X-Rays, Cancer and Heart Disease

X-Rays, Cancer and Heart Disease

by John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.

John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the leading experts in the world in these issues. He is a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor.
The evidence presented in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from Ischemic Heart Disease today, are x-ray-induced.
The finding means that x-rays (including fluoroscopy and CT scans) have become a necessary co-actor — but not the only necessary co-actor — in causing most of the death-rate from cancer and from Ischemic Heart Disease (also called Coronary Heart Disease, and Coronary Artery Disease).
In multi-cause diseases such as cancer and ischemic heart disease, more than one necessary co-actor per fatal case is very likely. Absence of any necessary co-actor, by definition, prevents such cases. The concept of x-ray-induced cases means cases which would be absent in the absence of exposure to x-rays.
X-rays and other classes of ionizing radiation have been, for decades, a proven cause of virtually all types of mutations — especially structural chromosomal mutations (such as deletions, translocations, and rings), for which the doubling dose by x-rays is extremely low. Additionally, x-rays are an established cause of genomic instability, often a characteristic of the most aggressive cancers.
Not surprisingly, a host of epidemiologic studies have firmly established that x-rays and other classes of ionizing radiation are a cause of most varieties of human cancer. We have a high level of confidence that our findings, about the important causal role of medical radiation in both cancer and IHD, are correct.
Reduction of exposure to medical radiation can and will reduce mortality rates — from cancer with certainty, and with very great probability from Ischemic Heart Disease too.


Part 2. Some Key Facts about X-rays and Ionizing Radiation in General

Most physicians and other people appreciate the imaging capability of the x-ray, but — through no fault of their own — they are taught very little about the biological action of those x-rays which never reach the film or other imagereceptor.
Capacity To Commit Mayhem Among The Genetic Molecules
The biological damage from a medical x-ray procedure does not come directly from the x-ray photons. The damage comes from electrons, which those photons “kick” out of their normal atomic orbits within human tissues. Endowed with biologically unnatural energy by the photons, such electrons leave their atomic orbits and travel with high speed and high energy through their home cells and neighboring cells.
Each such electron gradually slows down, as it unloads portions of its biologically unnatural energy, at irregular intervals, onto various biological molecules along its primary track (path).
The molecular victims include, of course, chromosomal DNA, and the structural proteins of chromosomes, and water. Even though each energy-deposit transfers only a portion of the total energy of a high-speed high-energy electron, the single deposits very often have energies far exceeding any energy-transfer which occurs in a natural biochemical reaction. Such energy-deposits are more like grenades and small bombs.
The Free-Radical Fallacy
There is no doubt that, along the path of each high-speed high-energy electron described above, the energy-deposits produce various species of free radicals. Nonetheless, it is a demonstrated fallacy to assume equivalence between the biological potency of x-rays and the biological potency of the free radicals which are routinely produced by a cell’s own natural metabolism.
The uniquely violent and concentrated energy-transfers, resulting from x-rays, are simply absent in a cell’s natural biochemistry. As a result of these “grenades” and “small bombs,” both strands of opposing DNA can experience a level of mayhem far exceeding the damage, which metabolic free-radicals (and most other chemical species) generally inflict upon a comparable segment of the DNA double helix.
Ionizing Radiation: A Uniquely Potent Mutagen
The extra level of mayhem is what makes x-rays (and other types of ionizing radiation) uniquely potent mutagens. Cells cannot correctly repair every type of complex genetic damage, induced by ionizing radiation, and sometimes cells cannot repair such damage at all. Not all mutated cells die, of course. If they all died, there would be very little cancer and no inherited afflictions. Indeed, certain mutations confer a proliferative advantage on the mutated cells. Exposure to x-rays is a proven cause of genomic instability — a characteristic of many of the most aggressive cancers.
Unlike some other mutagens, x-rays have access to the genetic molecules of every internal organ, if the organ is within the x-ray beam. Within such organs, even a single high-speed high-energy electron, set into motion by an x-ray photon, has a chance (far from a certainty) of inducing the types of damage which defy repair. That is why there is no risk-free (no safe) dose-level.
There is widespread agreement that, by its very nature, ionizing radiation at any dose-level can induce particularly complex injuries to the genetic molecules. There is growing mainstream acknowledgment that cellular repair processes are fallible, or entirely absent, for various complex injuries to the genetic molecules.
The Very Low Doubling-Dose for X-ray-Induced Chromosomal Mutations
The inability of human cells, to repair correctly every type of radiation-induced chromosomal damage, has been demonstrated in nuclear workers (who received their extra low-dose radiation at minimal dose-rates) and in numerous studies of x-ray-irradiated human cells at low doses.
Besides demonstrating non-repair or imperfect repair, such studies have established that x-rays have an extremely low doubling-dose for structural chromosomal mutations. (The doubling dose of an effect is the dose which adds a frequency equal to the preexisting frequency of that effect.)
For instance, the doubling-dose for the dicentric mutation is in the dose range delivered by some common x-ray procedures, such as CT scans and fluoroscopy — i.e., in the dose range of 2 to 20 rads. The rad is a dose-unit which is identical to the centi-gray. We, and many others, prefer the simpler name: Rad.
X-rays are capable of causing virtually every known kind of mutation — from the very common types to the very complex types, from deletions of single nucleotides, to chromosomal deletions of every size and position, and chromosomal rearrangements of every type. When such mutations are not cell-lethal, they endure and accumulate with each additional exposure to x-rays or other ionizing radiation.

Medical X-rays as a Proven Cause of Human Cancer

Ionizing radiation is firmly established by epidemiologic evidence as a proven cause of almost every major type of human cancer. Some of the strongest evidence comes from the study of medical patients exposed to x-rays — even at minimal dose-levels per exposure.


Mounting mainstream evidence indicates that medical x-rays are 2 to 4 times more mutagenic than high-energy beta and gamma rays, per rad of exposure.

