- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Invest, Diversify, Integrate Your Financial Life
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Comunidad Hispana de AARP
- Dogs, Cats and Pets
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Love, Sex & Dating
- Our Front Porch
- Random Thoughts and Conversations
- Singles Perspective Revisited
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Rewards for Good
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Good News
- Entertainment Archive
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Re: Fluoride and Cancer
The final nail on the box dismissing the cancer claims was the 2011 California Carcinogen ID Committee determination by unanimous vote that fluoride does not cause cancer at ANY concentration.
California has all of the submissions made to the committee for consideration, including those from Fluoride Action Network and other opponents here:
No systematic review before or since has found fluoridation related to cancer cases. Why would America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians and Internal Medicine specialists advocate for fluoridation if it causes cancer?
Re: Fluoride and Cancer
let's talk about water fluoridation & Cancer. The American Cancer Society seems to have reached different conclusions than you & fluoridealert regarding interpretations of quality studies.
This is the American Cancer Society's discussion in its entirety. (The ACS doesn't take money from Alternative Health snake-oil salesmen who benefit from any form of paranoia, Fluoridealert does.)
"What have studies found?
More than 50 population-based studies have looked at the potential link between water fluoride levels and cancer. Most of these have not found a strong link to cancer. Just about all of the studies have been retrospective (looking back in time). They have compared, for example, the rates of cancer in a community before and after water fluoridation, or compared cancer rates in communities with lower levels of fluoride in drinking water to those with higher levels (either naturally or due to fluoridation). Some factors are hard to control for in these types of studies (that is, the groups being compared may be different in ways other than just the drinking water), so the conclusions reached by any single study must be looked at with caution.
And there are other issues that make this topic hard to study. For example, if fluoridation is a risk factor, is the type of fluoride used important? Also, is there a specific level of fluoride above which the risk is increased, or a certain amount of time or an age range during which a person would need to be exposed?
Osteosarcoma is a rare cancer. Only about 400 cases are diagnosed in children and teens each year in the United States. This means it can be hard to gather enough cases to do large studies. Smaller studies can usually detect big differences in cancer rates between 2 groups, but they might not be able to detect small differences. If fluoride increased the risk only slightly, it might not be picked up by these types of studies.
Assessments by expert groups
Small studies by themselves might not provide the answers, but taken as a whole they tend to have more weight. Several systematic reviews over the past 25 years have looked at all of the studies published on this subject.
In its review published in 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, labeled fluorides as “non-classifiable as to their carcinogenicity [ability to cause cancer] in humans.” While they noted that the studies “have shown no consistent tendency for people living in areas with high concentrations of fluoride in the water to have higher cancer rates than those living in areas with low concentrations,” they also noted that the evidence was inadequate to draw conclusions one way or the other.
In 1991, the US Public Health Service issued a report on the benefits and risks of fluoride. When looking at a possible link with cancer, they first reviewed the results of studies done with lab animals. They concluded that the few studies available “fail[ed] to establish an association between fluoride and cancer.” They also looked at population-based studies, including a large study conducted by the National Cancer Institute. They concluded: “Optimal fluoridation of drinking water does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data available to date, including the new studies prepared for this report.”
The National Research Council (NRC), part of the National Academies, issued a report titled “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride” in 1993. Its conclusion was that “the available laboratory data are insufficient to demonstrate a carcinogenic effect of fluoride in animals.” They also concluded that “the weight of the evidence from the epidemiological [population-based] studies completed to date does not support the hypothesis of an association between fluoride exposure and increased cancer risk in humans.” The report recommended that additional well-designed studies be done to look at the possible link to cancers, especially osteosarcomas.
In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, published a systematic review of water fluoridation in the year 2000. After searching through the medical literature, they included 26 studies in their analysis, all of which were considered to be of “low” to “moderate” quality. They concluded, “Overall, no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer, or all cancers was found.” However, they also noted, “Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.”
The National Research Council issued an update of its 1993 review in early 2006. While the review included some new data, the results of this report were essentially the same: “On the basis of the committee’s collective consideration of data from humans, genotoxicity assays, and studies of mechanisms of actions in cell systems, the evidence on the potential of fluoride to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, is tentative and mixed.”
The European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reviewed the evidence on water fluoridation in 2010. It concluded that the evidence linking fluoride in water to osteosarcoma was “equivocal,” and that therefore “fluoride cannot be classified as to its carcinogenicity.”
In 2011, the state of California’s Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) reviewed the evidence and concluded that “fluoride and its salts has not been clearly shown to cause cancer.”
The general consensus among the reviews done to date is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer. However, several of the reviews noted that further studies are needed to clarify the possible link.
More recent research
Several studies looking at a possible link between water fluoridation and cancer have been published in recent years.
A partial report of a study from the Harvard School of Public Health, published in 2006, found that exposure to higher levels of fluoride in drinking water was linked to a higher risk of osteosarcoma in boys but not in girls. However, researchers linked to the study noted that early results from a second part of the study did not appear to match those of the report. They therefore advised caution in interpreting the results.
The second part of the Harvard study, published in 2011, compared the fluoride levels in bones near tumors in people with osteosarcoma to the levels in people with other types of bone tumors. The researchers found no difference between the fluoride levels in the two groups.
More recent studies have compared the rates of osteosarcoma in areas with higher versus lower levels of fluoridation in Great Britain, Ireland, and the United States. These studies have not found an increased risk of osteosarcoma in areas of water fluoridation."
Re: Fluoridation Safety is Uncertain, Researchers Report
to go through everything you said would take up too much time & space for this thread (Waldbott has already been addressed. Even he said that he was relying on “clues” for his diagnoses.)
Nevertheless, at random, I picked one of your cited comments and took a close look at it.
I took a look at the first link you provided, NRC. It led me to a webpage on “Fluoridealert,” an organization which is funded by people who benefit from the paranoia they generate (a discussion for another time perhaps – but please, feel free to ask me about it).
This is what it says on Fluoridealert: “The National Research Council’s report concluded that EPA’s safe drinking water standard (4 ppm) for fluoride is unsafe and “should be lowered.”
Response: That is true, and I would agree with that. 4 ppm also happens to be more than 5 ½ more fluoride than the optimal level of 0.7. People who fluoridate their water do not put in 4 ppm F.
No, NRC didn’t say that. NRC recommended lowering the EPA MCL from 4 ppm to 2 ppm. 2 ppm is also higher than the optimal level of 0.7 ppm.
Also on the Fluoridealert webpage are quotes which appear in the final NRC Report. Most of them have nothing to do with optimally fluoridated water. However, one of the tasks of the NRC was to report on the literature that exists on fluoride in water. So, when we see quotes like this:
““Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). As noted above, osteosarcoma is of particular concern as a potential effect of fluoride because of (1) fluoride deposition in bone, (2) the mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells, (3) animal results described above, and (4) pre-1993 publication of some positive, as well as negative, epidemiologic reports on associations of fluoride exposure with osteosarcoma risk.“
It means the NRC is reporting on literature that exists. Some of it has been debunked. Nowhere does the NRC say that optimally fluoridated water can lead to cancer, or that there is a risk of getting cancer from it.
Quotes like these must be taken in their proper context.
My point is, when I see people like you, whether you intended to or not, maybe you were just duped, saying things that are blatantly untrue (“three expert committees (NRC, SCHER, YORK) revealed "that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation," they report.”), my initial reaction is that ‘You guys are lying.’
And when you say things like, “Fluoridation promoters ignore or deny valid evidence,” my response is that at least people who support the scientific consensus have enough intelligence to rely on informed opinions about random quotes which have been taken out of context by organizations who benefit financially from the paranoia they generate.
Fluoride and Cancer
Chromosomal anomalies and Primary DNA Damage: Tiwari (2010) “Our study
has supported the role of As [arsenic] and F [fluoride] as potent genotoxic agents, since in vitro exposure of both caused increased chromosomal anomalies along with primary DNA damage, in human peripheral blood cultures.”
Known Carcinogen: Zhang (2009) “Twenty four agents were used to evaluate this screening assay. We selected the agents, ranging from DNA alkylating agents, oxidative agent, radiation, DNAcrosslinking agent, nongenotoxic carcinogens, precarcinogenic agents, which included . . . sodium fluoride, acrylamide . . . . The results showed that all 20 tested known carcinogenic and genotoxic agents were able to induce gadd153-Luc expression at a sublethal dose.. . . .”
Known Genotoxic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic: Ercivas (2009) “In this study we
concluded that NaF, in 5 and 10 lg/ml NaF concentrations cause genotoxic alterations. So genotoxic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects of NaF need to be carefully screened and evaluated together with other long-term effects using in vitro and in vivo animal test models.”
Known Genotoxic: Kleinsasser (2001) “For fluoride concentrations of 2 ppm to 35 ppm, non vital cells of less than 10% could be shown. After incubation with 71 ppm and 213 ppm Olaflur, there were 15% and 43% of damaged cells, respectively. Weak genotoxic effects on mucosal cells as well as on lymphocytes could be demonstrated at all concentrations tested. In fluoride concentrations of 213 ppm genotoxicity increased to max.”
Known DNA Damage: Chen (2000) “To investigate the effects of fluoride on DNA damage
as well as the effects of selenium and zinc against fluoride respectively or jointly in pallium neural cells of rats, single cell gel electrophoresis was used to detect the DNA damage of neural cells prepared in vitro. The results showed that the degree of DNA damage in the fluoride group and the selenium group were significantly greater than that in control group (P < 0.01). The damage in the fluoride group was even more serious. The damage in the fluoride + selenium group and fluoride + zinc group was slighter than that in the fluoride group but with no significant difference. The extent of DNA damage in the fluoride + selenium + zinc group was significantly slighter than that in the fluoride group(P < 0.05). It suggested that fluoride and selenium could induce DNA damage in pallium neural cells of rats respectively.”
Known Genotoxic Rivedal (2000) ”In the present work, 13 compounds [chlordane, Arochlor 1260, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,1,1-trichloro-2, 2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethane, limonene, sodium fluoride, ethionine, o-anisidine, benzoyl peroxide, o-vanadate, phenobarbital, 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol 13-acetate and clofibrate] have been tested for their ability to induce morphological transformation and affect intercellular communication in Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cells… In vitro morphological transformation of SHE cells is now one of the most frequently used cell transformation systems. Around 500 chemicals have been tested in this system, and a good correlation has been obtained with the ability of compounds from different chemical groups to cause tumours in animals and humans. The SHE cell transformation assay also responds to tumour promoters and carcinogens not detected by tests for genotoxicity… [N]ine of the 13 tested substances (TPA, o-vanadate, DEPH, phenobarbital, Arochlor 1260, clofibrate, o-anisidine, limonene and NaF) are considered positive for induction of morphological transformation.”
Known Genotoxic: Mihashi (2000)“Significant increases in the frequencies of chromosome aberrations were induced in a dose- and treatment time-dependent fashion when NaF was administered to [rat vertebral bone] cells at 0.5 and 1.0 mM for 24 and 48 h. The results indicate that NaF is genotoxic to rat vertebrae, providing a possible mechanism for the vertebrae, as a target organ of NaF carcinogenesis.”
Known Genotoxic: Khalil (1995) “The genotoxic effects of inorganic fluorides were investigated by treating cultured rat bone marrow cells with varying concentrations (0.1-100 microM) of potassium fluoride (KF) and sodium fluoride (NaF) for different durations (12, 24 and 36 h) and measuring the incidence of cells with aberrations and number of breaks per cell. Both forms of fluoride were found to be weak mutagens relative to the positive control N-methyl-N-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG). A specificity of fluoride ion in inducing chromosome aberrations (CA) was indicated by the observation that both NaF and KF behaved almost equivalently in this study and at significantly higher variations from the results with potassium chloride (KCl) and sodium chloride (NaCl).”
Known Mutagen: Gritsan (1993) “The testing of hydrogen fluoride (HF) for its mutagenic activity by fumigation of barley seedlings showed that the mutation rate was linear with dose. It was found that the cytogenic effects of gaseous fluoride on grain crops was correlated with the fluoride content in plant tissue.”
Chromosome Aberrations - early cell cycle dependent: Hayashi (1993) “A
significant increase in the incidence of chromosome aberrations was observed only in cultures treated with NaF during early and/or middle S phases of cell cycle. These results suggest that cytotoxicity and clastogenicity of NaF to cultured human diploid fibroblasts are cell cycle dependent, and that the cells in early and middle S phases are more sensitive to the effects.”
Species Dependent Kishi (1993) “Conflicting evidence has been reported concerning the mutagenicity of sodium fluoride (NaF), especially clastogenicity at concentrations of more than 1 mM. NaF is known to induce chromosome aberrations at these concentrations in human cells, but not in most rodent cells. We considered that such species-specific difference in chromosomal sensitivity would be derived from the phylogenetic distance between rodents and man. To clarify the role of interspecies differences, we investigated the chromosomal sensitivity to NaF in cell lines from various primates, which diverged into many species, including rodent-like prosimians and human-like great apes. The results showed that the clastogenicity of NaF was limited to human and great ape cells. . . . .”
Induction of mutagenic effects: “We tested the induction of mutagenic effects by in vivo and in vitro bone marrow micronucleus tests. A significant increase in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was observed 24 H after intraperitoneal injection of sodium fluoride at a dose of 30 mg/kg body weight. In the in vitro micronucleus test, the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was increased significantly at concentrations of 2 and 4 mM. These results indicate that the micronucleus test may be useful in evaluating the cancer risk of sodium fluoride.”
Induce mutations: “Sodium fluoride was found to induce gene-locus mutations at the thymidine kinase (tk) and hypoxanthine guanine phosphoribosyl transferase (hgprt) loci in human lymphoblastoid cells.”
Aberrations dependent on cell cycle: Suzuki (1989) “Inducibility of chromosome
aberrations of the cells following treatment with sodium fluoride was also dependent upon the phase of cell cycle.”
Promotes Cancer: Jones (1988) “Sequential treatment of Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cells with a chemical carcinogen followed by sodium fluoride (NaF) resulted in a higher yield of morphologically transformed cell colonies than treatment of the cells with carcinogen alone… This enhancement/promotion of cell transformation by NaF was only expressed after the cells had been pretreated with either directacting carcinogens or procarcinogens.”
Randy, some more to follow.
 Tiwari H, Rao MV. (2010). Curcumin supplementation protects from genotoxic effects of arsenic and fluoride. Food & Chemical Toxicology 48(5):1234-8.
 Kleinsasser NH, et al. (2001). [Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of fluorides in human mucosa and lymphocytes]. Laryngorhinootologie 80(4):187-90.
 Chen J, et al. (2000). [Effects of selenium and zinc on the DNA damage caused by fluoride in pallium neural cells of rats]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 29(4):216-7.
 Rivedal E, et al. (2000). Morphological transformation and effect on gap junction intercellular communication in Syrian hamste... embryo cells as screening tests for carcinogens devoid of mutagenic activity. Toxicology In Vitro 14(2):185-92.
 Mihashi M, Tsutsui T. (1996). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral body-derived cells in culture. Mutation Research 368:7-13.
 Khalil AM. (1995). Chromosome aberrations in cultured rat bone marrow cells treated with inorganic fluorides. Mutation Research 343:67-74.
 Gritsan, NP. (1993). Cytogenetic effects of gaseous fluorides on grain crops. Fluoride 26: 23-32.
 Hayashi N, Tsutsui T. (1993). Cell cycle dependence of cytotoxicity and clastogenicity induced by treatment of synchronized human diploid fibroblasts with sodium fluoride. Mutation Research 290: 293-302.
 Kishi K, Ishida T. (1993). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells. Mutation Research 301:183-8.
 Crespi CL, et al. (1990). Sodium fluoride is a less efficient human cell mutagen at low concentrations. Environmental Molecular Mutagenesis 15:71-7.
 Suzuki N, Tsutsui T. (1989). [Dependence of lethality and incidence of chromosome aberrations induced by treatment of synchronized human diploid fibroblasts with sodium fluoride on different periods of the cell cycle]. [Article in Japanese] Shigaku. 77(2): 436-47.
 Jones CA, et al. (1988). Sodium fluoride promotes morphological transformation of Syrian hamster embryo cells. Carcinogenesis 9: 2279-84.
Fluoride and Cancer
Lets look at some studies.
Fluoride exposure is systemic, potentially affecting all tissues. Evidence is mounting that age and “timing” along with dosage, host health, race, and synergistic chemicals are all significant.
Known Carcinogen: Pal (2014): Fluoride, a well-established environmental carcinogen, has been found to cause various neurodegenerative diseases in human. Sub-acute exposure to fluoride at a dose of 20mg/kgb.w./day for 30 days caused significant alteration in pro-oxidant/anti-oxidant status of brain tissue as reflected by perturbation of reduced glutathione content, increased lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation, nitric oxide and free hydroxyl radical production and decreased activities of antioxidant enzymes. Decreased proteolytic and transaminase enzymes' activities, protein and nucleic acid contents and associated DNA damage were observed in the brain of fluoride intoxicated rats. The neurotransmitters dopamine (DA), norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin level was also significantly altered after fluoride exposure. Protective effect of resveratrol on fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative dysfunctions was evaluated. Resveratrol was found to inhibit changes in metabolic activities restoring antioxidant status, biogenic amine level and structural organization of the brain. Our findings indicated that resveratrol imparted antioxidative role in ameliorating fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative stress in different regions of the brain.
Known Carcinogen: McCully (2009) “. . . Depletion of thioretinaco ozonide from cellular membranes is suggested to underlie the carcinogenic and atherogenic effects of fluoride and other electrophilic carcinogens.”
Known carcinogen (increase incidence): Marigold (1969) explained that fluoride has a paradoxical action on cancer. Some of the most effective anti-cancer drugs have contained fluoride and yet other inorganic fluoride compounds are powerful carcinogens such as dimethylaminoazobenzene who’s cancer-producing ability is enhanced seven times as much as by substitution of fluoride with other halogens.
Known carcinogen (chronic exposure - shorter life span): Taylor (1954) carried out a total of 12 experiments involving 645 mice. The data indicated that drinking water containing as little as 1ppm of fluoride shortened the life span of cancer-prone mice by an average of 9%, regardless of whether they died of cancer or another disease. In contrast, 1953, Fleming36 transplanted sarcoma 37 into young adult mice and guinea pigs. For a few weeks, one group received 20 ppm NaF in drinking water and another 1,000 ppm intraperitoneally while controls received no fluoride. The fluoride treated animals lived longer, lost less weight and had tumors inhibited by fluoride. One striking difference between Taylor’s and Flemming’s studies is “time and dosage,” Taylor had chronic low dose exposure while Flemming had acute high dose.
Known carcinogenic: Taylor (1965) reported observations from 54 experiments, 991 mice bearing transplanted tumors and 58 experiments with 1817 eggs implanted with mouse cancer tissue. Sodium fluoride accelerated the growth of cancer tissue. Taylor’s work has been repeatedly confirmed. Note: Talyor’s first study was criticized because he did not control the fluoride in animal feed, probably CaF. His subsequent work did control for total fluoride exposure and the results were confirmed.
Known Carcinogen: Suzuki (1991) “We tested the induction of mutagenic effects by in vivo and in vitro bone marrow micronucleus tests. A significant increase in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was observed 24 H after intraperitoneal injection of sodium fluoride at a dose of 30 mg/kg body weight. In the in vitro micronucleus test, the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was increased significantly at concentrations of 2 and 4 MM. These results indicate that the micronucleus test may be useful in evaluating the cancer risk of sodium fluoride.”39
Known Carcinogen: Pati (1987) “Genotoxicity of Sodium fluoride was evaluated in mice in vivo with the help of different cytogenetic assays.
Known Carcinogen: Tazhibaev (1987) “The test animals were fed with low-grade food during 2-5 months under conditions of acute and chronic action of hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride induced by inhalation, that resulted in the pronounced impairment of the chromosomal apparatus of the bone marrow cells in the rats. A principal possibility has been established of modification of the hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride cytogenetic effect by the alimentary action. In particular, it has been found that the effect is significantly higher when the rats are fed with a low-grade ration than under conditions of balanced nutrition.”
NTP mutagenic: According to the National Toxicology Program “the preponderance of evidence” from laboratory “in vitro” studies indicate that fluoride is a mutagenic compound. Many substances which are mutagens, are also carcinogens. As is typical for in vitro studies, the concentrations of fluoride that have generally been tested were usually, but not always, higher (millimolar levels) than the concentrations found in human blood (micromolar levels). In Khalil (1995), the authors found a statistically significant mutagenic effect at a concentration of just 1 micromole (0.019 ppm). This is similar to blood fluoride concentrations among individuals living in fluoridated communities. More recent research has found effects at 24 uM (Zhang 2009) and 34 uM (Tiwari & Rao 2010).
The relevance of the in vitro findings are further amplified by the fact that there are certain “microenvironments” in the body, such as the bones (3,708 ppm Eble DM 1992 JPHD), teeth, kidney (50 fold increase over plasma, NRC 2006), bladder, and pineal gland (21,000 ppm, Luke 1997; 2001), where the cells can be exposed to fluoride levels many times higher than the fluoride levels found in the blood (between none detected and 0.01 ppm).
Bone mineral is regularly broken down by osteoclasts as part of the bone remodeling process, the fluoride sequestered in bones (and other tissues) may be periodically released, exposing bone cells to increased fluoride concentrations. This might help explain why fluoride has been associated, in both human and animal studies, with osteosarcoma (bone cancer). One in vitro study, for example, found that 10 to 19 ppm fluoride caused mutagenic effects in bone cells after 24 to 48 hours of exposure. (Mihashi 1996). According to the authors:
Known Carcinogen: “Significant increases in the frequencies of chromosome aberrations were induced in a dose- and treatment time-dependent fashion when NaF was administered to [rat vertebral bone] cells at 0.5 and 1.0 mM [=9.5 to 19 ppm] for 24 and 48 h. The results indicate that NaF is genotoxic to rat vertebrae, providing a possible mechanism for the vertebrae, as a target organ of NaF carcinogenesis.”
Known Genetic Damage: Humans and apes have been found to be more susceptible to fluoride-induced genetic damage than rodent cells. (Kishi 1993). Chromosome breaks occurred in human and ape cells at fluoride concentrations (19 to 114 ppm) that had no effects on rodent cells. (Note: Fluoride varnish is 22,600 ppm)
Known Mutagenic: 1990 NTP “In summary, sodium fluoride is mutagenic in cultured mammalian cells and produces transformation of Syrian hamster cells in vitro. The reports of in vivo cytogenetic studies are mixed, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in cultured mammalian cells. These mutagenic and clastogenic effects in cultured cells are supported by positive effects in Drosophila germ cell tests that measure point mutations and chromosome breakage. In vivo tests in rodents for chromosome aberrations provide mixed results that cannot readily be resolved because of differences in protocols and insufficient detail in some study reports to allow a thorough analysis. The mechanism(s) by which these effects result from exposure to sodium fluoride is not known.”
Preponderance of Evidence: 2001 Bassin “The effects of fluoride as a mutagen, carcinogen, and antimutagen are inconsistent, but the preponderance of evidence in cultured mammalian cells indicate that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges.”
Capable: 1993 Environment Canada “Fluoride (as sodium fluoride) should be considered capable of inducing chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, and sister-chromatid exchanges in vitro in mammalian cells, although the results from such studies have been inconsistent.”
Genotoxic: 1991 HHS “Genotoxicity studies are highly dependent on the methods used… Despite the apparently contradictory reports appearing in the published literature, fluoride has not been shown to be mutagenic in bacteria (Ames test). In some studies fluoride has been reported to induce gene mutations in both cultured rodent and human cells. Fluoride has also been reported to transform rodent cells in vitro. Although there is disagreement in the literature concerning the ability of fluoride to be a clastogen (induce chromosome aberrations) in cultured cells, it has been suggested that fluoride can cause chromosome aberrations in rodent and human cells. Fluoride induced primarily chromatid gaps and chromatid breaks, indicating that the cells are most responsive in the G stage of the cell cycle, i.e., after chromosome duplication in preparation for cell division. Negative results reported in some cytogenetic studies are likely the effect of inadequate test protocols…. Although the mechanism(s) by which these cellular effects result from exposure to fluoride is not known, a number of possible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the genetic activity observed. These mechanisms have been based on the observed reactions of fluoride in solution with divalent cations or necleotides, or the physiological and inhibition protein synthesis, or a result of the direct inhibition of DNA polymerase. Fluoride can react with divalent cations in the cell so as to affect enzyme activities that are necessary for DNA or RNA synthesis, or chromosome metabolism or maintenance; it may react directly with DNA as part of a complex; or it ca disrupt other cellular processes such as cell differentiation or energy metabolism.”
Airborne Fluoride: “Fluoride has displayed mutagenic activity in studies of vegetation, insects, and mammalian oocytes. There is a high correlation between carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of pollutants, and fluoride has been one of the major pollutants in several situations where a high incidence of respiratory cancer has been observed. For these reasons, the relation between airborne fluoride and incidence of lung cancer needs to be investigated.”
More to follow:
 Pal S, Sarkar C, Protective effect of resveratrol on fluoride induced alteration in protein and nucleic acid metabolism, DNA damage and biogenic amines in rat brain Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014 Sep;38(2):684-99. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2014.07.009. Epub 2014 Jul 23.
 McCully KS, Chemical pathology of homocysteine. IV. Excitotoxicity, oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, and inflammation., Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2009 Summer;39(3):219-32
 Marhold, J. and Matrka, M.: Ca=inogenicity and Oxidation of Fluoro- Derivatives of Dimethylaminoazobenzene. Fluoride 2:85, Apri11969.
 Taylor, A.: Sodium fluoride in Drinking Water of Mice. Dental Digest, 60:170, 1954.
 Fleming, H,S.: Effect of fluorides on the Tumors 37 After Trans- plantation to Selected Locations in Mice and Guinea Pigs. Journ. of Dent. Res. 32:646, October 1953
 Taylor, A.: Effect of Sodium fluoride on Tumor Growth. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Med. 119:252-5, 1965.
 Pati PC, Bhunya SP. (1987). Genotoxic effect of an environmental pollutant, sodium fluoride, in mammalian in vivo test system. Caryologia 40:79-87.
 Tazhibaev ShS, et al. (1987). [Modifying effect of nutrition on the mutagenic activity of phosphorus and fluorine compounds.] Vopr Pitan. Jul-Aug;(4):63-6.
 Mihashi M, Tsutsui T. (1996). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral body-derived cells in culture. Mutation Research 368(1):7-13.
 National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). biochemical responses of cells treated with fluoride. Sodium fluoride inhibits both protein and DNA synthesis in cultured mammalian cells. The inhibition of DNA synthesis may be a seco...Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
 Bassin EB. (2001). Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Ostosarcoma for Children and Adolescents. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine. p. 15.
 Environment Canada. (1993). Inorganic Fluorides: Priority Substances List Assessment Report. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
 Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride. Washington, DC. p. 70. (There is also an abbreviated report)
Fluoride and Cancer
Lets talk science rather concensus. Remember, the masses can be wrong. Marketing can change public opinion.
The next few posts will be just a touch on one aspect of fluoride, carcinogenicity.
The “biological plausibility” of a fluoride-osteosarcoma link (and other cancers) is widely acknowledged in the scientific literature. When the connection between a chemical and a cancer is biologically plausible, studies that detect an association between the two are taken more seriously.
Three lines of plausibility in a fluoride/cancer connection:
1 Ames 1976, reported about 90% of organic compounds that were found to be mutagenic are also carcinogenic.
2 Tissues such as bone, bladder, kidney, brain, are principal sites for fluoride accumulation in the body, and the rate of accumulation is increased during periods tissue turn over, such as for bone the development and osteoclastic osteoblastic activity.
3 Fluoride is a mitogen. For example, osteosarcoma is a cancer caused by an abnormal proliferation of the osteoblasts.
All tissues which come in contact with higher concentrations of fluoride should be considered for a fluoride cancer connection.
In short, fluoride’s ability to induce mutagenic damage in fluoride-rich environments coupled with its ability to stimulate proliferation of osteoblasts provides a compelling biological basis by which fluoride could cause, or contribute to cancer. The only relatively “static” tissue high in fluoride appears to be dentin. Cancer of the dentin or enamel is not reported.
 Ames, BN et al, Mutagens and carcinogens. Science, 194:132-133, 1976.
Next, lets look at a snipet of studies.
The scientific consensus continues to support CWF
Richard Sauerheber – What “we’ve already gone over” are examples of your extremely biased and often demonstrably false, unproven (and/or misleading and irrelevant) opinions and speculations of what the body of evidence on fluoridation means.
As a perfect example, you just claimed, “Adding fluoride into water that fluoridationists deem is somehow created deficiently is ineffective, harmful, and in violation of Federal water law. The FDA has never approved of fluoride ingestion and ruled that added fluoride in water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug.” Provide a citation to the specific “Federal water law” you believe fluoridation violates. Provide a citation to the FDA ruling that community water fluoridation is “uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug”. Explain why, if your claims are valid, the FDA regulates bottled water which can contain the same fluoride levels as found in optimally fluoridated water as a “Food. Also, what exactly do you mean by “water that fluoridationists deem is somehow created deficiently”. and how that statement is that relevant to anything?
Do you reject out-of-hand the references provided that demonstrate a benefit of community water fluoridation (CWF)?
Do you reject out-of-hand the scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure? You certainly have provided no alternative except a non-scientific outlier consensus.
Fluoridation Safety is Uncertain, Researchers Report
Fluoridation promoters ignore or deny valid evidence, produced by experts in their fields and respected science groups, showing that fluoridation science has not been settled according to researchers in the Journal of Risk Research, August 2016.
Further, fluoridationists themselves carry out what they acuse others of doing. They share onl partial, biased information in order to support their case and convey informaton in terms that misrepresent the truth, write researchers, Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz
From the beginning, respected US scientists and physicians criticized fluoridation but were ignored (i.e., Waldbott). Voices of opposition were suppressed since the early days, according to Chemical and Engineering News.
Criticism persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Chemical & Engineering News, Newsweek and ABC-TV. In fact, US public health bureaucrats ignore their own published evidence of fluoride's potential harm i.e. New York State Department of Health and Virginia Department of Health.
Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz explain that some studies, including recent ones, show no benefit from fluoridation; some even report adverse effects and that those studies were ignored by officials.
They add, "A Cochrane systematic review (2015) "concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis [discolored teeth]."
I trust the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.
CarryAnne – As noted previously, you are demanding that AARP “Take Action” and oppose community water fluoridation (CWF) based on outlier interpretations of the 70+ year body of scientific evidence and your so-called “civil dialogue”.
You seem to believe that challenging your outlier conclusions is unacceptable.
My claim is that if fluoridation opponents (FOs) were able to produce legitimate scientific evidence that proved the risks of harm from CWF were greater than the benefits of reducing the risk of dental decay – and known health problems decay can cause – the scientific consensus would change. That is how science works – no consensus is protected from challenge and possible change. However, if the consensus were subject to change Demanded by individuals who do not have relevant training and experience (or by a minority of individuals who do have scientific training and experience), or by random change (basically the same thing), science would cease to be an effective tool for understanding the universe or providing safe, effective health care.
As with virtually any scientific or health issue with a massive body of evidence (vaccinations – or nearly any other health issue, climate change, evolution, etc.), it is possible to produce “evidence” and “opinions” that apparently support completely contradictory conclusions. The fact is that all of these issues are extremely complex and listing “evidence” and “opinions” proves nothing.
Individuals and groups that support either conclusion can try to convince members of the public (most of whom do not have the training or experience to actually understand and evaluate the evidence for themselves) by publishing their interpretation of the evidence, or they can provide legitimate evidence that will change the conclusions of their peers – other scientists. Which method do you believe is an effective method for formulating reliable conclusions?
The primary issue, as I see it, is that you and a small minority of FOs with training and experience in relevant areas of science and health (represented by the IAOMT and roughly five other alternate health organizations) have examined the 70+ year body of evidence on fluoridation (thousands of studies and reviews) and concluded that the health risks from CWF are extremely obvious and significantly greater than any benefits.
However, your outlier conclusions are completely contradictory to the scientific consensus reached by a very significant majority of relevant experts worldwide, who have evaluated exactly the same body of evidence, and concluded that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure to protect the health of citizens by reducing the incidence of dental decay and related health problems in optimally fluoridated communities. That is part of a wider consensus that the benefits of all water treatment processes are significantly greater than any known risks. Those conclusions are also recognized by most relevant science and health experts as a scientific consensus.
Actually, challenging the current Scientific Consensus (or Expert Consensus) with new, legitimate evidence is a critical element of the scientific method. That is how science, in all areas, evolves. But the challenge requires convincing most experts that the new evidence is legitimate and actually requires the consensus be changed.
Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists:
Trying to change public opinions by presenting opinions, biased interpretations of their carefully selected “evidence”, fabrications and fear-mongering tactics is the only recourse of those who do not have the legitimate scientific evidence to present to the majority of experts and change the consensus.
Several Questions about the scientific consensus:
~> What is your opinion of the importance of the scientific consensus in making science and health related decisions – both in general and specifically with respect to CWF?
~> If you don’t accept the scientific consensus as a legitimate representation of the majority position on relevant issues, what is your alternative explanation and terminology?
~> What do you accept as the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) on CWF?
~> If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have FOs been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative?
~> What is your explanation for the fact that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – and their members & representatives have not mutinied?
~> Can you explain more clearly your apparent accusations of the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"? (08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (07-25-2018 11:30 PM)
~> Do you believe those are also accurate descriptions of all members of the 100+ organizations in the world who either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not publically spoken out against it?
~> Do you accept as true Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished. They do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists. Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust”?
If you accept Dr. Osmunson’s explanation, how would his additional claim “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation” be even remotely justifiable?
~> If the representatives of those health organizations that publically recognize the benefits of fluoridation have not publically denounced CWF, and they have completely ignored &/or misinterpreted the body of evidence you believe proves CWF to be a dangerous practice, and they have followed each other like lemmings, how can any of them possibly be considered the best in their field and experts in any other areas of their practices?
~> Do you believe Dr. Osmunson’s explanations apply to the other 100+ organizations that do not publically denounce fluoridation and their hundreds of thousands of representatives? These organizations include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), and so on…
I trust the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
1.) Your symptoms have never been diagnosed as being caused from the drinking of optimally fluoridated water.
2.) You never answered the question. Have you ever walked along the beach in the ocean (which has twice the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water)? You said bathing in fluoridated water gives you a rash. Does walking in the ocean?
3.) Ah, you've given me Waldbott. What took you so long? These are anecdotal stories from the 1950s through the 1970s. Blood fluoride levels were never measured. Fluoride in urine was never measured. Waldbott himself admitted that he was guessing at the cause of these symptoms.
Is this the "Current Science" that you anti water-fluoride folks are always bragging about that you have on your side? Got anything from this Century?
- healthy brain
- AARP Global Council on …
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Brain booster
- brain food
- brain health experts
- Clean water
- Corrupt Law Enforcement
- dental costs
- dental fraud
- dental health
- Diet and memory