mauriac

        yes then people can choose to buy fluoridated salt etc (most do) or not.the ethical questions of mass medication regardless of personal circumstances (i.e. people on SSRIs which is contraindicated with fluoride) are avoided and the government has one less reason to provide 1st world dental care.

        1. Stephanenny

          “most do” – according to what data?

          What article do you have that says people on SSRIs shouldn’t drink our water?

      3. Dan Germouse

        You are talking a load of garbage. Salt fluoridation is only prevalent in two western European countries, fluoridation of milk and other foodstuffs is almost non-existent, and fluoride concentrations in drinking water are predominantly far lower than those used for forced-fluoridation, and rates of dental cavities are low. The simple fact is that forced-fluoridation is a complete scam, but some people are too dim to see what is right under their noses.

        1. Matthew C

          That’s a lie. Switzerland, Netherlands, France and Germany, to name four off the top of my head, all have fluoridated salt with significant market share.

          1. Dan Germouse

            You don’t know what you’re talking about. “In Europe, meaningful percentages of users [of fluoridated salt] have been attained only in Germany (67%) and Switzerland (85%).” (Marthaler, 2013, 140) and “The sale of fluoridated salt would be legal in Greece and in the Netherlands but there seems to be no interest in this preventive method.” (Marthaler, 2013, 148).
            Thomas M. Marthaler. 2013, Salt Fluoridation and Oral Health. Acta Medica Academica, Vol 42, No. 2, pp 140-155.


    2. Stephanenny

      It’s extremely easy to get unbiased information about it if you’re scientifically literate.

      I don’t mean to suggest scientific illiteracy is a thing that you have because you’re stupid or anything I just mean that you might not be familiar with the structure of scientific studies or the articles published in relation to them.

      The trouble is that anti-fluoride groups cherry pick from articles that don’t support their argument. I was once discussing this with an anti-fluoride group organiser who claimed fluoride in our water is causing skeletal fluorosis in children. The article he used to back this up did indeed conclude that fluoride in water caused skeletal fluorosis in children, what they failed to acknowledge was that the fluoride in question occurred naturally and at levels about four times the level we have in our water and that the article specified that the level of fluoride in our water is safe.

      My advice is always ask for a study and always read it yourself and read it thoroughly.

        1. Stephanenny

          It’s amazing, I’ve seen like six comments here so far and I think at least half of them have been flat out insults.

          At some point I think a link to an actual scientific study might be forthcoming, but I shan’t hold my breath.

          1. Dan Germouse

            What, can’t you find studies on your own? No doubt if I did post studies, of which there are plenty that call forced-fluoridation into question, you and the other thugs here would adopt Robert Kehoe’s “show me the data” mentality and try to claim that forced-fluoridation is fine because it hasn’t been proven to your satisfaction that it’s harmful. Complaining about being insulted is pathetic. Forced-fluoridation is a violent crime, but that fact doesn’t register with psychopaths.

          2. Stephanenny

            I’ve read dozens of studies on this actually. If you were scientifically literate you’d know that it is those who make a claim that must produce proof of that claim.

            Saying “Google it” and calling people thick for not having already done so would get you laughed out of a conference. But I suspect that’s an experience you’re already familiar with.

    3. mauriac

      a good question.what interests me is the fact that Ireland is the only country in Europe to fluoridate water in this way and the vociferous opposition to anyone questioning this.

      1. Stephanenny

        It’s vociferous because we’re all sick of hearing it and of answering it.

        There is nothing unsafe about having fluoride in our water the way we do it.

        I suspect we don’t put it in food stuffs as we can’t control the levels on imported food and it would take a rake of new legislation to enforce it in food stuffs processed here. Companies that produce the products that we fluoridate instead would have to change their processing systems and I imagine it would cause a lot of disruption. And since there’s no reason to not fluoridate the water in the way we do now I’d say it’s not at all worth the time, energy and money to do it the other way.

        1. Banotti

          When these nutters stick up a link I can tell instantly that it’s a crock of shit. I don’t even need to see the letters, the basic structure of the url is always the same; a ridicisculously long website name with maybe blogspot,com added.

          1. Dan Germouse

            Banotti, you are just telling everyone that your head is up your rear end, and you refuse to read both sides of the issue. How much accumulated fluoride in the body do you think is safe? Show working.

          2. Stephanenny

            Now Dan, can’t you find studies for yourself? Do you need to be spoon fed? Jesus, don’t you have Google?

    4. chris

      From a recent issue of the newsletter of the New Zealand National Fluoride Information Service:
      “Countries with widespread water fluoridation programmes include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Countries with limited water fluoridation programmes include Vietnam, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and South Korea.
      Several countries are unable to introduce water fluoridation programmes due to technical, financial or sociocultural reasons. As an alternative, both salt and milk have been found to be reliable and convenient vehicles for increasing fluoride intake to an optimal level for hard to reach and low socio-economic communities. Studies have found them to be as effective as community water fluoridation schemes.
      Some European, Latin American, and Caribbean countries, including France, Switzerland, Germany, Costa rica, Colombia and Jamaica currently use fluoridated salt schemes. Mexico and most Latin American and Caribbean countries (apart from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and French Guyana) have or have had salt fluoridation programmes.
      A smaller number of countries currently have fluoridated milk programmes, including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Peru, Russia, Thailand and the United Kingdom
      Some country regions have optimal amounts of naturally occurring fluoride which provides good protection for oral health. examples of countries supplied with naturally fluoridated water at or around the optimum level needed to prevent dental decay include the United Kingdom (estimated 329,000 people), United States of America (estimated 10,078,000 people) Canada (estimated 300,000 people) and Australia (estimated 144,000 people).
      It is estimated that 39.5 million people around the world have access to naturally fluoridated water at the optimal level although variations from one community to another over time make it difficult to calculate an accurate total.”

  4. Kill The Poor

    That humans can be irrational is hardly a revelation, but perhaps the ugliest facet of the Irish debate is how elected representatives have given such outlandish fringe assertions a sense of legitimacy. One Irish politician has claimed that fluoridation causes cancer and Down’s syndrome; others have demanded an end to the practice, parroting claims that would have taken all of three minutes on Wikipedia to expose as utter nonsense.

    The Irish government’s response is appeasement, and a waste of time and public money. Not only is there already an Irish body that routinely reviews the safety of fluoridation, this is a Sisyphean task because anti-fluoride groups have already reached their conclusion, and will trust no expert body unless it agrees with their assertions. Almost certainly fluoride will get yet another clean bill of health, campaigners will reject the findings and the same tedious cycle will repeat again, in much the same way parents who oppose vaccination are impervious to the scientific literature undermining their position.


        1. Dan Germouse

          Stephanenny, you spelt it wrong, dumbarse. Everyone who has a clue who has actually read what I’ve written on my site respects it more than the laughable propaganda spouted by the forced-fluoridation fanatics. Tell me, how much accumulated fluoride in the body do you think is safe? You don’t have a clue, do you?

          1. Stephanenny

            Look petal I know you’re trying to fit in with the locals but we say dumbass too. You don’t have to translate the ass into arse for us. We understand American.

          2. Talismania!

            I find lots of name calling adds loads to a constructive discourse.

            If you’re from Australia, why don’t you leave us alone to our own devices? In 50 years, when we’ve all suffered unimaginable horrors from our flouride treatment, you can point at us as an example of everything that is wrong with it.

            Oh, wait, we’ve had it for 50 years already. Where’s that scientific study?

  5. Formerly known as @ireland.com

    If the Government is so concerned about tooth decay, why not ban sugary drinks, or make them more expensive?

    I’ll take my chances without fluoride, thanks.

    You pro-fluoride people, you can wrap yourself in asbestos, drink from lead mugs, take your thalidomide, smoke your cigarettes (you get the idea).We all know that corporations would never put profit ahead of the health of their customers.

  6. Jess

    “At a time when the Government provides almost no support for the oral health of our citizens”

    Free dental checkups are available up until the age of 12 and one per year for PRSI payers.

    Use it people.

    1. Stephanenny

      Check up not a lot of help if you can’t afford to treat what the check up finds though. You get no tax back for fillings or extractions and a medical card only entitles you to two fillings a year. You can have as many extractions as you like though.

      1. Jess

        Yes but check ups and cleanings are preventative. I’m just pointing it out because not a lot of people know they can get it for free

  7. Rob C

    Stop treating the Irish population like kids. If someone wants to add fluoride when the water gets to their house, go ahead. No point fluoridating 100% of water when we only drink about 1%.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      If you’re so worried, stop drinking water.
      Seriously, treated water has between 0.6 and 0.8 ppm fluoride; natural untreated groundwater in Ireland has between 0.01ppm and 5.6ppm fluoride, depending on where you live. It’s not killed us in the last twenty thousand years or so, has it?

    2. newsjustin

      “No point fluoridating 100% of water when we only drink about 1%.”

      I imagine its far easier to add fluoride to all of it than trying to separate out the 1% we drink.

    3. Stephanie

      Indeed. The government should probably stop removing the poo and adding chlorine to it too. Treating us like infants so they are!

    4. Banotti

      Ok, the state should stop treating us like kids and let us look after our own health. Lets abandon all public medical and dental health care. You look after your own body now.

    5. chris

      The “wasted on lawn care” argument that anti-fluoride activists make is so ridiculous. Folic acid is added to breads and cereals even though we know that some slices of bread will get stale and be tossed out (instead of being eaten). Chlorine is still added to water even though we know that not all water is consumed. So what? It improves health and it’s cost-effective.

      If all water were consumed, we’d save even more money, but most people would
      agree that saving $38 for every dollar spent on fluoridation is a damn good
      return. If we could get that kind of return on our mutual funds, we would all
      retire by our early 40s.

  8. Dan Germouse

    The following are some good sources of information on fluoride and artificial water fluoridation: the Fluoride Action Network, Declan Waugh’s work, the books The Case Against Fluoride and The Fluoride Deception, the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, and the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride.

    There was only one catch and that was Catch-44, which specified that a concern for one’s safety or human rights or anything else in the face of fluoridation was the process of an irrational mind. Ordinary people are sane and could choose their own medication. All they had to do was ask; and as soon as they did, they would no longer be sane and would have to be medicated with fluoride for the sake of their smiles. No sane person would want to be forcibly medicated, but if they didn’t consent they were crazy and had to be fluoridated. If they consented to being fluoridated they were sane and didn’t have to be; but if they didn’t want to be they were crazy and had to.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      Here’s a hint: When your “evidence” isn’t peer-reviewed, published and verified research but a facebook page, a private website, and a couple of books written by someone whose work has been debunked, then you don’t have evidence, you’ve got a Dan Brown novel. At best.

        1. Mark Dennehy

          The part I don’t understand is the one where those hundreds of peer reviewed journal articles *all say fluoridation is a good thing* and that the stuff the FFs are pushing is nonsense and yet you still think that’s evidence for your assertions.

          1. Dan Germouse

            I’m guessing you haven’t actually read any of the studies, and wouldn’t know how to interpret the data, as opposed to simply taking the authors’ opinions at face value, if you did. The conclusions of many of the journal articles do not support forced-fluoridation anyhow.

    2. Matthew C

      Out of curiosity, what criteria did you use to select those sources? I mean, there are lots of high-quality places to get info on the internet, yet of your six I count two blogs and a Facebook page.

      It wouldn’t be something so crass as cherry-picking the people who agree with you, would it?

      1. Dan Germouse

        Except for the Facebook page all the sources are fully referenced. They are also credible, unlike the thinly disguised marketing which is common. You can actually find the full range of studies via those sources, from pro-fluoridation to antifluoridation, to studies about fluoride toxicity by authors who aren’t concerned about fluoridation because it isn’t an issue where they live. I included the Facebook page mainly as a source of information relating to activism.

  9. Jen Keane

    All of the best available evidence supports water fluoridation, and it’s especially important in the absence of funding for any other form of dental intervention. The volume of scaremongering around fluoride is simply irresponsible, and by and large, not based in fact.

    If you want to have a debate about ethics, don’t poison the well (pun not intended) with false facts and scary lies. If you want to have a debate about the health merits of fluoride, then there are a number of reputable sources which can provide information, and I trust these sources above and beyond people who hide behind fake internet profiles and create poor quality graphics to post on facebook pages full of misinformation.

    Setting out to scare people is a despicable thing to do. Cementing that fear with lies is also despicable.


    1. Dan Germouse

      In her recent article in The Journal, Jennifer Keane wrote:
      “Studies which claim to show adverse effects of fluoride are typically using concentrations of fluoride far higher than what is permitted in our water supply, and the concentration in our water supply is monitored. In high concentrations, fluoride absolutely can cause significant health problems, but these concentrations are hundreds of times more than what is currently in our water supply.”
      It isn’t even controversial that there are very large numbers of people in India, China, and some other countries suffering from skeletal fluorosis from drinking water with fluoride concentrations way, way below Jennifer Keane’s “hundreds of times more” claim, which anyone can easily discover by actually doing some reading on the subject of skeletal fluorosis. In fact, in my extensive research on the subject, I have never come across a reference to people drinking water with a fluoride concentration of anywhere near 100 ppm, let alone more than that. Jennifer Keane is simply an outright liar and hypocrite.