No Doubt about Benefits from Medical Radiation
Radiation was introduced into medicine almost immediately after discovery of the x-ray (by Wilhelm Roentgen) in 1895.
There is simply no doubt that the use of radiation in medicine has many benefits. The findings in this book provide no argument against medical radiation. The findings do provide a powerful argument for acquiring all the benefits of medical radiation with the use of much lower doses of radiation, in both diagnostic and interventional radiology. (Interventional radiology refers primarily, but not exclusively, to the use of fluoroscopy to acquire information during surgery and during placement of catheters, needles, and other devices.).
Within the professions of radiology and radiologic physics, there are mainstream experts who have shown how the dosage of x-rays in current practice could be cut by 50%, or by considerably more, in diagnostic and interventional radiology — without any loss of information and without eliminating a single procedure.

Role of Medical Radiation in Causing Cancer and IHD, Past and Present

This monograph has produced evidence with regard to two hypotheses.
Hypothesis-1:
Medical radiation is a highly important cause (probably the principal cause) of cancer mortality in the United States during the Twentieth Century. Medical radiation means, primarily but not exclusively, exposure by x-rays — including fluoroscopy and CT scans. (Hypothesis-1 is about causation of cancer, so it is silent about radiation-therapy used after a Cancer has been diagnosed.).
Hypothesis-2:
Medical radiation, received even at very low and moderate doses, is an important cause of death from Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD); the probable mechanism is radiation-induced mutations in the coronary arteries, resulting in dysfunctional clones (mini-tumors) of smooth muscle cells. (The kinds of damage to the heart and its vessels, observed from very high-dose radiation and reported for decades, seldom resemble the lesions of IHD).
These Hypotheses in Terms of Multi-Cause Diseases
Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease are well established as multi-cause diseases. In efforts to prevent these multicause diseases, reduction or removal of any necessary co-actor is a central goal. The evidence in this book is that medical radiation has become a necessary co-actor in a high fraction of the U.S. mortality rates from both diseases. Fortunately, dosage from medical radiation is demonstrably reducible without eliminating a single procedure.
During the 1985-1990 period, the number of diagnostic medical x-ray examinations performed per year in the USA was approximately 200 million, excluding 100 million dental x-ray examinations and 6.8 million diagnostic nuclear medicine examinations.
The source of these estimates warns that 200 million could be an underestimate by up to sixty percent.
Not only is the number of annual examinations quite uncertain, but the average doses per examination — in actual practice, not measured with a dummy during ideal practice — vary sometimes by many-fold from one facility to another, even for patients of the same size. The variation by facility has been established by a few on-site surveys of selected facilities, because measurement and recording of x-ray doses are not required for actual procedures.
Fluoroscopy is a major source of x-ray dosage, because the x-ray beam stays “on” during

fluoroscopy. Such doses are rarely measured.
When fluoroscopic x-rays are used during common diagnostic examinations, the total dose delivered varies with the operator. When fluoroscopic x-rays are used during surgery and other nondiagnostic procedures, the total dose delivered varies both with the operator and the particular circumstances.
Our monograph is essentially the first, large prospective study on induction of fatal Ischemic Heart Disease by medical radiation. The results are stunning in their strength. Such strong dose-response relationships do not occur by accident.


Our Unified Model of Atherogenesis and Acute IHD Events

Our view (shared by many others) is that the plasma lipoproteins have no physiologic function in the intimal layer of the coronary arteries, and that under normal circumstances, their rate of entry and exit from the intimal layer is in balance. We propose that what disrupts this lifelong egress of lipoproteins from the intima — with the disruption occurring only at specific locations — are mutations acquired from medical radiation and from other mutagens.
In our Unified Model, some mutations acquired by smooth muscle cells render such cells dysfunctional and give such cells a proliferative advantage — so that they gradually replace competent smooth muscle cells at a localized patch of artery (a mini-tumor). And this patch of cells, unable to process lipoproteins correctly, becomes the site of chronic inflammation, resulting in construction of an atherosclerotic plaque — whose fibrous cap is sometimes too fragile to contain the highly thrombogenic lipid-core within the plaque.
A Personal Word: The X-ray Deserves Its Honored Place in Health
The finding, that radiation from medical procedures is a major cause of both Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, does not argue against the use of x-rays, CT scans, fluoroscopy, and radioisotopes in diagnostic and interventional radiology. Such uses also make very positive contributions to health. We deeply respect those contributions, and the men and women who achieve them.
This author is most definitely not “anti-x-ray” or “radio-phobic.” As a graduate student in physical chemistry, I worked very intimately with radiation, in the quest for the first three atomic-bombs. Subsequently, in medical school, I considered becoming a radiologist. In the late 1940s, I did nuclear medicine with patients having a variety of hematological disorders. In the 1960s, I did chemical elemental analysis of human blood by x-ray spectroscopy. In the early 1970s, our group at the Livermore National Laboratory induced genomic instability in human cells with gamma rays.
In short, I fully appreciate the benefits and insights (in medicine and other fields) which ionizing radiation makes possible.
But no one honors the x-ray by treating it casually or by failing to acknowledge that it is a uniquely potent mutagen. One honors the x-ray by taking it seriously.
While doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology are very low relative to doses used for cancer therapy, diagnostic and interventional x-ray doses today are far from negligible. The widely used CT scans, and the common diagnostic examinations which use fluoroscopy, and interventional fluoroscopy (e.g., during surgery), deliver some of the largest nontherapeutic doses of x-rays. In 1993, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation warned, appropriately, in its Annual Report:
“Although the doses from diagnostic x-ray examinations are generally relatively low, the magnitude of the practice makes for a significant radiological impact.”
In the USA until about 1970, fetal irradiation occurred during ~ 1 pregnancy per 14.

Every Benefit of Medical Radiation: Same Procedures, Lower Dose-Levels
The fact that ionizing radiation is a uniquely potent mutagen, and the finding that radiation from medical procedures is a major cause of both Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, clearly indicate that it would be appropriate in medicine to treat dosage of ionizing radiation at least as carefully as we treat dosage from potent medications. In the medical professions, we do not administer unmeasured doses of powerful pharmaceuticals, and we do not take a casual view of a 5-fold, 10-fold, even 20-fold elevation in dosage of such medications.
By contrast, in both the past and the present, unmeasured doses of x-rays are the rule — not the exception. When sampling has been done, in which actual measurements are taken, dosage has been found to vary from one facility to another by many-fold, for the same procedure for patients of the same size.
The reason for large variation is obvious from the list of numerous proven ways to reduce dosage. Facilities which apply all the measures can readily achieve average doses more than 5-fold lower than facilities which apply very few measures.
Certain Spinal X-rays: A Dramatic Demonstration
The potential for dose-reduction may far exceed 5-fold for some common x-ray exams. This has already been demonstrated for the spinal x-rays employed to monitor progress in treating idiopathic adolescent scoliosis, a lateral curvature of the spine. An estimated 5% of American children, or more, have this disorder. In a most responsible way, Dr. Joel Gray and coworkers at the Mayo Clinic developed radiologic techniques for scoliosis monitoring which can reduce measured x-ray dose to various organs as follows:
Abdominal exposure: 8-fold reduction.
Thyroid exposure: 20-fold reduction (with a back to front radiograph), and 100-fold reduction (with a lateral radiograph).
Breasts: 69-fold reduction (with a back to front radiograph), and 55-fold reduction (with a lateral radiograph).
They report, “These reductions in exposure were obtained without significant loss in the quality of the radiographs and in most instances, with an improvement in the over-all quality of the radiograph due to the more uniform exposure.


Mammography: A Model of Success

The importance of dose-reduction for the mammographic examination has been recognized, and such doses have been reduced by about a factor of ten in recent years. “Where there is a will, there is a way.” In certified mammography centers today, doses are routinely verified periodically, and measurements provide the feedback required, in order to achieve constant dose-reduction instead of upward creep.
The Benefits of Every Procedure — with Far Less Dose
Dose-reduction can be a truly safe measure. It is clear that average per patient doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology could be reduced by a great deal without reducing the medical benefits of the procedures in any way.
Radiography: Quality-assurance (dose-reduction by an average factor of 2), beam-collimation (by a factor up to 3), rare-earth screens (by a factor of 2 to 4), rare-earth filtration (by a factor of 2 to 4), use of carbon-fibre materials (by a factor of 2), gonadal shielding (by a factor of 2 to 10 for the gonads).
Digital Radiography: Decrease in contrast resolution, when such resolution is not needed (dose-reduction by a factor of 2 to 3), use of a pulsed system (by a factor of 2).
Fluoroscopy: Changes in the operator’s technique (dose-reduction by a factor of 2 to 10), variable aperture iris on TV camera (by a factor of 3), high and low dose-switching (by a factor of 1.5), acoustic signal related to dose-rate (by a factor of 1.3), use of a 105mm camera (by a factor of 4 to 5). Additional methods not specified in the list: Use of a circular beam-collimator when the image-receiver is circular, adoption of “freeze-frame” or “last-image-hold capability, and restraint in recording fluoroscopic images.
An Immense Opportunity: All Benefit, No Risk
The evidence in this monograph, on an age-adjusted basis, is that most fatal cases of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease would not happen as they do, in the absence of x-ray-induced mutations. We look forward to responses to our findings.
We have also presented findings, from outside sources, that average per patient radiation doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology could be reduced by a great deal, without reducing the medical benefits of the procedures in any way. The same procedures can be done at substantially lower dose-levels.
Does the Public Need a Denial, “For Its Own Good” ?
One type of response to this monograph may be that the findings need to be denied immediately (without
examination), lest the public refuse to accept the benefits of x-ray procedures.
This type of response, insulting to the public, would not be consistent with reality. In reality, the public accepts a host of dangerous medications and procedures, in exchange for their demonstrable benefits —  sometimes, for undemonstrated benefits. Very few people will forego the obvious benefits from diagnostic and interventional radiology, just because such procedures confer a risk of subsequent Cancer and IHD.
The only change will probably be that people will demand that the same degree of care, now exercised with respect to dosage of potent medications, be exercised with respect to dosage of radiation from each procedure. They will want to avoid a dose-level of, say, ten rads — if the same information could be acquired with one rad. They do not deserve”one useful part of information, and nine unnecessary parts of extra risk of Cancer and IHD.” Patients will want more measurements, and fewer assumptions, about the doses delivered. But they will not reject the procedures themselves.
The “Advocacy Issue” and the Hippocratic Oath
It is very often said that, if scientists advocate any action based on their findings, they undermine their scientific credibility. If such scientists stand to benefit financially from the actions they advocate, such suspicion occurs naturally. But even in such circumstances, if their work is presented in a way which anyone can replicate, it should be impossible for their advocacy to diminish the scientific credibility of their work.
Our findings are not encumbered either by financial interests or by any barriers to replication. The findings stand on their own, whether or not we advocate any action.
I have spent a lifetime studying the causes of Ischemic Heart Disease, and then Cancer, in order to help prevent such diseases. So it would be pure hypocrisy for me to feign a lack of interest in any preventive action which would be both safe and benign. And when sources, completely independent from me, set forth their findings that such action is readily feasible — namely, significant dose-reduction in diagnostic and interventional radiology — it would be worse than silly for me to pretend that I have no idea what action should occur.
After all, as a physician, I took the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.” Silence would contribute to the harm of millions of people. Why Wait? What Is the Purpose?
Although it is commonly assumed that radiation doses are “negligible” from modern medical procedures, the assumption is definitely mistaken.
An estimated 35% to 50% of some higher-dose diagnostic procedures are currently received by patients below age 45 — when the carcinogenic impact per dose-unit is probably stronger than it is after age 65 or so.
In diagnostic and interventional radiology, dose-reduction would be wholly safe, quite inexpensive, and guaranteed beneficial — because induction of Cancer by ionizing radiation has been an established fact for decades.

