Archive for the ‘Flouridation and osteosarcoma’ Category

2011 Science Bulletin- Evidence suggests fluoridation may not be a good idea

Comments Off
Posted 15 Dec 2011 — by James Street
Category Carcinogens, Ethics, Ethics of Science, Finance and Politics of cancer research and treatment, Flouridation and osteosarcoma, Flouride

Paul Connett, Ph.D.

Director

Fluoride Action Network

Over the next few days we will be circulating a series of bulletins summarizing some of the achievements that FAN and others have had in the effort to rid the world of the wretched practice of water fluoridation. In the process we thought it would be nice to introduce members of the FAN team and some of our key supporters from around the world. We start today with Tara Blank, a Ph.D. Biologist who joined us last year as our Science and Health Liaison Officer.

 

Prior to joining the FAN team, Tara was involved in physiology research, which she had planned to continue as a life-long career. “Then I had my daughter. I started reading more about environmental toxins, in an effort to protect her. I came across so much information that was not being publicized, and so many potential health issues that were not being adequately researched.”

 

The toxicity of fluoride was something that really caught Tara’s attention. “We have an entire country of children being overexposed to fluoride through dental products, foods, and beverages–yet we’re being told that we need even more from our drinking water? It’s absurd. And it should anger everyone that the fluoride being added to our water–to our children’s water–is not even pharmaceutical grade, but is actually hazardous waste that has never been tested for safety.”

 

When FAN announced an opening with the team, Tara jumped at the opportunity. “Working for a non-profit was not something I had planned, but now that I’ve become involved, I can’t imagine doing anything else. Everyone fighting this battle is so passionate and devoted. It’s really amazing to see what can be accomplished when everyone works together and supports each other’s efforts.”

 

While we are pleased to have such a great team at FAN, we could not accomplish all that we have without your support. I would like to invite all of you to share your own stories of how you got involved in this “David versus Goliath” battle, and what FAN’s efforts have meant to you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Connett, Ph.D.

Director

Fluoride Action Network

Science is on Our Side

 

Since its publication last year, not a single proponent of fluoridation has come forward with a scientific response to  “The Case Against Fluoride” (co-authored by FAN director Paul Connett, PhD, James Beck MD, PhD and Spedding Micklem, D.Phil). With 80 pages of references from the primary literature, this book painstakingly evaluates the science behind water fluoridation, and concludes that not only is this practice ineffective, but it is also dangerous. Yet the proponents of fluoridation continue to rely on endorsements from “authorities,” rather than science, to support this outdated and unethical practice. It is unfortunate that this tactic continues to deceive the public–as it has done now for over 60 years.

 

Evidence of harm from fluoride continues to mount, even at levels similar to those consumed by many people living in fluoridated communities. Here, Tara Blank, FAN’s Science and Health Liaison Officer, offers areview of some of the important fluoride studies of 2011.

 

FAN will continue to share the latest scientific findings with professionals and the general public. We hope that this information proves valuable to efforts in your community to end water fluoridation.

 

If you have benefited from FAN’s efforts, and would like to support our continued work to bring honest science to the table, please consider making a donation to FAN. Any financial gift, large or small, is much appreciated.

 

Sincerely,

 

The FAN Team

www.FluorideAlert.org

 

Science

Summary of 2011 Fluoride Research

 

Fluoride and Brain Damage

 

Evidence of fluoride’s detrimental effects on the brain and central nervous system continues to mount. Among animal studies, chronic fluoride exposure in rats has been found to result in: detrimental changes in the sciatic nerve, spinal cord, and hippocampus and neocortex of the brain (Reddy et al., 2011); changes in the expression of several brain proteins, including those involved with cell signaling, energy metabolism, and protein metabolism (Ge et al., 2011); and changes in the structure and function of the synaptic interface, which would likely result in altered transmission of neural information (Zhu et al., 2011).

 

At least four more studies finding a link between fluoride exposure and decreased intelligence (IQ) of children were published this year, putting the total number of such studies at 25. Poureslami et al. (2011) found that children 7-9 years old living in a “high” fluoride city (2.38 mg F/L in drinking water) had significantly lower IQ scores than those living in a “low” fluoride city (0.41 mg F/L in drinking water). A previous study (Poureslami et al., 2010) had found that children 4-5 years old living in this “high” fluoride city had a daily fluoride intake of 1.71 mg. Frighteningly, this is actually less than than the average daily intake for similarly aged children in the United States (2.03 mg/day), according to a recent analysis by the U.S. EPA (2010).

 

Another study similarly found a trend towards decreasing IQ in 12-14 year old children living in a “high” fluoride village (2.45 mg F/L in drinking water), compared to those living in a “low” fluoride village (0.29 mg F/L in drinking water) (Eswar et al., 2011). Taking a different approach, a study by Shivaprakash et al. (2011) found that the mean IQ score of 7-11 year-old children with dental fluorosis (66.6) was significantly lower than those without dental fluorosis (76.4), with girls being more negatively impacted than boys. Another study by Ding et al. (2011)found a significant association between fluoride levels in children’s urine and IQ scores, with an estimated 0.59 IQ points lost for each 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride. It is again disturbing that similar urine fluoride levels have been observed in children (NRC, 2006) whose fluoride intake is comparable to that of children living in fluoridated communities (EPA, 2010).

 

Two reviews on the neurotoxicity of fluoride were also published this year. According to Valdez-Jiménez (2011), “The prolonged ingestion of [fluoride] may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system. Therefore, it is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain [fluoride], particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of [fluoride].” Spittle (2011) concluded “there is no threshold for F neurotoxicity in drinking water, and the only assuredly safe level is zero.”

 

 

Other Effects of Fluoride

 

In addition to neurological damage, studies published this year have also found that exposure to fluoride can lead to:

  • Structural damage of the renal cortex (kidney) of female mice(Abdo et al., 2011)
  • Reduced viability of bone-forming cells (osteoblasts) (Yang et al. 2011)
  • Reduced ability of bone cells (osteocytes) to respond to mechanical usage (Willems et al., 2011)
  • Insulin resistance in rats (Lupo et al., 2011). These rats had plasma fluoride levels similar to those found in humans consuming an “average” amount of fluoride from fluoridated water and other sources (EPA, 2010).
  • Dental fluorosis, signifying fluoride overexposure:
    • Amoxicillin, an antibiotic frequently prescribed for children, was found to increase the risk of fluorosis on permanent teeth when used by children 20-24 months old (Hong et al., 2011).
    • More severe forms of fluorosis were observed when rats were exposed to both fluoride and lead (Leite et al., 2011). Silicofluorides, which are used in 90% of water fluoridation schemes in the U.S., have been associated with increased blood lead levels in children (Masters et al., 2000), and thus may be contributing to the prevalence of dental fluorosis among children in this country.
    • In addition to respiratory and digestive problems, patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) may also suffer from enamel defects. These defects are the result of protein retention in mature enamel, similar to dental fluorosis brought on by excess fluoride consumption. Duan et al.(2011) found that excess fluoride disrupts cellular processes related to the gene that is defective in CF patients. Thus, fluoride may worsen the symptoms of CF patients, and may even induce CF-like symptoms in those without CF.
    • Infants consuming formula made with fluoridated water are at an increased risk for developing dental fluorosis(Berg et al., 2011). A panel of the American Dental Association concluded “The estimated risk of enamel fluorosis related to fluoride intake from reconstituted infant formula is associated with the fluoride concentration in the drinking water.” The panel offered the following recommendation to practitioners: “When the potential risk of enamel fluorosis development is a concern, suggest ready-to-feed formula or powdered or liquid concentrate formula reconstituted with water that is either fluoride free or has low concentrations of fluoride.”

 

A Note on Fluoride and Osteosarcoma

 

In 2006 a study by Elise Bassin was published in the journal Cancer Causes and Control, which found an increased risk for osteosarcoma (an aggressive form of bone cancer) in boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th to 8th years (Bassin et al., 2006). Chester Douglass, Bassin’s Harvard thesis advisor, had promised that his group would publish another study that would disprove Bassin’s findings. Five years later that study finally appeared, in a dental journal (Journal of Dental Research). This study (Kim et al., 2011) investigated the association between bone fluoride levels and incidence of osteosarcoma. However, contrary to the accolades of fluoride proponents, this study had major flaws and was incapable of refuting the findings of Bassin. For a more in-depth analysis of the Kim et al. (2011) study, follow this LINK.

 

 

References

 

Abdo FK, Khalifa ME, Zidan RA, Abdel Aal SM. 2011. Effect of sodium fluoride-induced toxicity on the renal cortex of lactating mice and their offspring: a light and electron microscopic study. Egypt J Hist 34(3):554-65.

 

Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosaroma (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17(4):421-8.

 

Berg J, Gerweck C, Hujoel PP, King R, Krol DM, Kumar J, Levy S, Pollick H, Whitford GM, Strock S, Aravamudhan K, Frantsve-Hawley J, Meyer DM. 2011. Evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding fluoride intake from reconstituted infant formula and enamel fluorosis. JADA 142(1):79-87.

 

Ding Y, Sun YGH, Han H, et al. 2011. The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children’s intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. J Haz Mat 186(2-3):1942-6.

 

Duan X, Mao Y, Wen X, Yang T, Xue Y. 2011. Excess fluoride interferes with chloride-channel-dependent endocytosis in ameloblasts. J Dent Res 90(2):175-80.

 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 820-R-10-015.

 

Eswar P, Nagesh L, Devaraj CG. 2011. Intelligence quotients of 12-14 year old school children in a high and a low fluoride village in India. Fluoride 44(3):168-72.

 

Ge Y, Niu R, Zhang J, Wang J. 2011. Proteomic analysis of brain proteins of rats exposed to high fluoride and low iodine. Arch Toxicol 85:27-33.

 

Hong L, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Broffitt B. 2011. Amoxicillin use during early childhood and fluorosis of later developing tooth zones. J Publ Health Dent 71(3):229-35.

 

Kim FM, Hayes C, Williams PL, Whitford GM, Joshipura KJ, Hoover RN, Douglass CW. 2011. An assessment of bone fluoride and osteosarcoma. J Dent Res 90(10):1171-6.

 

Leite GAS, Sawan RMM, Teofilo JM, Porto IM, Sousa FB, Gerlach RF. 2011. Exposure to lead exacerbates dental fluorosis. Arch Oral Biol 56(7):695-702.

 

Lupo M, Afonso M, Buzalaf R, Rigalli A. 2011. Effect of fluoridated water on plasma insulin levels and glucose homeostasis in rats with renal deficiency. Biol Trace Elem Res 140:198-207.

 

Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. 2000. Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology 21(6):1091-100.

 

NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Fluoride in drinking water: a scientific review of EPA’s standards. National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 507 pp.

 

Poureslami HR, Khazaeli P. Fluoride intake and urinary excretion in preschool children residing in Koohbanan, Iran, a city with high fluoride water and food. Fluoride 43(1):67-70.

 

Poureslami HR, Horri A, Garrusi B. 2011. A comparative study of the IQ of children age 7-9 in a high and a low fluoride water city in Iran. Fluoride 44(3):163-7.

 

Reddy PY, Reddy KP, Kumar KP. 2011. Neurodegenerative changes in different regions of brain, spinal cord and sciatic nerve of rats treated with sodium fluoride. J Med Allied Sci 1(1):30-5.

 

Shivaprakash PK. 2011. Relation between dental fluorosis and intelligence quotient in school children of Bagalkot district. J Ind Soc Pedod Prevent Dent 29(2):117-20.

 

Spittle B. 2011. Neurotoxic effects of fluoride. Fluoride 44(3):117-124.

 

Valdez-Jiménez L, Soria Fregozo C, Miranda Beltrán ML, et al. 2011. Effects of the fluoride on the central nervous system. Neurología 26(5):297-300.

 

Willems HME, van den Heuvel EGHM, Castelein S, et al. 2011. Fluoride inhibits the response of bone cells to mechanical loading. Odontology 99:112-118.

 

Yang S, Wang Z, Farquharson C, Alkasir R, Zahra M, Ren G, Han B. 2011. Sodium fluoride induces apoptosis and alters bcl-2 family protein expression in MC3T3-E1 osteoblastic cells. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 410(4):910-5.

 

Zhu W, Zhang J, Zhang Z. 2011. Effects of fluoride on synaptic membrane fluidity and PSD-95 expression level in rat hippocampus. Biol Trace Elem Res 139:197-203.

Prominent Dentists Say Drinking NYC’s Fluoridated Water is Risky

Comments Off
Posted 06 Oct 2011 — by James Street
Category Flouridation and osteosarcoma

press release

Oct. 5, 2011, 10:15 a.m. EDT

NEW YORK, Oct. 5, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Breaking away from dental school dogma, more dentists are speaking out against fluoridation because fluoride chemicals, added to NYC’s water supply intending to reduce tooth decay, are actually a money-wasting health risk, reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).

Seven NYC Council Members sponsored legislation (1) and residents are petitioning Mayor Bloomberg to stop fluoridation, to preserve money and health. Join them: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-fluoridation-in-new-york-city

Hydrofluosilicic acid, a lead- and arsenic-laced chemical (2) left-over from making phosphate fertilizer (3) is NYC’s fluoride chemical of choice. Fluoridation cost NYC approximately $25 million in 2008.(4)

Dentist Caree Alexander, a former Navy practitioner, then a private practice dentist for 20 years, says fluoridation is “totally ineffective and actually damaging as well.”(5)

Dr. Alexander says, “When I graduated from University, we weren’t given any information about where [fluoride] came from. We all assumed it was [pharmaceutical-grade] calcium fluoride.”

Prominent NYC dentist and Huffington Post Contributor, Dr. Thomas Connelly, writes, “I do not see the good in fluoridating our drinking water … To me, the ‘bad’ it can (potentially) do outweighs the good.”(6)

Dr. Andrew Harms, former President, Australian Dental Association, who once supported fluoridation, says, “I deeply regret this … when I did read the science about 10 years ago, I started to get serious concerns.”

Dr. Harms says, “To my amazement, when I tried to raise the issue with the [Australian] Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and … integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers, who heavily compromise our University,” says Harms in a video documentary, Firewater. (7)

Dentist Hardy Limeback, Ph.D., University of Toronto Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, apologized for promoting fluoridation because toxicology research shows the purported benefits no longer outweigh the risks.(8)

Dentist Bill Osmunson, Fluoride Action Network spokesperson, promoted fluoridation for 25 years until his patients persuaded him to read the science, “It [was] like a knee in the gut,” he says. “Science has turned against fluoridation and we must stop adding fluoride to water.”(9)

Dentist David Kennedy, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT), past president and Fluoride Information Officer, says, “Water fluoridation delivers a drug to infants at a level which would be gross malpractice if prescribed by a physician or dentist.” (10) IAOMT is a network of dental, medical and research professionals which supports the effort to inform consumers about health risks from water fluoridation.

Over 3,790 professionals, including 324 dentists, signed a statement opposing water fluoridation. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals-statement.aspx

Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President, says, “The National Research Council reported that fluoride, even at levels used for fluoridation, can damage bones and teeth, disrupt thyroid function, be harmful to kidney patients and that studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ and cancer are plausible.”