        1. Dan Germouse

          I cited the article in The Journal. You aren’t seriously asking me for evidence that fluoride concentrations in drinking water which aren’t hundreds of times those used for forced-fluoridation are harmful, are you? If you need to be told that you really are clueless, but given what you’ve written here I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. You could have a look at the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, which is available online. The 12 member committee, some of whom were forced-fluoridation fanatics, unanimously agreed that the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride in drinking water should be lowered from its level of 4 ppm because it did not protect against adverse health effects. Clearly Jennifer Keane’s claim was absurd.

          1. Mark Dennehy


            “Fluoride is present naturally in most water at a very low level, and more than 180 million people on public water systems in the United States enjoy the benefits of having their water adjusted to the optimal level (0.7–1.2 mg/L, or 0.7–1.2 parts per million [ppm]) for preventing tooth decay.

            Some water has naturally occurring fluoride at levels much higher than the optimal. A recent report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards from the National Research Council (NRC), released on March 22, 2006, addresses safe maximum fluoride levels. The report addresses the safety of high levels of fluoride in water that occur naturally, and does not question the use of lower levels of fluoride to prevent tooth decay. ”

            “The findings of the NRC report are consistent with CDC’s assessment that water is safe and healthy at the levels used for water fluoridation (0.7–1.2 mg/L). ”

            In other words, if you live in an area where natural groundwater has a fluoride level four times what you get from the tap everywhere else, and you drink that groundwater for your entire life, you might have some white spots on your teeth and you might be more at risk for bone fractures in your 70s and 80s.

            The report did not say that fluoridation of tap water was bad. This is the kind of crap the anti-fluoridation loons keeps pulling though.

            Also, “fanatics”? I don’t remember the CDC or EPA or anyone who’s sane and competent saying your dentist was incompetent if she didn’t warn you that drinking fluoridated water could impede the development of your third eye…

          2. Stephanenny

            I was asking for a citation for your claims re China and India. Christ on a bike it’s like talking to a wall that swears blind it’s not a wall.

          1. Stephanenny

            TELLING PEOPLE TO GOOGLE IT IS NOT THE WAY TO WIN A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT. Good god whatever back water uni you went to must be thoroughly mortified by you.

          2. chris

            the anti fluoride/vaccine lot make all the noise and then you get dentists at the coalface going to the local papers with their stories of rampant tooth decay Of course the nutters all throw their hands in the air and say that is just an opinion
            Forgetting that most of their so called evidence is just an opinion.

            Dentists and dental hygienists are seeing an increase in child tooth decay and Dr. Sarah Hulland says the decision to remove fluoride from Calgary’s water supply three years ago is playing a big role.

            Calgary stops adding fluoride to water
            Dental impact of no fluoridation in Calgary’s water studied
            “I’m seeing a lot more children having a lot more cavities,” she said. “I’m seeing a lot of decay on 19- to 20-month babies, and this is even before they’ve got all the teeth in.”

            More than half of the children treated at the Alex Dental Health Bus have tooth decay, officials say. (Alex Dental Health Bus)

            Hulland said the system is getting stressed.

            “We frequently have to put them to sleep to rehabilitate them. We don’t have enough anaesthetists that actually help us to put them to sleep. We don’t have enough OR time. We don’t have enough manpower to actually do the care that needs to be given.”
            The rot is already starting to show on young childrens’ teeth since the removal of fluoride from New Plymouth’s water, a local dentist says.

            This year alone, Dr David Antunovic, Taranaki District Health Board clinical dental leader, who owns two private dental practices, has given 78 children under 5 general anaesthetic to remove their rotten teeth.

            So far this year the district health board had referred ten 2-year-olds to get teeth removed under anaesthetic.

            Fluoride was taken out of the city’s water in 2011 and dentists are now starting to see the effects of decay in children earlier than before, especially in lower socio-economic families and Maori children, he said.

            While sugar had a huge impact on childrens’ oral health, Antunovic also said a big part of the problem was the loss of community water fluoridation.

            “We don’t want to see these kids. We want them to be happy and healthy,” he said

            New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd said he would not oppose a referendum for the district.