A Mountain of Solid Evidence That Each Dose Matters
The fact, that x-ray doses are so seldom measured, reflects the false assumption that such doses do not matter. This monograph has presented a mountain of solid evidence that they do matter, enormously.
And each bit of additional dose matters, because any x-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the highspeed high-energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population’s mortality-rates from radiation-induced Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease.
The x-ray is a proven mutagen and a proven cause of Cancer, and the evidence in this book strongly indicates that it is also a very important cause of Cancer and a very important atherogen. From the existing evidence, it is clear that average per patient doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology could be reduced by a great deal without reducing the medical benefits of the procedures in any way.
A Prudent Position from Which No One Loses, Everyone Gains
Whether diseases are common or rare, a prime reason for studying their causation is prevention. Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, combined, accounted for 45% of all deaths in the USA during 1993.
If we in the medical professions take the position, that we should not press for reducing doses from medical radiation until every question has been perfectly answered, then we can never undo the harm inflicted during the waiting period, upon tens of millions of patients every year.
By contrast, if we take the prudent position that dose-reduction should become a high priority without delay (and if humans do not start exposing themselves to some other potent mutagen), the evidence in this monograph indicates that we will prevent much of the future mortality from Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, without causing any adverse effects on health. No one loses, everyone gains.


Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/chp1F.html
COMMENT:

Dr. Gofman’s credentials are astounding. Not only does he have a Ph.D. in nuclear and physical chemistry, but he is also a medical doctor. While a graduate student at U.C. Berkeley, Gofman earned his Ph.D. (1943) in nuclear/physical chemistry, with his dissertation on the discovery of Pa-232, U-232, Pa-233, and U-233, the proof that U-233 is fissionable by slow and fast neutrons, and discovery of the 4n + 1 radioactive series. His faculty advisor was Glenn T. Seaborg (who became Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, 1961-1971).
Post-doctorally, Gofman continued research related to the first atomic bombs, particularly the chemistry of plutonium, at a time when the world’s total supply was less than 0.25 milligram. He shares patents #2,671,251 and #2,912,302 on two processes for separating plutonium from the uranium and fission products of irradiated nuclear fuel.
After the plutonium work, Gofman completed medical school (1946) at UCSF. In 1947, following his internship in Internal Medicine, Gofman joined the faculty at U.C. Berkeley (Division of Medical Physics), where he began his research on lipoproteins and Coronary Heart Disease at the Donner Laboratory.
In 1954, Gofman received the Modern Medicine Award for outstanding contributions to heart disease research. In 1965, he received the Lyman Duff Lectureship Award of the American Heart Association, for his research in atherosclerosis and Coronary Heart Disease. In 1972, he shared the Stouffer Prize for outstanding contributions to research in arteriosclerosis. In 1974, the American College of Cardiology selected him as one of twenty-five leading researchers in cardiology of the past quarter-century.

Meanwhile, in the early 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) asked Gofman to establish a Biomedical Research Division at the AEC’s Livermore National Laboratory, for the purpose of evaluating the health effects of all types of nuclear activities.
From 1963-1965, Gofman served as the division’s first director and concurrently as an Associate Director of the full laboratory. Then he stepped down from the administrative activities in order to have more time for his own laboratory research on Cancer and chromosomes (the Boveri Hypothesis), on radiation-induced chromosomal mutations and genomic instability, and for his analytical work on the epidemiologic data from the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors and other irradiated human populations.
By 1969, Gofman and a Livermore colleague, Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin, had concluded that human exposure to ionizing radiation was much more serious than previously recognized.
Because of this finding, Gofman and Tamplin spoke out publicly against two AEC programs which they had
previously accepted. One was Project Plowshare, a program to explode hundreds or thousands of underground nuclear bombs in the Rocky Mountains in order to liberate (radioactive) natural gas, and to use nuclear explosives also to excavate harbors and canals. The second was the plan to license about 1,000 commercial nuclear power plants (USA) as quickly as possible. In 1970, Gofman and Tamplin proposed a 5-year moratorium on that activity.
The AEC was not pleased. Seaborg recounts some of the heated conversations among the Commissioners in his book, The Atomic Energy Commission under Nixon: Adjusting to Troubled Times (1993). By 1973, Livermore de-funded Gofman’s laboratory research on chromosomes and Cancer. He returned to teaching full-time at U.C. Berkeley, until choosing an early and active “retirement” in order to concentrate fully on pro-bono research into human health-effects from radiation.
His 1981, 1985, 1990, 1994, and 1995/96 books present a series of findings. His 1990 book includes his proof, “by any reasonable standard of biomedical proof,” that there is no threshold level (no harmless dose) of ionizing radiation with respect to radiation mutagenesis and carcinogenesis — a conclusion supported in 1995 by a government-funded radiation committee. His 1995/96 book provides evidence that medical radiation is a necessary cofactor in about 75% of the recent and current Breast Cancer incidence (USA), a conclusion doubted but not at all refuted by several peer reviewers.

Creation of the Mycoplasma

CREATION OF THE MYCOPLASMA
A Laboratory-Made Disease Agent
Many doctors don’t know about this mycoplasma disease agent because it was developed by the US military in biological warfare experimentation and it was not made public. This pathogen was patented by the United States military and Dr Shyh-Ching Lo. I have a copy of the documented patent from the US Patent Office.(1)
All the countries at war were experimenting with biological weapons. In 1942, the governments of the United States, Canada and Britain entered into a secret agreement to create two types of biological weapons (one that would kill, and one that was disabling) for use in the war against Germany and Japan, who were also developing biological weapons. While they researched a number of disease pathogens, they primarily focused on the Brucella bacterium and began to weaponize it.
From its inception, the bio-warfare program was characterized by continuing in-depth review and participation by the most eminent scientists, medical consultants, industrial experts and government officials, and it was classified Top Secret.
The US Public Health Service also closely followed the progress of biological warfare research and development from the very start of the program, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States were working with the military in weaponizing these diseases. These are diseases that have existed for thousands of years, but they have been weaponized—which means they’ve been made more contagious and more effective. And they are spreading.
The Special Virus Cancer Program, created by the CIA and NIH to develop a deadly pathogen for which humanity had no natural immunity (AIDS), was disguised as a war on cancer but was actually part of MKNAOMI.(2)
Many members of the Senate and House of Representatives do not know what has been going on. For example, the US Senate Committee on Government Reform had searched the archives in Washington and other places for the document titled “The Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report No. 8”, and couldn’t find it.
Somehow they heard I had it, called me and asked me to mail it to them. Imagine: a retired school teacher being called by the United States Senate and asked for one of their secret documents! The US Senate, through the Government Reform Committee, is trying to stop this type of government research.

Facts About Fluoridation You Did Not Know

Facts About Fluoridation You Did Not Know

                                                   By Fluoride Action Newtwork, 2002

98% Of Western Europe Has Rejected Water Fluoridation. This includes Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The predominant reason for Europe’s rejection is the belief that public drinking water is NOT the appropriate vehicle with which to deliver medication to a population.

Fluoride Is Not An Essential Nutrient, which means that no human disease (including dental decay) has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. (1)

The fluoride used to fluoridate water is an industrial waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is an unprocessed hazardous waste, contaminated with a number of toxins, particularly arsenic.

Fluoridation adds between 0.1 and 1.6 parts per billion (ppb) arsenic to drinking water, and therefore violates the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic – which is 0 ppb. (2)

Hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are the chemicals used to fluoridate 91% of fluoridated water in the US, have never been tested for safety and effectiveness.

According to a November 16, 2000 letter from the EPA, “to answer your question on whether we have in our possession empirical scientific data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, the answer is no.”

Most dental authorities are now conceding that there is little, if any, benefit from swallowing fluoride, and that fluoride’s benefits (whatever they are) come from topical application.

When water fluoridation began 50 years ago, it was believed that fluoride needed to be ingested in order to be effective. This is NO longer the view of the dental establishment, which now generally concedes that fluoride’s benefits are derived primarily from topical application. (3)

According, for instance, to the US Centers for Disease Control, “Laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.”

All fluoride products designed to be ingested (e.g. fluoride supplements) are available by prescription only. No fluoride products designed for ingestion have ever been approved as safe or effective by the US Food & Drug Administration. (4)

                      By Logical Extension, Fluoridated Water Can Appropriately

                           Be Classified As An Unapproved Prescription Drug.

The dental community concedes that fluoride is ineffective at preventing the most common type of dental decay – pit & fissures. Pit & fissure decay – which is the decay found in the crevices of the chewing surfaces – accounts for upwards of 85% of dental decay now experienced in the US. (5)

New evidence suggests that fluoridation is either unnecessary or doesn’t work. Cavities have declined at similarly impressive rates throughout the entire western, industrialized world over the past half century.

The largest dental survey ever conducted in the US found virtually no difference in dental decay between children living in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated areas.

The study, which was conducted by the National Institute Of Dental Research (NIDR), found that the average difference in tooth decay (0.6 tooth surfaces) between children living in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas amounted to LESS than 0.5% of the 128 total tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth. (7)

Five peer-reviewed studies published in the last 2 years have found that dental decay DOES NOT increase when communities stop fluoridation. (8)

The rhetoric supporting fluoridation is increasingly centered around the notion that fluoridation benefits the neediest in society the most. This claim flies in the face of the experience of most US inner cities over the past 50 years.

Despite the fact that nearly all large US cities have been fluoridated for decades, dental decay is currently rampant in virtually all poor urban areas.

One of the major dental health problems experienced in poor communities is a debilitating condition known as “baby bottle tooth decay” which is also referred to as “early childhood caries.”

This condition, which results from excessive consumption of sweetened liquids at a young age, is not prevented by water fluoridation. (9) According to a study in Pediatric Nursing “Data from Head Start surveys show the prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay is about three times the national average among poor urban children, even in communities with a fluoridated water supply.”

Fluoride Is A Very Toxic Substance, which is why it is the active ingredient in a number of pesticides. Just 2 grams of fluoride is enough to kill an adult, and just 500 mg is enough to kill a child. (11) In the US, people have died, and many have become sick, when faltering fluoridation equipment has pumped excess fluoride into the water.

Poor nutrition exacerbates the toxic effects of fluoride exposure, which is a further reason why it’s wrong to target poor communities with fluoridation (as poor nutrition is more prevalent in low income communities).

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems.” (12)

Contaminated Food Chain – Many of the processed beverages and foods sold in the US contain elevated levels of fluoride due to the use of fluoridated water during manufacturing, and the presence of fluoride pesticides.

Total fluoride exposure has increased substantially since the early days of fluoridation. (13) When fluoridation first began, exposure to fluoride from sources other than fluoridated water, was minimal.

Today that is not the case.

People now receive fluoride from a whole host of sources, including pesticide residues, fluoridated dental products, mechanically deboned meat, fluoride air pollution, and processed foods & beverages prepared with fluoridated water (e.g. soda, juice, beer, cereal, etc).

It has now reached the point where most people receive the “optimal” 1 mg/day of fluoride (which fluoridated water was designed to deliver) without ever drinking a glass of fluoridated water.

Despite the increase in total fluoride exposure, the concentration of fluoride added to drinking water (0.7-1.2 mg/L) as prescribed by the US Government, is still the same as it was back in the 1940s. Due to the increase in total fluoride exposure, there has been a major increase in the rate of dental fluorosis found among American children. According to the US Government, approximately 1 in 3 children living in fluoridated areas have dental fluorosis on at least 2 teeth. (14)

Dental fluorosis is the first visible sign that fluoride has poisoned enzymes in the body.

Approximately half of the fluoride we ingest each day accumulates in our bodies, primarily in the bones, but also in soft tissues. (15)

High levels of naturally occurring fluoride causes a crippling bone disease known as skeletal fluorosis. According to UNICEF, skeletal fluorosis is endemic “in at least 25 countries across the globe” (16) with the problem particularly acute in India, China and other developing countries.

Skeletal fluorosis comes in varying degrees of severity depending on the level of exposure. The earliest symptoms are characterized by joint pain that is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from arthritis.

According to a review on fluoridation by Chemical & Engineering News: “Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed [as arthritis].” The World Health Organization states that “early cases [of skeletal fluorosis] may be misdiagnosed as rheumatoid or osteoarthritis.” (17)

It is estimated that approximately 40 million Americans suffer from arthritis, the most common type being osteoarthritis.

Fluoride stimulates abnormal bone development. Clinical trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (18) report that high dose fluoride treatment increases bone mass but that the newly formed bone is “structurally unsound” (19). Thus, instead of reducing hip fracture, the studies found that high doses of fluoride increase hip fracture.

There is concern that “low” doses of fluoride, taken over long periods of time (e.g. fluoridated water), may also increase the rate of hip fracture. Approximately 20 recent studies have investigated the relationship between fluoridated water and hip fracture, with approximately half of the studies finding an association. (20)

A 1995 study in the journal Neurtoxicology and Teratology, found that fluoride accumulated in the brain of rats and produced age-specific behavioral deficits typical of most neurotoxic agents. (21)

In the study, fluoride induced damage to the hippocampal region of the brain. Damage to the hippocampal region has been linked to hyperactivity and cognitive deficits. Based on the results, the lead author of the study, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, has come out and advised against water fluoridation.

Five recent peer reviewed studies from China have found an association between elevated fluoride exposure and decreased IQs in children – an effect that would be expected based on Mullenix’s research. (22)

In the late 1990s, a British scientist discovered that fluoride accumulates to very high levels (avg = 9000 ppm) in the crystallized tissue of the human pineal gland.

A subsequent animal study found that fluoride interferes with the pineal gland’s production of melatonin, a hormone which helps regulate the onset of PUBERTY. In the study, animals dosed with fluoride had reduced levels of melatonin metabolites in their urine and had earlier onsets of puberty than the controls. (23)

Up until the 1950s, European doctors used fluoride to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for people suffering from overactive thyroid (hyperthyroidism). (24) The daily dose of fluoride which people are now receiving in fluoridated communities (1.6 to 6.6 mg/day) (25) actually exceeds the dose of fluoride which was found to depress the thyroid gland (2.3 to 4.5 mg/day). (26)

Hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid) is currently one of the most common medical problems in the United States. Synthroid, the drug doctors prescribe to treat hypothyroidism, was the fourth most prescribed drug in the US in the year 2000. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.

A recent study published in the journal Brain Research found that 1 PPM fluoride in water facilitated the uptake of aluminum into the brain of rats, producing the type of brain tangles (amyloid deposits) that are associated with Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia. (27)

An epidemiological study published in the December 2000 issue of the Journal Neurotoxicology, found that fluoridated water was associated with elevated levels of lead in children’s blood. (28)

The study’s findings parallel the findings of an earlier study published in the September 1999 issue of the International Journal of Environmental Studies. (29) Lead in the blood is associated with a variety of neurological problems, including reduced intelligence, aggression and hyperactivity.

Dozens of laboratory studies have found that fluoride is a mutagen – a classification which frequently indicates that a substance is carcinogenic (i.e. that it causes cancer). (30) A cancer bioassay conducted by the National Toxicology Program found that rats dosed with fluoride had a statistically significant increase in bone tumors (osteosarcomas), which were not found among the controls.

The initial review of the study also reported that the fluoride-dosed rats had tumors of the thyroid, oral cavity and rare tumors of the liver; however these tumors were later downgraded under conspicuous and controversial circumstances. According to Dr. William Marcus, the Chief Toxicologist at the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, the downgrading of the tumors was politically motivated and not scientifically defensible. (31)

A recent epidemiological study conducted by a scientist from the US Public Health Service found that female infertility was associated with elevated levels of fluoride ( >3ppm) in drinking water. The study concluded that more emphasis needs to be given to the effects on health from total fluoride exposure – not just exposure to fluoridated drinking water. (32)

In light of the recent research indicating health risks from low level fluoride exposure, the Union of Scientists and professionals at EPA headquarters has voted to oppose fluoridation (33) and has called upon Congress to issue a “national moratorium” on the fifty year old policy.

According to the Vice President of the Union, Dr. J. William Hirzy, “In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments.”

After years of overlooking the problems with fluoride & fluoridation, the environmental community is finally beginning to address the issue. In September of 2001, the Sierra Club announced that:

There are now valid concerns regarding the potential adverse impact of fluoridation on the environment, wildlife, and human health. The Sierra Club therefore supports giving communities the option of rejecting mandatory fluoridation of their water supplies. To protect sensitive populations, and because safer strategies and methods for preventing tooth decay are now available, we recommend that these safer alternatives be made available and promoted.”

Please note: certain passages have been bolded and underlined for emphasis (not the author’s).

