Posted on 01/10/2002 12:51:14 PM PST by t-shirt
Probe urged into fluoride in water link to cancer
The Irish Examiner
Jan 09 2002
By Fionnuala Quinlan
THE Government has been urged to investigate the link between bone cancer and fluoridated drinking water after a study found 40% more people in the Republic contract the disease than in the North.
Research carried out at Boston University of School of Public Health, using data from the Irish National Cancer Registry and its northern equivalent, found 40% more people suffer from the rare bone cancer osteosarcoma in the Republic than the North, where water is not fluoridated.
Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation warn that the research is consistent with existing studies which have linked osteosarcoma to fluoridated drinking water.
Spokesman Dr Don MacCauley said that while the Irish study did not conclusively link the cancer to fluoridation, it underscored the need for urgent research into the health effects of adding 2,000 gallons of hydrofluosilic acid to drinking water in the Republic.
"The legislation, which permits fluoridation in this country requires the Minister of Health to carry out health studies into the effects of nearly 40 years of this mass-medication. This research has never been done," Dr MacCauley said.
"Another fluoride health alert is screaming but when will the Minister of Health start listening? When will the minister fulfil his duty and carry out the health studies required by law?
"It is outrageous that there are still no plans for health studies.
"Instead, Minister Martin has delegated his responsibilities to a pro-fluoride sham of a forum, which cannot even get its act together to report on time," Dr MacCauley said.
The report by the Government's Forum on Fluoridation was due for publication at the end of October, but it has been postponed until later this month.
Fluoride has also been linked to cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, hip fractures and thyroid disorders, while an American study found fluoride exposure could produce lower IQ levels in children.
Ireland is the only country in Europe to insist that drinking water be fluoridated.
"In spite of all the evidence about the dangers of fluoride, Ireland has never carried out a survey. That is illegal," Dr MacCauley said.
Director of the National Cancer Registry Dr Harry Comber said osteosarcoma was a relatively rare cancer of the bones which usually affected children and teenagers up to age of 20.
However, he cautioned against drawing firm conclusions from the osteosarcoma research in the Republic and the North because he said the disease was relatively rare and the populations on both sides of the Border were quite small.
A spokesman for the Department of Health was yesterday unavailable for comment.
So what if studies show fluoride causes bone cancer and lower IQ in children---cause Big Brother Gobmint' says it's good for their teeth!
Atleast the dentist in Ireland aren't as big of sellouts and cowards as they are in America.
I always thought it was curious that a relative of mine who's a dentist has own his kids using Tom's of Maine Toothpaste without fluoride, and has them drinking only distilled bottled water.
And No one claims it is good for bones.
Even for teeth most dentist will admit it often cause brown teeth and fluorosis and other ailments.
The same people screaming about dangers of fluoride are accusing the drug companies and oncologists about wanting to perpetuate cancer by making sure alternative voices are kept out of the mainstream. Can't have it both ways, folks. Junk science is junk science.
By Barry Forbes
The Tribune, Mesa, AZ
Sunday, December 5, 1999
"Why'd you do it, Doc? Why'd you toss the fluoride folks overboard?"
I had just tracked down Dr. Hardy Limeback B.SC., Ph.D. in Biochemistry, D.D.S., head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, and president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research. (Whew.)
Dr. Limeback is Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the country's primary promoter of the controversial additive. In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April; Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change of heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste," he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never."
Why, I wondered? What could have caused such a powerful paradigm shift?
"It's been building up for a couple of years," Limeback told me during a recent telephone interview. "But certainly the crowning blow was the realization that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry."
"Tragically," he continued, "that means we're not just dumping toxic fluoride into our drinking water. We're also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are catastrophic." A recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback's worst fears. "Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in the hip bones vis-à-vis the balance of the Population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones."
Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms?
"Mottled and brittle teeth," Dr. Limeback told me. "In Canada we are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes my own practice."
