Reduce Electric Bill & EMF Pollution
REUTERS NEW YORK, April 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups, according to research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults.
Randhu and colleagues measured serum fluoride levels in three equal groups of age-matched and sex-matched patients. Group one had osteosarcoma, group two had non-osteosarcoma bone tumors, and group three had musculo-skeletal pain.(1)
“Mean serum fluoride concentration was found to be significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma as compared to the other two groups,” writes Randhu’s team. “(T)his report proves a link between raised fluoride levels in serum and osteosarcoma,” they write.
This reinforces a 2006 published Harvard study by Bassin showing a link between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young boys.(2)
A 1992 New Jersey Department of Health study shows osteosarcoma rates higher among young males in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated regions of New Jersey.(3)
More studies link fluoride to bone and other cancers but are downplayed or ignored by government officials.(4)(5)
Bone defects similar to bone cancer were detected in fluoridated Newburgh, NY children as early as 1955. Newburgh is home of the first human health fluoridation experiment begun in 1945.
According to Christopher Bryson in The Fluoride Deception, “A radiologist, Dr. John Caffey of Columbia University, called the defects ’striking’ in their ’similarity’ to bone cancer… and seen more than twice as frequently among boys in Newburgh as among boys in nonfluoridated Kingston [the control city].”(6)
In 2006, the prestigious National Research Council review of fluoride/fluoridation toxicology found a fluoride/bone cancer link plausible.
“If governments truly want to save money, stopping fluoridation is a no-brainer. It would save money, preserve health and teeth,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.
In 2005, 11 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employee unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on fluoridation programs across the country and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.(7)
In addition, over
2,430 professionals urge the U.S. Congress to stop
fluoridation until Congressional hearings are
conducted, citing scientific evidence that
fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is
ineffective
and has serious health risks. See statement:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html
References:
http://tinyurl.com/osteosarcomContact: Paul Beeber, JD 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
Human and animal cancer evidence prompts review
of fluoride
Source -
http://www.dentalproductsreport.com
California EPA committee designates fluoride as
priority for review for public warnings about risk
of cancer to consumers. SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS
WIRE)-- Over protests by the lobbyists for the
American Dental Association and the Personal Care
Products Council who oppose further evaluation of
fluoride as cancer-causing, the State’s Qualified
Experts that comprise the Carcinogen Identification
Committee, as advisors to California EPA’s Office of
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), never-the-less
established fluoride and its salts as meriting the
highest priority they can recommend for further
review toward including fluorides on a Prop 65 list
of chemicals for which warnings for risks of cancer,
birth defects, and reproductive toxicity are to be
publicly posted. Citing the passage of
two pre-screenings that acknowledged the existence
of animal and human cancer evidence, as well as
widespread exposure, this recommendation places
fluoride and its salts as one of the first of 38
chemicals that also passed at least one of the tests
to be newly prioritized for Hazard Identification
materials preparation. This hazard
identification process is similar to a risk
assessment performed to establish a scientific point
of safety for lifetime ingestion that is ordered by
the Safe Drinking Water Act for chemicals in the
water, with the exception that this process will
evaluate fluorides from all exposures and restricts
the assessment to only the risks of cancer, rather
than all adverse heath effects. Proposition 65 was
enacted by voters of California in 1986 to assure
that warnings of cancer, birth defects, and
reproductive risks are publicly noticed so that
consumers and workers are informed of the presence
of such chemicals in the posted location, or of
their inclusion in products, so that individuals may
better control exposures and protections for
themselves. Prop 65 warnings are
commonly seen at gas stations and dry cleaning
establishments for environmental exposures to the
chemicals present, and bars and restaurants that
serve alcohol for products that may be ingested and
cause birth defects or reproductive harm. Perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA), another fluoride compound, was also
separately recommended for the highest priority
review. PFOAs, while
technically referring to a class of surfactants, are
most commonly recognized by laypersons for their
non-stick and non-penetration qualities, which are
the basis and sister-chemicals of such products as
Scotchgard, Teflon and GoreTex. Some of these
products are now to be phased out of production, and
restricted in future production, despite their high
profitability. Ranging from water
and oil repellants, to non-stain carpets and
couches, to waxed paper, this chemical class is
listed as used in aircraft production processes,
electronic products, personal care products, and
thought to be essential in the automotive, chemical,
medical, packaging and building/construction
industries. Dupont, the primary producer of PFOAs,
opposed the recommendation for priority review. Chemicals that
received a lower priority ranking are not expected
to receive a timely review. A summary of the
chemical prioritizations can now be accessed at:
The Comment on Fluoride and Its Salts produced by Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, of SENES Oak Ridge, Center for Risk Analysis, on behalf of IAOMT can be accessed on
OEHHA’s web site| Stand Alone Fluoride Removal Filter Systems | |||
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Single Filter systems | double filter system | Triple Filter systems | Whole House Filter |
