The Abuse of Science

by Gerry Byrne

First published on Eurocientist.com, April 16, 2014.

Water fluoridation got a thumbs-up in a 2006 study by the US National Academy of Sciences. But that did not prevent Irish anti-fluoridation campaigner and environmental consultant at Enviro Management Services, Bandon, Declan Waugh, from claiming that the US study did the opposite. His novel interpretation of the US paper underpins his discredited theory that fluoridation means Ireland has a higher rate of numerous serious medical conditions, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Down’s Syndrome and thyroid disorders, among others.
Yet, despite his academic delinquency, Waugh has been given an environmental award and is feted as a “courageous whistleblower” by some segments of the Irish media. The same might be said of Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen, France, whose work had led him to a controversial conclusion that lab rats fed Genetically Modified (GM) maize developed tumours. But other scientists criticised his methods and his paper was also withdrawn  by the journal that originally published it.
Despite the unwelcome shadow now cast on his work, Séralini appears dressed as a valiant Superhero on one enviromentalist website. Andrew Wakefield is another scientist who, despite being academically discredited for his study linking the MMR vaccine to autism, enjoys adulation in some circles.
Fear-driven  and irrational vox populi’s impact on science policy
The fact that Seralini might be mistaken in his rat tumour claims—critics suggest the lab animals were genetically prone to tumours—is immaterial. Like Waugh he has become a lightning-rod for the environmental movement which ignores any shortcomings others might highlight. Indeed, both men are now paraded almost as scientific proof that science itself is wrong.
Increasingly, there are more and more European instances where ideology triumphs over scientific rationale. David McConnell, retired professor of genetics from Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, warns that politicians are now so in thrall to environmentalists peddling scientific mistruths that it is extremely difficult for research to progress.
Plant geneticist Peter Beyer professor of cell biology at the University of Freiburg, Germany, warns that with the departure from Europe of GM patrons like BASF and Syngenta, the region is now seriously falling behind the rest of the world in genetic research which itself has become a dirty word. Beyer shares his own experience: “Frequently students say ‘I can hardly tell at home what I am doing here.’ They are made to feel almost criminal.”
But while anti-fluoridationists and anti-GM campaigners capitalise on the public’s fear of the unknown, anti-nuclear protestors can focus on the known horrors of the Fukushima disaster. But have they gone too far in preventing research into the safe disposal of British nuclear waste, many thousands of kilos of which languishes in open ponds? Limited research funds are now available but research funding into plutonium waste disposal, driven by anti-nuclear opinion, dried up after the 1980s, according to says Simon Pimblott professor of radiation chemistry at the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences of The University of Manchester, UK.
“It doesn’t matter if you are an environmentalist or a politician, this is a problem urgently needing a solution,” Pimblott explains. “Politicians sometimes don’t like the answers but science is science, these are hard facts and you need to deal with them.” He adds: “Greater scientific integrity and increased peer-reviewing is the only answer to bad science.”
But Beyer despairs of ever finding the answer. “It’s all mixed up into one big pot of fear,” he said. “I’m afraid there’s nothing you can do.”
Sociology and philosophy to the rescue
This debate inevitably throws up questions of scientific ethics. But the morality or otherwise of maverick scientists and campaigners is hardly the point when they are championed, not by the scientific establishment, but by people whose perspective does not necessarily follow the same logic.
Enter the new post-modern Sociology of Science which soothingly offers cultural reasons for why some scientific proposals and conclusions are unacceptable to citizens. The Artemisinin Project, which uses GM techniques to produce anti-malarial substances, provides a useful example. Claire Marris , research fellow in the Department of Social Science, Health and Medecine at Kings College London, UK, is sceptical. “Far from helping to promote the field, the use of the Artemisinin Project as a poster child could end up tarnishing the image of synthetic biology if the outcomes turn out to be less than triumphant.”
Should scientists rely, then, on sociologists, or even philosophers, to help produce “culturally acceptable” versions of their projects and conclusions? Some like Marcel Kunz, a biologist at Université Joseph Fourier, in Grenoble, France, warn the result will be slower progress. “If there is no universal truth, as postmodern philosophy claims, then each social or political group should have the right to the reality that best suits them,” says Kunz. If he is correct, this leaves the door wide open to so-called caped crusaders like Waugh, Séralini and Wakefield.
Gerry Byrne
Gerry is a freelance journalist, based in Dublin, Ireland.

- See more at: http://euroscientist.com/2014/04/the-abuse-of-science/#sthash.gyeQYtAB.dpuf

Water fluoridation got a thumbs-up in a 2006 study by the US National Academy of Sciences. But that did not prevent Irish anti-fluoridation campaigner and environmental consultant at Enviro Management Services, Bandon, Declan Waugh, from claiming that the US study did the opposite. His novel interpretation of the US paper underpins his discredited theory that fluoridation means Ireland has a higher rate of numerous serious medical conditions, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Down’s Syndrome and thyroid disorders, among others.