  10. Ppads

    I’ve skimmed through this (pun) because some people in Ireland still make a cup of tea then stare at the colours on top. This is dependent on the County Council of course so before anyone starts arguing about what should be added; let us all agree on what should be removed?

    1. Stephanenny

      Poo. I think having the poo removed is fairly high up on my list. And the things that come in poo. Diseases and stuff should go too, like cholera, c. diff, typhoid etc.

    2. chris

      So 5 years down the track after fluoride is stopped there will be a pandemic of children with tooth decay and where will the nutters be ,back under their rocks
      Good luck with that

    1. Dan Germouse

      The US CDC has ardently supported forced-fluoridation for a long time. That propaganda is just a case of it giving itself a pat on the back, to put it politely. Endorsements are not evidence, and you don’t seem to understand the difference between the words “authoritative” and “authoritarian”.

      1. Stephanenny

        Endorsements are evidence when they come with references and explanations for why the endorsement is being made. In the way the cdc does for example. Versus “fupp you Google it” in the way you do it for example.

        1. Dan Germouse

          The sources I listed are referenced, as are my articles. The CDC’s references do not support its claims. For example, it claims a 25% reduction in dental caries, but that comes from an unblinded ecological study from the US NIDR which ignored confounding factors and didn’t even find a statistically significant difference. The “studies” the perpetrators of forced-fluoridation use for their marketing are just cases of cherry picking the data, and pretending that correlation proves causation.

  11. SmartEaters.org

    A few points:

    Not at all doctors, dentists or scientists agree on this one so quoting any one or 2 of these of course does not make a case.

    Most Irish dentist are in favour due to the fact that fluoride hardens teeth.

    What they may not realise is that fluoride hardens other things too: it harms the thyroid gland in a number of ways (fluorine and iodine are so similar, the thyroid gets messed up) and fluoride hardens the pineal gland, deep in the brain. The first issue, progressive impairment of the thyroid gland leads mostly to hypothyroidism, rampant in Ireland. The second, destruction of the pineal gland, means the body progressively looses its ability to make melatonin. This vital hormone controls circadian rhythms and so basically helps us fall asleep at night. It also has a unique and potent antioxidant effect where no other antioxidant works, helping to “clean” and heal deep within the brain and warding off free radical damage. Where fluoridation is the norm as now in Ireland, by mid-life, most of us have a very calcified pineal. This means a greatly increased chance of both insomnia and Alzheimer’s.

    Finally in all Eastern spiritual systems and amongst deep meditators worldwide, the pineal gland is understood to be the seat of the “third eye”, or our connection to the Divine, the Godhead, without which our spiritual evolution is impossible.

    And finally, several US researchers have collated data linking fluoridation with greatly increased rates of cancer.

    Oh and yes, there are studies linking fluoridation to lowered IQ in kids, one again from the UK last year if I recall. (The Nazis used it to promote “quiescence”, lack of will …)

    So, it seems to me our choices are these:

    1) harder teeth yes, possibly with some fluorosis discolouring…
    2) hypothyroidism, insomnia, lowered IQ, permanent isolation from the Divine and a greatly increased risk of both Alzheimers and cancer

    Anybody think their local dentist is up on any of this ? Why is it that countries all over the world have been reviewing the data and ending fluoridation in the past decade or so?

    One man put it rather well to me a while back like this: either you believe fluoridation of the public water supply is mass medication, or its mass poisoning. I’m not OK with either

    1. ReproBertie

      Spiritual evolution is garbage. The third eye is garbage. The divine is garbage. The godhead is garbage. You might as well tell us that flouride in the water is reducing the population of water nymphs and boggarts.

      There is no evidence that the nazis used flouride to promote quiescence.


      “In a nutshell, anti-fluoride campaigners believe different versions of a few basic memes. The first is that fluoride in drinking water is harmful because it alters your brain in some way. The genesis of the “fluoride is a mind-altering chemical” trope goes back to post-war Europe and the breakup of German chemical company IG Farben. The company was at one point the fourth largest company in the world, and manufactured the dyes and industrial chemicals which were fundamental to German industrial might. Due to its close involvement with the Hitler regime and its atrocities (the company provided Zyklon B for gas chambers), it was broken up after the war, and many of its executives were put on trial for war crimes.

      The tinfoil hat crowd makes the leap to believing that IG Farben had developed plans during the war to fluoridate occupied countries because they had found that fluoridation caused “slight damage to a specific part of the brain” (usually cited as the pineal gland), which would make the population either more docile or dumber, depending on your pet theory.