References

  1. Fluoride: Not an Essential Nutrient: National Research Council (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. See page 30.
  2. Arsenic Levels in Fluoridation Chemicals: Hazan, Stan (2000). Letter to Florida Department of Health from Stan Hazan, General Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, National Sanitation Foundation International. 24 April 2000. http://www.fluoridealert.org/NSF-Letter.pdf
  3. Fluoride’s Topical Vs. Systemic Effects:
  4. Burt, B.A. (1994). Letter. Fluoride, 27, 180-181.
  5. Carlos, J.P. (1983). Comments on Fluoride. J. Pedodontics. Winter, 135-136.
  6. CDC. (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. August 17, 50(RR14):1-42.
  7. CDC (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review (MMWR), 48(41);933-940 October 22, 1999. http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm
  8. Featherstone, J.D.B. (1987) The Mechanism of dental decay. Nutrition Today, May/June, 10.
  9. Featherstone J.D.B. (1999) Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 27:31-40.
  10. Featherstone, J.D.B. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association. 131, 887-899.
  11. Fejerskov, O. et al (1981) Rational use of fluorides in caries prevention. Acta. Odontol. Scand., 241-249.
  12. Levine, R.S., (1976). The action of fluoride in caries prevention: a review of current concepts. Brit. Dent J140, 9-14.
  13. Locker, D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-                           Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
  14. Limeback, H. (1999). A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27, 62-71.
  15. Margolis, H.C. and Moreno, E.C. (1990). Physicochemical Perspectives on the Cariostatic Mechanisms of Systemic and Topical Fluorides. J. Dent. Res 69 (Special Issue) 606-613.
  16. Fluoride Never Approved as Safe & Effective by FDA: Kelly, J.V. (2000). Letter to Senator Robert Smith, Chairman of Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, August 14, 2000. (for text see http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-supplements.htm)
  17. Fluoride Ineffective at Preventing Pit & Fissure Decay:
  18. Dental study upsets the accepted wisdom. Science News. Vol. 125, No. 1. Jan.7, 1984.
  19. Gray, AS. (1987). Fluoridation: Time For A New Base Line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association. No. 10.
  20. Loe, H. (1984). Hearings: Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. Dr. Harald Loe, Director of the National Institute of Dental Research.
  21. Journal of the American Dental Association. (1984). Preserving the perfect tooth. Editorial. Vol. 108.
  22. Pinkham, JR, ed. (1999). Pediatric Dentistry Infancy Through Adolescence. 3rd Edition. WB Saunders Co.
  23. Public Health Reports. (1993). Toward Improving the Oral Health of Americans. Vol. 108, No. 6. Nov. – Dec.
  24. Cavities Declining throughout Western Industrialized World, Irrespective of Fluoridation:
    1. Colquhoun, J (1997) Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 29-44. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm
    2. Diesendorf, M.(1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature, 322, 125-129.
    3. WHO (Online). WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme. Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health.
  25. NIDR’s National Survey on Dental Health (Largest Dental Survey Ever Conducted in US):
  26. Brunelle, J.A. and Carlos, J.P. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. J. Dent. Res 69, (Special edition), 723-727. (Read correspondence on this study).
  27. Hileman, B. (1989). New Studies Cast Doubt on Fluoridation Benefits. Chemical and Engineering News, 67 (19) May 8. http://www.fluoridealert.org/NIDR.htm
  28. Yiamouyiannis, J.A. (1990). Water Fluoridation and Tooth decay: Results from the 1986-87 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren. Fluoride, 23, 55-67. http://www.fluoridealert.org/DMFTs.htm
  29. Fluoridation Cessation Studies:
  30. Burt BA, Keels MA, Heller KE. (2000). The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis.J Dent ResFeb;79(2):761-9.
  31. Kunzel, W., Fischer, T., Lorenz R., Bruhmann, S. (2000). Decline in caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in former East Germany.Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 28(5): 382-389.
  32. Kunzel, W. and T. Fischer (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Res 34(1): 20-5.
  33. Maupome, G. et al. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 29(1): 37-47.
  34. Seppa, L., Karkkaimen, S. and Hausen, H. (2000) Caries trends 1992-98 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoride. Caries Res 34(6): 462-8.
  35. Fluoridation doesn’t Prevent Baby Bottle Tooth Decay:
  36. Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children. Public Health Reports; 107: 167-73, 1992.
  37. Von Burg MM et al. Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern for All Mothers. Pediatric Nursing; 21:515-519, 1995.
  38. Lack of Dentists Accepting Medicaid Patients: Guiden, M. (1990). Dental Health for kids moves to the forefront. State Health Notes 19(280). Forum for State Health Policy Leadership, National Conference of State Legislatures. July 6. (Cited in: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (U.S. DHHS) (2000).  Oral health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health. http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/sgr/execsumm.htm)
  39.  Fluoride Acute Toxicity Data:
  40. Hodge, H.C. and Smith, F.A. (1965). Fluorine Chemistry Vol. IV. Academic Press, New York.
  41. Gleason, M.N., Gosselin, R.E., Hodge, H.C., & Smith, R.P. (1969). Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 3rd Ed. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.
  42. Physicians Desk Reference (1995). Pedia-flor Drops. pp. 2114.
  43. Nutritional Deficiences Exacerbate Fluoride’s Toxicity: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1993). Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR/TP-91/17.
  44. Total Fluoride Exposure on the Increase:
  45. Environmental Fluoride (1977) National Research Council of Canada (NRCC No.16081) Associate Committee On Scientific Criteria For Environmental Quality.
  46. DHHS (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Department of Health and Human Services, USA.
  47. 29.1% of US Children in Fluoridated Areas have Dental Fluorosis on 2 teeth: Heller KE et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying Water Fluoride Concentrations. J of Pub Health Dent, 57;No. 3, 136-143.
