1 response so far ↓

• 1 nyscof // Apr 14, 2006 at 11:24 am

  Harvard Study Shows Fluoridation-Cancer Link

  New Study Is One of Many Linking Fluoride to Cancer

  New York — April 7, 2006 — Fluoridation is linked to bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in young boys reports the May 2006 Harvard peer-reviewed journal, “Cancer Causes and Control.”

  This fluoridation-cancer study, by Elise Bassin, PhD and colleagues, follows on the heels of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council’s (NRC) report revealing the scientific evidence showing how fluoridation can harm subsets of the population.

  “Monitor your own intake. [high water drinkers], the elderly and people with severe renal deficiency who have trouble excreting fluoride in their urine are likely to have increased bone-fluoride concentrations,” reports the Chicago Tribune. High fluoride levels damage bones and teeth.(2)

  Many studies link fluoride to cancer. Examples:

  1954 Taylor reports more tumors and shorter lifespan in fluoride treated mice. (3)

  1956 Landmark 10-year Newburgh/Kingston fluoridation study shows more cortical bone defects (a suspected precursor to osteosarcoma) in children drinking fluoridated water. (4)

  1977 Burk-Yiamouyiannis show cancer death rates in the 10 largest fluoridated U.S. cities were higher and rose faster vs. the 10 largest nonfluoridated U.S. cities after corrections for age, race, and sex.. (5)

  1977 National Academy of Sciences expresses concern about a possible water fluoridation/osteosarcoma link based on the Newburgh /Kingston cortical bone defect evidence. (6)

  1977 Congressional hearings based on the Burk/Yiamouyiannis findings lead to fluoride cancer testing in rodents by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) (6)

  1990 NTP reports fluoride is an “equivocal” (may or may not) cause of cancer. EPA drinking water senior toxicologist, William Marcus PhD, reports results were suspiciously downgraded in the final report.(7) Marcus was fired for stating the truth but rehired with back pay under the whistle-blower’s act.

  1990 National Cancer Institute finds more osteosarcoma in young males in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas; but finds cause to dismiss the results.(6)

  1990 Procter & Gamble (P&G) makes public a 1981-1983 study showing more bone tumors in fluoride-treated rats but claims they were not statistically significant. Another P&G study finds a significant increase in benign bone tumors in fluoride treated mice. (6)

  1992 New Jersey Department of Health study shows osteosarcoma rates higher among young males in fluoridated vs unfluoridated regions of New Jersey (6). The report’s title was changed to obscure connection to fluoridation.

  1993 Yiamouyiannis’ analysis of National Cancer Institute’s cancer data confirms fluoridation/osteosarcoma link in males. (6)

  2001 Bassin’s Harvard Dissertation shows osteosarcoma in boys in fluoridated areas is five times higher than in non-fluoridated areas.(6). Her dissertation is uncovered in the rare books section of library. Fluoridationists insist the study should be ignored because it’s not published and it’s only one study.

  2002-2005 Chester Douglass, Elise Bassin’s Harvard dissertation advisor, issues a report to his research funders at the National Institutes of Health in 2003 in which he concludes there is no link between fluoridation and bone cancer. He references Bassin’s thesis in support of his statement despite her conclusions which directly contradict his claim..(9) Douglass also makes the same misrepresentation in an earlier presentation to the British Fluoridation Society in 2002. In 2005, Douglass becomes the subject of a joint federal and Harvard ethics investigation. (10)

  2006 NRC Panel finds cancer/fluoride link plausible.

  2006 (May issue) Bassin’s osteosarcoma/fluoridation study is published in “Cancer Causes and Control,” along with a letter to the editor from Chester Douglass who cites unpublished, unfinished, non-peer-reviewed data in an attempt to downplay Bassin’s peer-reviewed published findings of a significant link between osteosarcoma in boys and water fluoridation.

  “EPA has more than enough evidence to shut down fluoridation, right now, with a special advisory,” says retired EPA scientist, Robert Carton, PhD. “The safe drinking water act requires the EPA to act to protect all populations from known or anticipated harm (8),” says Carton.

  Contact: Robert Carton, PhD., bcarton@verizon.net.

  SOURCE: NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc

  PO Box 263

  Old Bethpage, NY 11804

  http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

  http://www.FluorideAction.Net

  nyscof@aol.com

  References:

  1) “Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States), by Bassin et al, Cancer Causes Control, May 2006

  2) “Researchers pour dose of worry in fluoridated water,” Julie Deardorff, April 2, 2006,

  http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-0604010266apr02,1,4385156.story?coll=chi-health-hed

  3) Taylor, A: Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice. Dent. Digest, 60:170-172, 1954

  4) Schlesinger E. R. et al.: “Newburgh - Kingston Caries - Fluorine Study. XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years”, J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 52 (1956) 296;

  5) Yiamouyiannis J., Burk D. (1977): “Fluoridation and cancer. Age dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation”; Fluoride 10:101

  6) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/osteosarcoma-timeline.html

  7) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ntp/news8.html

  This MCLG explanation from the EPA’s website (accessed April 5, 2006):

  http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/standard/setting.html

  After reviewing health effects studies, EPA sets a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), the maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons would occur, and which allows an adequate margin of safety. MCLGs are non-enforceable public health goals. Since MCLGs consider only public health and not the limits of detection and treatment technology, sometimes they are set at a level which water systems cannot meet. When determining an MCLG, EPA considers the risk to sensitive subpopulations (infants, children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems) of experiencing a variety of adverse health effects.

  9) http://www.ewg.org/issues_content/fluoride/20050627/pdf/NIEHS_final_report.pdf

  10) Environmental Reporting Group Harvard Study:Strong Link Between Fluoridated Water and Bone Cancer in Boys - Department Chair With Industry Ties Misrepresented Results to Federal Authorities, April 5, 2006

  All News Releases:: http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu

You must log in to post a comment.