I, Owen Boyden, an Irish citizen and director of The West Cork Fluoride Free Campaign and The National Fluoride Free Towns Project wish to provide a refutation for the Department’s response to Dail Question No. 466.
First and foremost, I wish to thank Mr. Jim Daly, T.D., for raising said concerns and Minister of State at the Department of Health, Ms. Kathleen Lynch, T.D., for the response issue on behalf of the Department of Health and the Government.
Therefore;
1) Regarding the position that dental fluorosis is not a birth defect.
Fluorosis is the term accorded to systemic fluoride induced interruption or malformation of the enamel (amelogenesis) stage of tooth development that can occur during either primary (baby, milk or deciduous teeth) or permanent dentition development. As the amelogenesis stage of primary dentition occurs during the ages of 5 and 8 months in utero (during fetal development of pregnancy) as a result of the maternal fluoride intake crossing the placenta, it is therefore logical to consider primary dentition fluorosis a fluoridation induced birth defect (a physical abnormality that either occurred during pregnancy or birth). Of further concern is a Department of Health supported 2005 study conducted throughout Cork City and County which found 32% of those residing in fluoridated areas suffered from primary dentition fluorosis which corresponds with similar reported estimates.
2) Regarding the position that dental fluorosis is not an adverse effect.
Fluorosis as included in No.12 of 13 conclusions published in The SCHER Report (Pg36) refers to fluorosis as an adverse effect.
3) Regarding the position that the HRB Review found no definitive evidence that community water fluoridation is associated with negative health effects.
The Department of Health commissioned HRB Review for unknown reasons in the Review Question and therefore the terms of reference was requested to exclude from the review evidence documenting the effects of CWF (community water fluoridation) on dental health. It is therefore of concern that the Review Authors were not authorised to make any conclusions regarding the origin and cause of primary dentition fluorosis which according to various and widely available relevant literature, appears to be a fluoridation induced birth defect.
I welcome any review of the public refutation I have provided here. Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Owen Boyden
References:
(1.a) The European Commission sanctioned SCHER (European Scientific Community for Health and Environmental Risks) Report of 2010, Appendix 2, Pg 44.
Owen Boyden
Posted on 22 Nov 2015 2:19 pm
For Public Dissemination
I, Owen Boyden, an Irish citizen and director of The West Cork Fluoride Free Campaign and The National Fluoride Free Towns Project wish to provide a refutation for the Department’s response to Dail Question No. 466.
First and foremost, I wish to thank Mr. Jim Daly, T.D., for raising said concerns and Minister of State at the Department of Health, Ms. Kathleen Lynch, T.D., for the response issue on behalf of the Department of Health and the Government.
Therefore;
1) Regarding the position that dental fluorosis is not a birth defect.
Fluorosis is the term accorded to systemic fluoride induced interruption or malformation of the enamel (amelogenesis) stage of tooth development that can occur during either primary (baby, milk or deciduous teeth) or permanent dentition development. As the amelogenesis stage of primary dentition occurs during the ages of 5 and 8 months in utero (during fetal development of pregnancy) as a result of the maternal fluoride intake crossing the placenta, it is therefore logical to consider primary dentition fluorosis a fluoridation induced birth defect (a physical abnormality that either occurred during pregnancy or birth). Of further concern is a Department of Health supported 2005 study conducted throughout Cork City and County which found 32% of those residing in fluoridated areas suffered from primary dentition fluorosis which corresponds with similar reported estimates.
2) Regarding the position that dental fluorosis is not an adverse effect.
Fluorosis as included in No.12 of 13 conclusions published in The SCHER Report (Pg36) refers to fluorosis as an adverse effect.
3) Regarding the position that the HRB Review found no definitive evidence that community water fluoridation is associated with negative health effects.
The Department of Health commissioned HRB Review for unknown reasons in the Review Question and therefore the terms of reference was requested to exclude from the review evidence documenting the effects of CWF (community water fluoridation) on dental health. It is therefore of concern that the Review Authors were not authorised to make any conclusions regarding the origin and cause of primary dentition fluorosis which according to various and widely available relevant literature, appears to be a fluoridation induced birth defect.
I welcome any review of the public refutation I have provided here. Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Owen Boyden
References:
(1.a) The European Commission sanctioned SCHER (European Scientific Community for Health and Environmental Risks) Report of 2010, Appendix 2, Pg 44.
(1.b) Irish Department of Health supported 2005 Cork Study http://admin.ejpd.eu/download/2005-03-07.pdf
(3.a) The HRB Review exclusion of the affects of fluoridation on dental health, The HRB Review, “Research Question”, Pg 19. http://www.hrb.ie/publications/hrb-publication/publications/...