ctd

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/osteosarcoma.htm

:CDC continues to strongly support community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to prevent and control tooth decay and to improve overall health. Water fluoridation benefits people of all ages and socioeconomic groups, including those difficult to reach through other public health programs and private dental care. CDC has recognized community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. Those wishing to learn more about fluoridation can find CDC’s Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States and other information at www.cdc.gov/oralhealth.

References

Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 2006;17:421–428.

Douglass CW, Joshipura K. Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes and Control 2006;17:481–482.

National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA’s standards. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press, 2006.

Date last reviewed: November 21, 2007
Date last modified: August 9, 2007
Content source: Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion"

Following is an additional protest signed August 2007 to end water fluoridation NOW and signed by over 1000 health professionals including many eminent scientists from all over the world including Australia.

http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

Er......Fester, I'm still waiting for you to supply links to support the statement you made earlier about EPA scientists reviewing the research by others on water fluoridation:

"Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have reviewed th basic science that was the foundation for the claim that silicofluorides leach lead from the plumbing systems and found that many of the chemical assumptions made and statistical methods utilized in the original ecological study were scientifically unjustified"

Certainly Dickie. Here, for example, is a review of the Masters and Coplan study.

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/oralhealth/fluoridation/fl-142.pdf

What you need to show that water fluoridation is harmful is repeatable results from properly conducted scientific studies. So far, you have presented no such evidence, so all I then have to go by is the mass of scientific evidence which shows water fluoridation to be a safe and beneficial public health measure.

Providing links to petitions signed by concerned health professionals and eminent scientists reminds reminds me of the Oregon Institute Petition, often used as "evidence" by climate change denialists. An entertaining Wikipedia showing the scientific invalidity of this petitions can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Now then, Dickie, I'm all for changing my mind in light of credible evidence of harm from fluoridated water. What credible evidence do you need to convince you that it is safe, or do you just know that it is harmful?

Fester

Your knickers are truly in a knot.

You are clearly unable to submit any report verifying your claim that scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency were in agreement that silicofluorides are safe.

You continue to dredge up obsolete research links (CDPHE 1999), unrelated to the EPA, and research which was performed deriving hypotheses stated in reports as far back as '88-94 including a 1992 census.

Citing the Wikipedia Oregon petition is just silly. This petition (1998) denying global warming with pathetic attempts to mimic a journal from the National Academy, has long been proven a fake. "Scientists'" signatures included rock stars, pets and dead relatives and was instigated by former oil and tobacco barons.

If you truly want to verify the signatures in the report I posted:

http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

why don't you contact the 60 odd health professionals, including toxicologists, chemists, radiologists, medical doctors, dentists, engineers, dieticians, biologists, haz. waste experts, health minister, nurses, metallurgists etc from Australia who signed this petition in protest against water fluoridation? That's easily done. Of course if you wish to keep your head buried in the sand then don't bother.

No pro-fluoride consortium has conclusively proven that it is safe to consume this industrial chemical and no analyses on either side are definitive.

However, both sides are in agreement that fluoride is poisonous and mis-use and excess consumption of this industrial waste creates serious (though often insidious) health impacts on humans.

Only you (seemingly totally unqualified) appear to insist that the evidence is conclusive where you endeavour to violate the principles of sound medical and environmental ethics by describing opponents as the "lunatic fringe."

Therefore, when large numbers of citizens are in doubt, freedom of choice is paramount - a choice you insist should not be available to those who oppose you!

"You are clearly unable to submit any report verifying your claim that scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency were in agreement that silicofluorides are safe."

That was not what I claimed at all, Dickie. The information I cited was bassed the relation on silicofluorides and lead. It referred to the work by two EPA (US) scientists, Edward T. Urbansky and Michael R. Schock. A link to their research, which concluded,

"Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio-accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(II) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fluorosilicates under drinking water conditions."

is here

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a770518713~db=all

You seem impressed with a petition signed by eminent scientists, but I would ask you what scientific fact has been proven by a petition of eminent? My understanding is that no scientific fact has been proven by this means, so your petition has no scientific validity of itself. What matters is the scientific evidence it is based on.

So far, the only scientific evidence for harm from water fluoridation that you have cited is one (yes one) observational study, where the author concludes:

"Further research is required to confirm or refute this observation."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w51278475h35l456/

In other words, the author states that the study is not a basis for making a judgement.

"No pro-fluoride consortium has conclusively proven that it is safe to consume this industrial chemical and no analyses on either side are definitive."

Water fluoridation is safe and beneficial by the mass of scientific evidence. Even you, Dickie, such a vocal antifluoridationist, can cite no scientifically valid evidence for water fluoridation being harmful.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2120594.htm

The above thread is interesting for a country where all states except Queensland has fluoridated water which has been used in Australia for some 50 years.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~fluoride/2002%20Final%20Website%20Files/fluoride_pollution_in_wa.htm