Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: nyscof
“(T)his report proves a link between raised fluoride levels in serum and osteosarcoma,”

Or is it a link between osteosarcoma and raised fluoride levels? Which is the cause, which is the effect?

27 posted on 05/04/2009 9:57:48 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ElectricStrawberry

That one study does not determine which, but an earlier study which showed osteosarcoma tracking with water supply fluoridation suggests that ingested fluoride pushes or enables the cancer.


29 posted on 05/04/2009 10:01:10 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Beat a better path, and the world will build a mousetrap at your door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: ElectricStrawberry

Since x-rays of children taken in 1955 in the first fluoridation experiment showed bone defects consistent with osteosarcoma that was not found on the x-rays of children in the non-fluoridated control city - before fluoridated toothpaste was sold and before our food supply was fluoride-contaminated, I think all the evidence points to the fact that fluoride may contribute to osteosarcoma and other bone cancers and it’s not the other way around.


31 posted on 05/04/2009 10:01:47 AM PDT by nyscof (End Fluoridation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: ElectricStrawberry

there is not much flouride in a normal body to start with, so the total amount found should be an indication if it is outside the normal. calcium, well, you have pounds of it in your body, bones, teeth, and in almost all cells use it for communication. bone cancer messes up the bone, makes the growth go haywire, and that results in an unbalance in calcium in the blood.

I would say that there is a good chance these researchers took that into acount. note that bone cancer victums in flouridated areas would show normal F levels in the blood, if that is the case, then the F in the flouridated water groups blood could be safely assuemd to be fromt eh water supply.

flouride is a very reactive (hence dangerous ) element. it interacts with many body functions, right on down to the cell level, it can rip out needed calcium in bones and cells,

mandated flourination of water should be stopped. the governmnet should not be adding a chemical such as this to all out water, most of which is never drank, all the flouride going to lawns, gardens, showers, clothes washing, there has got to be a better way to dose it to people that agree to this drug.

this is socialism at its worst, mandating this stuff in our water.

if it is any help, Diane Fienstein helped pass a law mandating all california public water supplies to add flourine to it, No choice, Diane knows best.

so even if you want flouride in your water, please dont make me have it, dont make me pay for it either. if you want it, add it on your own.


35 posted on 05/04/2009 10:07:32 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson