New Study Fails to Refute Fluoride-Osteosarcoma Link

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

2930 Wetmore Ave. Ste. 9-A
Everett, WA 98201

Council Chambers
Seattle City Hall, Floor 2
600 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

Do not forget about:

FOI Fluoridated Water Analysis for SA; Chemical source; 2006 - 2010
What chemicals and heavy metals are in South Australia's drinking water? Here is
Freedom of Information Analysis sheets, for the chemicals in South Australia's
water from 2006 to 2010. This includes data (during differing months) that may
not be that, 'palatable' ie. Aluminium @ 71 mg/l; Arsenic @ 5.2 mg/l; Iodine @
500 mg/l; Lead @ 2 mg/l; URANIUM at 2mg/l. Yum? 'Healthy'? 'Clean'? 'Safe'? Note
WHERE the chemical COMES FROM (August, 2010) ie. Shanghai, China.



http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/
Some of the contaminants? Just look at some of the mg/l !!!
aluminum
antimony
arsenic
barium
beryllium
boron
cadmium
chromium
copper
iodine
iron
lead
manganese
mercury
molybdenum
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
tin
uranium
zinc

They never tested for radioactive substances



--- In FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com, "James Robert Deal"
<jamesrobertdeal@...> wrote:
>
> 8-2-11
>
> Friends and Members of Fluoride Class Action and Washington Safe Water:
>
> Let's meet at the Everett City Council Wednesday evening at 6 pm and
> talk to them about the lead-arsenic-fluoride coctail added to our water.
>
> Wed 8-3 6 pm at Everett, meeting starts at 6:30:
>
>  2930 Wetmore Ave. Ste. 9-A
>  Everett, WA 98201
>
> Seattle City Council on Monday August 8 at 1 pm. Council meeting starts
> at 2 pm.
>
>
>  Council Chambers
>  Seattle City Hall, Floor 2
>  600 Fourth Avenue
>  Seattle, WA 98104
> <http://maps.google.com/?q=600+4th+Ave%2c+Seattle%2c+WA+98104-1822>
>
> If you want to make a presentation, I will have several short speeches
> you can use, so come early.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> James Robert Deal , Attorney
> James@... <mailto:James@...>
>
> PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036
>
> Telephone: 425-771-1110
> Fax: 425-776-8081
>
> www.JamesRobertDeal.com <http://www.jamesrobertdeal.com/>
>
> www.Mortgage-Modification-Attorney.com
> <http://www.mortgage-modification-attorney.com/>
>
> www.WashingtonSafeWater.com <http://www.WashingtonSafeWater.com>
>
> www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com <http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/>
>

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm266030.htm

FDA Drug Safety Communication:Use of long-term, high-dose Diflucan (fluconazole) during pregnancy may be associated with birth defects in infants

Safety Announcement
Additional Information for Patients
Additional Information for Healthcare Professionals
Data Summary
References

Safety Announcement

[8-03-2011] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is informing the public that chronic, high doses (400-800 mg/day) of the antifungal drug Diflucan (fluconazole) may be associated with a rare and distinct set of birth defects in infants whose mothers were treated with the drug during the first trimester of pregnancy. This risk does not appear to be associated with a single, low dose of fluconazole 150 mg to treat vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis).

There are several published case reports of birth defects in infants whose mothers were treated with high-dose fluconazole (400-800 mg/day) for serious and life-threatening fungal infections during most or all of the first trimester (see Data Summary below).^1-4 The features seen in these infants are listed in Table 1.

Based on this information, the pregnancy category for fluconazole indications (other than vaginal candidiasis) has been changed from category C to category D. The pregnancy category for a single dose of fluconazole 150 mg to treat vaginal candidiasis has not changed and remains category C.

Pregnancy category D means there is positive evidence of human fetal risk based on human data but the potential benefits from use of the drug in pregnant women with serious or life-threatening conditions may be acceptable despite its risks.

Healthcare professionals should be aware of the potential risks with long-term, high-dose use of fluconazole and counsel patients if the drug is used during pregnancy or if a patient becomes pregnant while taking the drug.

Additional Information for Patients

• Use of long-term, high-dose (400-800 mg/day) fluconazole during the first three months of pregnancy (first trimester) may be associated with a rare and distinct set of birth defects in infants.
• A single dose of fluconazole 150 mg to treat vaginal yeast infection during pregnancy does not appear to be associated with the birth defects.
• Patients should notify their healthcare professional if they are pregnant or become pregnant while taking fluconazole.
• Side effects from the use of fluconazole should be reported to the FDA MedWatch program, using the information in the "Contact Us" box at the bottom of the page.

Additional Information for Healthcare Professionals

• The pregnancy category for a single 150 mg dose of fluconazole for vaginal candidiasis is category C based on data from animal studies that showed an adverse effect on the fetus. There are no adequate and well-controlled studies of fluconazole in pregnant women. Available human data do not suggest an increased risk of congenital anomalies following a single maternal dose of 150 mg.
• The pregnancy category for fluconazole use for indications other than vaginal candidiasis is now category D. A few published case reports describe a rare pattern of distinct congenital anomalies in infants exposed in utero to high-dose maternal fluconazole (400-800 mg/day) during most or all of the first trimester.
• The features seen in these infants include brachycephaly, abnormal facies, abnormal calvarial development, cleft palate, femoral bowing, thin ribs and long bones, arthrogryposis, and congenital heart disease. These effects are similar to those seen in animal studies.
• If fluconazole is used during pregnancy, or if a patient becomes pregnant while taking fluconazole, the patient should be informed of the potential risk to the fetus.
• Adverse events involving fluconazole should be reported to the FDA MedWatch program using the information in the "Contact Us" box at the bottom of this page.

Data Summary

There are several case reports published in the medical literature that describe rare and distinct congenital anomalies in infants whose mothers were treated with chronic high-dose (400-800 mg/day) fluconazole for fungal infections in the first trimester of pregnancy.^1-4 Four reports involved maternal use of chronic high-dose intravenous fluconazole for coccidioidal meningitis and one report involved a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive mother who received chronic high-dose oral fluconazole for vaginal candidiasis. Cases associated with high-dose fluconazole use all shared some characteristics with the autosomal recessive genetic disorder known as Antley-Bixler syndrome. This combination of congenital anomalies occurs rarely in the general population, and is similar to anomalies seen in animals following in utero fluconazole exposure.

Chronic high-dose fluconazole may be teratogenic in humans when used in the first trimester of pregnancy; however, the magnitude of this potential human teratogenic risk is unknown. The five reports of distinct and rare congenital anomalies following chronic, high-dose in utero exposure to fluconazole suggest a possible drug threshold effect for a fluconazole embryopathy.

The available data in the medical literature do not suggest an association between low-dose oral fluconazole use in the first trimester of pregnancy and congenital anomalies.^5-11 The few published epidemiological studies of in utero exposure to low doses of fluconazole (most patients received a single oral dose of 150 mg) showed no consistent pattern of anomalies among affected infants; however, most of these studies were too small to accurately detect an increased risk for major birth defects overall.^{7, 9-11} In addition, none of these studies were large enough to accurately detect an increased risk for a rare or unique birth defect or syndrome.

Table 1.

References

1. Lopez-Rangel E, Van Allen MI. Prenatal exposure to fluconazole: an identifiable dysmorphic phenotype. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2005;73:919-23.
2. Pursley TJ, Blomquist IK, Abraham J, Andersen HF, Bartley JA. Fluconazole-induced congenital anomalies in three infants. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;22:336-40.
3. Lee BE, Feinberg M, Abraham JJ, Murthy AR. Congenital malformations in an infant born to a woman treated with fluconazole. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1992;11:1062-4.
4. Aleck KA, Bartley DL. Multiple malformation syndrome following fluconazole use in pregnancy: report of an additional patient. Am J Med Genet. 1997;72:253-6.
5. Rubin P, Wilton L, Inman W. Fluconazole and pregnancy: results of a prescription event monitoring study. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1992;37(Suppl):25-7.
6. Inman W, Pearce G, Wilton L. Safety of fluconazole in the treatment of vaginal candidiasis. A prescription-event monitoring study, with special reference to the outcome of pregnancy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;46:115-8.
7. Mastroiacovo P, Mazzone T, Botto LD, Serafini MA, Finardi A, Caramelli L, et al. Prospective assessment of pregnancy outcomes after first-trimester exposure to fluconazole. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1645-50.
8. Sanchez JM, Moya G. Fluconazole teratogenicity. Prenat Diagn. 1998;18:862-3.
9. Jick SS. Pregnancy outcomes after maternal exposure to fluconazole. Pharmacotherapy. 1999;19:221-2.
10. Sorensen HT, Nielsen GL, Olesen C, Larsen H, Steffensen FH, Schřnheyder HC, et al. Risk of malformations and other outcomes in children exposed to fluconazole in utero. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;48:234-8.
11. Nřrgaard M, Pedersen L, Gislum M, Erichsen R, Sřgaard KK, Schřnheyder HC, et al. Maternal use of fluconazole and risk of congenital malformations: a Danish population-based cohort study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62:172-6.

===================================================================================

http://www.rxlist.com/diflucan-drug.htm

Diflucan Drug Description

DIFLUCAN®
(fluconazole) Tablets
(fluconazole) Injection - for Intravenous Infusion Only
(fluconazole) for Oral Suspension

DRUG DESCRIPTION

DIFLUCAN® (fluconazole), the first of a new subclass of synthetic triazole antifungal agents, is available as tablets for oral administration, as a powder for oral suspension, and as a sterile solution for intravenous use in glass and in Viaflex® Plus plastic containers.

Fluconazole is designated chemically as 2,4-difluoro-α,α¹-bis(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-ylmethyl) benzyl alcohol with an empirical formula of C₁₃H₁₂F₂N₆O and molecular weight of 306.3. The structural formula is:

Fluconazole is a white crystalline solid which is slightly soluble in water and saline.

DIFLUCAN Tablets contain 50, 100, 150, or 200 mg of fluconazole and the following inactive ingredients: microcrystalline cellulose, dibasic calcium phosphate anhydrous, povidone, croscarmellose sodium, FD&C Red No. 40 aluminum lake dye, and magnesium stearate.

DIFLUCAN for Oral Suspension contains 350 mg or 1400 mg of fluconazole and the following inactive ingredients: sucrose, sodium citrate dihydrate, citric acid anhydrous, sodium benzoate, titanium dioxide, colloidal silicon dioxide, xanthan gum, and natural orange flavor. After reconstitution with 24 mL of distilled water or Purified Water (USP), each mL of reconstituted suspension contains 10 mg or 40 mg of fluconazole.

DIFLUCAN Injection is an iso-osmotic, sterile, nonpyrogenic solution of fluconazole in a sodium chloride or dextrose diluent. Each mL contains 2 mg of fluconazole and 9 mg of sodium chloride or 56 mg of dextrose, hydrous. The pH ranges from 4.0 to 8.0 in the sodium chloride diluent and from 3.5 to 6.5 in the dextrose diluent. Injection volumes of 100 mL and 200 mL are packaged in glass and in Viaflex® Plus plastic containers.

The Viaflex® Plus plastic container is fabricated from a specially formulated polyvinyl chloride (PL 146® Plastic) (Viaflex and PL 146 are registered trademarks of Baxter International, Inc.). The amount of water that can permeate from inside the container into the overwrap is insufficient to affect the solution significantly. Solutions in contact with the plastic container can leach out certain of its chemical components in very small amounts within the expiration period, e.g., di-2-ethylhexylphthalate (DEHP), up to 5 parts per million. However, the suitability of the plastic has been confirmed in tests in animals according to USP biological tests for plastic containers as well as by tissue culture toxicity studies.

What are the possible side effects of fluconazole (Diflucan)?

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat.

Call your doctor at once if you have any of these serious side effects:

• nausea, stomach pain, low fever, loss of appetite, dark urine, clay-colored stools, jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes);
• fever, chills, body aches, flu symptoms;
• severe blistering, peeling, and red skin rash;
• easy bruising or bleeding, unusual weakness;...

Read All Potential Side Effects and See Pictures of Diflucan »

What are the precautions when taking fluconazole (Diflucan)?

Before taking fluconazole, tell your doctor or pharmacist if you are allergic to it; or to other azole antifungal drugs (such as ketoconazole, itraconazole); or if you have any other allergies. This product may contain inactive ingredients, which can cause allergic reactions or other problems. Talk to your pharmacist for more details.

Before using this medication, tell your doctor or pharmacist your medical history, especially of: liver disease, kidney disease.

Fluconazole may cause a condition that affects the heart rhythm (QT prolongation). QT prolongation can infrequently result in serious (rarely fatal) fast/irregular heartbeat and other symptoms (such as severe dizziness, fainting) that need medical attention right away. The risk of QT prolongation may be increased if...

Read All Potential Precautions of Diflucan »

http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/fluoridation_opposition_growing

Fluoridation Opposition Growing

From "Shanghai, China"?!!  OMG, let's go after them for not buying local!! 
Don't they have enough of their own toxic pollutants to put in the drinking
water without having to purchase them from China?

I guess we have to share and share alike regardless of proximity.

I've heard that much of our (USA) water additives are also from China.  (I'd
like to know what percentage AND how we come to know that information.)  What's
with that?  I thought we were putting the danged stuff in our water because
someone was making money off of selling a toxic waste rather than having to pay
for dumping it.  But if we're purchasing it from China, that equation is
defunct.

But in that case, what is the motive for putting toxic waste in our water? 
Finances are now out of the picture . . .  That's not to say that no one is
financially benefiting from the transaction, only that domestic polluters are
not benefiting, so domestic polluters are not pushing to put it in the water. 
Therefore WHO is pushing this movement?

Golda Starr
www.FluorideDetective.com

BTW, have I mentioned that I posted a video and document of a possible
presentation to your city council about fluoridation.  James Deal, myself, and
Olemara presented again last evening to the Everett City Council and I will be
adding to the presentation documents on Fluoride Detective and James Deal will
be adding to his list of presentations on Fluoride Class Action.  We'll end up
with a handful of easy to use, already written up presentations that anyone can
use in our struggle against this garbage.



--- In FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com, "ron072754" <reheman@...> wrote:
>
> Do not forget about:
>
> FOI Fluoridated Water Analysis for SA; Chemical source; 2006 - 2010
> What chemicals and heavy metals are in South Australia's drinking water? Here
is Freedom of Information Analysis sheets, for the chemicals in South
Australia's water from 2006 to 2010. This includes data (during differing
months) that may not be that, 'palatable' ie. Aluminium @ 71 mg/l; Arsenic @ 5.2
mg/l; Iodine @ 500 mg/l; Lead @ 2 mg/l; URANIUM at 2mg/l. Yum? 'Healthy'?
'Clean'? 'Safe'? Note WHERE the chemical COMES FROM (August, 2010) ie. Shanghai,
China.
>
>
>
> http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/
> Some of the contaminants? Just look at some of the mg/l !!!
> aluminum
> antimony
> arsenic
> barium
> beryllium
> boron
> cadmium
> chromium
> copper
> iodine
> iron
> lead
> manganese
> mercury
> molybdenum
> nickel
> selenium
> silver
> thallium
> tin
> uranium
> zinc
>
> They never tested for radioactive substances

http://tdn.com/news/local/article_0b831172-be2a-11e0-bd8f-001cc4c002e0.html

Alcoa plan for Reynolds cleanup completion coming next year


By Erik Olson / The Daily News | Posted: Thursday, August 4, 2011 8:05 pm | No
Comments Posted
  Font Size: Default font size Larger font size

.


Alcoa Inc. will submit a clean-up plan for soil and groundwater contamination at
the former Reynolds aluminum smelter site in West Longview early next year, the
company announced.

The Pittsburgh-based company is responsible for cleaning up the 416-acre site,
which Reynolds contaminated for decades during aluminum smelting.

Preliminary soil samples have indicated elevated levels of fluoride, cyanide and
other hazardous materials, according to the state Department of Ecology, which
oversees the study. The groundwater contains sulfate, fluoride and cyanide,
agency officials said.

Alcoa is leasing the building and equipment on the site to Millennium Bulk
Terminals, which is seeking to build a coal export terminal. Millennium, which
bought in January the buildings and equipment on the site from Chinook Ventures,
is coordinating the cleanup and expects it to last years.

Alcoa also released a summary this week of the cleanup to date, including the
removal of the aluminum reduction cells and spent potliner and the cleaning of
pollution control equipment.

"Large volumes of waste have been removed and properly disposed of, and the
decommissioning of the smelter is 95 percent complete. The site today is stable
and safe for occupancy by industrial workers," Mark Stiffler, Alcoa's director
of asset management, said in a written statement.



.

Posted in Local, Health, Business on Thursday, August 4, 2011 8:05 pm Updated:
5:03 pm

Mandatory Water Fluoridation - Is that really okay with you?


http://www.thecitywire.com/index.php?q=node/17094

Here's a chance for you to post in response to a PRO fluoride article and
hopefully prevent fluoride supplements from being given to 2 week old babies in
the Philippines.  This is an excerpt from the article:

“There’s also fluoride, which comes in the form of drops or syrup, for
babies six months to two years old when the child is already teething,” she
adds.  Dr. Arkoncel further affirms that vitamins can be given to babies as
early as two weeks old."

The article allows comments.  Here's the link to it:
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/329638/best-vitamins-your-kids-need

I haven't posted a comment to this article yet - I have to calm down first.

Golda Starr
www.FluorideDetective.com

On Thu, 4 Aug, 2011, Aliss wrote:
>Fluoridation’s twin pillars are money and political power.
>Importing bags of pollution from China has become necessary because
>the manufacturing of local fluoride pollution from fertilizer (and
>aluminum and gypsum) industries has begun to dry up before the exit
>strategy from the fluoridation program has been developed.

This is a very well worded predictive comment.  I like it a lot.

>The raw ingredients for chemical fertilizers are phosphate and potash
>rock (the mineral elements) and natural gas (the nitrogen).

This is not quite right.  Natural gas is not the source of the
nitrogen.  Natural gas is CH4, there is no N in that formula.

This web page (How fertilizer is made)
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Fertilizer.html
says:
    When ammonia is used as the nitrogen source in a fertilizer,
    one method of synthetic production requires the use of natural
    gas and air.

The process is explained in greater detail further down the page.
The bottom line is that the nitrogen comes from the air
(which is 78% nitrogen).

>Florida had both: natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico offshore
>drilling rigs and abundant phosphate rock only a few inches below
>the topsoil on cheap land. <snip>

Floyd
Just-Think-It.com

http://www.voxy.co.nz/health/bone-cancer-fluoride-study-opens-door-law-suits/5/9\
7389

Bone cancer fluoride study opens door to law suits

Sunday, 7 August, 2011 - 19:51 Five years after being promised to disprove the
link between fluoride and osteosarcoma bone cancer, the promised study has
finally been published, failing in its promise, as predicted by international
fluoride experts.

The study only looked at bone-fluoride level at the time of osteosarcoma, which
is irrelevant to age-related exposure effect shown in the earlier research it
was supposed to disprove. It just shows total lifetime exposure to fluoride; not
whether it occurred during the critical 6-8 year old period, shown by the
earlier research.

"Fluoridation promoters have been relying on this failed promise ever since
2006, to defend continued fluoridation in spite of the risk. What will they rely
on now?" asks Mary Byrne, National Coordinator of Fluoride Action Network. "Why,
spinning Douglass' study as if it were valid of course. They have already
started - what else can they do? If they admit Douglass failed, they must admit
that fluoridation should end immediately" answers Ms Byrne.

Osteosarcoma kills between 3 and 4 NZ male youths each year. Legal action
against councils and fluoridation promoters began being prepared in the USA as
soon as Bassin's 2001 study was discovered in 2006, having been suppressed for
four years. "Publication of Douglass' failed study now opens the doorway for
such action" suggests Mark Atkin, FANNZ' legal adviser.

"Now that Douglass' study is finally published, it is clearly incapable of
refuting Bassin's work" according to FAN director, Dr Paul Connett, Ph.D.
"Bassin's study was a high quality product; Douglass' study was not" he
concludes. "And it was only published in a dental journal, published by
fluoridation promoters The International Association of Dental Research - why
not in Cancer Causes and Control like his original promise, and Bassin's study?
Would it not have passed objective peer-review?" adds Ms Byrne.

By The Fluoride Action Network (FAN)

Two new North American studies investigated the impact of low-level fluoride consumption on the strength and density of bone.

While these important (yet largely overlooked) studies are not slam-dunks, they provide some of the strongest evidence to date that low-level fluoride exposure alters the quality of bone tissue, and strengthen concerns that fluoride exposure may increase the rate of bone fracture in the population.

Skeletal Fluorosis—A Real Danger of Excessive Fluoride Consumption

The harmful effects of chronic fluoride exposure on bone are well established. Since the 1930s it has been known that fluoride intake causes excessive bone growth, which can result in joint pain, bone pain, and stiffness. These symptoms are difficult to distinguish from arthritis. Other symptoms indicative of early clinical stage skeletal fluorosis include:

Posted By Dr. Mercola | August 09 2011 | 14,030views

Share

Email : 53

Previous

Next

Guest post: A note about fluoride in the water

Jenny Downing | Wikimedia Commons

Note from Dan: The poster here known as Edward of Huncote, or Ed of H for short, is a board-certified, and state-licensed waterworks professional with 20 years in water treatment. He offered the information below on water fluoridation, which cropped up tongue-in-cheek, in this recent column, which in turn prompted this letter.

Ed of H says: "My intention is neither to refute nor ascribe to that practice, just to post some general information from the perspective of the guy that works with fluoride (and other stuff) daily. In conclusion, I will be glad to answer questions on fluoridation, or other water treatment/water-quality queries some of you may have."

By Edward of Huncote

Why fluoridate drinking water? First, fluoridation is nothing particularly new with regard to water treatment. It's American roots go back to Colorado in the early 1900′s, where a young dentist, Dr. Frederick McKay, noticed that nearly every native-born child had a mottled brown stain on their teeth. Eventually he was able to determine and prove this staining was the result of consuming water containing very high natural fluoride levels.

Dr. McKay, with other leading dentists of the time also determined, that if a level of optimal dose could be maintained, the staining was reduced to a less detectable level, but that even with the reduced dose, the tooth enamel developed a protective layer on it. This was the discovery that ultimately led to adding fluoride to waters deficient of the mineral, for the purpose of dental health. Of interest: In 1952, Fries and Lynchburg became the first Virginia localities to fluoridate drinking water.

What are the regulations on fluoride in drinking water? To some, this may seem to be overcomplicating a simple matter, while to others, it will seem like oversimplfying a complicated one. Here's why: Fluoride has an unusual stance, in that it is added to water that lacks the naturally occurring element, for health benefit, while simultaneously being regulated as a contaminant. The regulation cites an MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) and an MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) of 4.0 mg/L and a Secondary MCL of 2.0 mg/L.

Without just throwing a bunch of numbers and acronyms up, that essentially means you must take steps to reduce fluoride levels that exceed the MCL, and when possible, maintain a concentration of less than the Secondary MCL. This can be done most effectively by Reverse Osmosis filtration, which is quite expensive on a large scale, but more commonly achieved by blending the fluoride-rich water with water containing lower levels of fluoride.

How much fluoride do we need? In January of this year, (2011) the results of a 6-year study indicated children are getting more fluoride from sources other than drinking water, (toothpaste/rinse/etc) and therefore needed less of the additive in their water for dental health.

Consequently, the recommended dose for fluoride in drinking water was lowered from 0.90 mg/L to 0.70 mg/L. Up until this recent change, a range of 0.80 mg/L – 1.2 mg/L was the acceptable standard. Just a little demonstration on dosage – 1 mg/L = 1 part-per-million = 1 gallon in 1,000,000 gallons. So, using that formula we can better visualize the recommended dose of 0.70 mg/L requires slightly less than 3 quarts in 1 million gallons.

Why do you have to fluoridate? We don't. Fluoridation is not a required treatment technique. In fact, the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is often credited with this alleged mandate, actually prohibits any such requirement by the EPA. The CDC (Center for Disease Control) provides recommendations on fluoride dose, but the decision on whether or not to implement a fluoridation program rests with the community purveyor. (Disclaimer: there may be some States that require it, but for certain Virginia isn't one of them. If any among you want to research the other 49, be my guest).

What chemicals are used to fluoridate? The American Water Works Association – the leading trade organization for 100-some years now, lends their approval to several different forms of fluoride. Although the one chosen will usually have to do with convenience and safety, the Virginia Dept. of Health inspectors routinely ask for proof of NSF approval on all chemicals used in water treatment.

Two commonly used fluorides in Virginia are Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, which is usually a 22-25% liquid form that can easily be metered into finished water, and Sodium Fluoride, which is a dry granular form that must be mixed in a saturator with softened water to make a 4% solution that is injected into the finished water. This doesn't go without saying: Both of these fluoride compounds are very dangerous toxic substances in their concentrated form, and must be handled by trained personnel using the greatest care and caution. Keeping in mind, this is the concentrated form; we dilute it severely to achieve optimum dose.

How do you know how much fluoride is in the water? We monitor the level of fluoride with instrumentation that constantly measures a streaming sample, we bench test daily for comparison, and a split sample is taken weekly for comparison. The results are logged in what's called an MOR (monthly operation report), which is reported to the Va. Dept. of Health/Office of Water Programs. VDH/OWP issues guidelines for what constitutes acceptable methods for testing.

There's not a lot more to tell regulation-wise. To summarize: If you're going to fluoridate a water supply, you have the responsibility not only to maintain your equipment and chemical supply, but also to monitor and report on your process. If you're using water from a source that has natural fluoride in an amount that exceeds the MCL, you have to either remove some of the fluoride, or dilute it to the extent it comes under the MCL.

Heres a couple little-known factoids on fluoride from an industry insider:

• Fluoride is especially useful in leak detection. Fluoride is easily soluble in water, due in part to that soluability, it's difficult to remove it from water. So when you find water standing in a ditch, any chlorine residual from the treatment process is likely to have been depleted once exposed to the air, but the fluoride remains in it, thus indicating the water is most likely leaking from a broken water line.
• Less frequently, fluoride is used to tell the age of water in the distribution system. By switching off the chemical feed equipment at the treatment plant, then measuring the level of fluoride daily until it disappears from the furthest service tap from the plant, we can ascertain how long the water has been in the system.

Posted at 08:00 by Dan Casey | Category: Guest post, Uncategorized | 7 Comments

7 Comments »

http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2011/08/guest-post-a-note-about-fluoride-in-the-water/

All

I was at work , at the hardware store, yesterday and the head guy in charge of
adding F- to our water came in and purchased some stuff.  He put it on their
account and thats how I figured out i needed to talk to him.

Well, he said that no one ever told him anything bad like my story.  he said he
has looked at the issue before and knew a little about the pros and cons.

Told me that i should just filter it out, use a britta,

I told him it doesn't remove F-

So after getting info on this group he said he was going to use his test
equipment and see if his filter removed F-

Hope he comes back with info!

R

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/article_28eb9c0a-c250-11e0-93a4-001cc4c03286.html

Philomath council stands beside decision to pull fluoride from water supply

• Story
• Discussion

Philomath council stands beside decision to pull fluoride from water supply

By Nancy Raskauskas, Corvallis Gazette-Timesgazettetimes.com | Posted: Monday, August 8, 2011 11:18 pm | 1 Comment

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font size

Monday, the Philomath City Council indicated it will not back down from its May decision to ban fluoride from the city's water supply.

Only one of the seven, Conselor Angie Baca, stated a preference for restoring fluoride after recent hearing public testimony on the issue at the past two meetings. At those meetings, a long list of local medical professionals gave testimony in favor of the additive.

The city had added fluoride to the water since the 1980s to prevent tooth decay. The councilors surveyed Monday who said they still favored a ban were Matthew Bierek, David Buddingh, Rocky Sloan, Michael McDonough, and Charla Koeppe.

About 10 people attended Monday night to watch the council discussion. No public comments were allowed.

Philomath mayor Ken Schaudt spoke for more than an hour Monday, uninterrupted, delivering a "Top 10" list of why he believes the city should not add a fluoride mixture to its water supply.

Schaudt said right up front that, "A lot of where we have gotten our information is from the internet" and added "I am going to be making statements that I don't want you to take as the gospel truth."

He self-rated each statement he made as "plausible," "possible," "potential" or "probable," often re-ranking them after a moment's hesitation and duplicating some statements as he shuffled through a stack of papers.

Schaudt started by noting that out of Oregon's 243 cities, 27 currently provide fluoride to citizens. According to the data he read, only about 26 percent of Oregonians get fluoride in their drinking water.

