Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 1960

Vol. 184 No. 1

National Loan, 1960. - Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Bill, 1959—Second Stage (Resumed).

The Minister for Health.

Deputy M. J. O'Higgins is in possession.

Actually, the position six months ago was that the Minister was interrupting me.

He was interrupting for six months.

That would not give him the slightest trouble.

I just want to verify the accuracy of that.

When speaking on the last occasion, I was referring to the ethical argument against fluoridation of water and to the report of the consultative council. I must say that from the wording of the report, I understood that when two members had signed it, with a note in brackets after their names, "subject to deletion of Article 37," it meant those members did not agree with the wording of Article 37 of the report which article, I thought, very lightly dismissed the ethical argument. The Minister intervened to say:

It did not arise on the question as to whether there was or was not any ethical principle involved but on quite another aspect, as to whether it was necessary for the council to make that inquiry.

Naturally, I must accept the Minister's word that that is the position, but I think I am entitled to say that it is by no means clearly shown from the report and to that extent, quite inadvertently, I am sure, the report is definitely misleading.

This Bill was introduced by the Minister after some considerable delay and, I feel quite sure, some very considerable thought on his part. However, it is so long since we discussed it last, I think I might be permitted, without being accused of repetition, to summarise the arguments which I made in relation to it, and which were generally made from this side of the House.

Deputies who spoke from these Benches made it quite clear to the Minister that we were not prepared to accept the Bill, or support it in its present form. We felt that the report of the Fluorine Consultative Council had recommended to the Minister that he should introduce enabling legislation, that he should introduce permissive legislation, rather than a mandatory Bill, and it was indicated to him that, if he were prepared to alter the Bill so as to make it a permissive one, enabling local authorities to introduce fluorine into piped water supplies or not as they choose, we would not oppose the Bill. But, instead of doing that, the Minister has introduced a Bill which will be mandatory when it becomes law and the regulations he makes will make it mandatory on every local authority in control of a piped water supply to introduce fluorine into that water supply.

To my mind, the relevant articles in the report of the consultative council are Articles 39 and 41. Article 41 states:

The Council is in doubt as to whether local authorities have the necessary statutory authority to add fluoride to public water supplies. It recommends the introduction of any legislation which may be necessary to enable local authorities to discharge this function.

Article 39 of the report states:

Before any public water supply is fluoridated the Council considers that steps should be taken to assess the incidents of dental caries in children resident in the area served by that water supply. The Council also considers that subsequent to fluoridation adequate steps should be taken to permit a proper evaluation of the results.

I want to say I believe the deliberate use of the word "before" at the commencement of Article 39 of the report, taken in conjunction with Article 41, clearly shows that the consultative council intended legislation of a permissive character to be introduced and that by the use of the particular phraseology in Article 39, or paragraph 39, they felt this was a matter which would require a certain amount of research by local authorities before any of them decided to take this step. That being so, I was rather astounded to see that in the second last paragraph of the White Paper issued with this Bill, the Minister says:

It is particularly with a view to implementing the recommendation in paragraph 39 (cited above) of the Consultative Council's Report that provision is being made by Section 6 of the Bill for surveys of dental caries.

Remember, in paragraph 39 of the report, the consultative council had suggested that these surveys should be carried out before any water supply was fluoridated by any council or local authority in the country. The Minister continues in the second last paragraph of the White Paper:

These surveys will be carried out by health authorities, as and when required by the Minister for Health, and should be of considerable value in enabling statistical material on the benefits of flouridation to be prepared.

It is quite clear from the wording of the White Paper that the Minister intends surveys to be carried out under Section 6 of the Bill after the mandatory Bill has become law, after the local authorities have introduced fluorine into their water supplies, and that is very far from implementing the recommendation of the council as contained in paragraph 39 of their report. The council recommended that surveys should be carried out before anything was done, but the Minister makes it quite clear, in the White Paper, that he regards the surveys to be carried out as leading to the compilation of statistics which will show the beneficial results of the fluoridation of water.

On the last occasion on which this was discussed, the Minister made an able case for carrying out the recommendations of the consultative council, except that he proposed doing it in a mandatory manner as set out in the Bill. I believe he made the best case he could but I am not convinced that his, or the Government's, decision to make this mandatory is a wise one.

It is true, whether we like it or not, whether we believe in the idea of the fluoridation of water or not, that this is a subject which has aroused widespread controversy throughout the world—certainly in America and elsewhere. It is true also that it is a subject, a procedure, a treatment—whatever you like to call it—which is still in the experimental stage, and it is true the claim made on behalf of those who support the idea of fluoridation of water —I have no doubt it is a just claim— extends, as I understand it, only to the fact that it delays the onset of dental caries in children for a year or two, or for some period, and not to any argument as to its being a remedy or a cure for dental caries.

Therefore, in regard to the idea of fluoridation, it is a case of experts differing. There would seem to be very impressive medical arguments; a very impressive volume of medical opinion, against the idea of introducing fluorine into water supplies. There are medical views that the stepping up of the intake of fluorine by individuals may prove harmful, that it may have a harmful effect on certain types of trouble—kidney trouble and rheumatic conditions were examples given on the last occasion the Bill was discussed. That argument is there, and it is advanced seriously by serious and responsible medical people.

