Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,129 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 471,813
Pageviews Today: 630,576Threads Today: 119Posts Today: 2,877
06:52 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study

 
Vishnu
06/13/2005 12:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
[link to www.rense.com]

Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
NYS Coalition Opposed To Fluoridation
6-7-5

NEW YORK (PRNewswire) -- White-spotted or yellow splotched teeth may reveal more than needed expensive cosmetic dentistry.

Children with fluoride-discolored teeth (dental fluorosis) are more likely to have bone damage, according to a study published in the journal "Fluoride."

Despite living in a low-water-fluoride district, 132 Tibetan children, aged 8 to 13-years-old, developed dental fluorosis from dietary fluoride sources such as brick tea, a popular Asian drink, fed to children as young as two years old. (1)

Wrist x-rays reveal that 96% of those children with dental fluorosis had "developmental skeletal abnormalities" including carpal bone hardening or thickening.

"Therefore, dental fluorosis in children should be viewed as more than a matter of cosmetic concern, since it can also be a sign of early-stage skeletal fluorosis that might lead to full-scale debilitating skeletal fluorosis in adulthood," write researchers Cao and colleagues.

Skeletal fluorosis with pain, stiffness and/or deforming bone defects, is common in Nalgonda, India (See: [link to www.nalgonda.org] )

To avoid skeletal fluorosis in the U.S., the maximum-contaminant-level of fluoride allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency is 4 parts per million (4 milligrams per liter).

But, some people exceed 4 milligrams daily from their diet, alone (2). Up to 63% of children living in optimally fluoridated areas (0.7 - 1.2 ppm) have dental fluorosis (3). More studies show a link between dental fluorosis and bone damage.

A British Medical Journal study reports that older white women from fluoridated communities have a 32% higher rate of wrist fracture. (4)

A Mexican study links dental fluorosis to bone fractures. (5)

Polish pediatricians found abnormal bone changes in 11 to 15 year-olds exhibiting dental fluorosis. (5a)

A Rheumatology International study links naturally fluoridated water to knee osteoarthritis in amounts many Americans consume daily. (6)

Early fluorosis warning signs include joint pain, stomach pain, excessive thirst and urination, muscle weakness, and/or anemia, especially if accompanied by discoloration in the patient´s front row of teeth, according to Dr. A.K. Susheela, Director of India´s Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation. (7)

A U.S. woman´s spine pain alleviated when she avoided fluoride.(8)

"Americans are unaware that their arthritis or irritable bowel syndrome could be fluoride-related," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

Additional bone/fluoride research can be found here:
[link to www.fluoridealert.org]

References:

(1)
[link to homepages.ihug.co.nz]

(2)
[link to iadr.confex.com]

(3)
[link to www.orgsites.com]

(4)
[link to www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]

5)
[link to www.fluoride-journal.com]

(5a) Chlebna-Sokól D(1), Czerwinski E(2), "Bone structure assessment on radiographs of distal radial metaphysis in children with dental fluorosis," Fluoride, 1993 26:l, 37-44.
[link to www.fluoridation.com]

(6)
[link to www.orgsites.com]

(7)
[link to education.vsnl.com]

(8)
[link to mednews.wustl.edu]
Contact:
Paul S. Beeber, President nyscof@aol.com
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263,
Old Bethpage, NY 11804

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation < [link to www.orgsites.com] >
[link to www.orgsites.com] < [link to www.orgsites.com] >

Fluoridation News Releases
< [link to tinyurl.com] > [link to tinyurl.com]
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
I use herbal tooth paste made in Germany,
contains salvia and chamomil, no flouride.!!!
Good for sanity and health.

The sheeple use flouride pastes.!!
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
Largely bullshit!

Dental fluorosis is EXTREMELY rare in areas where water is artifically fluoridated. It does occur where people ingest UNTREATED water which has high NATURAL levels of fluoride.

Nice try, cranks, but still dead wrong.

The facts, from Quackwatch:
( [link to www.quackwatch.org]

Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in most water supplies. Fluoridation is the adjustment of the natural fluoride concentration to about one part of fluoride to one million parts of water. Although fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay, the scare tactics of misguided poisonmongers have deprived many communities of its benefits.

The history of fluoridation in the United States underlines its unique standing as a public health measure copied from a natural phenomenon. In the early 1900s, Dr. Frederick S. McKay began an almost 30-year search for the cause of the staining of teeth that was prevalent in Colorado, where he practiced dentistry. In his investigation, McKay found the condition common in other states, including Texas, where it was known as "Texas teeth." In 1928, he concluded that such teeth, although stained, showed "a singular absence of decay," and that both the staining and the decay resistance were caused by something in the water. In 1931, the "something" was identified as fluoride.

The Public Health Service then took over to determine precisely what amount of fluoride in the water would prevent decay without causing staining. Years of "shoeleather epidemiology" by Dr. H. Trendley Dean traced the dental status of 7,000 children who drank naturally fluoridated water in 21 cities in four states. In 1943, he reported that the ideal amount of fluoride was one part per million parts of water. This concentration was demonstrated to result in healthy, attractive teeth that had one-third as many cavities as might otherwise be expected -- and no staining.

The next step was to determine whether water engineering could copy nature´s amazing dental health benefit. At several test sites, the fluoride concentration of the public water supply was adjusted to one part per million.

One such test was conducted in the neighboring cities of Newburgh and Kingston, New York. First, the children in both cities were examined by dentists and physicians; then fluoride was added to Newburgh´s water supply. After ten years, the children of Newburgh had 58% fewer decayed teeth than those of nonfluoridated Kingston. The greatest benefits were obtained by children who had drunk the fluoridated water since birth. Other studies showed that teeth made stronger by fluoride during childhood would remain permanently resistant to decay. As the evidence supporting fluoridation accrued, thousands of communities acted to obtain its benefits.

******Too much fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, which, in its mildest form, causes small, white, virtually invisible opaque areas on teeth. In severe form, fluorosis results in brownish mottling. However, dental fluorosis is not caused by artificial fluoridation, because the levels are kept low enough to avoid this effect.*****
Feeling
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
What did you say so much?I can´t understand.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
Flouride is rat poison give it to your children before you start propagating for the industry.!!

Bolony.!!!
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
Tooth decay damages children´s teeth. And that is a fact, not an unproven theory promoted by conspiracy wackos. If I have to choose between proven fact and the theory of some crank in making choices about my children´s health, I´ll go with proven fact every time.
BLUESTAR
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
Look at all the paid debunkers now coming on these threads! They stick out like waccos stick out in a crowd! "I´ll go with what big brother says!!" "and do as I´m told and be quiet!" Know what I say people? FUCK the debunkers! YOu know this shit is bad for us, thats why they´re all here debunking it....theres enough evidence out there to know its bad for you, without me telling you its bad for you....do a google search and you´ll find all the proof you need, and dont listen to these Government paid debunking wacco´s, because you´ll just run the risk of letting stooges feed you crap. Think for yourselves, do the google search!

_______________________________________

Heres a quick search I done and what I got:

Numerous studies demonstrate links between fluoridation and cancer; however, agencies promoting fluoride consistently refute or cover up these findings.

Even in the earliest days of fluoridation there were clear indications of the fluoride-cancer link. In the early 1950s Dr. Alfred Taylor, a biochemist at the University of Texas conducted a series of experiments in which cancer-prone mice consuming water treated with sodium fluoride were found to have shorter lifespans than similar mice drinking distilled water.(131) Taylor´s studies were carried out twice, because after the first run the scientist himself discovered that the chow that his mice had eaten had itself contained fluoride, thus clouding the results. On his own initiative, Taylor ran the whole experiment a second time. The second run, with mice fed fluoride-free chow, was conclusive. Clearly fluoride could no longer be considered a harmless additive to drinking water.(132)

John Remington Graham and Pierre-Jean Morin, in their exhaustive survey of fluoridation litigation(133) observe that "Taylor´s work was published at a politically sensitive time, because the last stages of the much-boasted surveys at Newburgh and Kingston were underway. The obvious meaning of Dr. Taylor´s results was that a possible danger to human health had been overlooked, and that widespread fluoridation should be delayed until the situation had been clarified. However, the ADA and the USPHS had already endorsed and begun the drive to promote fluoridation."(134)

What happened next is a classic study in denial. The Final Report published by the authors of the Newburgh-Kingston study refers only to the results of Taylor´s first round of tests, even though his second, conclusive round had been peer-reviewed and published over two years before. They wrote:

"The reports by Alfred Taylor, a biochemist at the University of Texas, on the increased incidence of cancer in mice drinking fluoride treated water have been shown to be unfounded, since the food he was giving the mice had many times the fluoride content of drinking water, and the food was supplied to both the control and the experimental groups. Subsequent tests did not confirm the differences."(135)

