Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 1960

Vol. 185 No. 7

Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Bill, 1959—Fifth Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Ryan

Dáil Éireann has been asked to give its final approval to one of the most repulsive pieces of legislation which has come before it in recent years. This Bill seeks to impose mass medication upon all sections of the Irish people. Less than one-seventh of the Irish people can possibly acquire any benefit whatsoever from the fluoridation of water supplies. Less than one-seventh of the Irish people can acquire only a very temporary relief from dental caries or a temporary postponement of dental caries. The remaining six-sevenths of the people are being asked to expose themselves to a long intake of a poisonous substance which it has been clinically established builds up in the human system the longer it is taken and as the people who take it grow older. On that account, Dáil Éireann should pause before it gives its final approval to such an obnoxious Bill.

Many people have the strongest possible objection to compulsory medication. This Bill contravenes the fundamental rights of the natural law which people enjoy. It also contravenes our Constitution. If ever a Bill cries out for reference to the Supreme Court by the President this Bill does. It may be that the Minister, with his organised body behind him in this House and in another place, may put this Bill into the hands of the President for signature. If it is signed without being referred to the Supreme Court there will be individuals in this country, who, having the strongest objections according to their consciences to the Bill, will be able to establish their rights only by a very expensive and prolonged legal action.

Since this measure so vitally affects the integrity of human beings and the rights of the people to the integrity of their bodies, there is an obligation on the President and the Council of State to ensure that the Bill will be referred to the Supreme Court to consider whether or not it contravenes the natural rights recognised in the Constitution. This is not a matter which even the Minister can treat lightly. One section provides that, in relation to surveys on dental caries and. general medical service, people who object to medical examination need not submit to that examination. Surely compulsorily to examine a person is an invasion of a much lesser privilege? It is much more serious when, without examination of a person, you compel him to take continuously and without any option an intake of fluorine poison? That is what you will do, over the years.

I am sure the Minister will not lose the opportunity of saying that the Irish Dental Association recently indicated their support for this Bill. I am no more impressed by that than I would be impressed by a painter who would say a building was a good building because it was well painted or by a plasterer who would say a house was a good house because the plaster he was putting up was well put up or was good plaster. Our dentists, like dentists all over the world, are not in a position to judge the effect of the intake of poison on the human system. Very careful examinations by most competent people indicated that very damaging consequences can flow from the intake of fluorine in water.

The only section which to any extent provides safeguards is that which allows a medical survey to be carried out. Unfortunately, the words of the Minister on the Report Stage give us serious reason to doubt whether that survey will be objective. He told us his sole reason for inserting the amendment in the Bill was to prove himself right. If medical surveys are carried out merely to prove an argument they are worse than worthless; they are dangerous. If we are to have a medical survey of the effects on our people of the fluoridation of our water supplies it must be objective. I hope that the Minister will assure us that such a survey will be an impartial and objective one and that he will withdraw the statements he made that the purpose of the survey is to prove that he and the public health authorities are right.

This Bill is highly objectionable in another way. Our people have had good cause to have confidence in our public health services. If this Bill becomes law they will have good cause to fear our public health services and our public health servants, because if it is approved it will show a disregard for the fundamental rights of the individual. That is a very dangerous thing and a very dangerous departure and, as I pointed out on previous stages, if we admit for once the right of mass medication, even if it be in regard to a harmless substance — and there are many who do not regard it as a harmless substance — there is no end to the mass medication we may have imposed on us from time to time. There have been medical crackpots who, from time to time, have suggested schemes of this nature in the past and in some places they have succeeded in persuading people that their particular hobby horses should be ridden by the public. I greatly fear that if once we open the door to mass medication of the kind contemplated in this Bill we will start a rot which may be extremely difficult to check.

The Minister has suggested again and again that the purpose of fluoridated water supplies is to prevent certain chronic diseases and to abolish a substantial amount of the ill-health from which our people suffer. If that were so it might be argued that on balance this fluoridation of water supplies should be inaugurated because it would remove more ill-health than it would create. But the scientific examinations conducted elsewhere and the experience of even a short 15 years of fluoridated water supplies elsewhere, give us every reason to fear that we may create more trouble than we have at present. Experiments carried out in America on more than 600 mice indicate that the life span of mice who drank fluoridated water was reduced by as much as 9 per cent. One might well imagine that the life span of a mouse is considerably less than the life span of a human being, but fluoridated water supplies have been imposed on people for only 15 years, which is less than one-quarter of the average life span of human beings and we are not yet in a position to know what the effects of fluoridated water may be on a human being who takes fluoridated water for his complete life span.

To my mind, if it will reduce the life span of human beings on average by as much as one per cent. we are, in this Bill, putting into the hands of our public health officers a murderous weapon which we have no right to give them, even if it has the temporary beneficial effects of which the Minister speaks. In San Francisco it was discovered, after the water supplies there had been fluoridated, that within two years there was a 400 per cent. increase in complications and diseases of the thyroid gland. These I respectfully submit are shocking figures. They should make us pause before we give this Bill any approval whatever. Again, Dr. Taylor of the University of Texas says that some individuals develop allergic disturbances to fluorine which might not necessarily shorten their life span but would cause a lot of discomfort and disability. Have we any right to put into the hands of our public departments any weapon or scheme, no matter how well intentioned, which may possibly have these most dangerous effects? I do not think we have and, therefore, I think we should not give approval to this Bill.

In many parts of America it has been established that while fluoridated waters may postpone dental caries, it has in a considerable number of cases been the main contributory factor in gum decay and gum trouble and that, while the teeth may remain sound for a longer period than formerly, complications have arisen in connection with the gums of people which were. not previously experienced. In a report in the Lancet in 1942 it was pointed out in America that water supplies containing as little as one part per million of fluorine — the amount provided for in this Bill — can be associated with certain spinal deformities. It is an appalling thing that we should give support to a Bill which proposes to compel 50 per cent. of our people to drink fluoridated water supplies which may create spinal deformities.

It has also been established that fluoridated water increases the mottling of teeth and the Minister brushed that aside by saying it is only of cosmetic significance. Well, cosmetic significance, particularly to young ladies, can have serious psychological reactions which might be more serious than some of the complaints to which the Minister has referred. The mottling of teeth can so disfigure the teeth that many of our citizens, particularly the ladies I suppose, may well have to have their teeth extracted and have false teeth put in, so that what the Minister hopes to achieve in one way is going to be defeated in another.

It is fair to say that all the scientific examinations which have been carried out demonstrate that fluoridation is unsafe and, if it is unsafe, we believe that it is wrong to put into the kitchen of every house a supply of medicine which will be available to any child or adult who wants it. It is as though we were to allow a doctor to enter a household and, without examining the people in that household, put a bottle of medicine on the table and say to these people. "You can drink as much or as little of that as you like and the result will be that you will not have bad teeth any more." That is what the Minister says and that is the only reason this Bill is being introduced. To my mind, that is a very false ground on which to base this Bill, but it is the beginning and the end of all argument in relation to it. It was put to the Minister in the course of the debate that he could make available, at small cost, a supply of fluoride tablets which would have the same beneficial effect.

An Ceann Comhairle

That was a Second Reading statement?

Mr. Ryan

I am not suggesting it now, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to speak only on what is actually in the Bill.

Mr. Ryan

I appreciate that, but what I wanted to stress was that what the Bill seeks to defeat is what the other idea hopes to achieve. This Bill will not allow a person to decide whether or not he will take fluorine. It compels him to take it, whether or not it will do him any good.

As I pointed out in my opening remarks, fluoridated water has no beneficial effect oh any person over 16 years of age, but we are condemning the majority of our people to the intake of a poison which can do them no possible good, and which will almost certainly do them some harm. Perhaps the amount of harm will not be perceptible in the vast mass of the people, but if it does harm to as few as one in 100,000, it will be doing the same amount of harm as is done by that dreadful disease, polio. One in 100,000 may appear to be of no consequence, but one in 100,000 is 30 people per annum in this small country of ours. It seems to me, therefore. that in the face of the serious medical doubts expressed by people who are in a position to judge, this House would be most unwise to put that dangerous weapon in the hands of our public authorities.

This Bill flies in the face of what the Fluorine Council recommended. That body recommended that a choice should be left to the local authorities. The Minister has stated that his reason for not allowing local authorities a choice in the matter is that councillors like Richie Ryan would be saying the same thing throughout the length and breadth of the country. He seemed to put that forward as a valid reason for accepting the Bill as it stands. Whether what I say is right or wrong, the fact of the matter is that it needs to be said, in order that people will be on their guard and in order that public health officials will be on their guard. If our public health authorities are to serve the people, it is very necessary that they should respect the rights of individuals.

The rights of individuals in any matter are very important and, in the field of medicine, could perhaps be extremely important. If people object to this mass medication, to my mind, they have a natural right not to have it imposed upon them. There is nothing in the Bill which allows them to opt out of a fluoridated water supply. We are, therefore, compelling them to contribute towards the cost of something they do not want; we are compelling them to contribute towards the cost of something which may do them harm; we are compelling them to pay for something which will not be of any use whatsoever to six-sevenths of the people; and we are compelling them to pay for something which could be done more cheaply in another way.

These are important arguments but they are not, of course, half as important as the fundamental argument of the right of the individual not to have medical treatment imposed upon him against his will. We have had a discussion with regard to the duties of a public authority to supply the people with pure water. Irrelevant arguments and invalid comparisons were introduced between fluoridated water and chlorinated water. It is a surprise to me that despite the long debate on this matter, that invalid argument is still trotted out. As has been pointed out from this side of the House, there is a way. of getting rid of chlorine out of a water supply if a person has an objection to it. It is simply a matter of boiling the water. There is no such simple way of getting rid of fluorine. The result is that the masses of our people will not have any opportunity of getting rid of this deadly poison — and that is what this is.

There is another fundamental difference which the Minister is trying to camouflage, so I think it is necessary for me to clarify it once again. Chlorine is put into the water supply in order to prevent water from carrying disease. That is the purpose, and the only purpose, of putting chlorine into water. Water does not carry dental caries. Fluorine is not being put into water to prevent the water causing dental caries. Dental caries is caused by something entirely separate from water. It is not a communicable disease; it is not a disease carried by water. Therefore, we are introducing a completely new idea into the treatment of our public water supply. We are introducing, for the first time, the principle that a public authority has the right to put a medicine, or a poison, or a toxic substance — call it what you like — into water, not for the purpose of treating the water, but for the purpose of treating the person who drinks the water. We are not treating the instrument; we are treating the recipient.

Again, an invalid comparison has been drawn between the pasteurisation of milk and the fluoridation of water. There is no valid comparison. Milk is pasteurised to prevent milk carrying disease; water is fluoridated not to prevent water carrying disease but to put a medicine, by compulsion, into human bodies. One might as well put cough-drops in a milk bottle as fluoride in water. That would be a valid comparison. If we were to add medicine to water to prevent gout, chilblains, colic or something else, that would be a valid comparison. I think we would all object to that.

What would the members of this House say if their good wives were to insist on their taking a dose of salts with every meal because some members of the household were inclined to be constipated? Would they not rebel and refuse to take the dose of salts? They could validly say: "Maybe Johnny needs the salts but I do not; I am not inclined to be constipated." What then are we trying to do in this Bill to a person who has a mouthful of false teeth? We are saying: "You are going to take fluoridated water even though it will not be of any use to you because Johnny must have it because he has a moutful of natural teeth."

We would compel every adult over 16 years who cannot benefit by taking fluoridated water to take it. We are compelling those who never suffered constipation to take the dose of salts day in, day out. That is the scientific background that the Minister suggests is the authority for this fantastic measure in mass medication, because mass medication it is.

The Minister chased after most of the arguments which were developed from this side of the House in the course of the debate. We know the Minister's artistry. In approaching such arguments, he seldom deals with the arguments themselves. He puts up Aunt Sallies of his own choosing and having put up the target, he remains quite near it and it is no trouble to him to knock it down.

That is not the kind of approach we ought to have to such a very important and highly technical matter. One of the facts disclosed from this side of the House was that the medical advisers of the President of the United States of America view with considerable caution fluoridated water supplies, believing it was dangerous for the President of the United States to take such fluoridated water. The Minister went hunting, or sent his scouts hunting for some phrase, notion or idea which might deflate that. He quoted from Major General Howard Schneider, personal physician to the President, but what he did not quote from was a letter Major General Howard Schneider wrote to Mrs. B.E. Doyle — she must be of Irish ancestry —on 21st March, 1955, saying: "I keep abreast of the discussions regarding the fluoridation of city water supplies. Until this discussion is settled, I am employing conservative methods in advising President Eisenhower and Mrs. Eisenhower regarding the water they drink", but President Eisenhower is in the happy position of having not one but many doctors examining the most intimate details of his whole make-up, possibly day in, day out. There have been available to us all the most intimate diagrams of the good President's intestines. Every time he falls ill, the whole structure of the good President of the United States of America is disclosed to us.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On the Fifth Stage, only matters contained in the Bill may be debated. I feel that the Deputy is getting away from the Fifth Stage.

Mr. Ryan

The point I want to develop is that a man who has such information available to him in relation to one man believes we should be conservative about the intake of fluoridated water supply. The Minister is compelling our public authorities, who have not got all this information about each human being within the bailiwick of the authority, to force everybody to take this fluoridated water, without regard to whether or not it may have damaging effects on everybody, nobody or somebody.

It seems to me very wrong that this House should admit that a public authority has the right to disregard the possible damaging effects which fluoridated water may have upon some people. We on this side of the House share with the Minister an anxiety to reduce the incidence of dental caries from which so many of our people suffer. Where we differ from him is the way in which he sets about it. We differ from him because we think he is destroying the integrity of our people and because he is seeking to make public authorities do something which it is within the province of the family to do.

We believe that this Bill seeks to deal with the problem in the wrong way. We feel that a great deal more could be done to assist people in improving their teeth but we also feel that this Bill is doing it the wrong way because if it postpones dental caries for a couple of years—it does not prevent dental caries — it does so at a terrible price — the price being the invasion of the integrity of human beings, the destruction of the duty and the right of parents, and the subordinating of the dignity and integrity of our people to a very questionable public health policy. Even if all the beneficial effects and none of the damaging effects which we have heard about in relation to this fluoridated water were to come about, are we entitled to do it and, at the same time, do such serious damage to the rights of the individual? Even if it is only one individual who objects to this fluoridated water, I believe this House has a duty to protect that individual's natural rights.

I feel we are invading these rights in an unnecessary way. If the Minister has his way, it is because, even after several months' debate — and I say this with the greatest respect for my fellow members of this House — there is still ignorance and because masses of our people are still ignorant of and indifferent to what the Minister is seeking to achieve in this Bill.

It is disappointing to think that democracy in this country is balanced on such avery tight rope — a tight rope of ignorance and indifference. If it be so, I feel that not a little of the blame must lie with the Minister who in the course of this debate has heaped the most appalling calumny on some experts and medical men who have expressed their reasonable fears concerning fluoridation of public water supplies.

The Minister has suggested that those of us who are opposed to fluoridation are, in effect, ridiculing, criticising and abusing medical experts. Far from it. I do not criticise, or doubt, the competence of medical men who have no objection to fluoridation and I respectfully suggest that the Minister should neither doubt nor cast aspersions upon the competence of those who disapprove of fluoridation. It is fair to say that the figures so far as medical opinion is concerned on this very vital problem are 52 per cent. or 53 per cent. in favour and 48 per cent. or 47 per cent. against; and, as a result of my own experience, I have come to the conclusion that many of those who are in favour have not examined the matter fully.

Since this debate began, I have been approached by, and I myself have approached, many doctors and dentists and I have found that the vast majority are completely ignorant of what fluoridation means and the results it can have. The notion is abroad that fluoridation will benefit children's teeth and it is, therefore, a good thing. There, the knowledge and the views of most of those I have consulted, and most of those who have consulted me, stops: because it will do good, we should have it. When, however, these medical people and dentists read some of the documents made available to me, they were unanimous in the opinion that this compulsory Bill should not pass and that it was wrong to impose on society any system of mass medication which might have damaging effects upon some of the people in that society.

That is why this Bill should, in my opinion, be opposed. There is a reasonable alternative; there is a cheap alternative; there are many other ways of improving the dental health of our people. We could take steps to eliminate the cause of dental caries as against leaving the cause there and trying to prevent its effects, because that is what we are doing in this Bill. I believe we should pause to consider what may well be the effect of fluoridation of water supplies on the behaviour of our people, particularly our children. We are spending a little money — very little money, indeed — on education in dental hygiene. A cartoon appeared in last month's Dublin Opinion and, though it is a humorous journal, humour frequently touches truth. In the illustration, there are two typical little rough lads going into school; one turns to the other and says: “Won't it be great when our water supplies are fluoridated. We can eat all the sweets we like and we won't have to wash our teeth.”

I have a feeling that, if we introduce this safety belt which the Minister has in mind, we will discourage children from taking the steps they ought to take in the care of their teeth. There will probably be a still greater intake of starchy foods. Parents will not think twice before they feed soft, sugary substances to their children. The children will not get the same encouragement to wash their teeth because the idea will be abroad that washing teeth is no longer necessary, since fluoridation will take care of them. Toothpaste will become a thing of the past; the toothbrush will be an antique. There are many diseases and disabilities which may arise from not washing one's teeth, but, when we provide this excuse for not caring teeth, we may well be creating a trap into which many of our people will fall.

It is an extraordinary thing, but it is a fact, that every community which fluoridated its water supplies has, within a few years, had to increase the number of dentists. If what the Minister boasts of is certain of achievement under this Bill, how come that there are more jobs for dentists? How come that in some places the number of dentists has doubled within a matter of ten or 20 years? I appreciate that teeth will have a longer life if people have an intake of fluorine, but, according to the available information, that longer life is a matter of only two or three extra years.

One of the effects of fluorine, however, is practically to eliminate the possibility of filling teeth and it is in filling teeth that our dentists build up a considerable part of their practice at the present time. Fluorine strengthens the outer shell. In doing so, the teeth become like the famous Maginot Line, the shell which was supposed to protect France for all time from ever again falling into the hands of the enemy. The Maginot Line was the fluorine of France but once someone had got around it and once it was pierced, the shell was of no use. It crumbled away. That is what happens to our humble teeth when they have been persistently and consistently subjected to an intake of fluorine: they get a hard outer shell, which is as brittle as it is hard and once a breach appears in it, the tooth collapses altogether.

All these beneficial effects, then, about which the Minister speaks will not necessarily flow from this Bill when it is passed. It may bring some passing advantage but it will also bring very serious disadvantages, disadvantages which will have serious medical consequences. It will add to, not lessen, the cost of our public dental services. It will do what none of our medical services do at the moment: it will destroy the right of the individual to the integrity of his own body.

It may be said again — I hope not, because it has been said so often and contradicted so often, and because it is invalid — that we have compulsory vaccination and various inoculations, treatment against smallpox, diphtheria and contagious and infectious diseases generally. There is a very fundamental difference between such compulsory medical treatment and what is proposed in this Bill. Medical treatment in the cases I have mentioned is imposed in relation to a communicable disease which can be a danger to fellow citizens.

It is only because the sufferer is a danger to society that society says — and I believe society has the right to say — that the sufferer must receive the necessary medical treatment to remove the illness, because otherwise he is a danger to his fellowmen. No person with dental caries is a danger to his fellowman and accordingly, you cannot urge as a justification for what the Minister proposes to do any of the established, recognised medical practices. We are introducing into our medical jurisprudence a new idea which offends against the natural law and the rights and duties of parents and does so unnecessarily. It does so, not because danger to the individual is a danger to society, but because society believes that persons ought to be freed of this danger whether such persons wish it or not.

This brings us to another heresy which the Minister propounded — that the interests of the individual must be secondary to the interests of society. It is agreed that a considerable number of man hours are lost through dental trouble of one kind or another. That is partly true but there are simple methods of avoiding that. A visit to the dentist in time is the easiest way of avoiding it. There are many other diseases which would cause less trouble if people took the necessary precautions in time but to introduce this Bill for such a purpose is to contradict ourselves, particularly when we know that the fluoridation of public water supplies has been proved to cause as much trouble as it prevents. We are not yet in a position to know the damaging effects which may follow the fluoridation of water supplies.

This Bill would permit the Minister to compel all public authorities who supply piped water to fluoridate their water supplies. We shall not be in a position to test the effects of fluoridation in certain areas. It may be argued that we have the experience of other countries but that is not the same thing. This country may have different elements in its water supplies. Our own bodies may be different from those of people of other countries, different social habits exist here and there are many different considerations to which effect ought to be given before any public water supply is fluoridated.

The Minister's attitude throughout the debates on the Bill gives us serious reasons for being concerned. It would appear from the intolerant manner in which he met fair criticism that he will suffer no criticism and no opposition whatever. That is why he will not allow local authorities to express any view on the matter. If that is his attitude, it looks as if he will compel every supplier of piped water to fluoridate the water and it seems as if he hopes that, by so doing, he will end the controversy. However, he can rest assured that there are still a number of people who believe that the best protection of liberty is eternal vigilance and that they will not accept lightly what he wishes to impose upon them.

It would be most undesirable to draw our local authorities into any acrimonious debate regarding this matter and, if the Minister believes that this Bill does not offend against the Constitution and against natural rights, I hope he will use his good offices to ensure that before it is signed by the President it will be referred to the Supreme Court. If the Bill is upheld by the Supreme Court he can come to me and say: "I told you so". I am sure that would give him considerable joy. I would accept such a verdict and would think it preferable to having any lack of confidence in our public health authorities. That will certainly happen if this Bill as it stands is approved by this House and passed into law.

We, therefore. Sir, are not in agreement that this Bill should pass. We are not in agreement because of the trespass which it commits against the natural rights of our people. We believe that those natural rights of the individual must be superior to any passing advantage to which the Minister can point. We believe that its short beneficial effects, even if there was no damage afterwards, do not justify that trespass and we feel that the Bill should be rejected.

Minister for Health (Mr. MacEntee)

We have just listened to a reticulation of half truths and half falsehoods in which misrepresentation was linked with misrepresentation ad nauseam. The first of these was when Deputy Ryan alleged that when speaking on the Report Stage I said that I was not going to have the surveys that I have provided for made objectively. I have the script of my speech here and I defy Deputy Ryan to quote the statement that he ascribed to me.

On the Second Stage of the Bill Deputy Ryan said this:

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 fluoridated water 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.

Here is what President Eisenhower himself said at a Press Conference, not in 1955, but in March 7th 1957. He was asked if he could tell whether he drank bottled water or water from a tap and he replied:

"I don't mind telling you no. For many years the doctor, because I travelled so much and all around, has always had me on a special water, the name of which I forget, I think it is Mountain Valley water."

The President said that the doctor, because the President travels so much, had prescribed that he drink a particular water. It had nothing to do with the fact that the water supply of Washington is fluoridated. Deputy Ryan manipulated the truth to suit his baseless case.

He tried to mislead the House by ascribing the fact that the President of the United States does on occasions drink bottled water to the fact that the water supply in Washington was flouridated, when in fact, the position is that because he may sometimes go to places where the water supply may not be wholesome and his medical adviser on these occasions has recommended him to bring with him a supply of water from a particular spring; presumably because his medical adviser thinks this water is best suited to his condition, he has advised the President to bring a supply with him when he travels.

Mr. Ryan

Is it fluoridated?

Mr. MacEntee

His interrogator then put the following question: "That is bottled water?" And his reply was: "Bottled water; I have drunk it for years." I hope Deputy Ryan will listen to me and not repeat this falsehood throughout the country because if he does he will be repeating it deliberately with the intention of deceiving the people to whom he is speaking. When the question was put to the President whether he drank tap water or not he said: "I do drink tap water here at home"—in Washington——

Mr. Ryan

There are different taps.

Mr. MacEntee

——"but that is just because I figure it is just as good as bottled water."

There was then this further question put to the President: "Well, some people in the District have quit drinking the District water because they don't approve of fluoridation. You know, there is a chemical added to the water and the advocates contend that it slows down tooth decay for children. But the opponents of this idea insist that it may pollute the water, may make it unsafe for drinking. There is a big controversy going on in New York City at the moment"— a controversy which was carried into the debate on this Bill. Commenting upon that remark the President answered: "I know that." The interrogator was then proceeding to ask a further question: "As to whether they——" when the President interrupted him — the President had less patience than I had when I was listening to Deputy Ryan. He interrupted Mr. McGaffin and said: "Well, I'll tell you; in the White House I drink it often, very often."

I hope I have nailed that falsehood which Deputy Ryan has repeated on several occasions throughout this debate and which I contradicted when first he made the statement that President Eisenhower's medical adviser would not allow him to drink fluoridated water. I think I have nailed that for good and all.

To bolster up his bad case Deputy Ryan referred to a letter written in 1955 by Dr. Howard Snyder. It stated that because of the controversy he was adopting a conservative attitude towards this question of fluoridation, but that was in 1955. He wrote a letter later to Dr. Charlotte Brown, Director of Health, New Canaan, Connecticut, and this letter is dated April 9th, 1958. I am sure it is available and has been made available to Deputy Richard Ryan. Here is the text of that letter:

Dear Dr. Brown,

I have never seen a case of illness which could be attributed to fluoridation of a community water supply.

I have no reason not to endorse a health policy that is advocated by the American Medical Association and the United States Public Health Service.

This evening we heard Deputy Ryan say that no authoritative opinion had been expressed denying that fluoridation would have ill effects upon the health of individuals. The Consulta tive Council whose report has been made available to Deputy Ryan devoted a considerable part of that report to this question of the possible ill effects of fluoridated water on the general health and on specific conditions. That examination was carried out under the headings of acute poisoning, growth retardation, changes in bones, effects on kidneys, and so on, and the Council came to the conclusion, which they supported by their signatures, that no ill effects on health were to be feared from the drinking of water containing one part per million. The Expert Committee of the World Health Organisation examined the contention which has been made by Deputy Ryan and others who oppose fluoridation and what they had to say was this:

All these findings fit together in a consonant whole that constitutes a great guarantee of safety — a body of evidence without precedence in public health procedures.

Is that not an expression of authoritative opinion? Then the British Medical Research Council in 1956 called together a conference of experts to consider this matter and at the conclusion of that conference the following statement was issued:

The experts agree in general with the conclusions of the United Kingdom Mission which examined fluoridation in North America in 1953 to the effect that despite considerable interest and research there is no definite evidence that the continuous consumption of fluorides in water at a level of about one part per million is in any way harmful to health.

Is that not an authoritative opinion? Then the Royal Swedish Medical Board in recommending fluoridation in 1958 said this:

In the opinion of the Board the inquiry carried out has shown that fluoridation of public water supplies does not involve any demonstrable health hazards even on prolonged consumption of the water.

Mr. Ryan

With a majority of one.

Mr. MacEntee

It is an authoritative opinion.

Mr. Lindsay

They are all negative.

Mr. MacEntee

The New Zealand Commission of Inquiry said:

No harmful effects on health will follow the fluoridation of water supplies whether in respect of the complaints specifically made before us or otherwise.

Is that not an authoritative opinion? I have shown convincingly how Deputy Ryan has wantonly tried to disturb the public mind in this matter. I do not know what he has gained by it. It has brought him no prestige and done him no credit.

Mr. Ryan

He did not want it.

Mr. MacEntee

His own colleagues in Dublin Corporation treated his pretensions with scorn when he tried to have Standing Orders suspended in order that he might trot out there the same sort of tripish arguments he has used throughout the whole of this Bill. It is time he would mend his ways.

Mr. Ryan

It is about time the Minister did.

Mr. MacEntee

The House and the country are getting tired of him.

Question put and agreed to.