With nearly every point he made, he'd counter it with qualifying statements such as: "Statistics are funny things. Numbers you can make do whatever you want them to do" or "In researching this issue you can print a stack of paper as high as you wish on the good reasons … you can print the same size stack on why not to do it."

"I don't want to choose between the two," he said at one point."I am not a chemist. I am not a scientist. Who am I to say which study is correct? So in my decision, I tried to stay away from the science."

He called fluoride a "toxic agent," said that the fluoride that the city uses is is "not pharmaceutical grade."

He raised concerns about fluoride reacting with other compounds such as chlorine and causing lead to leach from pipes.

"What happens if more studies continue to surface confirming negative health risks? Could (the city) be held potentially liable for this practice?" he asked. "We need to protect ourselves, because the supplier is not going to do it. We as a municipality can not take that risk."

He added that the city is wasting its money to by providing fluoride through the water system and said that when he powerwashes his deck that fluoride is not being used for its intended purpose (to prevent tooth decay) but is instead leeching directly back into the environment.

"It is not efficient use of a product," he said.

"There really is no substance that is tolerated by everyone. Iffluoride is healthful to the teeth, it should be applied directly to the teeth," he said.

His number one reason: "Freedom of choice is precious to all Americans. It's value must be protected," he said.

Schaudt needn't have worried. After his rambling testimonial, he surveyed his six councilors:

Only one of the six, Anges Baca, stated a preference of restoring fluoride to the water supply. That means Baca couldn't even get a second to reopen issue — she didn't try. No formal motion was made.

The rest of the councilors opted to stick with their initial May vote to stop adding fluoride to the city's water — a practice that the city has used for decades as a way to protect its citizens from tooth decay.

Councilor Bierek talked about the possible negative effects on the health of animals, such as fish in the streams.

"We aren't doing our streams and waterways any good," he said of the practice of adding fluoride to water. "We're upsetting the natural balance of our planet."

He also stressed the element of individual choice.

Councilor Buddingh said, "It's not our right or our role to mass medicate. I think it's unethical."

Sloan, McDonough and Koeppe all said that they had struggled over the decision — flip flopping on the issue in response to citizen testimony and additional research.

"I've come to the conclusion that my original vote was for me the best vote," McDonough said.

Koeppe added: "I have flipped a lot on this issue as well. There were some things said at the last meeting that made me really think. I think it comes down to freedom of choice. Is so much easier to add to something than to take it away."

Dozens of people turned up at the June 13 and July 11 council meetings to testify for or against the decision. Both times, the council decided to postpone making new decisions or to reconsider their May order.

No other issue has created as much correspondence for the city over the past several years, except the controversial couplet construction that redirected traffic through town in 2007, said city manager Randy Kugler at Monday's meeting. People have been,"either passionately for it, or passionately against it," he said.

Philomath stopped adding fluoride to the city's water about a month ago. However, the there is some naturally occurring fluoridein the local water source according to city officials.

In addition, Philomath shares some pipes with Corvalis from the Rock Creek treatment station. Corvallis, lowered the level offluoride that it adds to its water earlier this year but will continue to add it at both of its treatment stations.

Before the end of the meeting, Mayor Schaudt took a moment to address citizens who had asked for a city-wide vote on the issue.

"I think its a disservice for the public to vote on it," he said. "I'm not saying the voting public would be wrong ... but, the voting public would not do the amount of research and be as diligent (as the council has been)."

Doctors David Grube and David Cutsforth, who championed the addition of fluoride to the water supply several decades ago, and were outspoken in their opposition to the council's decision, sat in the audience Monday night.

Schaudt addressed them directly after it was clear that the council would not reverse its decision to stop adding fluoridesaying that it took "nothing away from those accomplishments."

"20/20 hindsight is always perfect. You can't take anything away from the decision that you made for our citizens," Schaudt said."But, we are 25 years down the road and there is more information out there and more questions. We have concerns and reasons we feel are valid."

Contact city reporter Nancy Raskauskas atnancy.raskauskas@... or 541-758-9542. Follow her tweets of live meetings @NancyR10.

Copyright 2011 gazettetimes.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted in Local on Monday, August 8, 2011 11:18 pm | Tags:

Read more: http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/article_28eb9c0a-c250-11e0-93a4-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1UWVXOnXd