http://www.bragg.com/healthinfo/fluorideriskFS.html Don’t Drink the Water? Remember the great fluoride debate? Back in the 1950’s, every voice of authority, from the U.S. Public Health Service to the PTA, supported adding fluoride to the water supply as an effective and totally safe way to promote healthy teeth. The only opponents seemed to be John Birchers and other extremists who regarded the scheme as a diabolical communist plot. In the years since, most of the nation’s major cities fluoridated their water, and the issue appeared closed. No less an objective voice than Consumer Reports declared in 1978, “The survival of this fake controversy . . .represents one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation.” In fact, the debate never ended. Now it may explode as never before, posing new challenges to medical dogma and giving parents one more thing to worry about. Government researchers have new evidence that casts doubt on the benefits of fluoridation and suggests that it is not without risk. The most incendiary results come from the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which in 1977 was ordered by Congress to determine whether fluoride causes cancer. This week NTP plans to release data showing that lab rats given fluoridated water had a higher rate of a rare bone cancer called osteosarcoma. According to a memo by the Environmental Protection Agency, “very preliminary data from recent health studies . . . indicate that fluoride may be a carcinogen.” Fluoridation proponents are already criticizing the NTP study, but it will be harder to discredit or ignore than hundreds of earlier experiments, varying in quality from around the world, that have linked fluoride to mottled teeth, skeletal damage, genetic defects and other ills. During the two-year experiment, rats and mice drank water with different levels of sodium fluoride. None of the animals drinking fluoride-free water developed cancer, nor did any of those drinking water with the lowest fluoride concentration, 11 parts per million (ppm). But of the 50 male rats consuming 45 ppm water, one developed osteosarcoma. Four of 80 male rats drinking 79 ppm fluoride developed osteosarcoma. No mice or female rats showed signs of bone cancer. Although the animals drank higher concentrations of fluoride than people, (the legal standard is 4 ppm), such megadosing is standard toxicological practice. It’s the only way to detect an effect without using an impossibly large number of test animals in lieu of the humans exposed to the substance. Although the final NTP report will not be released for months, several independent toxicologists find the results significant. Most important, the rats who did not drink fluoride did not get cancer, indicating that the malignancies are “not a fluke,” says EPA scientist William Marcus. | |||||||
There is also a convincing relationship between dose and response: the more fluoride, the more cancers. Pathologist David Kaufman of the University of North Carolina warns that the rat data must be examined to see if the cancers appeared in the long bones | “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not all time.” | of the arms and legs, as osteosarcomas do in humans, or in other places, which might make the results less relevant to people. Still, Kaufman says NTP data “make fluoride look like a weak carcinogen. It’s obviously something to worry about” | |||||
– but not panic over. are about 900 cases of osteosarcoma in the United States annually; even if fluoride caused all of them – an impossibility – the lifetime risk to any individual from drinking fluoridate tap water would still be only about one in 5,000. Too crude: If fluoride causes bone cancer in lab rats, then why, after 45 years of fluoridation, haven’t researchers seen a rash of osteosarcomas in fluoridated cities? Because epidemiology is too crude to detect it even if the cancers are there. In the 1970’s, the National Cancer Institute found no sign of higher cancer rates in fluoridated cities. But that reassuring finding may be misleading. According to Donald Taves, a fluoride expert, if the difference were anything less than 7 percent it would not be detectable. Another obstacle to definitive epidemiology is mobility: just because a person got osteosarcoma in a fluoridated city does not mean he had been living there all his life. The NTP results assume an added importance when combined with recent data on the shrinking benefits of fluoridation. According to the American Dental Association (ADA), tooth decay is anywhere from 50 to 70 percent less in fluoridated areas. But figures from the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), part of the National Institutes of Health, suggest otherwise. A 1987 survey of almost 40,000 schoolchildren found that tooth decay had declined sharply everywhere. Children who always lived in fluoridated areas had 18 percent less decay, compared with their peers who had lived in nonfluoridated areas. This 18 percent translates into a difference of fewer than one cavity per child. Similarly, in a 1986 paper in the British journal Nature, Australian researcher Mark Diesendorf assessed 24 studies from eight countries and found that cavity rates had declined equally in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas, suggesting fluoridated water isn't that important! As a result of all these past and current studies, argues Alan Gray, a leading pro-fluoridation dentist in Canada, "it is now becoming difficult to provide accurate, and ethical advice" to people about fluoridation.
Fluoridation is unique among environmental controversies, in that one side has consistently denied that questions of risk or benefit even exist. The ADA states, "Anti-fluoridation groups attempt to create the illusion of a scientific controversy (which is ) merely a ploy to create doubt about a well-researched, well-demonstrated preventive measure." But even well-researched articles raise hackles. When, in 1988, Chemical & Engineering News presented a balanced report on fluoridation, it attracted the wrath of the medical establishment. Says Taves, "Too many scientists lost their objectivity. This has become a religion on both sides." The NIDR kept files on people perceived as threats to fluoridation. Political decisions were at odds with expert advice: a panel convened by the Surgeon General even in 1983 expressed concern, in closed sessions, about skeletal and dental damage from fluoride. At one point, a member said, "You would have to have rocks in your head, in my opinion, to allow your child much more than 2 ppm (fluoride)." Said another, "I think we all agree on that." Even so, in 1986 EPA raised the fluoride standard from 2 to 4ppm, except in Calif. where it remains 2ppm.
This month EPA opened a review of the standard. Once EPA receives the official NTP report, it will establish a target "safe" fluoride level. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the level for carcinogens be zero, but the standard may be based on what is technically feasible. Fluoridation can be stopped immediately, but many communities with naturally fluoridated water would have to take out the fluoride if it exceeded the limit of 4 ppm. As the EPA wrestles with standards, John Sullivan of the American Water Works Association fears, "confusion will reign" since some laws will still require fluoridation, a practice many claim causes cancer! As they await EPA’s decision, pro-fluoridationists are invoking arguments of social justice. Dental researcher Ernest Newbrun of the University of California, San Francisco, contends that fluoridation promotes the health of children of “all races and all socioeconomic classes,” not only those with enough money or discipline or access to the health system to take a fluoride supplement every day. He and others say it is morally wrong not to provide the benefits of fluoride. The NIDR’s and other's surveys suggest that fluoride in toothpastes and dental rinses also ensures healthy teeth for those who use the fluoride products, they imply that those who don't use them might suffer. No one can foresee how the fluoride debate will play out this time. But since the 1950’s, the country’s environmental consciousness has been heightened. In the end, deciding whether or not to fluoridate turns less on science than on values. The sheer weight of good research may finally, after four decades, begin to wisely inform those judgments and even overwhelm the unscientific rhetoric that has characterized both sides of the debate for far too long. – SHARON BEGLEY FLASH – LATEST INFO! Visit Web For Fluoridation News: • www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org Excerpts from the Bragg Water Book J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., Senior Vice-President of the National Federation of Federal Employees stated in a letter, July 2,1997 to Jeff Green, of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, “I am pleased to report that our union, which represents and is comprised of the scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professionals at the headquarters in Washington, D.C. of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has voted to co-sponsor the California Citizen’s Petition to prohibit fluoridation. The evidence over the last 11 years indicates a causal link between fluoride and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, bone pathology and lower IQ in children. We conclude that the health and welfare of the public is NOT served by the addition of fluoride to the public water supply!” • Some fruit juices contain shocking amounts of fluoride, with some brands of grape juice containing much higher levels – up to a highly toxic 6.8 ppm! The use of fluoride-containing insecticides in grape crops is a factor in these high levels. Cooking can greatly increase a food’s fluoride content. Also, keep in mind that toxic fluoride is also an ingredient in pharmaceuticals, aerosols, insecticides and pesticides. Common fluoride levels in toothpaste are 1000 ppm. When fluoride is ingested, about 93% is absorbed into the bloodstream and what is not excreted is deposited in the bones and teeth of the body – Shocking Facts! • Fluoride use is toxic, absolutely unsafe and should be stopped immediately! The government feels that its central concern is to protect industry, therefore the solution to pollution is dilution! You poison everyone a little bit rather than poison a few people a lot. This way, people don’t know what’s going on. Any public health official who criticizes the practice of toxic fluoridation is at risk of losing his job. Shocking: National Toxicology Program Researchers downgraded cancers caused by fluoridation after being coerced by superiors to change their shocking, truthful findings. • Fluoride has been proven to cause osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer; squamous cell carcinoma in the mouth; fluorosis of the teeth; osteosclerosis of the long bones; liver cancer; chromosome aberrations; genetic damage; and skeletal fluorosis and deformities. B. Spittle, author of Psychopharmacology of fluoride: a review states “There appears to be evidence that chronic exposure to fluoride may be linked with cerebral impairment that affects particularly the concentration and memory in some individuals.” More Fluoride Warnings: • The overwhelming evidence shows that fluoridation is causing an increase in bone cancer and deaths among males under 20. • According to our estimates, over 10,000 people in the United States die of cancer each year due to fluoridation of public drinking water. • Hip Fracture Rate Highest in U.S. • Fluoride and Osteoporosis • Fluoride and Bone Cancer • The Deadly Costs of Fluoridation • Fluoridated Water Increases Bone Cancer Risk • Osteoporosis, Calcium and Fluoride • The Overwhelming Evidence that Fluoride Weakens Bones • Fluoride Actually Reduces Bone Strength, Instead of Increasing It! • How The EPA is Spending Your Tax Dollars
• Why Do Researchers Continue to Support Deadly Fluoridation? • Fluoride: Shocking Facts • Fluoridation: A Health Violation of Medical Ethics • Fluoride: Industrial Waste • Environmental Protection Agency Infighting • Fluoridation is Big Business • Mohawk Indians’ Fluoride Tragedy • Fluoride is Highly Toxic • Use Non-Fluoride Toothpaste • Fluoridation Increases Lead Contamination • Fluoride Affects Immune Function • Fluoride Adversely Affects Central Nervous System • Fluoride and Decreasing Birth Rates • Highly Publicized Fluoride Studies Show Medical Mistake • Juice Drinks Contain Dangerous Levels of Fluoride • Danger is Not Only in The Water, but in Processed Foods • Tooth Decay Decline Unrelated to Fluoride • The Sad, Unnecessary Epidemic of Dental Fluorosis • H. Dean Changes His Mind and Retracts Fluoridation Endorsement! • Study Reveals That Fluoride Causes Tooth Decay • Children Poisoned by Toothpaste Keep Toxic Fluoride Out of Your Water! Most water Americans drink has fluoride in it, including tap, bottled and canned drinks and foods! Now, ADA (American Dental Assoc.) is insisting that the FDA mandate the addition of fluoride to all bottled waters! Defend your right to drink pure, nonfluoridated tap and bottled waters! Challenge and stop local and state water fluoridation policies! Call, write, fax or e-mail your state officials and congress people and send them a copy of this revealing book. |
Friday, February 22, 2008
Fluoridation - Evidence of a Cancer Risk!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Take Action to End Fluoridation
http://www.FluorideAction.Net/Congress
Post a Comment