      Even if it’s true that IG Farben had those plans, they wouldn’t have worked. The pineal gland has nothing to do with obedience, or defending the organism’s freedom from governmental interference. There’s no credible science proving that the tiny deposits of calcium and fluoride which accumulate in the pineal gland would affect its function at all. Here [linked below] is the entire PubMed literature on the subject – the texts which refer to it are almost entirely obscure rat studies. Nothing there about behavioural changes, or lowering of IQ. ”


      1. SmartEaters.org

        If I wasn’t terribly well informed I guess I might also just repeat the word “garbage” about several things about which I have neither personal experieince nor academic knowledge and then resort to quoting someone else.

        Thereafter you make my case: did you even glance at any of the studies that the search you proffer yields: fluoride being an effective way to cause oxidative destruction of brain tissues; proven link to pineal damage in study 7 etc. etc. ??

        1. ReproBertie

          Academic knowledge? Of access to the godhead? Did you get a degree from Ollschoil Tír na nÓg? Was it granted to you by the fairy queen herself?

          The studies show that massive doses of flouride (150mg/L per day for 28 days) were required to induce oxidative stress in rats. That’s 300 times the dosage in our water.

          It’s pointless offering you science though. Only if some deep meditator with a background in Eastern spirituality pointed out the importance of dosage levels would you even begin to take notice.

          1. Breizh

            “There’s no credible science proving that the tiny deposits of calcium and fluoride which accumulate in the pineal gland would affect its function at all…”

            Yet again, the multi-tool ‘no science proving that it is harmful’ argument. If you know so much about this, can you tell us how much money is involved into a full broad, credible study? And please tell us how research credits are granted, and the conditions involved!
            Where is your common sense? No proof = No study or No proof = Study with negative results?

            A tiny deposit in the brain is not proven to be harmful?
            Well… so at least we agree it is a fact that deposits occur. I don’t know about yourself but harmful or not I DO NOT WANT that deposit in my children’s brain. Just prove it is NOT harmful instead of stating it has not been proven harmful.
            While you’re at it, prove us it has nothing to do with Parkinson and Alzheimer.

            Regarding the dosage….. do you think it is much easier to find:
            a- Toothpaste containing fluor
            b- Toothpaste not containing fluor.

            Fluor is used in many many things.

            “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.” – Paracelsus

            You’ve got absolutely no common sense.
            I am so glad the majority of comments on this site are against fluoridation. People are waking up.
            Your paradigm is ticking its own failure.

          2. SmartEaters.org

            You betray again both your ignorance and a hostility for your fellow man. Maybe you’d do well to do a little meditating yourself … Or enjoy a long cool glass of municipal “water” …

            I notice you didn’t deal with any of the studies that don’t suit your bias but never mind. Being right is what matters eh?

          3. ReproBertie

            I feel no need to contemplate my navel and dwell on my total dismissal of all those who talk of spirituality and godhead as if it was a real thing when it’s just a safety blanket for the weak minded.

            You picked a study you claimed backed up your nonsense. I pointed out the flaw in your claim. The science is there for all to see.

          4. SmartEaters.org

            ReproBertie – you haven’t reached the stage of even knowing anything about what your own needs are or the influences to which you are slave. If anyone ever needed to contemplate his navel (to use your silly phrase), it’s you my friend

          5. ReproBertie

            Yeah, sure. Maybe if I suffer a brain trauma and decide I need to surround myself with mystic crystals and have my aura cleansed I’ll give you a shout. Until then I’ll treat your opinion with the derision it deserves.

          6. Stephanenny

            Broadsheet causes brain cancer. I can’t prove it doesn’t but you should probably stop using it.

            If only it wasn’t literally impossible to prove a negative.

    2. Stephanenny

      Air harms the alveoli in your lungs. It can cause barometric damage to the structure of the alveoli as well as the blood vessels around them.

      But then that depends on the amount of air in the lungs. So basically without context or detail my first sentence means feck all. See what I’m driving at here?

      1. Dan Germouse

        You haven’t answered my question as to how much accumulated fluoride in the body you think is safe. I’m not asking for studies, because there are no studies which directly answer that question, I am asking you to demonstrate that you actually have a clue, but you don’t, do you? And the burden of proof is not on me, because if you are not making the claim that forced-fluoridation is safe, why the hell are you defending it?

        1. Stephanenny

          Oh sorry, am I supposed to obediently answer your questions when you basically tell me to do one any time I ask you for a study?

  12. Louie

    Asking us to trust their so-called doctors is like saying to trust our central bankers or our government, the fact is most doctors are like most politicians, bankers, and academics, they are easily bought, so instead of asking us to think for ourselves and reference the research they’ve found they’re telling us to believe them simply because they’re doctors… well that’s just stupid because just a few decades ago doctors were telling us smoking was good for us… it’s the same thing for the autism epidemic, these same doctors are blaming pollution not the mercury, aluminum and adjuvant’s in vaccines as the culprit. As a doctor, I recommend that people go on utube and type in “Florida in water” then as you look at the films write down the references they are using and then draw your own conclusions… if the Irish government was so worried about our teeth why did they cancel our dental cleaning entitlement. Next time people start telling you “it’s good for you” ask where are their references, who said that and show me the proof!

    1. ReproBertie

      Vaccines do not cause autism. Vaccines never caused autism. Linking autism to vaccines just shows that you are a poorly informed, scaremongering idiot.

      1. Breizh

        ReproBertie, you have no idea what you’re talking about. No idea at all.
        Please keep those insults for yourself.

        1. ReproBertie

          No, you’re a dangerous idiot spreading lies based on a long debunked report. Your sort of stupidity needs to be highlighted and ridiculed at every opportunity.

          1. Breizh

            What’s your background? Let me guess…. failed high school teacher!
            Give us the source of your statements.

          2. ReproBertie

            What’s your back ground? Let me guess, self certified angel therapist. Give me one non-new age, homeopathy, hippy bullsht source for anti-vaccination fear mongering?

    2. Stephanenny

      This is the first time I’ve ever used this phrase.

      But seriously for fupp’s sake

      I can’t even.

      All the heads hammering into all the desks in the world aren’t enough to express how fupping stupid what you just said is.

      In fact – Billy Madison – Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How T…: http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

  13. Breizh

    This is pure lies. Fluor is proven to be dangerous and proven to provide no benefit what so ever.
    Serious papers were published but of course no light shine on these.

    Please read this, Dr. Peter Gannon is mentioned in this article:

    I would just say to everyone who have doubts regarding those people trying to force fluoridation: “Follow the money”. You will most likely find conflict of interests and/or links to some lobbies and/or sponsors but obscure industries. The state should be investigating these people, and act if proven to be litigious:
    Dr Peter Gannon, President Irish Dental Association.
    Fintan Hourihan, CEO Irish Dental Association.
    Professor Leo Fa Stassen, Trinity College.

    1. ReproBertie

      Fluoride in the water means dentists perform fewer procedures meaning less income. If it was about following the money dentists would be anti-flouride.


      1. Dan Germouse

        You freaks really are as thick as bricks. You have assumed what you’re trying to prove. It’s called circular reasoning, genius. There is no credible evidence that forced-fluoridation reduces rates of dental caries, but there is abundant evidence that it greatly increases rates of dental fluorosis, which is expensive to cosmetically treat. There is every reason to believe that dentists make money from forced-fluoridation.

    2. Stewart Curry

      Follow the money as in see who campaigns against fluoride and gets sponsored by companies selling water filtration systems?

    3. chris


      Joseph Mercola = snake oil salesman/quack

      Joseph Mercola, “doctor” of osteopathy, is a popular guru of alternative medicine and a member of the right-wing quack outfit Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He advocates and provides a forum for many classic crank medical ideas, such as vaccine hysteria and the belief that modern (sorry, “allopathic”) medicine kills more people than it helps. His website is a veritable spring of pseudoscience, quackery, and logical fallacies. He is a promoter of the idea of an AMA/Big Pharma/FDA conspiracy.[1]

      Despite his claim that unlike real other doctors, he is not interested in profit,[2] he advertises all manner of unproven products, and has a health center that dispenses alternative medicine for a steep price.

      Mercola is nothing less than a modern-day John R. Brinkley, the fellow who made a fortune in the 1930s transplanting goat testicles into men’s scrotums. Both have gotten rich railing against science-based medicine. Who knows how many people have suffered needlessly from this sort of charlatanism

  14. Breizh

    You are so full of it. Talk to us about mercury and dentists. They have been using it for years yet knowing it is one of the most toxic element. How could you explain this. You are ridiculous.

    By the way, you seem to bring everything back to holistic. Who talked about holistic? Get peace.

  15. ReproBertie

    Yes I bring it “back to holistic” because that’s where the majority of science denying, angel hugging idiots are to be found.

    There’s you slagging dentists for using a tiny amount of mercury while happily breathing a poison. Dosage matters. Science is great at determining the healthy dose. Spiritual guides are less useful.


      1. ReproBertie

        While you provide such substance with your moronic outbursts: Fluor is proven to be dangerous and proven to provide no benefit what so ever.

        Yeah, it’s all a conspiracy backed by the flouride producers.


  16. JunkFace

    The anti-Fluoride brigade are similar to those anti-vax wack jobs in California who are so terrified of ‘toxins’ or ‘toxic substances’ that they have reintroduced the Measles to society endangering everyone’s children.

    What are these toxins that they are always going on about? They don’t even know. They are part of this
    New-Age-hippy-dippy-Reiki-magic Crystal-homeopathic twat pack! They have no idea how real Science has helped them and their families lead healthy lives so far. They actually treat Medical Science like its a conspiracy to make everyone sick or God knows what they are thinking. Actually, they’re not thinking. They are ALL idiots who have thrown away thousands of euro on fake homeopathic remedies, pretend crystals, fortune tellers, magic beans etc….”I only eat organic, yah fresh from the Organic market, I would not step inside a Supermarket! The toxin levels would be through the roof!! Yah totally, it would undo all of the great Reiki healing work I just finished with Fru-Fru”

    F*** off Hippies!!

    Ireland! Say no to Hippie Crap!

    1. Dan Germouse

      The irony is that one of the forced-fluoridation freaks’ favourite arguments is the appeal to nature. They are so stupid they think that if something occurs naturally it must be safe, which is the dumbest hippie argument there is.

  17. JunkFace

    “ReproBertie and JunkFace the same person.
    So obvious!!!”

    No we’re not! But I do agree with his outlook on the nonsense industry

  18. Clarus Dignus

    Shills, shills everywhere. No-one, bar very, very few, is legitimately that impervious to logic and even if they were, with their limited capacity for reasoning, they wouldn’t legitimately feel compelled to so staunchly and contentiously debate a matter that they ultimately feel holds no merit.

    Learn to identify their methodologies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

    Stop engaging them and instead rally together in a nation-wide movement to effectively educate the populace. You have common-sense on your collective sides, a thing that can’t be trumped by our crooked government or their turncoat stooges actively shilling on their behalf.

    The one’s I truly feel sorry for, are the composite members of the pro-fluoride camp that genuinely believe in their agenda. To be that imperceptible to oneself, to be that irrevocably ignorant, invokes not my malice but my greatest of sympathies.

    To the enlightened among us, heed my admonition. The frontiers of your battle are not insignificant online “tête-à-têtes” in public threads such as these. Your frontier is Ireland’s mass public psyche. Your weapon is your propensity to educate. Your strength lies in the unity of your collaboration.

  19. Stephanenny

    What a load of s***e. I’ve read every s****y publication the anti-fluoride crowd have thrown at me and 50% is below the research quality I’d expect from an undergrad in political science and the other half is written by people like you and danger mouse.

    Give me one goddamn piece of evidence that I can’t show either disagrees with you, doesn’t apply to Ireland fluoridation methods or is just made up and I’ll join your camp tonight.

    1. andyourpointiswhatexactly

      Correlation does not imply causation. That is ALWAYS the downfall of the anti-flouride crowd.
      I know one personally. That person is completely batsh*t crazy: I have listened to many, many, MANY rants about it and read their literature. Sigh.

      1. Stephanenny

        They really do seem to be. I’ve never met one who hasn’t been exactly as aggressive as this chap danger mouse.

    2. chris

      I keep asking the anti fluoride/vaccine lot, for a peer reviewed paper that states fluoride is a danger to human health at .7-1PPM that does not contain the words can, might,needs more research,could. No.one has produced one in 5 years

  20. One Dub

    Stop beating about the bush.
    -Just tell us where the government get their secret supply of non-fluoridated water from.

    We know you know.

  21. chris

    Danger rat comes up all around the world. I keep telling him

    There is no confusion about fluoride, there have been 15 major investigations into its use, and it is one of the most intensely studied minerals known to man
    After 70 years of trying there has never been a peer reviewed paper that states fluoride is a danger to human health at the .7-1.5 PPM level, that does not contain the words may, .could, and the statement” more research is required”
    He is so biased he wont listen
    On the anti facebook pages I usually last about 24 hour then they ban me They dont like being told the truth

Comments are closed.