One of the most obvious living experiments today, Dr. Limeback believes, is a proof-positive comparison between any two Canadian cities. "Here in Toronto we've been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver-which has never fluoridated-has a cavity rate lower than Toronto's." And, he pointed out, "cavity rates are low all across the industrialized world including Europe, which is 98% fluoride free. Low because of improved standards of living, less refined sugar, regular dental checkups, flossing and frequent brushing. Now less than 2 cavities per child Canada-wide,' he said.
"I don't get it, Doc. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) ran a puff piece all across America saying the stuff was better than sliced bread. What's the story?"
"Unfortunately," he replied, "the CDC is basing its position on data that is 50 years old, and questionable at best. Absolutely no one has done research on fluorosilicates, which is the junk they're dumping into the drinking water."
"On the other hand," he added, "the evidence against systemic fluoride intake continues to pour in."
"But Doc, the dentists..."
"... have absolutely no training in toxicity," he stated firmly. "Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of misinformation from public health and the dental association. Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong."
Last week, Dr. Hardy Limeback addressed his faculty and students at the University of Toronto, Department of Dentistry. In a poignant, memorable meeting, he apologized to those gathered before him.
"Speaking as the head of preventive dentistry, I told them that I had unintentionally mislead my colleagues and my students. For-the past 15 years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind."
"The truth," he confessed to me, "was a bitter pill to swallow. But swallow it I did." South of the border, the paradigm shift has yet to dawn. After half a century of delusion, the CDC, American Dental Association and Public Health stubbornly and skillfully continue to manipulate public opinion in favor of fluoridation.
Meantime, study after study is delivering the death knell of the deadly toxin. Sure, fluoridation will be around for a long time yet, but ultimately its supporters need to ready the life rafts. The poisonous waters of doubt and confusion are bound to get choppier.
"Are lawsuits inevitable?" I asked the good doctor. "Remember tobacco," was his short, succinct reply.
Welcome, Dr. Hardy Limeback to the far side of the fluoride equation.
It's lonely over here, but in our society loneliness and truth frequently travel hand in hand.
Thank you for the undeniable courage of your convictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah a national leader by not fluoridating
Written by David W. Christopher M.H.
The Daily Herald, Provo, Ut.
Sunday, June 4, 2000
Utahns consistently reject fluoride because we cut through the enormous endorsements and weigh the facts. We are not behind the times, but ahead of the 60 cities that bucked the system and rejected fluoride in the 1990's. We're unique because we vote. Most cities are fluoridated by executive order.
The task of unmasking this fluoride farce is monumental. Utah being the least fluoridated state is pivotal. If we can withstand the onslaught of federal, state, industrial, and of course medical pressure, Utah can send a clear message to Washington that like Europe and the majority of the world we will not be a part of the biggest hoax perpetrated on America since it's inception. One lemming bucking the crowd will be noticed by other States who then might finally call for congressional hearings ferreting out the perpetrators of this insidious practice of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water under an EPA loophole.
Is fluoride toxic? Science shows fluoride is more toxic than lead (Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products-1984) The majority of fluoride is captured into ponds from EPA required smokestack scrubbers and sold untreated to municipalities. The technical name is fluorosilicic acid, and yes it is a toxic waste that can totally dissolve any cement barriers.
Is fluoride a cumulative toxin? Of course it is; that's how it's supposed to work. It attaches to the calcium in bones. That is why dentists apply it to your teeth. However, when you drink it in water it enters the blood stream and attaches to the first bones it comes in contact with. Does fluoride cause hip fractures? Yes. Hip fractures were caused inadvertently in a study designed to prove fluoride prevented osteoporosis. In the trials elderly women were given 75 mg. per day of sodium fluoride and compared to a control group. The study ended abruptly with the horrifying discovery that fluoride caused these fractures. In light of this study another study looked at low levels of fluoride in drinking water at the optimal level of 1 ppm. Hip fractures were 27% higher in women and 41% higher in men living in Brigham City, the largest fluoridated community in Utah, compared to non-fluoridated Logan and Cedar City. These studies were verified in five additional studies including the French study (JAMA 1995; 273:775) that showed an 86% increase in hip fractures in fluoridated communities. Additionally, Toronto which has been fluoridated for 35 years has twice the hip fractures as Quebec which has never been fluoridated.