Yet, despite his academic delinquency, Waugh has been given an environmental award and is feted as a “courageous whistleblower” by some segments of the Irish media. The same might be said of Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen, France, whose work had led him to a controversial conclusion that lab rats fed Genetically Modified (GM) maize developed tumours. But other scientists criticised his methods and his paper was also withdrawn  by the journal that originally published it.

Despite the unwelcome shadow now cast on his work, Séralini appears dressed as a valiant Superhero on one enviromentalist website. Andrew Wakefield is another scientist who, despite being academically discredited for his study linking the MMR vaccine to autism, enjoys adulation in some circles.

Fear-driven  and irrational vox populi’s impact on science policy

The fact that Seralini might be mistaken in his rat tumour claims—critics suggest the lab animals were genetically prone to tumours—is immaterial. Like Waugh he has become a lightning-rod for the environmental movement which ignores any shortcomings others might highlight. Indeed, both men are now paraded almost as scientific proof that science itself is wrong.

Increasingly, there are more and more European instances where ideology triumphs over scientific rationale. David McConnell, retired professor of genetics from Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, warns that politicians are now so in thrall to environmentalists peddling scientific mistruths that it is extremely difficult for research to progress.

Plant geneticist Peter Beyer professor of cell biology at the University of Freiburg, Germany, warns that with the departure from Europe of GM patrons like BASF and Syngenta, the region is now seriously falling behind the rest of the world in genetic research which itself has become a dirty word. Beyer shares his own experience: “Frequently students say ‘I can hardly tell at home what I am doing here.’ They are made to feel almost criminal.”

But while anti-fluoridationists and anti-GM campaigners capitalise on the public’s fear of the unknown, anti-nuclear protestors can focus on the known horrors of the Fukushima disaster. But have they gone too far in preventing research into the safe disposal of British nuclear waste, many thousands of kilos of which languishes in open ponds? Limited research funds are now available but research funding into plutonium waste disposal, driven by anti-nuclear opinion, dried up after the 1980s, according to says Simon Pimblott professor of radiation chemistry at the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences of The University of Manchester, UK.

“It doesn’t matter if you are an environmentalist or a politician, this is a problem urgently needing a solution,” Pimblott explains. “Politicians sometimes don’t like the answers but science is science, these are hard facts and you need to deal with them.” He adds: “Greater scientific integrity and increased peer-reviewing is the only answer to bad science.”

But Beyer despairs of ever finding the answer. “It’s all mixed up into one big pot of fear,” he said. “I’m afraid there’s nothing you can do.”

Sociology and philosophy to the rescue

This debate inevitably throws up questions of scientific ethics. But the morality or otherwise of maverick scientists and campaigners is hardly the point when they are championed, not by the scientific establishment, but by people whose perspective does not necessarily follow the same logic.

Enter the new post-modern Sociology of Science which soothingly offers cultural reasons for why some scientific proposals and conclusions are unacceptable to citizens. The Artemisinin Project, which uses GM techniques to produce anti-malarial substances, provides a useful example. Claire Marris , research fellow in the Department of Social Science, Health and Medecine at Kings College London, UK, is sceptical. “Far from helping to promote the field, the use of the Artemisinin Project as a poster child could end up tarnishing the image of synthetic biology if the outcomes turn out to be less than triumphant.”

Should scientists rely, then, on sociologists, or even philosophers, to help produce “culturally acceptable” versions of their projects and conclusions? Some like Marcel Kunz, a biologist at Université Joseph Fourier, in Grenoble, France, warn the result will be slower progress. “If there is no universal truth, as postmodern philosophy claims, then each social or political group should have the right to the reality that best suits them,” says Kunz. If he is correct, this leaves the door wide open to so-called caped crusaders like Waugh, Séralini and Wakefield.

Gerry Byrne

Gerry is a freelance journalist, based in Dublin, Ireland.

To read the original, and access reference hyperlinks, see: http://euroscientist.com/2014/04/the-abuse-of-science