And this same denial has been repeated over and over for the succeeding 45 years by the United States Public Health Service and its affiliates. Graham and Morin cite a standard history of the National Institute of Dental Research, published over 35 years later, alleging that Dr. Taylor refrained from publishing his findings "because he was unable to confirm those results in a second experiment."(136) The author of this fabrication goes on to say that "a literature search of scientific journals failed to show any publication of this work by Taylor...."(137) Legal scholars Graham and Morin comment: "The most powerful forensic evidence of the importance of Dr. Taylor´s work is that the USPHS officials have done so much to conceal it."(138)

That was not to be the last study to reveal carcinogenic effects for fluoride, and it was not to be the last fluoride-related cover-up. In 1977, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Dean Burk, former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, released a study that linked fluoridation to 10,000 cancer deaths per year in the U.S. Their inquiry, which compared cancer deaths in the ten largest fluoridated American cities to those in the ten largest unfluoridated cities between 1940 and 1950, discovered a 5% greater rate in the fluoridated areas.(139) The NCI disputed these findings, since an earlier analysis of theirs apparently failed to pick up these extra deaths. Federal authorities claimed that Yiamouyiannis and Burk were in error, and that any increase was caused by statistical changes over the years in age, gender, and racial composition.(140)

In order to settle the question of whether or not fluoride is a carcinogen, a Congressional subcommittee instructed the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to perform another investigation.(141) That study, due in 1980, was not released until 1990. However, in 1986, while the study was delayed, the EPA raised the standard fluoride level in drinking water from 2.4 to 4 ppm.(142) After this step, some of the government´s own employees in NFFE Local 2050 took what the Oakland Tribune termed the "remarkable step of denouncing that action as political."(143)

When the NTP study results became known in early 1990, union president Dr. Robert Carton, who works in the EPA´s Toxic Substances Division, published a statement. It read, in part:

"Four years ago, NFFE Local 2050, which represents all 1100 professionals at EPA headquarters, alerted then Administrator Lee Thomas to the fact that the scientific support documents for the fluoride in drinking water standard were fatally flawed. The fluoride juggernaut proceeded as it apparently had for the last 40 years - without any regard for the facts or concern for public health.

"EPA raised the allowed level of fluoride before the results of the rat/mouse study ordered by Congress in 1977 was complete. Today, we find out how irresponsible that decision was. The results reported by NTP, and explained today by Dr. Yiamouyiannis, are, as he notes, not surprising considering the vast amount of data that caused the animal study to be conducted in the first place. The results are not surprising to NFFE Local 2050 either. Four years ago we realized that the claim that there was no evidence that fluoride could cause genetic effects or cancer could not be supported by the shoddy document thrown together by the EPA contractor.

"It was apparent to us that EPA bowed to political pressure without having done an in-depth, independent analysis, using in-house experts, of the currently existing data that show fluoride causes genetic effects, promotes the growth of cancerous tissue, and is likely to cause cancer in humans. If EPA had done so, it would have been readily apparent - as it was to Congress in 1977 - that there were serious reasons to believe in a cancer threat.

"The behavior by EPA in this affair raises questions about the integrity of science at EPA and the role of professional scientists, lawyers and engineers who provide the interpretation of the available data and the judgements necessary to protect the public health and the environment. Are scientists at EPA there to arrange facts to fit preconceived conclusions? Does the Agency have a responsibility to develop world-class experts in the risks posed by chemicals we are exposed to every day, or is it permissible for EPA to cynically shop around for contractors who will provide them the ´correct´ answers?"(144)

What were the NTP study results? Out of 130 male rats that ingested 45 to 79 ppm of fluoride, 5 developed osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. There were cases, in both males and females at those doses, of squamous cell carcinoma in the mouth.(145) Both rats and mice had dose-related fluorosis of the teeth, and female rats suffered osteosclerosis of the long bones.(146)

When Yiamouyiannis analyzed the same data, he found mice with a particularly rare form of liver cancer, known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma. This cancer is so rare, according to Yiamouyiannis, that the odds of its appearance in this study by chance are 1 in 2 million in male mice and l in 100,000 in female mice.(147) He also found precancerous changes in oral squamous cells, an increasein squamous cell tumors and cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors as a result of increasing levels of fluoride in drinking water.(148)

A March 13, 1990, New York Times article commented on the NTP findings:

"Previous animal tests suggesting that water fluoridation might pose risks to humans have been widely discounted as technically flawed, but the latest investigation carefully weeded out sources of experimental or statistical error, many scientists say, and cannot be discounted."(149)