Is fluoride absolutely safe? Of course not! There are more than 500 peer reviewed studies documenting adverse effects of fluoride ranging from cancer to brain damage. Tragically all of these studies will be dismissed as non conclusive by a medical system which has a predetermined mind set that fluoride is safe and effective.
Should we vote on it? By the initiative process, yes. If they can't get enough signatures? Then no, and quit wasting our time. How many times? I guess until they join our side!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened
- Winston Churchill
Dental Fluorosis Prevention Program
"The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects."
- Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association.
Campaign for Fluoride Free Water in Ireland
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable."
- Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.
Low-Level Fluoridation and Low-Level Radiation
"fluoridation ... it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has."
- Dr. Professor Albert Schatz, (Microbiology), Nobel Prize Winner and the discovery of Streptomycin, the cure for tuberculosis and numerous other bacterial infections.
Dangers of Fluoridated Water
Fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and overall health... it doesn't need to be added to our water and we may be taking unnecessary risks by doing so.
- Dr. Hardy Limeback, a leading Canadian fluoride authority, former fluoride advocate and long-standing consultant to Canadian Dental Association. Now a Professor of Dentistry at the University of Toronto.
National Center for Fluoridation Policy & Research (NCFPR)
"The evidence against the safety of this public health policy keeps mounting; it is too compelling to ignore."
- Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, Children's Hospital, Boston
Preventive Dental Health Association
"By 1983 I was thoroughly convinced that fluoridation caused more harm than good. I expressed the opinion that some of these children with dental fluorosis could, just possibly, have also suffered harm to their bones"
- Dr. Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland New Zealand.
The Fluoridation Fiasco
"Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age"
-Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA scientist.
Fluoridation: A 50 Year old Blunder and Cover-Up
"E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects."
- Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A.
STOP Fluoridation USA
"Water contains a number of substances that are undesirable, and fluorides are just one of them"
stated Dr. F. A. Bull, State Dental Director of Wisconsin, speaking at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors.
12 posted on 1/10/02 2:10 PM Pacific by snbowman
I never mentioned a conspiracy on this thread did I?
Do you think there is some conspiracy by people like me and scientists around the world to make your beloved fluoride look bad?
Was this safety forum by the EPA a conspiracy to make your beloved fluoride look bad in his excellent stating of actual scientific studies which showed strong links in both animals and humans to fluoride and Cancer?
------------------------------------------------
Read this well documented examination in this official EPA memorandum below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF WATER
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 1, 1990
SUBJECT: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report
FROM: Wm L. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Criteria & Standards Division, ODW (WH-550D)
TO: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director, Criteria & Standards Division, ODW (WH-550D)
The conference was held in RTP at the NIEHS headquarters on April 26, 1990. The subject of the conference was a peer review of the NTP draft report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3F Mice (Drinking Water Studies) NTP Report Number 393. Dr. Robert Scala was to chair this meeting but was unable to attend because of ill health. Dr. Michael Gallo appointed acting Chairperson. One of the attenders seated with the panel members was David Rall, Ph.D., M.D., Director of NIEHS. Dr. Rall took an extremely active interest in the proceedings and remained seated for the entire proceedings with only two minor interruptions.
The most disturbing part of the report was the continual reference to the historical controls as having the same or higher cancers as the test groups. On pages 89 - 90 of the report starting with the last paragraph the authors state the following:
An important consideration which limits the usefulness of the historical control data base in the current studies is that the diet used in all other NTP studies had not been closely monitored for fluoride content. Fluoride concentrations in typical batches of NHI-07 diet range between 28 and 47 ppm (.7 and 1.2 mg/kg/day)(Rao and Knapka (1), 1987). Assuming a minimum bioavailability of 60% (Tests show 66% absorption page I-18), the historical database animals actually constitute a group receiving sufficient fluoride to place them between the low- and mid-concentration group in the current (the studies reviewed at RTP at the conference). The fact that this fluoride is available for absorption from the standard diet is supported by the levels of fluoride found in the bones of animals maintained on this diet in the six months studies (Appendix I). (The levels in the bones of the rats on the standard NHI chow was ten [10] times the levels of those fed the semisynthetic diet and deionized water, 0.922 vs 0.0901). If the fluoride [is] in fact influencing the "spontaneous " or background incidence of osteosarcoma in male rats, comparisons with those in the historical database maybe misleading. This forces an even greater reliance on the within-study comparisons, ie., the incidences of the dosed groups compared with the concurrent control, in the interpretation of the results of the sodium fluoride studies. [italics in memo]
When I plotted a bar graph of osteosarcoma in male rats and placed the historical controls on the graph 0.6% is just where expected. This helps demonstrate a relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoride. The purpose of such graphs is to predict occurrence. Since the historical controls comprise some 6,000 animals, this data point is extremely significant compared to the other three. Osteosarcoma is an extremely rare animal tumor and may be the result of the variable high fluoride content in the feed. In order to demonstrate this, all that need be done is require that the fluoride content of animal chow be lowered dramatically and that fluoride be removed from the water given to the animals under study.
The dose of fluoride to which the concurrent controls were exposed is 0.2 mg/kg/day. A 70 kg man who drinks 2 liters daily is exposed to 0.03 mg/kg/day. The "control" animals were exposed to an amount of fluoride six to seven (6-7 X) greater. Lois Gold, Ph.D. of the review panel concluded that, "this group of animals therefore, can hardly be termed a control group. It can best be described as a lowest dosed group." This is an important consideration because as the document reports on page 9, the levels of fluoride in bone are linearly dependent upon dose and length of exposure ("depend upon total intake") in people. The level of fluoride in ashed samples of bone of 20-30 year old people is 200 - 800 mg/kg compared to 70 to 80 year old people of 1,000 - 2.500 mg/kg. In the document, the authors cited Zipkin (2) who reported on bone fluoride concentrations in four groups of individuals with average ages of 56 to 76 who lived in areas with fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 0. 1, 1, 2.6, or 4 ppm The relationship to bone fluoride concentrations and water fluoride content was linear; bone fluoride ranged from about 800 to 7,000 ppm ash with increasing water fluoride."
In the animal studies the levels of fluoride (Appendix I) found in the bones of the animals were the same as or lower than those found in people. The highest dosed level of rats had lower levels of fluoride in their bones (5,470 ppm) compared to people (7,000 ppm) at the MCL of 4 ppm. This can be interpreted as people who ingest drinking water at the MCL have 1.3 times more fluoride in their bones than male rats who get osteosarcoma This is the first time in my memory that animals have lower concentrations of the carcinogen at the sight of adverse effect than do humans. An important toxicologic consideration is that a toxic substance stores at the same place it exerts it toxic activity. This is true of benzene and now for fluoride. Fluoride however, is at twice the concentration in human bones compared to benzene which is 10 to 100 [times] greater in animal marrow. This portends a very serious problem. One would expect to be able to discern a carcinogenic effect in the exposed population when compared to the unexposed population especially if data exist on the populations before fluoridation.
Yiamouyiannis and Burk published epidemiology studies that have since been revised twice (3), by Burk (former head of the Cytochemistry section at NIH). In these extensively peer reviewed papers, the authors found that about 10,000 deaths a year are attributable to fluoride water treatment. The U.S. Public Health Service (U.S.PHS) criticized the original studies by erroneously asserting that the results reported by the authors were a result of changes in the age, race and sex composition of the sample. The U.S.PHS made mathematical errors and did not include 90% of the data. U.S.PHS method of analysis when applied to the database, confirmed that 10,000 excess cancer deaths yearly were linked to fluoridation of water supplies. This evidence has been tested most recently in the Pennsylvania Courts and round scientifically sound after careful scrutiny.
There were three different short term in vitro tests performed on fluoride and all these tests proved fluoride to be mutagenic. An Ames test was performed and reported to be negative. Bruce Ames, in a letter to Arthur Upton introduced in the Congressional Record, stated that his test system was inappropriate for fluoride testing based on a number of technical considerations. EPA's own guidelines require that in vitro tests be taken into consideration when found positive. In this case, the mutagenicity of fluoride supports the conclusion that fluoride is a probable human carcinogen.
Melvin Reuber, M.D, a board certified pathologist and former consultant to EPA and part time EPA employee, reviewed some of pathology slides and the Battelle report. Dr. Reuber has had his pathologic diagnoses questioned several times in the past. When an independent board together with Dr. Reuber went over the Slides his opinion was always upheld. He first published the work that identified hepatocholangiocarcinoma as a pathologic entity. The report changed Battelle's board certified veterinary pathologists diagnoses from hepatocholangiocarcinoma to hepatoblastoma and finally to hepatocarcinoma. Dr. Reuber reviewed the pathology slides and stated that these lesions are indeed hepatocholangiocarcinoma. Because Dr. Reuber first identified and published his findings on this tumor, I trust his opinion in this matter. These tumors are extremely rare. Dr. Reuber's diagnoses would make the liver cancers significant because of their rarity. This changes the equivocal finding of the board to at least some evidence or clear evidence of carcinogenicity. In addition, the oral changes in the report were down-graded from dysplasia and metaplasia to degeneration. Dr. Reuber said that this. change should also be reviewed. The report also down-graded adrenal pheochromocytomas and tumors to hyperplasia. This needs to be reviewed by an independent board. The other liver carcinomas were down-graded to foci by artificially defining a need for 75% compression in the tumor before it was no longer a foci. Using this changed definition carcinomas were down-graded to adenomas and adenomas downgraded to eosinophilic foci. In almost all instances, the Battelle board certified pathologists' findings were down-graded. It is my suggestion that a board independent of NIEHS should be assembled by ODW consisting of human pathologists (for their experience in diagnosing osteosarcoma), the Battelle pathologist (to defend his original diagnoses), Dr. Melvin Reuber, Dr. Thomas Squires and two other well known independent board-certified animal pathologists. The charge to this board is to meet as a body, review the slides, agree on a pathologic diagnoses and prepare a report to be submitted to ODW for incorporation in our docket for the fluoride regulation.
The report talks about the efficacy of fluoride and tooth decay. Since the studies were performed to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride this should not have been addressed. There appear to be at least four different publications from the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand that have reported similar or lower tooth decay rates in nonfluoridated areas as compared to fluoridated areas (4,5,6,7). Therefore, the entire question of the efficacy of fluoridation based on extensive and multiple studies has been called into question. Our job is to set safe levels for fluoride in drinking water based on the scientific evidence.
The problem with this meeting was the inability of independent reviewers to get to see the slides prior to the meeting. We must perform our own scientific review of the slides and write our conclusions for use in the development of the revised fluoride regulation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Roa, G.N., and Knappa, J.J. 1987. Contaminant and nutrient concentrations of natural ingredient rat and mouse diet used in chemical toxicology studies.
Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 9, 329-338.
(2) Zipkin, L., McClure, F.J., Leone, H.C., and Lee, W.A. 1958. Fluoride deposition in human bones after prolonged ingestion of fluoride in drinking water.
Public Health Rep. 73, 732-740.
(3) Graham, J.R., Burk, O., and Morin, P. 1987. A current restatement and continuing reappraisal concerning demographic variables in American time-trend studies an water fluoridation and human cancer.
Proc Pennsylvania Academy of Sci. 61:138-146.
(4) Colquhoun, J. 1987. Comm. Health Studies. 11:85.
(5) Gray, a. 1987. J. Canadian Dental Assoc. 53:763.
(6) Hildebolt, C.F. et al. 1989. Amer J, Physiol. Anthropol. 78:79-92.
(7) Diesendorf, M. 1986. Nature. 321:125.
(As opposed to a knee jerk reaction based on the blind faith religious like tenet that "fluoride is wonderful and anyone who says otherwise is crazy.")
Funny thing is, we're on a well and don't add it to our children's diet. And they rarely have cavities. I am truly trying to figure this out. Last year all 4 children checked out with no cavities.
I can see the ad now: "One out of one dentist agrees, flouride is bad for you."
Would the possibilities of nicer teeth out-weigh the clear increased risks of cancer and other ailments?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.