Water fluoridation got a thumbs-up in a 2006 study by the US National Academy of Sciences. But that did not prevent Irish anti-fluoridation campaigner and environmental consultant at Enviro Management Services, Bandon, Declan Waugh, from claiming that the US study did the opposite. His novel interpretation of the US paper underpins his discredited theory that fluoridation means Ireland has a higher rate of numerous serious medical conditions, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Down’s Syndrome and thyroid disorders, among others.
Yet, despite his academic delinquency, Waugh has been given an environmental award and is feted as a “courageous whistleblower” by some segments of the Irish media. The same might be said of Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen, France, whose work had led him to a controversial conclusion that lab rats fed Genetically Modified (GM) maize developed tumours. But other scientists criticised his methods and his paper was also withdrawn  by the journal that originally published it.
Despite the unwelcome shadow now cast on his work, Séralini appears dressed as a valiant Superhero on one enviromentalist website. Andrew Wakefield is another scientist who, despite being academically discredited for his study linking the MMR vaccine to autism, enjoys adulation in some circles.
Fear-driven  and irrational vox populi’s impact on science policy
The fact that Seralini might be mistaken in his rat tumour claims—critics suggest the lab animals were genetically prone to tumours—is immaterial. Like Waugh he has become a lightning-rod for the environmental movement which ignores any shortcomings others might highlight. Indeed, both men are now paraded almost as scientific proof that science itself is wrong.
Increasingly, there are more and more European instances where ideology triumphs over scientific rationale. David McConnell, retired professor of genetics from Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, warns that politicians are now so in thrall to environmentalists peddling scientific mistruths that it is extremely difficult for research to progress.
Plant geneticist Peter Beyer professor of cell biology at the University of Freiburg, Germany, warns that with the departure from Europe of GM patrons like BASF and Syngenta, the region is now seriously falling behind the rest of the world in genetic research which itself has become a dirty word. Beyer shares his own experience: “Frequently students say ‘I can hardly tell at home what I am doing here.’ They are made to feel almost criminal.”
But while anti-fluoridationists and anti-GM campaigners capitalise on the public’s fear of the unknown, anti-nuclear protestors can focus on the known horrors of the Fukushima disaster. But have they gone too far in preventing research into the safe disposal of British nuclear waste, many thousands of kilos of which languishes in open ponds? Limited research funds are now available but research funding into plutonium waste disposal, driven by anti-nuclear opinion, dried up after the 1980s, according to says Simon Pimblott professor of radiation chemistry at the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences of The University of Manchester, UK.
“It doesn’t matter if you are an environmentalist or a politician, this is a problem urgently needing a solution,” Pimblott explains. “Politicians sometimes don’t like the answers but science is science, these are hard facts and you need to deal with them.” He adds: “Greater scientific integrity and increased peer-reviewing is the only answer to bad science.”
But Beyer despairs of ever finding the answer. “It’s all mixed up into one big pot of fear,” he said. “I’m afraid there’s nothing you can do.”
Sociology and philosophy to the rescue
This debate inevitably throws up questions of scientific ethics. But the morality or otherwise of maverick scientists and campaigners is hardly the point when they are championed, not by the scientific establishment, but by people whose perspective does not necessarily follow the same logic.
Enter the new post-modern Sociology of Science which soothingly offers cultural reasons for why some scientific proposals and conclusions are unacceptable to citizens. The Artemisinin Project, which uses GM techniques to produce anti-malarial substances, provides a useful example. Claire Marris , research fellow in the Department of Social Science, Health and Medecine at Kings College London, UK, is sceptical. “Far from helping to promote the field, the use of the Artemisinin Project as a poster child could end up tarnishing the image of synthetic biology if the outcomes turn out to be less than triumphant.”
Should scientists rely, then, on sociologists, or even philosophers, to help produce “culturally acceptable” versions of their projects and conclusions? Some like Marcel Kunz, a biologist at Université Joseph Fourier, in Grenoble, France, warn the result will be slower progress. “If there is no universal truth, as postmodern philosophy claims, then each social or political group should have the right to the reality that best suits them,” says Kunz. If he is correct, this leaves the door wide open to so-called caped crusaders like Waugh, Séralini and Wakefield.
Gerry Byrne
Gerry is a freelance journalist, based in Dublin, Ireland.

- See more at: http://euroscientist.com/2014/04/the-abuse-of-science/#sthash.gyeQYtAB.dpuf

Water fluoridation got a thumbs-up in a 2006 study by the US National Academy of Sciences. But that did not prevent Irish anti-fluoridation campaigner and environmental consultant at Enviro Management Services, Bandon, Declan Waugh, from claiming that the US study did the opposite. His novel interpretation of the US paper underpins his discredited theory that fluoridation means Ireland has a higher rate of numerous serious medical conditions, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Down’s Syndrome and thyroid disorders, among others.
Yet, despite his academic delinquency, Waugh has been given an environmental award and is feted as a “courageous whistleblower” by some segments of the Irish media. The same might be said of Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen, France, whose work had led him to a controversial conclusion that lab rats fed Genetically Modified (GM) maize developed tumours. But other scientists criticised his methods and his paper was also withdrawn  by the journal that originally published it.
Despite the unwelcome shadow now cast on his work, Séralini appears dressed as a valiant Superhero on one enviromentalist website. Andrew Wakefield is another scientist who, despite being academically discredited for his study linking the MMR vaccine to autism, enjoys adulation in some circles.
Fear-driven  and irrational vox populi’s impact on science policy
The fact that Seralini might be mistaken in his rat tumour claims—critics suggest the lab animals were genetically prone to tumours—is immaterial. Like Waugh he has become a lightning-rod for the environmental movement which ignores any shortcomings others might highlight. Indeed, both men are now paraded almost as scientific proof that science itself is wrong.
Increasingly, there are more and more European instances where ideology triumphs over scientific rationale. David McConnell, retired professor of genetics from Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, warns that politicians are now so in thrall to environmentalists peddling scientific mistruths that it is extremely difficult for research to progress.
Plant geneticist Peter Beyer professor of cell biology at the University of Freiburg, Germany, warns that with the departure from Europe of GM patrons like BASF and Syngenta, the region is now seriously falling behind the rest of the world in genetic research which itself has become a dirty word. Beyer shares his own experience: “Frequently students say ‘I can hardly tell at home what I am doing here.’ They are made to feel almost criminal.”
But while anti-fluoridationists and anti-GM campaigners capitalise on the public’s fear of the unknown, anti-nuclear protestors can focus on the known horrors of the Fukushima disaster. But have they gone too far in preventing research into the safe disposal of British nuclear waste, many thousands of kilos of which languishes in open ponds? Limited research funds are now available but research funding into plutonium waste disposal, driven by anti-nuclear opinion, dried up after the 1980s, according to says Simon Pimblott professor of radiation chemistry at the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences of The University of Manchester, UK.
“It doesn’t matter if you are an environmentalist or a politician, this is a problem urgently needing a solution,” Pimblott explains. “Politicians sometimes don’t like the answers but science is science, these are hard facts and you need to deal with them.” He adds: “Greater scientific integrity and increased peer-reviewing is the only answer to bad science.”
But Beyer despairs of ever finding the answer. “It’s all mixed up into one big pot of fear,” he said. “I’m afraid there’s nothing you can do.”
Sociology and philosophy to the rescue
This debate inevitably throws up questions of scientific ethics. But the morality or otherwise of maverick scientists and campaigners is hardly the point when they are championed, not by the scientific establishment, but by people whose perspective does not necessarily follow the same logic.
Enter the new post-modern Sociology of Science which soothingly offers cultural reasons for why some scientific proposals and conclusions are unacceptable to citizens. The Artemisinin Project, which uses GM techniques to produce anti-malarial substances, provides a useful example. Claire Marris , research fellow in the Department of Social Science, Health and Medecine at Kings College London, UK, is sceptical. “Far from helping to promote the field, the use of the Artemisinin Project as a poster child could end up tarnishing the image of synthetic biology if the outcomes turn out to be less than triumphant.”
Should scientists rely, then, on sociologists, or even philosophers, to help produce “culturally acceptable” versions of their projects and conclusions? Some like Marcel Kunz, a biologist at Université Joseph Fourier, in Grenoble, France, warn the result will be slower progress. “If there is no universal truth, as postmodern philosophy claims, then each social or political group should have the right to the reality that best suits them,” says Kunz. If he is correct, this leaves the door wide open to so-called caped crusaders like Waugh, Séralini and Wakefield.
Gerry Byrne
Gerry is a freelance journalist, based in Dublin, Ireland.

- See more at: http://euroscientist.com/2014/04/the-abuse-of-science/#sthash.gyeQYtAB.dpuf

A skeptics view of Declan Waugh ...

I found this guy's arguments of great interest ...

http://skepteco.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/fluoridation-stealing-our-precious-bodily-fluids/

Me and my thyroid ...

Let's not tap into baseless fears about fluoridation

by Gerry Byrne

(published The Sunday Times (Ireland) page 15,  March 9, 2014) 

After some relatives were diagnosed with a rare hereditary thyroid cancer, tests showed I also carried the gene for this deadly condition. Waiting for fate to come knocking was not an option, so I had my thyroid gland surgically removed. But was I wasting my time? If environmental scientist Declan Waugh is to be believed, maybe all I needed to do was to stop drinking tap water.

Waugh claims the fluoride being added to Irish drinking water in order to reduce dental decay contributes not just to thyroid cancer, but dozens of other conditions ranging from Down’s Syndrome to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). “Fluoridation of drinking water has significantly increased the dietary fluoride exposure of the entire population in Ireland to unsafe levels that have contributed directly and indirectly to numerous adverse health effects on the population,” he says.

It should be pointed out that Mr Waugh is not a biochemist nor an epidemiologist; he has a B.Sc. in environmental science from Sligo Regional Technical College. Prior to establishing EnviroManagement Services, an environmental consultancy, he dealt with mining wastewater, and the erection of wind turbines. In 2012, the minister for the environment appointed him to the board of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.

In a 166-page document, entitled Public Health Investigation of Epidemiological data on Disease and Mortality in Ireland related to Water Fluoridation and Fluoride Exposure (available at enviro.ie), Waugh claims a study by the American government has proved fluoride causes several conditions and diseases. He says his theories are backed up by the higher incidence of many illnesses in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland, compared to Northern Ireland, where water is not fluoridated.
When I inspected his prime source, a 2006 review of fluoridation conducted on behalf of the US Environmental Protection Agency, I concluded that, far from condemning fluoridation as an unmitigated source of medical calamity, it gave fluoride a clean bill of health. The review found no evidence fluoridation contributed to many conditions. An exception was fluorosis, a well-known side efffect of excessive flouridation causing tooth discolouration. As a precaution, it advocated fluoridation at a reduced concentration.
So what about all the persuasive quotes Waugh has taken from the US study and reproduced in support of his thesis? I could not find some of them in the US study, while it appears to me others are taken out of context. The effect is to portray what I would regard as a largely favourable study as an epistle of doom.

What of the supposed disparity in disease rates between the republic, and the non-fluoridated North of Ireland? Time prevented me from checking all Waugh’s claims but sufficient sources - ranging from patient-support groups to medical specialists - suggest  he is wrong. Disease rates are broadly similar.
Take fatalities linked to SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome] which Waugh says are 300% higher in the fluoridated republic. The rate is actually 18% higher in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland, according to figures supplied by Dr Cliodhna McGarvey, a medical researcher of the syndrome. Fluoridation is not the cause of SIDS, she believes.

Another source Waugh cites is a report of research into thyroid cancer rates worldwide led by scientists in Yale and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). He writes that Swedish rates of thyroid cancer declined by 18% once it ceased fluoridating its water supply. Yet the same report says female thyroid cancers rose 81% in the same period in neighbouring Denmark, where water has never been fluoridated. The Yale and NIH researchers never once mentioned fluoride. Instead they mention, as a possible cause, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, once commonly used as a chemical flame retardent in furnishings, and which are now banned in Europe and America. Waugh makes no mention of them.

There are valid reasons why fluoridation might be challenged (the ethics of mass-medication of a population being one) but in my view Waugh’s study does not serve any useful purpose, save to instil unnecessary fear and suspicion in gullible people. As one woman who read part of Waugh’s study said to me, “If you believed fluoride caused SIDS, how could you live with the guilt if you fed a baby with formula made from tap water, and it died in its sleep?”

I don’t regret having my thyroid removed because, if avoiding tap water was all I did to avoid contracting an inevitable genetic cancer, I’d probably be dead.

Gerry Byrne is a science and aviation writer, and author of Flight 427: Anatomy of an Air Disaster (Copernicus, New York) about the longest-running air crash investigation in US history. He blogs at http://gerbyrne.blogspot.ie.

Radio Debate on Fluoridation

I debated fluoridation today with Declan WAugh, the Hot Press "expert" on the subject. David Robert Grimes said I was "brilliant" (cheque's in the post) but be your own judge. Hear a podcast here. Also see following story  Inside the Mind of an Anti-Fuouridationist.

Inside the Mind of an anti-fluoridationist

by Gerry Byrne

Perhaps unfairly, I have always bracketed anti-fluoridation campaigners alongside folks who say they were once kidnapped by aliens, and those from the whackier cohorts of alternative medicine. But then my attention was drawn to an Irish anti-fluoridation report which claims the backing of a highly eminent body of US scientists for its premise that fluoridation causes, or exacerbates, dozens of serious illnesses and conditions in Ireland, including two that directly affect me.

Definitely worth a look, I thought.

Yet what I found there not only failed to change my mind about fluoridation. It also alerted me to the cynical manner in which scientific facts are bent completely out of shape by campaigners playing on the health fears of a population which is, by and large, scientifically illiterate.

Fluoridation, for those recently arrived from Mars, is the addition of a commonly occurring natural chemical, fluoride, to our drinking water to improve the nation's dental health.  Here's the science bit: in the first half of the last century US researchers pondering the ability of groups of people in Colorado to resist the dental decay epidemic that plagued the rest of the nation, discovered that high fluoride concentrations occurred naturally in their ground water supplies. When fluoride was experimentally added to a water supply in Grand Rapids, Michigan, dental decay there fell 60%. In 1999, after fluoridation had been extended to cover more than 70% of the US population, the US National Institutes of Health hailed it alongside vaccination as one of the top 10 public health breakthroughs of the 20th Century.

Like chlorine, which is added to Irish drinking water to kill germs, fluoride can be harmful if taken to excess but the quantities in the average water supply are negligible. That didn't stop some far-out environmental scaremongers parlaying the minuscule (and, so far, beneficial) amounts of fluoride in water into a devious attempt at mass-poisoning, or, in one account I've read, as a Communist way of controlling the minds of a servile population. Long lists of the diseases it is said to cause are often appended to these fruity claims but the science behind them is usually so preposterous as to be easily dismissed. And while it is true that a number of European countries no longer fluoridate their water, they often ensure the population still gets fluoride, usually through an additive to salt. “You cannot mass-medicate an entire population”, one of the arguments often used against fluoridation, and which was advocated recently by Labour TD Emmett Stagg, is perhaps, a more reasonable starting point for discussing fluoridation.

But when I was told the hugely prestigious National Research Council (NRC) of the US Academy of Sciences had produced evidence to support a claim that Fluoridation is causing more cases than might otherwise be expected in Ireland of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, thyroid and parathyroid difficulties (from both of which I suffer) plus dozens of other ailments, I parked my usual highly acute cynicism (a.k.a. bullshit meter) and took a look.

The claims are contained in Public Health Investigation of Epidemiological data on Disease and Mortality in Ireland related to Water Fluoridation and Fluoride Exposure by Declan Waugh. Unlike most scientific research, Waugh's 166 page treatise is not published in a recognised peer-reviewed science journal, or produced by an august body, like the Department of Health, or a major university or hospital. He says it leans heavily on a 2006 NRC report reviewing fluoridation in the US on behalf of the US Environmental Protection Agency. If true, that's theoretically good enough for me.

It's also good enough for Hot Press Magazine which appears to have based much of its current anti-fluoridation campaign on Waugh's "whistle-blower" (Hot Press's words, not mine) testimony. Yet he's possibly a cut above the average fluoridation naysayer because he has an environmental science degree from Sligo Institute of Technology. However, much of his working life before setting up Enviro, his consultancy firm, appears to have been spent, not in disease research, but dealing with mining wastewater, and the erection of wind farms. He has also described himself as a director of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (although that body tells me it doesn't have directors, just board members, which include Mr Waugh). He also has a long list of letters after his name but, apart from the Sligo B.Sc., none of them are degrees or other academic qualifications.

In a nut-shell Waugh says the 2006 NRC report's "key findings" (his phrase - the NRC does not use the term) provided a signpost to the many dreadful things fluoridation can do to us, and, armed with this knowledge he then combed through appropriate disease statistics for the Republic of Ireland (where water is fluoridated) and compared them to similar statistics for Northern Ireland (where water is not fluoridated). A higher incidence of a disease in the Republic is, according to Waugh's thesis, "proof" that fluoridation is the cause and he backs this up with what he says is NRC data.

Sadly for Waugh's thesis is the fact that the NRC report's findings and recommendations fail to correspond with his list. In fact the NRC pretty much gives fluoridation a clean bill of health. The only area in which it advises it advises caution in its use is in relation to fluorosis, a well known side-effect of the over-fluoridation of water, where teeth can display a mottled effect. There may also be a rare impact on bone strength. Therefore it suggested reducing fluoride concentrations in water to one quarter its previous maximum allowable US dose thus bringing it down closer to the Irish level. Otherwise one searches the US report in vain for any "key findings" listing any proven harmful effects of fluoridation.

Take Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) as an example. According to Waugh's paper there are 300% more cases per 1,000 live births in the fluoridated Republic than in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. And sure enough, he mentions Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in a section of his paper titled Pineal Gland: Key Findings of the Scientific Committee [where Scientific Committee refers to the NRC report]. This mention occurs in a sentence which he prints in inverted commas suggesting that it is a direct, unmodified quote from the NRC report: "Melatonin seems to be involved in anxiety reactions and other physiological effects including regulation of sleep, effects on calcium and phosphorus metabolism, parathyroid activity, bone growth, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis and anticarcinogenic effects, antioxidant actions, effects on the central nervous system, psychiatric disease and sudden infant death syndrome."

A problem for Mr Waugh's thesis is that the above sentence, despite being in quotes, does not occur anywhere in the official NRC report. Like some other "quotes" by Waugh from the NRC report, it has been cobbled together using phrases picked from a series of separate sentences, not all of which are saying the same thing. Indeed the relevant paragraph of Waugh's report which contains that sentence, and which is also presented as a direct quote from the NRC report, does not exist as a complete paragraph in the American study either. And, whereas the NRC report does consider Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, it concludes that it found no link whatever between the syndrome and Fluoridation.

Still, giving Mr Waugh the benefit of the doubt, I contacted the Irish Sudden Infant Death Association demanding to know why, according to Waugh, fluoridated Ireland has one of the highest rates in the world of SIDS. Actually, that's not true, replied Dr Cliona McGarvey, a medical researcher into the syndrome at Temple Street Children's University Hospital, and an advisor to the Association. She said that, according to the latest figures, Ireland's death rate from SIDS is actually on a par with the rest of the world. And far from being 300% higher in the Republic than in Northern Ireland - as Waugh claims - there were actually fewer cases per 1,000 in the Republic, according to the latest statistics. The death rate from SIDS in the Republic is now 0.38 per 1,000 live births; it's 0.45 over the border, 18% higher than in the Republic. Dr McGarvey also picked up an error in Mr Waugh's calculations where he included unexplained deaths of children older than 12 months in his figures while comparable international statistics are based on unexplained child deaths aged one year or younger.

Finally, Dr McGarvey stated that studies have failed to find any link between SIDS and fluoridation.

In a section of his paper titled "Summary of the Main Findings of the NRC Report" Mr Waugh writes "Cytogenetic effects of Fluoride may cause Downs Syndrome." Later he writes "... the significantly increased prevalence of Down's Syndrome in Ireland clearly suggests as indicated by the NRC that fluoride exposure could be contributing to increased prevalence of Down’s syndrome."

In fact the NRC paper, cited by Waugh as "evidence" for his theories, actually concluded that studies it examined attempting to link Fluoridation and Downs syndrome were "of little value for risk evaluation."

Waugh's Down's Syndrome theory is also rejected by Pat Clarke, the chief executive officer of Down's Syndrome Ireland. Clarke said that the higher rates of Down's Syndrome in this country was largely because Irish mothers tend to be older mothers (the older a woman is giving birth, the higher the chance of having a Down's Syndrome baby). In addition, he said that elsewhere in Europe women are often pressured to have pre-natal scans by doctors for legal reasons and this results in many terminations where the syndrome is identified (research abstracts consulted by this writer indicates abortion rates as high as 90% are common following a pre-natal diagnosis of Down Syndrome). "There has been no increase in the Irish rate apart from that which can be explained by the age of the mother," says Clarke.

Elsewhere in his paper Waugh writes that Down's Syndrome babies are bottle-fed (using formula mixed with fluoridated water) more than the norm and that this is "exposing them to the harmful effects of fluoride, which in itself may clearly explain the much higher incidence of thyroid disorders in children with Down's syndrome as well as other ailments." This is also firmly rejected by Mr Clarke who pointed out that Down's Syndrome children worldwide suffer from a well-documented range of congenital thyroid ailments in addition to coronary and intestinal problems.

"All these conditions pre-exist fluoridation," Mr Clarke said.

And SIDS and Down's Syndrome are not the only conditions that Mr Waugh seems to get very wrong.

Although it is not dealt with in any way by the NRC report, Waugh links fluoridation with the little-known inflammatory lung and skin disease sarcoidosis on the basis that there are more sufferers in the Republic than in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. However one doctor familiar with the disease says that diagnosis in Northern Ireland was historically poor due to the lack of sarcoidosis specialists there, whereas there are several centres of excellence in the disease in the Republic. Following the work of a patient advocacy group in Northern Ireland, he added, more cases have been diagnosed and the percentage of the population with the disease is now broadly similar, north and south. "There is no evidence to blame sarcoidosis on fluoridation," he said.

Waugh also claims the backing of the NRC report for his theories that fluoride may cause, or be a factor in, various cancers, diabetes, Alzheimer's, arthritis, rheumatism, thyroid diseases, osteoporosis, hypertension, anxiety, psychiatric diseases, oral ulcers, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal congestion and epigastric distress, among others. Not true, according to my reading of the NRC report.

A rheumatologist commenting on behalf of the Irish Society for Rheumatology, a group of scientists and doctors working in the field, said that with respect to sarcoidosis and rheumatoid arthritis, fluoride has not been proven to be the causative agent.

Asked for a comment on Waugh's claim implicating fluoridation with Alzheimer's disease, a spokesperson for the Alzheimer Society of Ireland replied: "There is no evidence in the epidemiological research that fluoride is a risk factor for dementia." A similar reply was received from the the Asthma Society of Ireland which stated that there was no known asthma risk from Fluoridation. The Irish Heart Foundation also disagrees with Waugh's theory that cardiovascular disease (CVD) can be caused or exacerbated by fluoridation and stated that it was "not aware of any strong evidence that tiny amounts of fluoride in water increase prevalence of CVD."

Waugh lists dozens of what he calls "Key Findings" of the NRC Report relating to various endocrine diseases which could be caused, or aggravated by, Fluoridation. In fact the NRC report drew no firm conclusions whatever on the impact of Fluoridation on the human endocrine system although it did produce a list of areas where further research might usefully be undertaken.

One of Waugh's reported "findings" from the NRC report was that studies demonstrated that menarche, or time of first menstruation, in girls, was earlier in some fluoridated areas of Hungary and the US, than in non-fluoridated areas.

In reality the NRC dismissed these studies as irrelevant. In one US study conducted more than 50 years ago, the NRC made the point that the differences in age at onset of puberty were statistically insignificant. Not all the girls in the fluoridated district had been exposed to fluoridation for the same amount of time making it even harder to draw conclusions from the results. The second study compared the age of female puberty between two Hungarian towns where one had a higher concentration of Fluoridation than the other. Although some girls in the town with greater Fluoridation achieved puberty slightly earlier, the median age of menarche was the same in both towns.

By and large, the NRC study leaned over backwards to be fair to the dozens of fluoridation theories floating around and, where researchers claimed to have spotted a link between a medical condition and the chemical, it diligently tracked down the research and evaluated it. As I've repeated here several times over, the NRC dismissed the vast majority of the studies it considered. However, the fact that they even bothered to look them up is, in Waugh's mindset, a "key finding" in support of his theories.

Waugh is strong to the point of being dogmatic about a link he says clearly exists between fluoridation and diabetes, including a statement in which he says the NRC report contains a warning to the United Kingdom about the potential exposure risks for its citizens. When I asked in an email for evidence of a diabetic "smoking gun" in the NRC report, he cuttingly replied that I obviously hadn't read the report and dispatched six email pages of extracts from it accompanied by a comment accusing me of jumping to "unscientific and inaccurate opinions." (Unbidden, a phrase linking the words pot, kettle and black springs to mind).

Waugh's extracts are presented in paragraphs which appear to be direct quotes from the NRC paper and, at first glance, they appear to be very convincing. One sentence, for example, reads: "Fluoride clearly [Waugh's emphasis] has the effect of decreasing serum calcium and increasing the calcium requirement in some or many exposed persons."

Ommitted by Waugh is the preceding sentence in the NRC report which makes clear that the "exposed persons" in this case are those already suffering from hormonal and vitamin imbalances which affect their ability to metabolise calcium. Such people (and I am one of them) must take measures to improve their calcium and vitamin D intake (whether or not their water is fluoridated). And what is effectively being described in that sentence quoted above is the normal, everyday influence of fluoride in the diet, taking additional calcium from the bloodstream and diverting it to the bones, and more importantly, the teeth. Also omitted by Waugh is the second sentence that follows in the NRC report, and which clearly reads: "No information has been reported in those studies on the clinical effects, if any, in those persons."

Although it does recommend further studies relating to diabetes and other issues, nowhere does the NRC advocate the reduction, or elimination of fluoridation because it causes, or exacerbates, diabetes. And that's a conclusion echoed by Diabetes Ireland which tells me it knows of no evidence linking diabetes and fluoridation. Furthermore, I have yet to discover the "warning" for the UK Waugh says was given by the NRC in its report.

Incidentally, I'm not the first to question Declan Waugh's scientific method (or lack of one). That honour fell to Dr Seamus O'Hickey, chairman of the Department of Health appointed Irish Expert Body on Fluoridation and Health. In his assessment (published on the Expert Body's website) of an earlier February 2012 anti-fluoridation document produced by Waugh, he commented: "... in spite of its presentation, its content is decidedly unscientific."

He added: "The allegations of ill health effects are based on a misreading of laboratory experiments and human health studies, and also on an unfounded personal theory of the author’s." Elsewhere he states: "The author [Waugh] gives the impression that there is an abundance of scientific material in existence, including recommendations from respected international and national bodies that condemn the practice of water fluoridation. This is not the case."

Having read Waugh's latest report, I have to wholeheartedly second Dr O'Hickey's conclusions. And I've rebooted my bullshit meter.

ENDS

Little Egret

Snapped this little egret recently on the coast near where I live. Once rare, they are becoming more common and one pair seem to have become local residents. For more about this fascinating small cousin of the heron see this Birdwatch Ireland article.

Barely qualified pilots were a combination that turned out to be lethal

by Gerry Byrne

When 10 people boarded Manx2 flight 7100, a Fairchild Metro III, at Belfast Airport on the morning of February 11, 2011, they probably did so under the comforting assumption that responsible people in high places were making sure that they would arrive safely at their destination, Cork Airport.

They had bought their tickets from a company in the Isle of Man, which has the reassuring image of the UK's Queen Elizabeth II on its stamps. Their flight originated in the UK which in turn boasts one of the most highly regarded aviation safety regulators in the world, the Civil Aviation Authority. They were flying to Cork where aviation was regulated by another respected body, the Irish Aviation Authority, which in turn is responsible for the safety oversight of one of Europe's largest airlines, Ryanair.

So, no worries then? Wrong. By the time they reached Cork four passengers, and the two pilots, were dead, the aircraft was upside down and on fire, and the survivors were lucky to escape with their lives.

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say this was an accident waiting to happen. There were technical problems with the aircraft but these were relatively minor compared with the rest of the operation.

The pilots were barely qualified, indeed the young co-pilot had never been properly validated in the aircraft he was flying.

The captain had only been promoted to that role days earlier and displayed very poor judgement in the way the aircraft was flown (not the least of which was allowing an inexperienced novice co-pilot attempt to land the plane at Cork in fog). Put together in the same cockpit they made what turned out to be a lethal combination.

Both were probably seriously fatigued owing to their workload of the previous few days, tired pilots can be up to five times more likely to have an accident than if properly rested. Instead of cutting their losses and diverting to another airport they loitered in the skies over Cork hoping for the fog to clear, and becoming even more fatigued. Their aircraft was not licensed to land in such poor visibility and so each of their three attempts was technically illegal.

They had each breached aviation law in other ways in the days leading up to the crash. The captain had not taken his full legally mandated rest period the night before, and the young co-pilot had remained on duty longer than he should two days earlier.

But this seems to have been par for the course at Manx2. This was what is often called a virtual airline, where the company rents pilots, planes, even regulatory permissions (known as AOCs), from other companies. 

A few years earlier one of the companies which flew for them, Eurocontinental, had been the subject of a serious air safety complaint by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and was later grounded by the Spanish authorities owing largely to the incompetence of its pilots. Manx solved that problem by transferring the aircraft (which were leased from Lada Air) to the AOC of another company, Flightline.
Because both Lada Air (the aircraft owner) and Flightline (the AOC holder) were registered in Spain, that country's aviation authority was effectively Manx2's air safety supervisor, not, as many imagined, the UK Civil Aviation Authority. Because it is (surprisingly) not an EU member, the Isle of Man doesn't even fall under the otherwise wide remit of the European Aviation Safety Agency, the umbrella body for all EU aviation authorities.

The official crash report into the Cork crash effectively faults the Spanish aviation authorities for the failure to properly regulate Max2/Flightline/Air Lada but an airline is partly responsible for its own supervision. It appears that Manx2/Air Lada/Flightline did not inform the Spanish that it was conducting scheduled passenger operations in the British Isles.

So, bit by bit, Manx2/Air Lada/Flightline appears to have disappeared through cracks in the safety supervision system.

Published in the Irish Independent, 29 January, 2014