In the same article, biologist Dr. Edward Groth notes: "The importance of this study...is that it is the first fluoride bioassay giving positive results in which the latest state-of-the-art procedures have been rigorously applied... It has to be taken seriously."(150)

On February 22, 1990, the Medical Tribune, an international medical news weekly received by 125,000 doctors, offered the opinion of a federal scientist who preferred to remain anonymous:

"It is difficult to see how EPA can fail to regulate fluoride as a carcinogen in light of what NTP has found. Osteosarcomas are an extremely unusual result in rat carcinogenicity tests. Toxicologists tell me that the only other substance that has produced this is radium....The fact that this is a highly atypical form of cancer implicates fluoride as the cause. Also, the osteosarcomas appeared to be dose-related, and did not occur in controls, making it a clean study."(151)

Public health officials were quick to assure a concerned public that there was nothing to worry about! The ADA said the occurrence of cancers in the lab may not be relevant to humans since the level of fluoridation in the experimental animals´ water was so high. But the Federal Register, which is the handbook of government practices, disagrees: "The high exposure of experimental animals to toxic agents is a necessary and valid method of discovering possible carcinogenic hazards in man. To disavow the findings of this test would be to disavow those of all such tests, since they are all conducted according to this standard."(152) As a February 5, 1990, Newsweek article pointed out, "such megadosing is standard toxicological practice. It´s the only way to detect an effect without using an impossibly large number of test animals to stand in for the humans exposed to the substance."(153) And as the Safer Water Foundation explains, higher doses are generally administered to test animals to compensate for the animals´ shorter life span and because humans are generally more vulnerable than test animals on a body-weight basis.(154)

Several other studies link fluoride to genetic damage and cancer. An article in Mutation Research says that a study by Proctor and Gamble, the very company that makes Crest toothpaste, did research showing that 1 ppm fluoride causes genetic damage.(155) Results were never published but Proctor and Gamble called them "clean," meaning animals were supposedly free of malignant tumors. Not so, according to scientists who believe some of the changes observed in test animals could be interpreted as precancerous.(156) Yiamouyiannis says the Public Health Service sat on the data, which were finally released via a Freedom of Information Act request in 1989. " Since they are biased, they have tried to cover up harmful effects," he says. "But the data speaks for itself. Half the amount of fluoride that is found in the New York City drinking water causes genetic damage."(157)

A National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences publication, Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, also linked fluoride to genetic toxicity when it stated that "in cultured human and rodent cells, the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberrations." (158) The result of this is not only birth defects but the mutation of normal cells into cancer cells. The Journal of Carcinogenesis further states that "fluoride not only has the ability to transform normal cells into cancer cells but also to enhance the cancer-causing properties of other chemicals." (159)

Surprisingly, the PHS put out a report called "Review of fluoride: benefits and risks," in which they showed a substantially higher incidence of bone cancer in young men exposed to fluoridated water compared to those who were not. The New Jersey Department of Health also found that the risk of bone cancer was about three times as high in fluoridated areas as in nonfluoridated areas.(160)

Despite cover-up attempts, the light of knowledge is filtering through to some enlightened scientists. Regarding animal test results, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, James Huff, does say that "the reason these animals got a few osteosarcomas was because they were given fluoride...Bone is the target organ for fluoride."(161) Toxicologist William Marcus adds that "fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA 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."(162)

Paul Connett notes that "some of the earliest opponents of fluoride were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation."(163) He cites Dr, James Sumner, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on enzyme chemistry, who says, "We ought to go slowly. Everybody knows fluorine and fluoride are very poisonous substances...We use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body. That is the reason things are poisoned; because the enzymes are poisoned and that is why animals and plants die."(164)

It is instructive to note that The fluoride compounds that are added to our drinking water are not pharmaceuticals. They are direct, unfiltered waste products of the aluminum and fertilizer industries.

[link to www.garynull.com]
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
bump
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
bumpo
Shadow Dancer
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
bump
...lisa
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
Fluoride is bad for humans and other living things. It is poisonous. The evidence is that the fluoride they add to our water rots our brains. It is not the same fluoride that is found naturally in water.
Google it.
The flouride they add to our water is a processing by-product that they didn´t know what else to do with, so they tell you it´s good for you and dump it in the water. It makes you easier to handle.
Seems to have worked wonders here in the states.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
yoda
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
Bump for importancebump
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
yoda
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
Fluoride= Rat poison
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Fluoride Damages Children´s Bones - Study
scream

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob