Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy) 
Author Message
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)

Andy Jack says:

Quote:
>In America studies of epidemiological evidence have shown that the
>percentage rise in cancer death rates was slightly higher in
>non-fluoridated cities (1.88%) than in fluoridated ones (1.13%).  (Kinlan
>and Doll)

In the fall of 1977, two full hearings on fluoridation and cancer were
held
before a Congressional subcommittee.  At these hearings, Dr. Yiamouyiannis
showed that Dr. Robert Hoover's group and Dr. Donald Taves, in adjusting
for age, sex, and race, had left out 80 to 90% of the relevant data in
their study of fluoridation and cancer.

In addition,  Dr. Hoover's group made an error in calculations.  When they
were corrected Dr. Hoover and Dr. Taves work confirmed the
results of Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis showing that approximately 10,000
excess cancer deaths per year could be attributed to fluoridation in the
United States.

During the hearngs, Congressman Fountain, chairman of the subcommittee,
showed that Dr. Hoover and other National Cancer Institute officials had
purposely withheld information from Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis and
clandestinely sent erroneous data to Dr. Leo Kinlen and Sir Richard Doll,
professors at Oxford University and representatives of the Royal College
of Physicians, who published the erroneous data as if it were their own.
Dr. Kinlen passed the data on to Dr. David Newell and Peter Oldham,
representatives of the Royal Statistical Society, who again republished
the same erroneous data.  As in the original Hoover study, when errors and
omissions in these studies were corrected, they also confirmed the results
of Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis showing that approximately 10,000 excess
cancer deaths per year could be attributed to fluoridation in the United
States.

The Congressional Hearings were followed by 21 days of court hearings in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, extending from March to November of 1978.  A
number of witnesses, including DR. KINLEN,  Dr. Newell, and Dr.
Schneiderman testified in an attempt to discredit the studies of Drs. Burk
and Yiamouyiannis showing a link between fluoridation and cancer.

The presiding Judge John P. Flaherty remarked:  "Point by point, every
criticism made of the Burk-Yiamouyiannis study was met and explained."
Judge Flaherty pointed out that he was "compellingly convinced" of the
adverse effects of fluoridation and ordered a halt to it as a public
health hazard.

According to Dr. Brian Dementi, Chief Toxicologist of the {*filter*}ia
Department of Health:  "It appears that Yiamouyiannis and Burk have
correctly approached the problem and that their findings stand
successfully unrefuted."

Carol Kopf



Wed, 13 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)

Quote:


> >Cook Mozaffari et al 1981, Hrdey 1990, Mahoney 1991, Mcguire >1991 also
> find no association between fluoride and cancer.

> In areas where fluorspar (Calcium Fluoride) was mined, the incidence of
> lung cancer was quite high.

> Aluminum plant workers exposed to excessive fluoride fumes show elevated
> cancer mortality.

> Japances scientists found incrased stomach cancer mortality in areas with
> high-fluoride levels in rice.

> Female cancer prone mice drinking distilled water containing 1 ppm sodium
> fluoride developed mammary tumors at an earlier age in long-term studies
> than in control mice maintained on fluoride-free distilled water.

> Dean Burk, former head of Cytochemistry at the National Cancer Institute
> and Dr. John Yiamouyiannis found that the cancer death rates in the 10
> largest fluoridated U.S. cities were high and had risen faster since
> fluoridation than those in the 10 largest nonfluoridated U.S. cities that
> had essentially the same  cancer death rates during the decade before
> fluoridation.  Their data is scientifically irrefutable.  But I'm sure
> you'll refute it in a non-scientific manner.

> Carol Kopf

   I don't know about mice and rice, but I can tell you that any kind of
dust that is inhaled on a regular basis is likely to increase the risk of
cancer. The fact that this dust contains fluoride does not suggest any ill
effects of the fluoride ion in drinking water. Also, there is no such
thing as "fluoride fumes" Fluoride is an ion, not a gas. If you are
referring to fluorine gas (F-F), then of course being exposed to it
increases your risk of cancer. It is highly costic and would dissolve your
lungs if you inhaled it! Of course, since your evidence is scientifically
irrefutable, you may disregard this and ban fluorine from the face of the
earth.

                                 Mike

--
Michael J. Layton, D.D.S.
Truro, N.S.



Thu, 14 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)

Quote:

> The Congressional Hearings were followed by 21 days of court hearings in
> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, extending from March to November of 1978.  A
> number of witnesses, including DR. KINLEN,  Dr. Newell, and Dr.
> Schneiderman testified in an attempt to discredit the studies of Drs. Burk
> and Yiamouyiannis showing a link between fluoridation and cancer.

> The presiding Judge John P. Flaherty remarked:  "Point by point, every
> criticism made of the Burk-Yiamouyiannis study was met and explained."
> Judge Flaherty pointed out that he was "compellingly convinced" of the
> adverse effects of fluoridation and ordered a halt to it as a public
> health hazard.

> According to Dr. Brian Dementi, Chief Toxicologist of the {*filter*}ia
> Department of Health:  "It appears that Yiamouyiannis and Burk have
> correctly approached the problem and that their findings stand
> successfully unrefuted."

The case you cited is nearly 20 years old but sounds compelling.  Just for
clarification, didn't this story continue when this judge and his ruling
were reversed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 482 Pa. 66; 393 A.2d
381; 9 ELR 20053 the following year?

Douglas R. Anderson D.D.S., J.D.



Thu, 14 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)

Quote:
Dr. Anderson writes:
>The case you cited is nearly 20 years old but sounds compelling.  >Just
for
>clarification, didn't this story continue when this judge and his ruling
>were reversed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 482 Pa. 66; >393 A.2d
>381; 9 ELR 20053 the following year?

Based on the evidence Judge Flaherty found fluoridation to be very harmful
to the human body.  However, it was reversed by a higher court on
jurisdictional grounds - not on the merits of the case..  It was ruled
that the judicial system doesn't have the right to halt fluoridation. It
is a function of the legislature.  

Carol Kopf



Fri, 15 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)
Michael J. Layton,  D.D.S. writes:

Quote:
>Also, there is no such thing as "fluoride fumes" Fluoride is an ion, >not

a gas.

Fluoride fumes meaning airborne fluorides.

For instance fluoride is an industrial pollutant emitted from smokestacks
into the air.  The New York State Department of Health
requires manufacturers to provide their air emission data to them.  One of
the pollutants they monitor is Hydrogen Fluoride.  

Fluoride is in breathed in through ocean mist. (I learned that from one of
your prominent dental researchers, Gary Whitford)

Alcoa Aluminum company was sued for millions of dollars from farmers
surrounding their plants.  The fluoride emissions were killing cattle and
crops.  Aluminum companies have to filter out the fluoride from their
emissions.  The product gathered from their smokestacks is sodium
fluoride.

Carol Kopf



Sat, 16 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)
The studies by Yiamouyiannis and Burk failed to consider confounding factors,
a very basic epidemiological concept, in their analysis of the
fluoride-cancer association.  When their data was reanalyzed using appropriate
age, sex, and race adjustment, no increase in cancer mortality was found in
fluoridated cities (Ericson JD, N Engl J Med 1978;298:1112-6 and Rogot et al.,
Am J Epid 1978;107:104-12.).  No other research has been able to find a
cancer-fluoride association.

The studies quoted by the antifluoridation people are rife with errors and
omissions of this type.  That is why their work is rarely published in
quality refereed scientific journals.  

No well conducted research has found any association of routine fluoride
exposure and adverse health effects.  Read the fluoride reports by the United
States Public Health Service (Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, 1991) and
by the National Research Council (Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, 1993).  



Sun, 17 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)
Hi!

For those of you that are interested in the fluoride and cancer
issue, enclosed is Table 4 from the relevant study which has never
been successfully refuted.  Considering the fact that fluoridation
has been shown to not prevent tooth decay in numerous recent
*large-scale* studies and the fact that bone fractures (as discussed
earlier), cancer and other illnesses are linked to its use, I think
it's a good idea to get it out of the water.

Please see Elke's fluoride web page for more detailed information on the
subject:

         http://www.santarosa.edu/~dmontgom/fluoride.htm

Best Wishes,
                             - Mark

             http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/health.html

*****************
 BEGIN ENCLOSURE
*****************

Burk, Dean, 1985, "Phenomenal Cancer Mortaility Rates Among Danish
  Cryolite Factory Workers," Fluoride, Volume 18, No. 4, page 181-186.

                      TABLE 4

Average cancer death rates (CDR = cancer deaths per 100,000 population
per year, weighted per person) in the ten largest fluoridated (F) and
ten largest comparable nonfluoridated (NF) American central cities
for the prefluoridated epoch 1940-1950 and the fluoridated epoch
1953-1968.

Year            Fluoridated    Nonfluoridated   Difference
Prefluorida-    cities (F)*    cities (NF)+       F - NF
tion epoch

1940              155.6           159.9            -4.3
1941              156.3           154.5             1.8
1942              158.8           154.7             3.6
1943              162.4           159.8             2.6
1944              164.2           163.2             1.0
1945              168.9           167.0             1.9
1946              171.8           169.9             1.9
1947              173.9           175.0            -1.1
1948              174.3           177.8            -3.5
1949              181.1           180.4             0.7
1950              180.8           179.0             1.8

Mean              168.0           167.3             0.7

Year           Fluoridated    Nonfluoridated     Difference
Fluorida-      cities (F)*    cities (NF)+         F - NF
tion epoch

1953              190.2           185.9             4.3
1954              192.3           182.6             9.7
1955              193.9           186.1             7.8
1956              201.6           187.6            14.0
1957              204.5           185.2            19.3
1958              199.7           184.3            15.4
1959              201.0           188.8            12.2
1960              205.8           185.0            20.8
1961              206.0           185.7            20.3
1962              204.6           183.8            20.8
1963              208.6           184.8            23.8
1964              208.7           184.8            23.9
1965              212.5           187.0            25.5
1966              218.5           188.2            30.3
1967              218.4           190.1            28.3
1968              219.7           191.1            28.6

Mean              205.4           186.3            19.1

*Washington (1952), Baltimore (1952), San Francisco (1952), Pittsburgh
(1952-1953), Milwaukee (1953), Philadelphia (1954), Buffalo (1955), St.
Louis (1955), Cleveland (1956) and Chicago (1956); dates refer to year
fluoridation initiated.

+Atlanta, Boston, Cincinnati, Columbus, Kansas City (Mo), Los Angeles,
Neward, New Orleans, Portland, Seattle.

---------------

Important additional information can be found in:

Graham, J.R., Dean Burke, 1984. "Lord Jauncey and Justice Flaherty:
  Opposing Views on the Fluoridation-Cancer Link," Fluoride, Volume
  17, No. 2, page 63-71.



Sun, 17 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)

Quote:

> Based on the evidence Judge Flaherty found fluoridation to be very harmful
> to the human body.

Is this for real? A JUDGE found fluoridation to be VERY HARMFUL? How did
everyone else in the world miss out on that knowledge?

                     Mike

--
Michael J. Layton, D.D.S.
Truro, N.S.



Mon, 18 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)

Quote:
Heller) writes:
>Subject:    Re: Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)

>Date:       Wed, 29 Nov 1995 20:36:49

>The studies by Yiamouyiannis and Burk failed to consider confounding
factors,

>a very basic epidemiological concept, in their analysis of the
>fluoride-cancer association.  When their data was reanalyzed using
>appropriate
>age, sex, and race adjustment, no increase in cancer mortality was found
in
>fluoridated cities (Ericson JD, N Engl J Med 1978;298:1112-6 and Rogot et
>al.,
>Am J Epid 1978;107:104-12.).

The "Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government
Operations House of Representstives"  9/21 and 10/12/77 - Fluoridation of
public Drinking Water - contain numerous accounts of Dr. Yiamouyiannis
corrections for age, race and sex showing that the age-sex-race corrected
cancer death rates in fluoridated areas increased faster than in
non-fluoridated areas.

"Dr. Erickson's study showed substantially greater cancer death rates and
mortality from other causes in fluoridated areas even after correction for
age, race and sex.  The major shortcomings of this study was that it only
determined mortality for one year, 1970, and did not allow for a
time-trend analysis.  Thus this study in and of itself could not be relied
on to prove whether fluoridation is associated with increased mortality."
according to Fluoride the Aging Factor by John Yiamouyiannis.

However, as was brought out in a Scottish court case, Dr. Erickson tried
to explain away this excess mortality that he had found in fluoridated
areas.  He did this by adjusting for various selected factors, which he
admitted were poorly correlated with cancer, until he got a combination
that would reduce this figure to zero.  When asked b the Queen's Counsel
why he did not continue to adjust further, Dr. Erickson basically said
that when a zero difference was obtained, he had accomplished what he set
out to do, according to Yiamouyiannis.

Rogot, et al left out 80-90% of the relevant data.  Their calculations
were simpleminded and incorrect.  Testimony in a Scottish court case,
showed that this study did nothing more than measure random variation and
was not relevant to the question whether fluoride caused cancer, according
to Yiamouyiannis.

Quote:
>The studies quoted by the antifluoridation people are rife with errors

Actually, it appears, the studies of the profluoridation people are rife
with errors.

Carol Kopf



Mon, 18 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)

[fluoridation and cancer rates]

In the fluoridated cities cancer increased by 22%. In the unfluoridated
comparable cities it increased by 11%. That is going by the averages.

All sorts of things need to be jumped over in 'large leaps.'

Do workers against cancer need to say ban fluoridation and leave it at that?

Can some other lessons be learnt?

Did deaths from other major causes decrease, e.g. heart attack,
circulatory trouble, leaving more deaths from cancer?

Did the average length of life of the people in the fluoridated cities
decrease, or increase less slowly than that in the unfluoridated cities?

In what sites in the body did the cancers become more prone if any?

How did the quality of life change?

If the diets of those extra 11% of people had been made sufficient in
other ways would the cancer have increased?

By how much did the amalgam fillings increase in the two goups of cities?
If it were less in the fluoridated cities would that mean that the
amalgam fillings protect against cancer?

Those should be easy to leap over, and are really just for discussion,
but interesting to know about.




Tue, 19 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)

Quote:

> Michael J. Layton,  D.D.S. writes:

> >Also, there is no such thing as "fluoride fumes" Fluoride is an ion, >not
> a gas.

> Fluoride fumes meaning airborne fluorides.

> For instance fluoride is an industrial pollutant emitted from smokestacks
> into the air.  The New York State Department of Health
> requires manufacturers to provide their air emission data to them.  One of
> the pollutants they monitor is Hydrogen Fluoride.  

> Fluoride is in breathed in through ocean mist. (I learned that from one of
> your prominent dental researchers, Gary Whitford)

> Alcoa Aluminum company was sued for millions of dollars from farmers
> surrounding their plants.  The fluoride emissions were killing cattle and
> crops.  Aluminum companies have to filter out the fluoride from their
> emissions.  The product gathered from their smokestacks is sodium
> fluoride.

> Carol Kopf

My point was that "fluoride fumes" does not mean fluoride floating around
by itself. You cannot base allegations against fluoride on the effects of
fluorine containing compounds. For example, Hydrogen Fluoride is an acid
so of course it's bad to breath.

                           Mike

--
Michael J. Layton, D.D.S.
Truro, N.S.



Wed, 20 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Cancer and Fluoride (was fluoride allergy)
Hi,
I am a 19yo college student, and I was wondering if there is anyone here
(there probably is) who can help me.  This semester, I enrolled in an
educational psychology class which is supposed to provide some guidance
in choosing a career.  I need to find a dentist or dentists who might
answer a few questions for me....Here they are:
_____________________________________________________________________________

When faced with the challenge of dental school, what made you want to
stick with it and not quit?

How will the classes that I take in college help me once I am to take the
DAT?  How wil these classes be useful in dental school?

What is the expected salary range of a recent graduate of dental school?

Now that you are a practicing dentist, is there any advice that you would
give to a student who is thinking about a career in dentistry?

What kind of hours are to be expected if working for an established
dentist?  How flexible are these hours?

Would you recommend majoring in a non-science area?  Why or why not?

How important is it to specialize in a certain area?  Is the job market
better for those who specialize?
____________________________________________________________________________

Please feel free to answer any of all of the questions!  Any help would
be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,
Jonelle St. Onge



Wed, 20 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 14 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Nutrient fluoride? (was Re: fluoride allergy)

2. Nutrient fluoride? (was Re: fluoride allergy)

3. Nutrient fluoride? (was Re: fluoride alle

4. Nutrient fluoride? (was Re: fluoride alle)

5. 50th Anniversary of fluoride, fluoride and caries

6. Fluoride: Congress asks EPA's Browner to Justify Policy to Promote Fluoride

7. Fluoride 27 (4) 238 1994 - all mentioned in these anti-fluoride sites

8. Fluoride and fluoride

9. sodium fluoride vs stannous fluoride?

10. Fluoride skin allergy?


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software