Dentist Jennifer Luke, Ph.D., says, “My [published] work showed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland and lowers melatonin production in animals. I find it extraordinary that no government promoting fluoridation has chosen to pursue these worrying findings.”(11)

Dentist and Doctor of Medical Science, Elise Bassin, published unrefuted scientific evidence showing that fluoride can increase the risk of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer) in boys and young men.(12)

About 250 communities have stopped fluoridation in recent years.(13)

“All New York State communities should stop fluoridation as soon as possible,” says Beeber.

Contact: Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF, 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.comOrBill Osmunson, DDS bill@teachingsmiles.com 425.466.0100 (Pacific Time)

http://www.fluoridation.webs.com

References:

1) http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=828442&GUID=B1B850E6-5BB5-4CC1-9492-6E1070A72B31&Options=&Search

2) http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/

3) http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm

4) http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/newyorkcity.htm

5) Video: http://www.youtube.com/user/SapphireEyesDocos #g/c/CB9C521C7CDD5C4E

Transcript: http://www.firewaterfilm.com/FW%20Tsct-%20Dr.%20Caree%20Alexander.pdf

6) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-p-connelly-dds/mouth-health-fluoridated_b_641767.html

7) Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NEZY2iDoUI

Transcript: http://www.firewaterfilm.com/FW%20Tsct-%20Dr.%20Andrew%20Harms.pdf

8) http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.aspx

9) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roI2_3q8eok

10) http://www.sw4sc.org/MWDweb.htm

11) http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.quotes.aug.2007.pdf

12) http://www.fluoridealert.org/fan_oehha_9_6_11.pdf

13) http://www.FluorideAction.Net/communities.htm

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation

Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

Fluoride Can Cause Cancer, Studies Show

Comments Off
Posted 16 Sep 2011 — by James Street
Category Etiology and cause of osteosarcoma, Flouridation and osteosarcoma

NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Many published human and animal studies have reported an association between fluoride and various cancers, including valid and unrefuted scientific evidence that fluoride can increase the risk of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer) in boys and young men, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in its recent submission to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). (1)

Fluoride is commonly added to municipal water supplies and dental products with the intention of reducing tooth decay. However, current scientific evidence shows  that swallowing fluoride does much more harm than good.

OEHHA requested public comments on its recently-released document “Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts,” (2) where OEHHA states:

“multiple lines of evidence…appear to support several plausible hypotheses: that fluoride is incorporated into bones…where it can stimulate cell division of osteoblasts [bone-forming cells]…; induce genetic changes; induce other cellular changes leading to malignant transformation, and alter cellular immune response…thereby increasing the risk of development of osteosarcomas” (our emphasis).

The Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) of OEHHA’s Science Advisory Board is scheduled to review the carcinogenicity status of fluoride on October 12-13.

FAN Executive Director Paul Connett, Ph.D., says, “Special interest groups are already protecting fluoride rather than the people who are consuming it.” For example, the American Dental Association recently gave the California Dental Association $200,000 “to assist in our effort to prevent the placement of ‘fluoride and its salts’ on the List of Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer” (3).

Organized dentistry must overcome the following inconvenient facts if it continues to assert fluoridation is safe for everyone:

According to the National Research Council’s (NRC) 2006 Fluoride in Drinking Water report, “fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone … osteosarcoma is of particular concern …”

Bassin et al. (2006) reported in Cancer Causes and Control that fluoride exposure is linked to an increased risk of osteosarcoma in boys and young men.

Bassin’s Harvard University doctoral advisor, Chester Douglass, signed off on Bassin’s results, but then promised his larger study would refute Bassin’s findings. However, Douglass’s study, when finally published in the Journal of Dental Research (7/28/11), was seriously flawed and incapable of refuting Bassin’s results. (4)

Connett says, “Douglass’s ‘financial ties to corporations profiting from fluoride sales make Douglass’s involvement with any study related to fluoride and health effects a serious conflict of interest.’”

But Bassin’s isn’t the only study linking fluoride with an increased risk of cancer.

In 1990 the National Toxicology Program (NTP) reported an increase in osteosarcoma in male rats exposed to fluoride, an increased risk for liver and oral cancers, and an increase in thyroid follicular cell tumors.

Among human studies, Hoover et al. (1991) found a 79% increase in osteosarcoma in males under 20 years old in fluoridated counties, compared to a 4% decrease in non-fluoridated counties over time.

Cohn (1992) similarly reported an increased risk for osteosarcoma in males under age 20 living in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated counties.

Also, the NRC recommends further research be conducted on the effects of fluoride on the risk of bladder cancer.

In addition, the most commonly used fluoridation chemicals (silicofluorides) have been linked with increased levels of lead in children’s blood, according to Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D., a risk analysis professional who has served on two NRC subcommittees dealing with fluoride toxicology.

Thiessen’s submission to CIC states: “[U.S.] EPA considers lead to be a probable human carcinogen…there is considered to be no safe level of lead exposure, and the MCLG [maximum contaminant level goal] for lead is zero. OEHHA should be aware that silicofluoride use is associated with increased blood levels of a human carcinogen (one that is also associated with neurotoxicity and developmental toxicity), apart form the carcinogenicity of fluoride itself.” (5)

FAN’s submission concludes: “While we understand that there will be tremendous pressure put on the CIC and OEHHA by the proponents of fluoride and fluoridation, we ask that the Committee continue to rely on its high level of scientific knowledge and integrity when deliberating and reaching a final conclusion on the carcinogenicity status of fluoride and its salts.”

References:

  1. FAN (Fluoride Action Network). 2011. Comments on Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts. 6 Sept 2011. Online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fan_oehha_9_6_11.pdf
  2. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2011. Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts. California Environmental Protection Agency, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. July 2011. Online at: http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/070811hid.html
  3. CDA (California Dental Association). 2010. CDA Receives ADA State Public Affairs Program Grants. Executive bulletin from the desk of Executive Director Peter DuBois. January 12.
  4. FAN (Fluoride Action Network). 2011.  New Study Fails to Refute Fluoride- Osteosarcoma Link. Press release August 02, 2011. Online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/New-Study-Fails-to-Refute-Fluoride-Osteosarcoma-Li.aspx
  5. Thiessen, K.M. 2011. Comments in Response to Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts, July 2011. 6 Sept 2011. Online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/thiessen_oehha_sept_2011.pdf

 

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

ADA President Discusses Harvard Study Examining Fluoride Levels in Bone

Comments Off
Posted 03 Aug 2011 — by James Street
Category Flouridation and osteosarcoma

Entertainment Close-Up
August 3, 2011

A new study in the Journal of Dental Research found bone fluoride levels are not associated with osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer more prevalent in males.

According to a release, a team of researchers from Harvard University, the Medical College of Georgia and the National Cancer Institute analyzed hundreds of bone samples from nine hospitals over an eight-year period from patients with osteosarcoma and a control group to measure fluoride levels in the bone.

Considered the most extensive study to date that examines a potential association between fluoride levels in bone and osteosarcoma, the results indicated no correlation. Three branches of the National Institutes of Health were involved in the study. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) approved the design of the study, and funding for the research was provided by the NCI, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.

“As a science-based profession, we must always examine new evidence and consider it along with existing science in order to evaluate guidelines and recommendations for patient care,” said Raymond Gist, D.D.S., president of the American Dental Association (ADA).

An inconclusive animal study conducted 20 years ago first raised the question of an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Since that time, other studies have examined the issue; however, this new study, using actual bone to measure fluoride levels in individuals with and without osteosarcoma, is considered by researchers to be the best science to date because a more accurate and reliable scientific method was used to measure exposure from all sources of fluoride.

More information:

www.ada.org

((Comments on this story may be sent to newsdesk@closeupmedia.com))

New Study Fails to Refute Fluoride-Osteosarcoma Link

Comments Off
Posted 02 Aug 2011 — by James Street
Category Flouridation and osteosarcoma

NEW YORK, Aug. 2, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A paper in the Journal of Dental Research by dentist Chester Douglass and colleagues, “An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma,” (7/28/11) claims to show no association between fluoride bone levels and osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer. However, Douglass’ study has serious scientific flaws and is incapable of disproving a previous study (Bassin et al., 2006) which linked water fluoridation to osteosarcoma, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Bassin found a 500% to 600% increased risk for young boys, exposed to fluoride in their 6th to 8th years, of later developing osteosarcoma.  Douglass’ study does not address exposure during this critical period because it measured the level of fluoride in bone, which accumulates fluoride over a lifetime.  These bone levels provide no information about when the person was exposed to fluoride.

Not only does Douglass’ study fail to refute Bassin’s main finding, it suffers from other serious weaknesses:

1) Douglass’ study was much smaller and weaker than Bassin’s.  It had only 20 control subjects under age 30, a fifth of Bassin’s.  For this key age group, Douglass’ study was so small it could provide no reliable conclusions. Even Douglass admitted this serious limitation.

2) Douglass’ choice of comparison group is suspect. Douglass compared the bone fluoride level of patients with osteosarcoma to “controls” with other forms of bone cancer. If fluoride also causes these other bone cancer types, then one would not expect to find any difference in bone fluoride between these groups. It is biologically plausible that fluoride could cause other bone cancers because it reaches such high concentrations in bone.  One of the only studies of fluoride and non-osteosarcoma bone cancers did find a link, but this evidence was never mentioned by Douglass.

3) The controls were severely mismatched to the cases. Controls were much older (median 41 yrs) than the cases (18 yrs). The risk of osteosarcoma is highly age-dependent. Also, fluoride builds up in bone with age. Given Douglass’ small sample size, it is unlikely he could have adequately compensated for the gross mismatch in age, especially because of these two simultaneous age dependencies. The groups were also mismatched on sex ratio, and osteosarcoma risk is well known to be sex dependent. Properly adjusting for sex and age would be virtually impossible.

In 2001, Douglass signed off on Elise Bassin’s Ph.D. dissertation which found the strong association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. When it was later published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2006, Cancer Causes and Control, an accompanying letter from Douglass claimed that his “larger” study would eventually refute Bassin’s findings. But Douglass also told a Fox News reporter that Bassin “… did a good job. She had a good group of people advising her. And it’s a nice—it’s a nice analysis. There’s nothing wrong with that analysis.”

Now that Douglass’ study is finally published, it is clearly incapable of refuting Bassin’s work.  According to FAN director, Paul Connett, Ph.D., “Bassin’s study was a high quality product, Douglass’ study was not.”

Chris Neurath, FAN’s Research Director, points out “Even though Douglass collected extensive fluoride exposure histories from hundreds of other controls, that data was ignored in this paper. FAN is calling for the release of all of the Douglass data. The only way to get to the bottom of Douglass’ two decade’s study is to make the data available for any independent researcher to check and do the analyses which Douglass has failed to provide. The public has paid millions for this data, why is most of it still behind locked doors?”

One reason is suggested in Douglass’ conflict-of-interest declaration where he says he has “… written reviews of the literature for several companies that sell, reimburse for, or do research on preventive dentistry products, most notably GlaxoSmithKline, Colgate-Palmolive, Dentsply, Quintile, Delta Dental Plans….”

Omitted was his paid editorship of Colgate’s promotional dental newsletter, which regularly contains advertisements for Colgate’s fluoride products.

The International Association of Dental Research (IADR), publishers of The Journal of Dental Research, has a history of promoting fluoridation.

Connett says, “In my opinion, it seems that Douglass is more interested in protecting fluoride than investigating this issue objectively. Bassin’s work suggests fluoridation may be causing a frequently fatal cancer in teenage boys. Douglass, after five years of trying, has failed to refute this disturbing evidence. How long will fluoridation promoters be allowed to continue to spin this issue?”

“Why are dentists – especially those who have shown a strong interest in protecting the water fluoridation program – conducting and publishing cancer research, anyway?” asks Connett.

A more detailed critique of Douglass’ paper will be posted soon at http://www.FluorideAction.Net

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

Bone Fluoride Levels Not Associated With Osteosarcoma

Comments Off
Posted 30 Jul 2011 — by James Street
Category Etiology and cause of osteosarcoma, Flouridation and osteosarcoma, Osteosarcoma

by Kathy Jones on  July 30, 2011 at 7:06 PM

A study that investigated bone fluoride levels in individuals with osteosarcoma, which is a rare, primary malignant bone tumor that is more prevalent in males has been released by the International and American Associations for Dental Research have released in its Journal of Dental Research.

Since there has been controversy as to whether there is an association between fluoride and risk for osteosarcoma, the purpose of this study, titled “An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma,” was to determine if bone fluoride levels were higher in individuals with osteosarcoma.

No significant association between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma risk was detected in this case-control study, based on controls with other tumor diagnoses.

In the case-control study, by lead researcher Chester Douglass of Harvard University, patients were identified by physicians in the orthopedic departments from nine hospitals across the U.S. between 1993 and 2000. In this report, the study sample included incident cases of primary osteosarcoma and a control group of patients with newly-diagnosed malignant bone tumors. Specimens of tumor-adjacent bone and iliac crest bone were analyzed for fluoride content. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the respective hospitals, Harvard Medical School and the Medical College of Georgia.

Logistic regression of the incident cases of osteosarcoma (N=137) and tumor controls (N=51), adjusting for age and sex and potential confounders of osteosarcoma, was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). There was no significant difference in bone fluoride levels between cases and controls. The OR adjusted for age, gender, a history of broken bones was 1.33 (95% CI: 0.56-3.15).

anonymous comment:

Lead author, dentist Chester Douglass “has written reviews of the literature for several companies that sell, reimburse for, or do research on preventive dentistry products, most notably GlaxoSmithKline, Colgate-Palmolive, Dentsply, Quintile, Delta Dental Plans ” according to the acknowledgment section of this study. C Hayes [co-author] “has done limited consulting with Procter and Gamble.” This study has some major flaws and it seems, in my opinion, that the researchers did their best to have the outcome align with their predetermined beliefs. Here are three: 1) The controls had bone cancer also that could have been fluoride-induced (co-author, Hoover found Ewings Sarcoma in a previous fluoride study) 2) The Controls were much older than the Cases. Median age 41 and 17.6 years-old, respectively (Fluoride builds up in bone with age so this is a gross dissimilarity) 3) Osteosarcoma occurs more frequently in teenage boys. There were less than 20 controls under age 20 used in Douglass’ analysis. 73 of the total cases were male and 36 of the controls were male Douglass promised that his study would be larger than that of Elise Bassin, his PhD student who found an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma; but actually Douglass’ study is much smaller. This study adds nothing new. Why are dentists doing cancer research anyway? The International Association of Dental Research (IADR) fiercely protects and encourages fluoridation. The Journal of Dental Research is the IADR’s flagship publication

Did everyday chemicals cause my tumor?

Comments Off
Posted 17 Apr 2011 — by James Street
Category Etiology and cause of osteosarcoma, Flouridation and osteosarcoma, Prevention

Saturday, Apr 16, 2011 20:01 ET

One day, I seemed healthy. A few weeks later, I was going under the knife. Then, I made a powerful connection

Did everyday chemicals cause my tumor? 

iStockphoto/tedestudio
This article is an adapted excerpt from McKay Jenkins’ new book, “What’s Gotten Into Us?,” available April 14.

On a crisp fall afternoon a couple of years ago, I went in for a routine two-year checkup with my internist. Everything seemed to be fine: My home life was happy and nurturing. I had never smoked. I ate right, got plenty of rest, and had been a dedicated runner and cyclist my entire adult life. Save for the usual aches and pains, nothing had ever been wrong with my body, and as long as I was smart about it, I figured, I’d still be riding my Fausto Coppi racing bike well into my ’80s.

My only complaint, I told my doctor, was a faint tightness in my hip that I had felt off and on for two years — and odd, sharp twinges between my left thigh, knee and shin that occasionally accompanied it. My internist looked me over and agreed that my pains were probably related to exercise, and he suggested I see an orthopedist at a nearby sports medicine clinic. The orthopedist, in turn, suggested I get an MRI to help him see a bit more clearly what was going on with my soft tissue.

I was standing in my living room when the phone rang just a few hours later. When I picked up the phone and heard the orthopedist’s voice, I knew even before he spoke that something was amiss. “Hello, Mr. Jenkins,” he said, then paused. “You have a suspicious mass in your abdomen,” he said. “It’s growing inside your left hip. Here is the number for an oncologist. You need to call him right away.”

What can you say about such moments? I remember hanging up the phone. I remember looking at my wife, Katherine, and looking at my children putting together a puzzle on the floor in the next room. My son was 4, my daughter not yet 18 months. I fell apart.

Katherine and I passed the next three weeks in a kind of silent panic. When I met with my oncologist, he sketched out what he thought was going on. Although he couldn’t be certain without further tests, the tumor was likely a soft-tissue sarcoma, an ugly cancer of the fibers connecting my hip to the muscles and nerve tissues of my left leg. The prognosis depended on how big the tumor was, where precisely it was growing, exactly how aggressive it was.

At worst, this was, well, very bad. At best, a surgeon could cut out the tumor, but might be compelled to sever my femoral nerve, the trunk line that connects the nerves in the leg to the spine. Which meant I would probably never run or ride my bike again. And then I’d have to remain vigilant to see if the cancer returned. To this day, the ride home has remained indelible.

This was really happening. But how? This was not a grinding descent into illness; it was a bolt from the blue. I did not feel sick, and never had. My mind raced. How could I possibly have cancer? A few weeks later, I was being prepared for surgery at the hospital when two researchers approached me with questions. The first ones were pretty standard: What ethnic group best describes you? Um, white. How far did you make it in school? I have a Ph.D., I said. How many packs of cigarettes have you smoked per day, on average? None, I said. Ever. Then the questions changed, from ones I had been asked by doctors dozens of times before to ones I had never been asked in my life.

How much exposure had I had to toxic chemicals and other contaminants? In my life? I asked. This seemed like an odd question. What kind of chemicals do you mean? The researcher began reading from a list, which turned out to be long. Some things I had heard of, many others I had not. Metal filings? Asbestos dust? Cutting oils? I didn’t think so. What’s a cutting oil? How about gasoline exhaust? Asphalt? Foam insulation? Natural gas fumes?

Where was this going?

The words kept coming. Vinyl chloride? I wasn’t sure. What was that? How about plastics? Are you kidding? Everything is made of plastic. Dry-cleaning agents? Detergents or fumes from plastic meat wrap? Benzene or other solvents? Formaldehyde? Varnishes? Adhesives? Lacquers? Glues? Acrylic or oil paints? Inks or dyes? Tanning solutions? Cotton textiles? Fiberglass? Bug killers or pesticides? Weed killers or herbicides? Heat-transfer fluids? Hydraulic lubricants? Electricfluids? Flame retardants?

By now I had begun to feel distinctly uncomfortable. Not about my history of “industrial” exposures, which were nonexistent, but about the myriad, and mostly invisible, chemicals the researchers seemed to be curious about. What was a flame retardant, exactly, and how in the world would I know if I had been exposed to one? I had never used pesticides, but Lord knows there were plenty in my neighborhood.

A couple of hours later, a doctor led me into the operating room, and I lay down on the table. A moment later, it seemed, I awoke. My eyes felt fuzzy, and blurred by bright overhead lights. Where was I? I blinked. There, at the foot of my bed, stood Katherine and my surgeon. Both were beaming. Something must have gone well, I thought. You’re a lucky man, the doctor said. The tumor was as big as an orange, but it turned out to be growing out of a nerve cell rather than a muscle cell. We sent a slice of it down to the lab; it turned out to be benign. Of a hundred cases like this, about four turn out this way. Not only that, we managed to peel the tumor off your femoral nerve. Once you recover, you can get back to running and riding your bike. You’re a very lucky man.

And so I was.

As joyful as my outcome had been, I was left feeling somehow bereft. Had this whole thing been bad luck? Where had this tumor, this navel orange, come from? It wasn’t until I’d answered the hospital questionnaire that I had ever even considered the vast arrays of chemicals I had been exposed to over the years. Was it possible that the questions constituted a trail of bread crumbs that could lead me to some answers? Suddenly, these questions began to take on a whole new sense of urgency.

In the four years that have passed since my surgery, cancer has burned its way through a swath of my family and friends. My beloved aunt Julie recently passed from a combination of breast cancer, bone marrow cancer, and Parkinson’s disease. My friend Scott, still in his 40s, just learned that he has pancreatic cancer. Like me, he has small children. So do Leah and Suzie and Susan, young women who have all recently suffered terrible bouts with breast cancer. My cousin’s husband, Phil, died of a brain tumor before his 40th birthday. He left a wife and a young daughter. And on and on and on.

What is going on here?

No one goes through a cancer scare without experiencing a kind of awakening. Here’s what mine looked like: I went from being a passive observer of other people’s suffering to feeling an intimate desire to prevent that suffering. I wanted to know if there were root causes. I wanted to try to see things just as they are, how they came to be that way, and what I could do to protect myself and my children.

It’s worth thinking about what a relatively short time we’ve been swimming in synthetic chemicals. The Synthetic Century, let us say, has been full of grand achievements and equally grand consequences, many of them unintended. In 1918, a scientist named Fritz Haber won the Nobel Prize for figuring out how to make synthetic nitrogen, a key component of soil, and thus “improving the standards of agriculture and the well-being of mankind.” But during World War I, his technology also helped Germany make bombs from synthetic nitrate and, later, poison chlorine and phosgene gas. In World War II, Hitler used another one of Haber’s compounds, Zyklon B, in Nazi concentration camps. After the wars, synthetic fertilizers paved the way for the explosion of industrial-scale agribusiness, which has, in turn, created great wealth but also unprecedented levels of pollution, monoculture and processed foods.

In his book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” Michael Pollan outlines the way our industrial food chain floats on an ocean of cheap oil. This is also true of our vast array of consumer products. Although coal companies in the mid-1800s were processing coal gas for lighting and synthesizing other products like dyes, this was but a baby step compared to what happened a hundred years later. Since World War II, Big Oil and, more recently, Big Coal and Big Natural Gas, have supplied our economy not just with energy for our homes and cars but with the very building blocks of our domestic lives: not only our plastics but our fertilizers and pesticides, our furniture, our personal care products, even our clothing. Consider this: in the last 25 years, the country’s consumption of synthetic chemicals has increased 8,200 percent.

The trouble with such rapid proliferation of products made from petrochemicals, of course, has been that the production and use of synthetic chemicals has vastly outpaced our ability to monitor their effects on our health and the environment. We learned to love what chemicals could make; we just never bothered to wonder if there could be a downside. By the mid-1970s, there were some 62,000 chemicals in use; today the number is thought to be closer to 80,000. The EPA has a full set of toxicity information for just 7 percent of these chemicals, and the U.S. chemical industry, a $637-billion-a-year business, is so woefully underregulated that 99 percent of chemicals in use today have never been tested for their effects on human health. Fewer than 3 percent of these chemicals have ever been tested for carcinogenicity. Far fewer (or none) have been assessed for their effect on things like the human endocrine system or reproductive health.

The human immune system has evolved over millennia to combat naturally occurring bacterial and viral agents. It has had only a few decades to adjust to most man-made contaminants, many of which are chemically similar to substances produced naturally by our own bodies. The effects of this are far from fully understood. “We face an ocean of biologically active synthetic organic compounds,” the ecologist Sandra Steingraber writes. “Some interfere with our hormones, some attach to chromosomes, some cripple the immune system, some overstimulate certain enzymes. If we could metabolize them into benign compounds and excrete them, they would be less of a worry. Instead, many accumulate. So they are doubly bad: they are similar enough to react with us, but different enough not to go away easily.”

What becomes clear, if you stop to think about it, is that what’s gotten into us is not just chemicals but culture. We aren’t just saturated with chemicals, after all; we are saturated with products, and marketing, and advertising, and political lobbying. Fifty years ago, it was not uncommon to see advertisements for DDT featuring an aproned housewife in spike heels and a pith helmet aiming a spray gun at two giant cockroaches standing on her kitchen counter. The caption below reads, “Super Ammunition for the Continued Battle on the Home Front.” Another ad shows a picture of a different aproned woman standing in a chorus line of dancing farm animals, who sing, “DDT is good for me!” DDT was marketed as the “atomic bomb of the insect world,” but also as “benign” for human beings. And we believed it.

Our ignorance is not an accident. We are not meant to know what goes into the products we use every day. The manufacturers of most American-made products tend to keep the ingredients and formulations of their products secret, and rarely mention that individual ingredients might (or do) cause cancer, or impede fetal development, or lead to hormone imbalances. It seems that the intention in packaging is to make information harder to find, not easier — an imitation of information, not information itself. With so little information, it’s easy to see why we have become so complacent. And why we have allowed ourselves to live, albeit uncomfortably, with assurances that these products are “safe.” A single exposure to these chemicals never killed anyone, we tell ourselves. This is true. But smoking a single cigarette never killed anyone, either. The trouble with exposure to toxic chemicals, as with exposure to tobacco, is that the impact is cumulative, long-lasting and, frequently, slow to reveal itself.

So here we are.

Almost 50 years after Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” and the tide of synthetic chemicals is only rising. We are faced, every day, with an overwhelming number of choices as consumers: Do I choose this detergent or that one? This mattress or that one? The chemical lawn-care company or the “green” one? This shouldn’t be so hard. We’re talking about washing our children’s hair. Or cleaning the sink. Or tending a garden. Why has this become so complicated? And on what information do we make our decisions?

The most important thing, as I have said, is finding the courage to see things clearly. But as I have learned, when it comes to toxic chemicals, seeing things clearly is harder than you might imagine. Every choice we make is a bargain with the devil. You go to get your suits dry-cleaned, only to learn that dry cleaners rely on perchloroethylene, or perc, a known carcinogen. Is having crisp creases worth the risk? You want to wash your infant’s hair. What could be more benign than baby shampoo? But look closer at the label on the bottle: the baby shampoo contains formaldehyde, which causes cancer and compromises the immune system. The more alienated we get from the things we use every day, the more confused we get. The more confused we get, the dumber we feel. The dumber we feel, the less confident we are in our decisions. The less confident we are, the more susceptible we become to the suggestion that everything is as it should be, that the experts (the manufacturers, the regulators) are keeping an eye on things. The more we bury our worries under such shaky ground, the more abstracted we become.

As overwhelming as some of the scientific evidence about our consumer products can seem, there can be real liberation in learning to look at things with clear and unblinking eyes. A good part of this has to do with reconnecting with our things. With understanding what things are for, and how they are made, and by whom. It’s worth relearning some of what we’ve forgotten. How to build and furnish and clean our houses. How to care for our lawns. How to feed and clothe and bathe our children. Strangely enough, you might find that some of these old ways actually feel empowering. We’ve been bombarded with advertising and marketing ploys for so many years that we have tended to make decisions out of unconscious habit rather than conscious choice. Not only is it increasingly clear that there is physical risk in such habits, there is also a genuine psychological sacrifice.

In the moment when we reach unthinkingly for a product, we suspend judgment and even, at times, common sense. When we act unconsciously, we implicitly grant authority — and trust — to what manufacturers have told us, that a product is “safe.” But the truth is, whether the product is an apple, a T-bone steak, a can of air freshener, or a mattress makes no difference: we have no idea what has gone into creating the product, even if someone, somewhere, has assured us that the product is benign. In many, many cases, this is clearly no longer true. And as the physical and psychological distance has grown between us and the products we consume, we have traded an intimate knowledge for a vague and anxious “trust,” a feeling that is inevitably accompanied by its darker corollary, fear and loss of control. This does not seem like a fair trade.

Excerpted from “What’s Gotten into Us?” by McKay Jenkins Copyright © 2011 by Mckay Jenkins. Excerpted by permission of Random House, a division of Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

McKay Jenkins is the Cornelius A. Tilghman Professor of English and director of journalism at the University of Delaware. He is the author of “The Last Ridge,” “The White Death” and “Bloody Falls of the Coppermine.”

Government Agencies Agree Too Much Fluoride

Comments Off
Posted 20 Jan 2011 — by James Street
Category Flouridation and osteosarcoma

Detroit : MI : USA | Jan 19, 2011
By Debbie Nicholson send a private message
2 0
Views: 164

The HSS, EPA and CDC Agree Standards Must Be Met

It has been all over the media lately the ongoing controversy over fluoride. Medical experts for long have insisted that fluoride is not only cost effective but assists in dental hygiene. On the opposing side are some physicians along with experts in the science community who are maintaining that there are health risks involved with fluoride and its benefits at best are questionable.

Not more than three days ago the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had announced that they are now taking steps to ensure guidelines and standards on fluoride in drinking water will remain to provide protective dental health but will be done so by the lowest possible levels which can be obtained.

The HSS would like these levels set at the lowest end of the maximum range to prevent tooth decay. The EPA states they are in the process of reviewing what the maximum levels should be.

Together the EPA and HSS state that their actions are geared to maintaining the health benefits that water fluoridation brings but at the same time safeguard overall human health especially the health of children.

Peter Silva, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water stated that both agencies (EPA and HSS) are making announcements based upon the most recent scientific data available. The new analysis done by the EPA will aide in making sure that people benefit from prevention of tooth decay while simultaneous avoid the unwanted negative effects of too much fluoride.

Dental fluorosis can happen in children eight years of age or younger. It comes from the excessive intake of fluoride during a child’s time of tooth development. The functioning of enamel-forming cells can be disturbed, which in turn stops the normal growth of the enamel. Symptoms can vary from mild to severe. The range of symptoms all depends upon the levels of fluoride intake. In mild cases, small white areas appear on the enamel. In severe cases the teeth appear stained and speckled.

The EPA and HSS have stated they have reached an agreement after reviewing available information from science with regard to the benefits of fluoride and the possible risks to children.

Today Americans are exposed to fluoride more than they had been in the 1940′s when fluoride was first put into water. In today’s world excluding the water many people intake fluoride from tooth paste, being applied at the dentist office, in prescription fluoride supplements and mouth rinses.

The HSS does emphasize that impressive decline in tooth decay in the United States over the past seventy years has been mainly due to fluoride in water and toothpaste.

Currently the recommendations range from 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water. The HSS is suggesting a recommendation of 0.7 milligrams with no upper limit.

The HSS sincerely holds belief that their recommendation can apply to both issues protecting dental health and the protection of human health meaning side effects in general.

American Dental Association Commends HSS Actions

The American Dental Association has applauded the actions of the Federal agencies that are responsible for public health and safety for the adjustment ratio of fluoride to water which the consider the maximum based upon scientific assessment along with the total appreciation of fluoride from all received sources.

The American Dental Association (ADA) is a science based organization and they are in total support of the HSS recommendation for setting the level of fluoridated water at 0.7 parts per million. It is noted as an effective level for both areas of reducing tooth decay and minimizing fluorosis in the general populace.

CDC is behind the 0.7 rate

The CDC on January 8th of this month had released a report in which two out of five children display signs of fluoride poisoning (streaking or spotting on teeth or pitting of teeth due to fluorosis. The CDC’s conclusion was that fluoride levels do need to be lowered in municipal water supplies to bring it to 0.7.

However is it enough some answer no

Professor Paul Connett who is the executive director of Fluoride Action Network which is initiating a fight against fluoride in the water in the United States, states this action should have happened years ago.

However, Professor Connett states that this action still has not gone far enough yet. He states the CDC and ADA are claiming the only issue for concern is fluorosis and are ignoring all other health issues. That is they were serious about decreasing dental fluorosis they would omit fluoride in the water all together. If not the next best thing would be to warn parent’s in fluoridated areas not to use fluoridated tap water to mix infant formula.

Professor Connett is not alone in his stand. A dentist had told ABC news he believes that fluoride should not be in the water at all.

The dentist is Dr. Griffin Cole from Austin, Texas and has aired his views to ABC News.

Dr. Cole’s Opinion

Dr. Cole states adamantly that he has never prescribed fluoride supplements to his patients. He states that previous studies have associated excess fluoride not only to dental fluorosis but also to higher rates of bone cancer in test subjects. He also notes that osteoporosis was an additional concern since fluoride which is ingested sits on the bones of a person.

Fluoride ingested in any type does nothing for the teeth. In cases of fast tooth decay a topical fluoride can be applied to improve dental health but only by a small margin.

Dr. Cole remarks that fluoride molds to the tooth’s enamel and while it is helping to prevent tooth decay at the same time it could possibly make the teeth brittle.

In cases of bad fluorosis to restore the teeth they either have to be crowned totally or a veneer must be done. This is expensive to fix.

Dr. Koh, assistant secretary of health at HHS suggests that the EPA and HSS also has recommend that municipalities lower the fluoride levels in their drinking water.

Dr. Koh closing statement released to ABC News is the current main issue is mild fluorosis in children and it is anticipated that with this current adjustment it will be going lower.

Currently a Statement Calling for End to Fluoridation Worldwide has been signed by 3,240 medical, scientific and environmental professionals. The statement may be viewed on line at Fluoride Action Network.

In April 2005, researchers had cautioned that infant formulas prepared with fluoride water does increase risk for dental fluorosis. The research had shown three times more likely fluorosis in children consuming one milligram per liter of fluoridated water in comparison to those who drank non-fluoridated water.

Dr. Cole states adamantly that he has never prescribed fluoride supplements to his patients. He states that previous studies have associated excess fluoride not only to dental fluorosis but also to higher rates of bone cancer in test subjects. He also notes that osteoporosis was an additional concern since fluoride which is ingested sits on the bones of a person.

Fluoride ingested in any type does nothing for the teeth. In cases of fast tooth decay a topical fluoride can be applied to improve dental health but only by a small margin.

Dr. Cole remarks that fluoride molds to the tooth’s enamel and while it is helping to prevent tooth decay at the same time it could possibly make the teeth brittle.

In cases of bad fluorosis to restore the teeth they either have to be crowned totally or a veneer must be done. This is expensive to fix.

Dr. Koh, assistant secretary of health at HHS suggests that the EPA and HSS also has recommend that municipalities lower the fluoride levels in their drinking water.

Dr. Koh closing statement released to ABC News is the current main issue is mild fluorosis in children and it is anticipated that with this current adjustment it will be going lower.

Currently a Statement Calling for End to Fluoridation Worldwide has been signed by 3,240 medical, scientific and environmental professionals. The statement may be viewed on line at Fluoride Action Network.

In April 2005, researchers had cautioned that infant formulas prepared with fluoride water does increase risk for dental fluorosis. The research had shown three times more likely fluorosis in children consuming one milligram per liter of fluoridated water in comparison to those who drank non-fluoridated water.

Fluoride water and cancer

A study conducted in 1990 by the US National Toxicology Program noted that researchers had found uncertain evidence that cancer causing possibility of fluoridated drinking water in male rats, based on higher than number of cases that what researchers had expected. The suspect cancer was osteosarcoma a type of bone cancer. However, there was no evidence present for the potential cancer in female rats or male and female mice.

When looking at all evidence from various studies it was noted that further studies were needed to determine an association of the possibility of cancer and fluoridated water.

To avoid fluoridation

Purify the water first is always a good way to start. Purchase a water purifier.

Avoid commercially grown foods and try consuming organic or locally grown foods such as at farmers markets.

Be careful of processed foods such as instant tea and grape juice products and even soy milk for babies. They contain high amounts of sodium fluoride.

Magnesium stops the absorption of fluoride to the cells.

Calcium appears to aide in attracting fluoride to away from the bones and teeth so your body can emit them.

Liver Cleanses are known to be effective for the elimination of fluorides in the body. There are two kinds noted to be available and can be done at home. They can be found online such as at Herbal Provider.

Dry saunas have also been noted to work effectively when combined with exercise. It will release the sodium fluoride stored in fatty tissues.

There is a list of foods which contain fluoride available for view online at the PFPC, The Fluoride Education Project.

If you would like to take action against fluoride in water there is information on the Fluoride Action Network on the Take Action page.

Debbie Nicholson is based in Detroit, Michigan, United States of America, and is Anchor for Allvoices

Researcher develops accurate method for detecting dangerous fluoride

Comments Off
Posted 10 Dec 2010 — by James Street
Category Etiology and cause of osteosarcoma, Flouridation and osteosarcoma

Contact: Sourav Saha
saha@chem.fsu.edu
850-645-8616
Florida State University

Sourav Saha’s molecular sensor could protect people from a potential carcinogen

IMAGE: Sourav Saha and Samit Guha are in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Florida State University.
Click here for more information.

Used in the proper amounts, it can make teeth stronger and aid in the treatment of osteoporosis. When excessive amounts are consumed, however, it can be a killer — a carcinogen that causes bone, lung and bladder cancers. The “it” is fluoride, a common additive in most American communities’ drinking water and an ingredient in the vast majority of commercially produced adult toothpastes.

Determining the level of fluoride, be it in water, consumer products or the human body, is an important and attractive challenge for scientists. To address that, a Florida State University researcher has developed a molecular sensor that changes color when a sample containing fluoride is added to it.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends that 1 part per million (ppm) of fluoride ions is acceptable in drinking water, but above 2 ppm is considered a serious health risk,” said Sourav Saha, an assistant professor in FSU’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (http://www.chem.fsu.edu/) and its Integrative NanoScience Institute (http://insi.fsu.edu/). “Because fluoride is carcinogenic even at such small doses, a sensor is needed to detect fluoride selectively at very low concentrations and in the presence of other naturally occurring and biologically important ions.”

Working with a team of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, Saha was able to develop just such a sensor. His research team discovered that a compound called naphthalene diimide (NDI) interacts with fluoride ions in a uniquely colorful way.

“NDIs are a family of neutral (albeit electron-deficient) aromatic compounds that are colorless until fluoride is added,” Saha said. “A small amount of fluoride will quickly turn the sample orange, while a larger amount will turn it pink. In this manner, it becomes very easy to determine not only the presence of fluoride in water, but at what levels.”

While other fluoride sensors exist, many of them cannot differentiate between fluoride and other anions — negatively charged ions — that might be present in the water.

“Although they can detect fluoride, they cannot accurately measure the levels of fluoride,” Saha said. “Naked-eye detection of fluoride at different concentration levels is an advantage of NDI-based sensors. Our sensor relies on an electron transfer event from a fluoride ion to the NDI receptor for generating a visible response or signal, which in this case is color change. The electron transfer process can be reversed, and the sensor can be regenerated and reused over and over again.”

By designing an appropriate sensor, Saha’s laboratory has achieved a remarkable “nanomolar” sensitivity for fluoride, meaning it can detect about one ten-thousandth of a milligram of fluoride in a liter of water. This makes it one of the most sensitive fluoride sensors known to date.

Water fluoridation has been widely used in the United States since about 1960. Although often a subject of controversy, Saha says it has had the effect of improving overall dental health through a very basic chemical process. When added to water systems, fluoride reacts with a naturally occurring mineral, calcium phosphate, and produces a compound called fluorapatite. Fluorapatite then bonds with humans’ teeth to form a hard, protective layer that wards off corrosion. This is important for dental health.

However, excessive amounts of fluoride in water can cause a condition known as dental fluorosis, especially in young children. This results in a mottled appearance of the dental enamel, as well as possible cracking and pitting of the teeth.

Fluoride is also used in several drugs prescribed to treat the brittle-bone disease osteoporosis. Given in the proper amounts, the fluoride appears to stimulate the formation of new bone tissue. However, when excessive amounts of fluoride build up in body tissues, they can lead to a variety of health maladies, including skeletal fluorosis, which causes pain and damage to bones and joints. Excessive fluoride over a length of time has also been linked to the development of osteosarcoma — a malignant and potentially fatal bone cancer — as well as cancers of the lungs and bladder. For those reasons and others, fluoride has not been formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of osteoporosis in the United States.

Artificial fluoridation of drinking water is commonly practiced in many industrialized nations. While precise numbers are unavailable, perhaps 400 million people living outside of the United States are located in areas where water is artificially fluoridated, according to the British Fluoridation Society. Untold millions of others, especially in parts of Africa, India and China, rely on water sources whose natural fluoride levels exceed EPA recommendations. Efforts to measure the amount of fluoride present in many of those areas are inconsistent and imprecise.

“This is a very significant public health issue worldwide,” Saha said. “Some developing countries fluoridate their water but don’t have a means for measuring it accurately. Others are drinking water that hasn’t been treated with fluoride but that might already contain dangerous amounts naturally. Clearly there is a critical need for a fluoride sensor that can tell people whether their water supply is safe.”

A paper describing his team’s findings was recently published by the Journal of the American Chemical Society. “Fluoride Ion Sensing by an Anion-n Interaction” (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja107382x) was coauthored by Saha and his postdoctoral researcher, Samit Guha. It was also highlighted in the Dec. 6, 2010, issue of Chemical and Engineering News (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/).

In addition, Saha filed for a U.S. patent on his fluoride-sensing process in June 2010; he hopes to know within the next year whether the patent will be granted. If it is, the next step likely would be to license his discovery to an outside company that could test it for commercial potential and then, if all goes well, develop it into a marketable product.

“This is a clever idea,” said John Fraser, Florida State’s assistant vice president for Research and Economic Development and director of the Office of Intellectual Property Development and Commercialization (http://www.research.fsu.edu/techtransfer/). “Using a simple color test to determine safe fluoride levels will lead to a tangible benefit to society. Once commercialized, people will benefit in the United States, but also in countries with high natural but unsafe levels of fluoride.”

Cancer Is Probably Man Made Caused By Pollution And Diet

Comments Off
Posted 27 Oct 2010 — by James Street
Category Alternative Therapies, Complementary Therapy, Diet and Prostate Cancer, Etiology and cause of osteosarcoma, Flouridation and osteosarcoma, Natural Therapies, Nutrition and Cancer

Cancer Is Probably Man Made Caused By Pollution And Diet

15 Oct 2010

Why was cancer detected in only one in a few hundred Egyptian mummies? Why is there such scarce reference to cancer in ancient Greek or Egyptian texts? A study carried out by researchers from the University of Manchester, England and published in Nature suggests that cancer, especially cancer among children and young adults is not simply due to our living longer these days – it must be a man-made disease. The scientists say theirs is “the first histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy”.

Investigators at Manchester University’s KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology say their study proves that during the Egyptian mummies’ time, cancer was extremely rare. After investigating hundreds of mummies, they came across just one case of cancer – worldwide only two cases have ever been detected. Incidence of cancer, especially childhood cancer exploded after the Industrial Revolution.

Professor Rosalie David, at Manchester University’s Faculty of Life Sciences, said:

In industrialized societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.

The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this disease. We can make very clear statements on the cancer rates in societies because we have a full overview. We have looked at millennia, not one hundred years, and have masses of data.

Professor Michael Zimmerman, a visiting professor at the KNH Centre, made the first ever histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy. The mummy was said to be an ordinary person, from the Ptolemaic period.

Zimmerman said:

In an ancient society lacking surgical intervention, evidence of cancer should remain in all cases. The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialization.

The investigators examined literary evidence from ancient Greece and Egypt, as well as mummified remains from ancient Egypt. They also carried out medical examinations of animal and human remains further back in history, as far back as the period of the dinosaurs.

They found that:

  • According to animal, non-human primates, and early human remains and fossil evidence, cancer was extremely uncommon. One Edmontosaurus fossil of unknown primary origin had evidence of metastatic cancer.
  • Virtually all evidence of tumors, which were extremely uncommon anyway, were benign.
  • The few malignancies were found were in non-human primates, but none of them are cancers found in modern adult humans.

Atherosclerosis, Paget’s disease of bone, and osteoporosis did exist in ancient Greece and Egypt – diseases that affect humans when they are older; old enough to develop common modern cancers. If humans at that time lived long enough to develop those diseases, the extreme rarity of cancer cannot be put down to very short life spans. People in those days lived long enough to develop the cancer adults develop today. Also, there is no evidence of any childhood cancers in ancient Greece or Egypt. Cancer among children is definitely much more common today than it was in ancient Greece/Egypt.

Some people have suggested that tumors do not preserve well, so evidence of them disappears over time. However, Zimmerman says mummification preservers malignancy features; in fact, it preserves tumors much better than normal tissue.

Of all the hundreds of mummies examined all over the world, just two have microscopic evidence of cancer. Radiologists have examined all the mummies at museums in Cairo and Europe and found no evidence of cancer at all.

Evidence of cancer and medical procedures, such as operations for cancers does not appear until the 17th century, the researchers reveal. Scientific literature depicting distinctive tumors have only been about for the last 200 years, when data started to be documented about chimney sweeps with scrotal cancer in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761, and Hodgkin’s disease in 1832.

Professor David said:

Where there are cases of cancer in ancient Egyptian remains, we are not sure what caused them. They did heat their homes with fires, which gave off smoke, and temples burned incense, but sometimes illnesses are just thrown up.

The ancient Egyptian data offers both physical and literary evidence, giving a unique opportunity to look at the diseases they had and the treatments they tried. They were the fathers of pharmacology so some treatments did work.

They were very inventive and some treatments thought of as magical were genuine therapeutic remedies. For example, celery was used to treat rheumatism back then and is being investigated today. Their surgery and the binding of fractures were excellent because they knew their anatomy: there was no taboo on working with human bodies because of mummification. They were very hands on and it gave them a different mindset to working with bodies than the Greeks, who had to come to Alexandria to study medicine.

(Conclusion) Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.

“Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between?”
A. Rosalie David & Michael R. Zimmerman
Nature Reviews Cancer 10, 728-733 (October 2010) | doi:10.1038/nrc2914

Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/204809.php

Main News Category: Cancer / Oncology

Also Appears In:  Nutrition / Diet,  Biology / Biochemistry,

Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

Save time! Get the latest medical news headlines for your specialist area, in a weekly newsletter e-mail. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newsletters.php for details.

Send your press releases to pressrelease@medicalnewstoday.com

← Previous Entries