As I see it, the position is that the entire question is still only in its experimental stage. Nothing has been settled one way or another. In some of the communities in America where the idea had been accepted five or ten years ago, it has since been rejected; and some communities have never accepted the idea. Therefore, it is quite wrong to regard this as settled practice in any country in the world. Nothing constructive has been shown. I am prepared to accept, on the Minister's authority and on the authority of the Consultative Council, that it does have beneficial effects as far as dental caries in children are concerned, but as far as I know—I should like the Minister to give me the benefit of his knowledge on this—no serious survey has been carried out to show what effect, adverse or advantageous, the increased intake of fluorine might have on people in advanced age groups. It may be that the result is anything but advantageous. Has there been any experimentation in that way and, if so, what are the results?

I have devoted a certain amount of study to the subject and I do not know of any such survey being made. I do know on the other hand, that there are people who genuinely entertain fears on medical grounds that if they are forced against their will, whether they like it or not, to take an increased supply of fluorine through the local authority water supply, it is going to have a harmful effect on them and on their health. In that situation, where there are undoubtedly two points of view, where there are medical arguments for and against, where there are genuine fears entertained by a great number of people, where there is widespread controversy practically throughout the world on the question, it does seem to me to be all wrong that the Minister should take a positive stand in favour of a mandatory Bill.

I do not blame the Minister at all for deciding that the responsibility and onus lie on him to come to a decision on the report of the consultative council. I think the Minister has measured up to his responsibilities in that matter. I think he was right to do so, but where I disagree with him is on the result of that. I think the Minister could and should have introduced a Bill which would enable local authorities individually, and having real experience of the needs of their own particular areas, to introduce a scheme or not, as they thought fit. But in face of the doubt and the arguments which exist, in face of the controversy, which is undoubted, the Minister is coming into this House and saying to local authorities: "Whether you like it or not, whether you think I am right or wrong, whether the parents of the children in your particular locality like it or not, you are going to accept a scheme of compulsory medication through your water supplies." That is what it amounts to.

As far as I know, there are only three local bodies in this country who have given their views on this subject. Possibly there are more, but I know only of three—Tipperary Urban District Council, Dublin County Council and Leitrim County Council. All three considered this question and all passed resolutions against the Minister introducing this mandatory Bill. The Minister should take some heed of that. The members of local authorities are, possibly, very much closer in touch with the people they represent than the Minister is. You have these three local authorities expressing the view to the Minister that this Bill should not be passed.

When I was speaking the last day I referred to the ethical arguments. I do not propose talking at any great length today on that other than to point out that, quite apart from any doubts there may be as to the wisdom of this move from a medical point of view, quite apart from the fears which are genuinely entertained by a number of people that this measure would be harmful to them or to others, there is another argument, the ethical argument, which I believe to be of paramount importance.

I do not believe it is right that any Minister or any Dáil should have the right to say that people must take medicine whether they want it or not, and that they must take it through the piped water supply. I believe that there is an obligation on the local authorities who are in charge of giving a water supply to a community to give a pure water supply. That water supply is now to be used by the Minister for health purposes. Surely that is not right? Surely it is not right, even if the recipient of it is in need of the medicine, that he should be forced to take it against his will? That is what the Minister is doing, but he is going a lot further than that. He is saying to the people who do not need the medicine: "You are going to get it as well," because you cannot drink a sup of water, when this Bill goes through and the Minister makes his regulations, without imbibing fluorine with it. The Minister has not, I hope, too firmly pinned his colours to the masthead of a mandatory Bill. I think he would be far wiser to recognise that there are genuine fears and arguments against this measure. If he wants to legislate so as to permit fluorine to be introduced into the water supply, he should do that by a permissive rather than a mandatory Bill.

I know there are other Deputies who want to give their views on this matter and, as I had an opportunity of speaking at some length previously, I shall not hold them up. I would appeal to the Minister between now and the Committee Stage to reconsider the matter. I should like to assure him that I have discussed the Bill with a number of people. I have been made aware of the reactions of quite a large number of people to the idea. Some people have written me with their views on it, and I do not believe that these people are cranks. I believe they have a genuine case to make. I believe that the Minister, or anyone in the Minister's position, should have regard to the fears and arguments that undoubtedly exist in regard to this Bill, at any rate, in regard to the Bill in mandatory form.

The Minister may be inclined to say: "If I do make the Bill a permissive Bill, what guarantee have I that it will be operated by any local authority?" I do not believe the Minister will have any guarantee that it would be operated by local authorities and the fact that no such guarantee exists or could exist is one of the most telling arguments against a Bill of this nature. However, if the Minister does make it permissive, individual local authorities will be able to ascertain more easily than the Minister can the views of those people in their own areas who will be affected.

I do not believe that the Minister, a local authority or this House has any right to enforce this medication of the community through the means of the piped water supply. If it is left to the various local authorities as a permissive measure, they can ascertain whether or not their own communities want the scheme to be introduced. The Minister has no way of knowing that because he is not, and cannot be, closely enough in touch with the local communities. I would appeal to him to reconsider his attitude and to change the pattern of this Bill from mandatory Bill to permissive.

Any proposal dealing with health matters which may offer a solution to problems affecting children or adults must be regarded by this House as of great importance and I am sure every Deputy will approach these problems in the manner that would be expected of him.

In connection with the proposal before us, it is pertinent to draw the Minister's attention to some points so that we may have a clearer understanding as to whether the proposal is all that the Minister, on the advice of the consultative council and experts in far-away places, tells us it is or whether the doubts that exist in some people's minds are justified.

On the Second Stage, the Minister informed us that dental caries in children was more noticeable in countries with a high standard of living. Attention was drawn to the fact that this country was on a high plane in respect of the intake of food and the calorie value of food, that we were ahead of all countries in Western Europe and close to the American nation.

If it is correct that it is in countries that enjoy a high standard of living that dental caries is more noticeable in children, it is important that we should know whether that problem will be solved by the addition of fluorine to water. The consultative council considered that problem and the Minister has quoted experts of high standing from as far away as New Zealand, but it is important that we should try to get down to bedrock and discover definitely whether or not lack of fluorine in water is the cause of the disease or whether it is the excess use of certain foods in those countries with a high standard of living.

There was a time, according to history, when this country was not in such a happy position as regards diet. We do not have to go back as far as black '47. We have reason to believe that thousands of our people died of starvation but I do not think history will show even one instance of a death from thirst in this country. It seems that down through the years the water supply in this country has been plentiful. It is only lately that we have discovered that we are in the higher category, close to American standards, in respect of intake of calories per day and it is only since that discovery has been made that it is realised that the danger to children's teeth lies in the use of water which does not contain sufficient fluorine.

That begs the question. Did the consultative council and the other foreign experts consider the effect of lack of fluorine in the water supply and did they consider the results of the excessive use of foods which can be far more detrimental to children's health and to children's teeth than many people are prepared to admit?

The people should be informed as to the extent that piped water supplies and the consumption of water by children have been the cause of the existing problem of dental caries and the extent to which dental caries is the result of excessive use of certain foods.

The Minister informed us of a number of thests carried out in cities, towns and a few villages. That will not help us in solving the problem. The results may have been sufficiently clear to those who want to implement the proposal in the Bill to justify their claims, but what of the very large areas throughout rural Ireland where there is no piped water supply and where the community depend on pumps or spring wells? If the Minister insists on the use of compulsory powers to force local authorities to fluoridate piped water supplies, what will happen to the hundreds of thousands who still must depend on the local pumps or spring well?

If this measure were of such importance to children up to the age of 14, surely the Minister would be prepared to tackle these problems or to send the report back to the consultative council asking them to reconsider the position. Why should it be that one section of the community, those who have piped water supplies, will benefit to the extent the Minister believes they will benefit, while no provision is made for those who have no piped water supply? That may pose a problem for the advocates of fluoridation of water and it may be an argument for those who are against it. I am not trying to base an argument to condemn the proposal but I cannot see how I could support such a proposal when the information I have suggested is required has not been given, either by the Minister or by anyone else concerned.

The problem, as we have been told, is one in regard to school-going children. I shall not condemn the Minister by saying he is just rushing through this measure but did he ever give thought to what is the line of approach at lunch time of school-going children in the rural areas? During the last few months because of all the discussion on this proposal I thought it my duty to re-examine it. In many national schools in village areas I could see young boys some of whom carried a bottle of milk and bread and butter to school, many of them not bothering with milk but certainly none at all bothering with a drink of water. The significant fact is that in over 90 per cent. of the cases I could see in the rural areas, where we are supposed to worry over the problem of dental caries, it was a question of the baker's loaf, the white loaf. Again I have seen many children in the village areas who, having had their lunch and being lucky enough to have a few coppers in their pocket, would rush to the local sweet shop. That is the pattern; the banker's loaf and then some form of lollipop or other sweets. That, of course, has not been happening in the rural areas where the school is not convenient to the sweet shop. Surely the Health Council should inform the House through the Minister whether or not the lack of fluorine is the cause of dental decay or whether that is only one small problem interconnected with other problems which may be far greater?

We are being asked here to record our votes if necessary in favour of compelling local authorities to provide their share of the finances for the introduction of this measure, a measure which, in my opinion, has not been shown as the answer to dental caries. I do not intend to go over all the ground covered previously. Every Member knows the position in other countries. We must be different, apparently, according to the Minister. It was not made compulsory in America. In England they did try to get a few local Councils to act as volunteers or guinea pigs. It is only here that compulsory powers are being taken even though we do not yet know whether these steps are even part of the answer to the problem.

There is another problem to which I should like to draw attention. If this measure goes through both Houses of the Oireachtas it will be mandatory on local authorities to add fluorine to piped water supplies. In some areas adjacent to some of our villages, for instance, in South Cork, where there are piped water supplies many farmers have availed of the opportunity of getting piped water for their cattle. I do not wish to be an alarmist but we do not know one way or the other what will be the reaction in such instances. I do not know whether it will have any effect but I know that the Minister did not say that the addition of fluorine would improve the teeth of cattle. However, it must be admitted that a herd of cattle, to which a piped water supply is being made available by the local authority, will consume a great deal more of this new type of drinking water than the children of the whole parish would in perhaps four or five times as long a period. From those points of view alone we should have much more information before being asked to support a measure of compulsion on the local authorities.

Deputy O'Higgins mentioned the question of compulsion on the individual to use this type of water in future. I agree with the views expressed by Deputy O'Higgins in that respect. The Minister may say that if the people of Ballyfermot, in Dublin, or of Spangle Hill in Cork, object to using such water—of course they cannot object to paying for it; they must pay their share of the water rate—they can get a few jugs and put them out under the down-pipe. That is hardly a suggestion that should be made in connection with any serious proposal in this House.

