I realise this issue has been around for quiet a while, but I am noticing a larger volume of opposition to Flouride in our water suppy recently.

Fluoride in our water: are we brushing with danger? - National News - Independent.ie ( From 2008 )

There's a growing amount of evidence linking fluoride to cancer, osteoporosis and genetic damage. Most governments in Europe have banned it, yet Ireland continues to add tooth-preserving acid to the public water supply.

Report prompts councils to call for public review of water fluoridation - The Irish Times - Thu, May 31, 2012 ( May 2012 )

Town councils in Cork have joined Kerry County Council in calling for a public review of water fluoridation in Ireland, following the publication of a new report .. The Risk Assessment of Water Fluoridation report says fluoride is a known risk factor in a series of health problems particularly prevalent in Ireland, including neurological and cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and skeletal muscular disorders.

Mass fluoride over-dosing in Ireland demands urgent action | EUTimes.net ( June 2012 )

The Irish Medical Times reveals that 70% of adults in the fluoridated Republic are above the medically-safe daily fluoride intake and this is directly due to drinking water being fluoridated. In the UK which is largely un-fluoridated, a sizeable proportion of adults are also above safe levels.

Due to this report it cropped up in the dail:

Dáil Éireann - 06/Jun/2012 Written Answers - Water Fluoridation


Then some opinion pieces:

Fluoride in water and heavy tea drinking raise cancer fears | Irish Examiner

Remarkably, Irish people are the world’s largest consumers of tea, followed by the UK and we are also, unfortunately, the world’s most fluoridated society.

Most tea drinkers in Ireland would exceed the daily recommended fluoride intake from drinking tea due to using boiled fluoridated water to prepare the beverage. Boiling fluoridated water increases the fluoride concentration, thereby increasing the risks to health for the consumer.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...319037815.html

Fluoride’s safety for human consumption has never been tested by the Irish Medicines Board. In Ireland the fluoride added to our drinking water is regarded as cosmetic. This means it does not have to go through the rigorous testing that a normal drug would go through.

Some crowd are mounting a legal challenge on this:

Legal challenge against the Irish Government’s Water Flouridation Policy | Tipp Tatler Magazine


Would appreciate peoples considered opinion and thoughts on all of this. I am NOT affiliated to any body for or against fluoridation of our water supply. I am just concerned.

If this whole thing blows up and goes legal it could cost the state / us tax payers a fortune in claims. Is this the next big one?

Don't need it, don't want it.

And who silenced the greens so effectively in the last government? Fluoride was going to be gone within a month or so, defo promise. Then nothing.

Its a waste of money considering how much water we lose through leaking pipes, and for that reason it should be scrapped.

Any conspiracy theories about its safety are unfounded, most of the discussion about it usually degenerated into scaremongering.

Fluoride’s safety for human consumption has never been tested

Uh, flouride occurs naturally in the water supply. Re the purported "growing evidence of cancer", etc.:

They have not found clear links between fluoride and bone cancer, or with other suggested risks such as neurological or reproductive effects.

That's the EU on fluoride.

And you said that they don't have in continental Europe. So that would include Germany. We have fluoridation in the US:

Cancer mortality in the United States and Germany.
Becker N, Muscat JE, Wynder EL.
Source

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The USA and Germany are currently two of the world's leading industrial nations with comparable standards of living and considerable similarities in lifestyle. Fifty years ago, i.e., in the years following the Second World War, the living conditions in the two countries were completely different. If it is true that the major part of cancer occurrence is lifestyle-related, we should see corresponding discrepancies and assimilations on the level of cancer occurrence.

METHODS:

As an exercise in descriptive epidemiology, we compare the time trends in German and US cancer mortality in order to examine whether they parallel indeed the differences and changes in lifestyle factors of the two countries.

RESULTS:

Overall, we found the cancer mortality of the two countries converging to rather similar rates. However, in detail, the data indicate various inconsistencies between the patterns of lifestyle factors and cancer mortality in the two countries: similar lung cancer rates, despite rather different patterns of cigarette consumption, or decreasing rectal cancer mortality, despite increasing prevalence of risk factors, are examples.

CONCLUSIONS:

Promising changes with regard to relevant risk factors indicate that the recent decline of cancer mortality in both countries will continue. Nevertheless, vigorous action towards primary prevention in Germany and more effective screening programs in both countries appear recommendable.

Lastly:

As noted in Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General, community water fluoridation continues to be the most cost-effective, equitable and safe means to provide protection from tooth decay in a community. Scientific studies have found that people living in communities with fluoridated water have fewer cavities than those living where the water is not fluoridated. For more than 50 years, small amounts of fluoride have been added to drinking water supplies in the United States where naturally-occurring fluoride levels are too low to protect teeth from decay. Over 8,000 communities are currently adjusting the fluoride in their community’s water to a level that can protect the oral health of their citizens.

Over 170 million people, or 67 percent of the United States population served by public water supplies, drink water with optimal fluoride levels for preventing decay. Of the 50 largest cities in the country, 43 are fluoridated. Although water fluoridation reaches some residents in every state, unfortunately, only 24 states are providing these benefits to 75 percent or more of their residents.

A significant advantage of water fluoridation is that all residents of a community can enjoy its protective benefit—at home, work, school, or play—simply by drinking fluoridated water or beverages and foods prepared with it. A person’s income level or ability to receive routine dental care is not a barrier to receiving fluoridation’s health benefits. Water fluoridation is a powerful strategy in our efforts to eliminate differences in health among people and is consistent with my emphasis on the importance of prevention.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recognized the fluoridation of drinking water as one of ten great public health achievements of the twentieth century. Water fluoridation has helped improve the quality of life in the United States by reducing pain and suffering related to tooth decay, time lost from school and work, and money spent to restore, remove, or replace decayed teeth. An economic analysis has determined that in most communities, every $1 invested in fluoridation saves $38 or more in treatment costs. Fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health over a lifetime, for both children and adults.

While we can be pleased with what has already been accomplished, it is clear that there is much yet to be done. Policymakers, community leaders, private industry, health professionals, the media, and the public should affirm that oral health is essential to general health and well being and take action to make ourselves, our families, and our communities healthier. I join previous Surgeons General in acknowledging the continuing public health role for community water fluoridation in enhancing the oral health of all Americans.

Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S.
VADM, USPHS
United States Surgeon General

July 2004

Now from the National Cancer Institute:

Fluoride in water helps to prevent and can even reverse tooth decay.
More than 60 percent of the U.S. population has access to fluoridated water through public water supply systems.
The optimal level of fluoride to prevent tooth decay is 0.7 milligrams per liter of water.
Many studies, in both humans and animals, have shown no association between fluoridated water and cancer risk.

And for what the EU folks left in their screed, since they only talked about the benefit to forming teeth:

It was subsequently found that fluoride can prevent and even reverse tooth decay by inhibiting bacteria that produce acid in the mouth and by enhancing remineralization, the process through which tooth enamel is “rebuilt” after it begins to decay (1, 2).

For yet more:

In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report, scientists at NCI evaluated the relationship between the fluoridation of drinking water and the number of deaths due to cancer in the United States during a 36-year period, and the relationship between water fluoridation and number of new cases of cancer during a 15-year period. After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water (6).

In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer (6). A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The CDC report concluded that studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer (2). Subsequent interview studies of patients with osteosarcoma and their parents produced conflicting results, but with none showing clear evidence of a causal relationship between fluoride intake and risk of this tumor.

Recently, researchers examined the possible relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in a new way: they measured fluoride concentration in samples of normal bone that were adjacent to a person’s tumor. Because fluoride naturally accumulates in bone, this method provides a more accurate measure of cumulative fluoride exposure than relying on the memory of study participants or municipal water treatment records. The analysis showed no difference in bone fluoride levels between people with osteosarcoma and people in a control group who had other malignant bone tumors (7).

For one more, did you read this comment to the one Irish Times piece? Pretty much says it all really:

A chara, – Dermot Carberry (July 4th) brings up the old “problem” of water fluoridation, calling us to take heed of his pet dogs who prefer rainwater to tap water. Stating that his dogs’ teeth are in perfect condition might be a good example of a common saying, “correlation does not imply causation”. Time and time again, metadata analysis of independent experiments have shown that fluoridation is beneficial in preventing tooth decay.

Saying that “animal instinct is worth noting”, I can think of a few animal instincts that dogs have that humans might find less than palatable. – Is mise,

PAUL LAVIN,

Greyfield,

Kiltimagh, Co Mayo.

Yep, follow our dogs, who don't live for 70 years, don't eat sugar, and lick their testicles, which is presumably one of the habits that our man references there (so wouldn't it be great if we all went dog and licked our testicles, at home and in the workplace, whenever the mood strikes us, sounds like fun).

I would sincerely thank any government that would put a stop to adding a by product of the fertilizer industry to my drinking water.

Originally Posted by ger12

I would sincerely thank any government that would put a stop to adding a by product of the fertilizer industry to my drinking water.

What difference does the fact that its a by product from the fertilizer industry make?

Originally Posted by yobosayo

For one more, did you read this comment to the one Irish Times piece? Pretty much says it all really:

A chara, – Dermot Carberry (July 4th) brings up the old “problem” of water fluoridation, calling us to take heed of his pet dogs who prefer rainwater to tap water. Stating that his dogs’ teeth are in perfect condition might be a good example of a common saying, “correlation does not imply causation”. Time and time again, metadata analysis of independent experiments have shown that fluoridation is beneficial in preventing tooth decay.

Saying that “animal instinct is worth noting”, I can think of a few animal instincts that dogs have that humans might find less than palatable. – Is mise,

PAUL LAVIN,

Greyfield,

Kiltimagh, Co Mayo.

Yep, follow our dogs, who don't live for 70 years, don't eat sugar, and lick their testicles, which is presumably one of the habits that our man references there (so wouldn't it be great if we all went dog and licked our testicles, at home and in the workplace, whenever the mood strikes us, sounds like fun).

You seem to be implying that dogs would live to be 70 if their water was flouridated.

Silly boy.

As a general rule I would at least like the option of not having to ingest large quantities of a poisonous substance on the flimsy grounds it may help prevent tooth decay in people too stupid/lazy to look after their own teeth.

Make flouride tablets available to those that want it but as a common courtesy to a taxpayer helping to fund this Banana Republic I'd appreciate not having to ingest it everyday and absorb it via my skin every time I shower/bathe, wash my clothes etc.

As someone who has had my oesophagus and most of my stomach removed as part of the treatment for my cancer, I welcome a rebirth of this discussion.

Hilariously I have been told my most of my adult life that fluoride was added to the water supply for dental health reasons, what was the first casualty of my chemotherapy, most of my teeth, I managed to keep the hair though.

Originally Posted by Dan_Murphy

What difference does the fact that its a by product from the fertilizer industry make?

Hazardous waste that was very hard to get rid of, namely hydrogen fluoride from the phosphate fertilizer industry, finds a lucrative market in the fight against tooth decay.

The fluoride added to your drinking water is not pharmaceutical grade. And is not comparable to say what you get in a fluoride tablet. In my humble opinion of course. My dentist also tells me that after the age of 7 or 8 years there is no need to supplement with fluoride.