Neither the Minister nor the Health Council has offered any alternative to this proposal. What, for instance, is the possibility, where necessary, of providing tablets? I suppose it would be rather strange to see the mother of a young family arriving at the office of some health authority in Cork or Dublin and asking an official for a packet of such tablets containing this important element for the benefit of children. Naturally the official would have to ask if she had a note from the doctor recommending the use of such tablets for her children. However, in this proposal before us the doctor is not being consulted. There is no such thing as a prescription making it available in suitable cases. It is the very reverse. It is a case of "You drink the water containing flourine or do without it."

Surely we are going a little too far. Surely if we believe in democracy, we should at least be more considerate as to whether or not we insist on the people adopting what we believe is for their good. Who is to decide what is for their good? After all, the medical profession are divided on this issue. The Minister cannot come in and say that the medical profession as a whole are for it, because some are against it. Is it for us as lay people to say: "Oh, the Health Council recommended this to us and we are going to adopt it"? This originated in America. Many a good thing originated there and many a queer thing too.

I remember when Parliamentary Questions were asked of Ministers and Governments if a certain element which was introduced into the bakers' loaf for the purpose of colouring was good or bad in its effect on the people's health, but because it was being used in other countries, we had to use it. I am not condemning the Fianna Fáil Government because I remember the inter-Party Government saying the same thing: "Everything is fine; it is a great help to the loaf and to the health and teeth of the children and to the health of the adults". However, if it is discovered abroad that some such addition is wrong and if they scrap it eventually, we may come with the next rising tide and say that we are going to change. Surely we should be more considerate in a matter which affects the health of the aged and the children. Neither the Minister nor those advising him can claim to be infallible on this point and because of that, this matter should be reconsidered rather than forced on the members of the health authority to support the claims of Parliament if it goes through.

At the start, I posed a question and I shall finish on the same note. Have we any idea of the amount of water consumed by those whom we are supposed to be anxious to help? Take the future. If this proposal goes through in its present form and if the water supply here in Dublin must carry fluorine, does the Minister consider what amount of that water will be used for the purpose for which he believes he is introducing the Bill— the benefit of children?

Take the ordinary family home. I suppose if the man of the house is lucky enough to have a car and if he has time off to give it a wash, he will use water carrying fluorine and perhaps he will be proud of the fact that there is a better gloss on the car because of the addition of this wonderful element; or if he is lucky enough to have the old push bike, he will be able to wash the mud off the mudguards with fluorinated water. Perhaps the Minister and I will smile in the mornings when we can clean our own dentures with water carrying fluorine. While spraying a plentiful supply of water on vegetables and gardens, the people will be happy to know that although they and the local authority are paying a little more, they now have the wonderful advantage of fluorine in their gardens.

Take the farmer who is living in a rural area where a piped water supply is available. I am sure it will be a wonderful consolation to him, when spraying the potato crop with blue-stone or some other composition, to know that the water contains fluorine. In the towns or villages, if a man goes into a garage to have his car washed the garage man can proudly tell him that he is now in a position to give the car a better wash but that it will be a little more expensive because of the addition of fluorine to the water. Many of these problems can present themselves. The man in the orchard need worry no more about decay, even though it may not be decay in fruit, because the Minister for Health is now going to supply him with water which will help to prevent decay in teeth.

While all that is going on, have we even an approximate idea of the percentage of the total amount of water being used in Dublin, Cork or elsewhere which is being used by children, for whose benefit this Bill is intended, according to the Minister, the Health Council and all others who believe in this? Surely there is no greater extravagance than to ask us to support a measure which could mean the squandering of money in all directions. We have not got the foggiest idea of what the intake of water per child will be. At the same time, thousands of children going to the national schools in places where people must depend for their water supply on springs are not to get the advantage which the Minister is giving.

I believe that while the wishes of those who object—and I say they are right in objecting to compulsory powers—must carry great weight. more important is the problem which confronts us in that we are asked to provide money from the people either through taxation or through rates—it is immaterial which—to give the children something which may be to their benefit, provided they use a sufficient amount between the ages of four or five and 14. We are told that after the age of 14, it will not have the desired effect. That is the problem which I believe has not been answered by the Minister, the Health Council or by any body in America, England or New Zealand who favour such a measure.

I consider it more important to have all these questions answered in a clear manner before I support the Minister with my vote and before it goes on record that I shall be prepared to compel the people to use this fluoridated water. I could not be satisfied otherwise, and up to the present the Minister, in his attacks on those who oppose the measure, made no attempt whatever to prove his own argument. He seemed more anxious to attack than to defend. I am not asking him to defend himself but to make a clear statement in fairness to the House and to people outside this House who will have no say in this and who will have to accept the decision recorded here as to whether in the future they will be compelled to use a type of water that we do not really know is the answer to the problem of dental decay in children.

Mr. Ryan

I shall ask what are we dealing with in this Bill? Two very simple but diametrically opposed things—the one, pure water and the other, a deadly poison. Sodium fluoride is the main constituent of rat poison. Go into any chemist's or hardware shop in this country or any other and buy any rat poison sold over the counter and you will find, if it contains an analysis, that one of the main constituents is in most cases sodium fluoride.

The Minister is endeavouring in this Bill to introduce this poison listed as deadly in every pharmacopoeia that has ever been published into the pure water supply which we would think was the right of any person living in a modern democracy. Dealing with the point of Deputy Desmond who queried whether or not dental caries was caused by the water people drink, of course it is not. It is not a disease that is carried by water; it is not a disease carried by anything. It is not a communicable disease and for that reason, nobody has any right—no authority has any right and no State has any right—to impose compulsory medication on any person in respect of a disease which he cannot communicate to another.

I should have thought that the integrity, the inviolability of the human body was something that was so well established that no Minister would ever dare to invade it but this Bill has no other purpose than that of deliberately and definitely, without any hope of avoiding it, invading the human body.

The fact that the human body is supposed to be inviolable is recognised by the Minister in Section 6 in which, rather ironically, he says that nothing in the section relating to inspection shall be construed as imposing an obligation on any person to submit himself, or any person for whom he is responsible, to examination. Under this Bill, the Minister preserves the integrity of the individual to the extent that he may not be compelled to submit to a casual examination, an examination not even of his whole body but merely of his mouth, of his teeth, for statistical purposes. Any adult or any adult on behalf of a child who is in his control may object to that because the Minister feels the person has a right to object to medical inspection.

I should have thought that was a lesser right than the right a person has not to have his body interfered with because some Minister or local authority or somebody else thought he ought to be given poison because some people think it might be good for his teeth. Deputy Desmond illustrated his views with considerable accuracy, displaying intimate knowledge of the country and the ways of children. He indicated how children so frequently purchase sweets, candy and goods that contain sugar and he queried whether that was one of the causes of the prevalence of dental caries. Of course it is one of the causes of dental caries, but it is not because people drink pure water that people have dental caries. The two things are completely separate, but what this Bill tries to say is that you may eat sweets and candy and sugar but we shall try to prevent any harm these may do by the fluoridation of the water supply, by compulsory medication.

Would there not be an outcry, would not there be a march on the Custom House by women and children, if the Minister brought in a Bill making it an offence for children to eat sweets and candy because these would cause dental caries? Would there not be an outcry if he sought to punish parents because they permitted children to eat sweets or sugar or candy? Of course there would be, but this Bill has the same sense of compulsion, the same smell of dictatorship about it——

As a blueshirt.

Mr. Ryan

——as any that might be produced by a person who fails to recognise the integrity of the individual, who believes in the communist doctrine or the fascist doctrine that a person must be subordinate to the interests of a State and not that the State is there to serve the interests of the individual.

Read the Minister's own speech, his introductory statement, in which he says no person has a right to say that the public authority has no right to invade his person with poison. He says a person has not such a right and that the public authority, be it the State or the local authority, alone has that right of telling a person what is good for him. That, to my mind, is something which is highly objectionable and, as I said within the past 12 months in relation to another Bill before this House, even though the Minister with his majority may push the Bill through this House and the other House, there is another place in which the rights of the humblest individual in this land can be protected, and thank God for that.

I should give the Minister one fact that he might like to use on his side of the argument—the fact that in the capital of the United States, Washington D.C., they have fluoridated the public water supply—but to set off that fact which the Minister might like to quote, there is also the fact that in New York City, the second largest city in the world, and in Ottawa in Canada, the public authorities have refused to put sodium fluoride in the water supply. I want to return to Washington, to the first citizen of that great city, the first citizen of the sovereign Republic of the United States, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He is under medical orders not to drink the fluoridated water supply and he is provided with one gallon of pure water from a spring well every day because his medical advisers—the best medical advisers in the U.S.—believe that it would do harm to the first citizen——

Would the Deputy tell us what pure water is?

Mr. Ryan

Pure water is water that contains no poison, which does not communicate disease, which does not hold disease and which does not hold poison. That is what pure water is.

That is not a definition. I understand that ordinary natural water contains fluorine already.

Mr. Ryan

There are some natural water supplies in which there are certain elements of fluorine. There are some natural water supplies which contain far less than the one part per one million that is proposed in the Bill. Some contain more.

We actually add chlorine to water also.

Mr. Ryan

There is no valid comparison between chlorine and fluorine. Chlorine is used to make water pure and to prevent communication of disease. Fluorine serves no such purpose. It does not make water pure. It introduces a poison.

Is chlorine not a poison?

Mr. Ryan

No; it is not a poison.

Now we know.

Mr. Ryan

Chlorine is not a poison in the way in which fluorine is. Chlorine will not do harm to the system, and if any housewife or any individual wants to get rid of chlorine out of the public water supply, all he or she needs to do is to put on some water to boil, and the chlorine will boil off. Fluorine cannot be boiled off. It goes into the system and before I finish, I hope to indicate that there is a grave danger of its remaining in dangerous quantities in the systems of many people.

I believe the life and health of the humblest citizen of the land is just as important as the life and health of the President of the United States of America. We have a duty, which we must discharge, to see that we do not do any possible harm to any individual in this country, no matter what his or her wealth or status may be.

While talking about the United States of America, perhaps I may refer to a leading article in the Richmond News Leader, the principal paper in Richmond city. That paper referred some time ago—on Monday, 27th October, 1958, to be precise—to a recent court case in America in which a customer entered a dime store and barely had he stepped inside before a clerk sprayed him vigorously with an eau de cologne the store was promoting. The customer got so mad he had the manager arrested, evidently on a charge of assault, and the case came on for trial.

The store manager defended himself by saying this was not cheap perfume; it was high-class stuff. Further, the cologne was bound to make the customer smell better, and even if he didn't like it, the customer would not be harmed by it. The judge replied that in a free country, nobody has a right to spray anything on anybody without his consent, and he fined the manager. Costs were awarded against him.

This reputable newspaper went on to say this:—

...argument impresses us as sound, that the incident offers an excellent analogy with the fluoridation of public water supplies.

When the Department of Public Utilities adds a little eau de fluoride to the city's water supply, it is engaging in the same sort of infringement upon individual rights. The argument of the public health people is that this fluoride probably will make the children's teeth better, and anyhow, it can't hurt them. ...American judges seem not yet to have passed on the question of whether the practice deprives a citizen of his liberty without due process of law.

This year the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri has decided that the fluoridation of public water supplies is contrary to the Constitution of Missouri and the Constitution of the United States of America. We cannot lightly gloss over this aspect of the rights of the individual not to have medical treatment which he does not want forced upon him, particularly in respect of a disease which is not communicable. Any one of us could have every tooth in our head infected by dental caries and we could not communicate that disease to or inflict it on anyone else. A person with dental caries does no harm to anyone else.

If you introduce fluorine into the human body, you are, of course, doing it with a purpose and I acknowledge the Minister's purpose. It is to prevent dental caries. Statistical evidence has established that all fluoridated water supplies have succeeded in doing is postponing the onset of dental caries. The available statistics, after 15 years, on the use of fluoridated water supplies—and I think it is pertinent to remember that this idea of the fluoridation of water supplies has been in operation for 15 years only—point to the fact that water supplies which have had fluorine put into them merely postpone the onset of dental caries, and it is also proved by statistics that fluorine in the system encourages the spread of dental caries, once it starts.

For instance, in the city of St. David in Arizona, it has been shown that with fluorine in the water, the incidence of caries in children under 16 years is below the world average, but over 20 years, it is abnormally high. In the age group 20 to 41—and this is the city of St. David—50 per cent. have had all their teeth extracted because of dental caries.

That is a statistic that could be repeated if I had at my disposal the means of collecting information the Minister ought to have at his disposal, and it is the kind of fact that ought to worry us with regard to whether or not we are doing right in this matter. There is a clear indication that fluorine may postpone dental caries where children are concerned, but once it has set in, its degree is worse than we would otherwise have. I do not know what the statistics of dental caries are in this country for the age group 20 to 41 years, but somehow I doubt very much if it is as high as 50 per cent., the percentage in cities where fluorine has been introduced into the water.

The purpose of putting fluorine into the water supply is to provide the children with stronger teeth. It is a chemical which helps to make teeth stronger. It provides stronger enamel; it makes the outer covering of the teeth stronger; but it is a fact that has been clinically established—and certainly not clinically disestablished—that once a tooth that has been subjected to a water supply containing sodium fluoride goes, you cannot save it. There is practically no such thing as filling teeth which have developed with a water supply containing fluorine. For people who have a dread of getting their teeth filled, there might be something to be said for flouride in the water supply, but I think it is better to have your natural teeth, even though they may be filled. With flouride in the water supply, the situation is that once your tooth goes bad at all, it collapses because it cannot be filled. One of the effects of sodium flouride is to make teeth brittle, so brittle that they cannot be filled. The outer covering of teeth produced by the intake of sodium flouride is analogous to the Maginot Line. It was stated by experts that France was safe for all time because it had an outer shell, or skin, which could not be penetrated. Sodium flouride helps to provide a strong skin up to the age of 16 or 18, but dental caries have other ways of getting in and, once in, the teeth collapse as the Maginot Line collapsed with disastrous consequences for humanity.

All these things have been clinically established. They have not received from the Minister, from his Department, or from the council the consideration they should have received, remembering the very eminent men who have proved the facts conclusively. Deputy Desmond said to-night he was not an alarmist. I want to be an alarmist. I think it is my duty to do what the Minister and the council have not done. I think it is my duty to warn the people of the possible consequences of flouridation of their water supplies.

It has been clinically established that there is a relationship between the intake of sodium fluoride and cancer. It has been clinically established, of course, that there is a relationship between the consumption of nicotine and various other drugs and cancer. I do not say that sodium fluoride is the sole cause of cancer. It has not definitely been stated that other things are definitely the cause of cancer, but we all hope that there will be a break through in the barrier of ignorance which surrounds this dreadful disease. Would it not be pathetic, to say the least of it, if we were to embark upon schemes of compulsory medication which might increase the incidence of cancer?

It has been clinically established and, so far as I know, not contradicted, that the intake of sodium fluoride encourages rheumatism, arthritis, and other bone diseases. One of the peculiar characteristics of fluorine is that it attaches itself to bones, making them stiff and brittle. If a person consumes fluoridated water over 50 years, or more, that will affect his general bone structure. I am not a doctor, but I think it is too much to expect anyone to believe that you can take sodium fluoride for the good of your teeth and that it will not have any adverse effects on other organs. Of course, it will. One of the disadvantages of sodium fluoride is that it drives out calcium, which is one of the main constituents of bone structure. Yet, the Minister now wants the Irish people to take fluorine day after day, despite the fact that not the strongest supporters of the fluoridation of water can yet say what the effect of the intake of this dreadful poison will be after 15 years, 15 years being the term of experience that people have in relation to the fluoridation of water.

It has been clinically established that sodium fluoride lodges in the breasts of pregnant women. It has been clinically established that natural milk contains very little fluorine at all and, if it does contain fluorine, it is because it has been introduced into the milk from some outside source. Has sufficient consideration been given to the effect of the fluoridation of water upon pregnant women and unborn children? I feel sufficient consideration has not been given to this aspect. It is an appalling thought that the fluoridation of public water supplies may have an adverse effect upon generations yet unborn.

It has been established that there is a direct relationship between some kidney and liver diseases and sodium fluoride. It is also known that there is a higher incidence of mental disease in communities consuming water supplies which have been fluoridated. All these things have been published in reputable publications. These facts have been brought to the notice of those in authority in other countries. We have a fear that the case for the fluoridation of our water supplies is not being put over from purely unselfish motives. On the other hand, those who have been voicing justifiable fears find their voices drowned in the great clamour that has arisen in certain quarters for the fluoridation of water supplies.

One of the effects of introducing repeated doses of sodium fluoride into the human system is to build up an ever-increasing amount of this poison in the human system. Children up to the middle teens have a greater capacity for getting rid of poisons than have older people. I think the Minister will agree with me that it is accepted by the medical profession generally that whatever amounts of sodium fluoride are not needed by the teeth will be passed out of the system in the ordinary way by young children. Older people have not the same capacity. Their ability to rid their systems of poison depends upon many things.

We are supposed to be worried about the children. I am afraid we are worried about them only until they reach their middle teens. We are giving no serious consideration to what their plight will be 50, 60 or 70 years hence, after they have spent a lifetime imbibing sodium fluoride. Nature has its own way of getting rid of poisons. As people grow older, the ability diminishes. If we violate nature and artificially introduce poison into the human system, we will compel the organs which normally rid the system of poison to work overtime. The danger is then that senile decay will set in much earlier. The overworked organs, when a person reaches middle age, will not be able to get rid of the poisonous substance in the system. It is known, too, that there is a direct relationship between sodium fluoride and clinical diseases. To a great extent, we have in recent centuries conquered many diseases, but there are some chronic diseases and the most the medical profession have been able to do so far is to relieve the pain.

We are now asked by the Minister deliberately to introduce a substance which it is feared by those who know best will have a damaging effect upon people suffering from chronic diseases. I do not make these statements lightly. These are facts I have gleaned from material written and put on record by some of the most eminent medical man in the world. I said I feared that those in favour of the fluoridation of water supplies have a selfish reason. It is not a conclusion one likes to reach lightly. It is pertinent to point out that one of the leading propagandists for the fluoridation of water supplies is a member of a family who are the largest producers in the world of the equipment and material. I venture to suggest that whatever motives or approach I might have in relation to the matter, there is a chance I might be a little more objective than the person who has made millions out of the fluoridation of water supplies.

Who has benefited from the fluoridation of water supplies? Children and children alone will benefit. We are glad mankind thinks there is some way of relieving children of dental caries, but it has not been proved that it is of any ultimate benefit, because the incidence of dental caries is just as heavy in the 20's and 30's as it was in communities before the water supply was fluoridated.

Apart from the point of principle, on which I took my first stand and on which I shall stand to the end, I believe the danger of creating any of the diseases I have mentioned in any person is such as not to justify the short-term beneficial effect the fluoridation of water supplies may have on children. It is short-term, because the most those who support the scheme can prove—it is one thing to suggest but another thing to prove —is a delay in the onset of dental caries. I do not think that matters very much. The only people who, on balance, can benefit by the fluoridation of water supplies are those who die between the ages of one and 15 years and who die without getting dental caries. If they live long enough, and most of us do, they will get dental caries. Therefore, it is hardly worth all this expense, worry, invasion of human rights and risk in relation to these dreadful diseases.

It has been suggested by propagandists for the fluoridation of water supplies that the incidence of any of these possible diseases and afflictions I have mentioned would not be any greater than one in 10,000. One may feel we are justified in the fluoridation of water supplies if the risk is as small as one in 10,000. I would refer the House to the case against fluoridation by Dr. Robert Newton, Director of the Alberta Research Council and President of the University of Alberta. In dealing with this argument, he points out that it may be useful to remember in this connection that the average morbidity rate for poliomyelitis is under one in 10,000 and that mortality is under one in 100,000.

We are spending any amount of effort, any amount of money and displaying any amount of publicity calling on people to have their children treated against the dreadful disease of poliomyelitis which strikes only one in 10,000. We are being asked, at the same time, to spend public money and effort to lend our names to this Bill which deliberately is introducing a poisonous substance into the human system which certainly has the chance of inflicting one person in 10,000 with the dreadful diseases I have mentioned. That happens to represent 300 persons in Ireland. I do not think it is a justifiable risk.

I do not think it justifiable to undertake the risk of subjecting 300 people to cancer, rheumatism, arthritis, kidney and liver disorders, mental diseases and unduly early senile decay. I am sorry these matters have not been brought to the attention of the Irish people. Before the Minister asks any local authority to fluoridate water supplies, he has a duty to see to it that public opinion in Ireland is informed on these very vital facts.

Deputy Desmond spoke of a mother going to some local authority and asking for fluorine tablets. It is not such a strange idea. The Waterworks Department and the Health Department of New York City have rejected the fluoridation of the water supply. They also point out that the cost of providing sodium fluorine in tablet form to the people who might benefit by it—children from one to 16 years of age—would be one-fifth of the cost of fluoridating the water supply of New York City.

I do not know if any costing examination has been carried out in this country. Whatever the cost, it would be better to supply fluorine in tablet form for children who would benefit from it than to compel all Irish people, no matter what their age, to risk danger to their health by taking fluorine in their water supplies. It may be argued that there would be no way of controlling parents and children, that you might supply them with the tablets but that they might not take them. There are other supplies which we provide for the good of children but we have to respect parental rights and human dignity in relation to them. We must do the same here.

It might be said it would be dangerous to provide fluorine in tablet form lest children should take too much at any one time. People who can speak with more authority than I assert it is possible to make up these tablets with some other substance so that if children take more than one at a time they will vomit up the poison. It would seem far wiser to do that. There would not be much risk involved and it would cost a great deal less, according to the costings for New York City. It would not cost as much as or any more than the cost of fluoridating our different water supplies, which the Minister suggests.

It might be said that consideration should be given to the provision of fluorine in sweets. However, objections will be raised that it is difficult to control the intake of fluorine if we put it into sweets or attach it to any material substance.

I support the arguments put forward by Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Desmond. They pointed out that there was no such thing as the average intake of water. It would be unwise to suggest that the average intake of this poisonous substance will only be a certain figure which will not be damaging. There will be people above that average who will run great risks. There will be ladies who will drink pints of water for the good of their complexions. There will be labourers who do manual work in the open air who will drink water by the gallon or, if they do not drink water, will drink beer which has been made from fluoridated water supplies.

These are things which even the Minister cannot overlook. There is no way of controlling the amount which any particular individual will drink. I always understood, in relation to medical prescriptions, that the important thing was to go to a doctor who prescribed the precise amount of any poisonous substance or toxic ingredient which was good for the particular individual he examined. Here we shall not have examined the people before we compel them to take a certain amount of sodium fluoride. We do not know in advance whether it will have a bad effect on one and not on another. We shall not know until it is too late.

The Minister provides only for a visual examination of people's mouths to see whether or not so many of the 32 teeth are affected by dental caries. There is no provision for any examination beforehand at public expense to decide what would be the maximum amount of fluoridated water supplies a person could safely take. We have other schemes of public medicine. We have our public X-ray unit. We have our blood donation unit and we have other medical schemes where we assist people until we know what is good for them or what is good, bad or indifferent for them. The Minister proposes to make them consume it. That is a very bad thing.

Another point which, I think, should be mentioned is that if we fluoridate water supplies we do not end there. It has been clinically established that if you boil a head of cabbage, a cauliflower, carrots; any fruit, or even meat, in water, fluoride, because of its nature —I mentioned this previously—will attach itself to the vegetables, fruit or meat. It will be taken out of the water and put into the fruit. Where do we stand then in relation to people who eat a lot of vegetables or fruit or drink a lot of water? We have heard of the person who consumes these things only in small quantities but there is no way of measuring it or being definite about it. On that account I think it is national suicide to compel the Irish people to take sodium fluoride when mankind in all other countries in the world do not yet know what the reaction of human beings in certain cases will be to this poison.

The Minister quoted New Zealand and Sweden as examples of countries which had accepted fluoridated water supplies. In the United States of America, where this idea first developed and where it was first put into practice, 60 million citizens, free, independent, proud citizens of that great land of liberty, voted against the fluoridation of water supplies. Sixty million people, when given the chance, said "No." Forty-two million in the United States have fluoridated water supplies and only six per cent. of those were given the opportunity of a referendum to decide whether or not they would have fluoridated water supplies. There were more millions in the United States—I think 48 million was the maximum at any one time who had fluoridated water supplies—who either threw it out by referendum— and here let our local councillors be warned—or got rid of the local authority, the councillors, the mayors and their chairmen.

I state bluntly that if an issue were made of this thing the Irish people would welcome the opportunity of a referendum and I am certain that they would throw it out with a mighty "No" because 94 per cent. of the people in all the countries in the world, who had an opportunity of voting on this issue, have voted against the fluoridation of water supplies. The people have a right in connection with this matter but the Minister is trying to take that right away by forcing a Bill of this nature through the Dáil and the other House, although there are many members of his own Party who do not wish this Bill to be enacted. Many of the others do not know anything about it and more is the shame on them in relation to a matter of such very grave importance.

We shall swing now to Sweden to which the Minister also referred. In December, 1958, this issue was debated in the Swedish Parliament and the Swedish Parliament decided not to go ahead with the proposal to permit general fluoridation of water supplies. In New Zealand to which the Minister also refers, in November, 1959, just 12 months ago, the people in eight out of eight referenda voted against the fluoridation of water supplies. The Minister could have invited the people at the local elections last June to decide this matter but he failed to discharge the simple obligation of allowing the people to decide whether or not they wanted a particular medical treatment or otherwise. It is the height of audacity for him to come to this House and hope in the ignorance of the House and the people of Ireland to push through this Bill—a Bill, which if carried into law, would create havoc in some quarters and would be grossly unfair to some people.

The beneficial effects of sodium flouride have been mentioned. I do not doubt them in relation to teen-age children. What has not been mentioned is another direct and known consequence of the fluoridation of water supplies and that is the mottling of teeth, the discolouration of teeth, the appearance of spots on the teeth and the ultimate decay of the teeth. I think our women and our men, too, like to have decent sets of teeth in their head. One of the most definite effects of the fluoridation of water supplies is to create mottled teeth in from ten to 20 per cent. of the population. Here we are postponing one dental disease for a period of a couple of years at most, perhaps, from 16 to 18 years of age. That is all we can hope to do with the fluoridation of water supplies, but as sure as we stand here so long as mankind continues to eat sweets and substances of a sugary content, you are going to have dental caries until mankind finds some other cure besides the fluoridation of water supplies. If you put sodium fluoride in water you will get from ten to 20 per cent. of our people suffering from mottled teeth.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share