  48. An Average of 50% of all Fluoride Ingested Accumulates in the Body National Research Council (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. See page 131.
  49. UNICEF’s Report on Fluoride: UNICEF Water, Environment & Sanitation. Fluoride in water: An overview. Waterfront December 1999 http://www.unicef.org/programme/wes/info/fluor.htm
  50. Chemical & Engineering News Review of Fluoridation: Hileman, B. (1988). Fluoridation of water. Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News. August 1, 1988, 26-42. http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm
  51. Clinical Trials Examining the Effectiveness of Fluoride Therapy for the treatment of Osteoporosis:
  52. Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. (1989). Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. J Bone Miner Res Apr;4(2):223-5.
  53. Riggs, B.L. et al (1990). Effect of Fluoride treatment on the Fracture Rates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis. N. Eng. J. Med., 322, 802-809.
  54. New England Journal of Medicine Editorial Discussing Fluoride & Bone: Lindsay, R. (1990). Fluoride and Bone – Quantity Versus Quality. Editorial. New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 322. No. 12. March 22. 20) Water Fluoride/Hip Fracture Studies:
    1. Cauley, J., P. Murphy, et al. (1995). “Effects of fluoridated drinking water on bone mass and fractures: the study of osteoporotic fractures.” J Bone Min Res 10(7): 1076-86.
    2. Cooper, C., C. Wickham, et al. (1991). “Water fluoridation and hip fracture.” JAMA 266: 513-514 (letter, a reanalysis of data presented in 1990 paper).
    3. Cooper, C., C. Wickham, et al. (1990). “Water fluoride concentration and fracture of the proximal femur.” J Epidemiol Community Health 44: 17-19.
    4. Danielson, C., J. L. Lyon, et al. (1992). “Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population.” Journal of the American Medical Association 268(6): 746-748.
    5. Feskanich D., et al. (1998). Use of toenail fluoride levels as an indicator for the risk of hip and forearm fractures in women. Epidemiology 9(4): 412-6.
    6. Hegmann, K.T. et al (2000) the Effects of Fluoridation on Degenerative Joint Disease (DJD) and Hip Fractures.Abstract #71, of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society For Epidemiological research, June 15-17, 2000. Published in a Supplement of Am. J. Epid.
    7. Hillier, S., C. Copper, et al. (2000). “Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case control study.” The Lancet 335: 265-269.
    8. Jacobsen, S., J. Goldberg, et al. (1992). “The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older; a national ecologic study.” Annals of Epidemiology 2: 617-626.
    9. Jacobsen, S., J. Goldberg, et al. (1990). “Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: US white women aged 65 years and olders.” J Am Med Assoc 264(4): 500-2.
    10. Jacobsen, S.J. et al (1993). Hip Fracture Incidence Before and After the Fluoridation of the Public Water Supply, Rochester, Minnesota. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 743-745.
    11. Jacqmin-Gadda, H. (1995). “Fluorine concentration in drinking water and fractures in the elderly.” JAMA 273: 775-776 (letter).
    12.  Jacqmin-Gadda, H., A. Fourrier, et al. (1998). “Risk factors for fractures in the elderly.” Epidemiology 9(4): 417-423. (An elaboration of the 1995 study referred to in the JAMA letter).
    13. Karagas,M.R. et al (1996). “Patterns of Fracture among the United States Elderly: Geographic and Fluoride Effects”. Ann. Epidemiol. 6 (3), 209-216.
    14. Keller, C. (1991) Fluorides in drinking water. Unpublished results. Discussed in Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B,(1992) Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis Int. 2, 109-117.
    15. Kurttio, P., N. Gustavsson, et al. (1999). “Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: A cohort analysis in Finland.” American Journal of Epidemiology 150(8): 817-824.
    16. Lehmann R. et al (1998). Drinking Water Fluoridation: Bone Mineral Density and Hip Fracture Incidence. Bone, 22, 273-278.
    17. Li Y, et al. (2001). Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. J Bone Miner Res.16(5):932-9.
    18. May, D.S. and Wilson, M.G. Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic analysis. Unpublished data, discussed in Gordon, S.L. and Corbin S.B.,(1992), Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Inflruenbce on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis Int. 2, 109-117.
    19. Phipps, K. R. (2000). Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women. British Medical Journal, 321: 860-4.
    20. Sowers, M., M. Clark, et al. (1991). “A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure.” American Journal of Epidemiology 133: 649-660.
    21. Suarez-Almazor, M., G. Flowerdew, et al. (1993). “The fluoridation of drinking water and hip fracture hospitalization rates in two Canadian communities.” Am J Public Health 83: 689-693.
  55. Neurotoxic Effects of Sodium Fluoride: Mullenix, P. et al (1995).Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 17, 169-177.
  56. Chinese Studies Concerning Relationship between Fluoride & Decreased IQ:
  57. Li, X.S., (1995). Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence in Children. Fluoride, 28:4, 189-192
  58. Li Y, Li X, Wei S. (1994). [Effect of excessive fluoride intake on mental work capacity of children and a preliminary study of its mechanism] Hua Hsi I Ko Ta Hsueh Hsueh Pao Jun; 25(2):188-91.
  59. Lin Fa-Fu; et al (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter. Vol. 7. No. 3.
  60. Lu, Y. et al (2000). Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence of children. Fluoride, 33, 74-78.
  61. Zhao, L.B. et al (1996). Effect of high-fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Fluoride, 29, 190-192.
  62. Fluoride & Pineal Gland:
  63. Luke, J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildord.
  64. Luke, J. (2001). Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland. Caries Res. 35:125-128.
  65. European Doctors Used Fluoride to Treat Hyperthyroidism:
  66. techer, P, et al. (1960). The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs. Merck & Co., Inc, Rathway NJ.
  67. Waldbott, G.L., Burgstahler, A.W. and McKinney, H.L. Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas, 1978.
  68. US Government Data on Total Fluoride Intake (1.6-6.6 mg/day) in Fluoridated Communities: DHHS (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Department of Health and Human Services, USA.
  69. Study Discussing Dosage of Fluoride (2.3-4.5 mg/day) Found to Depress Thyroid Gland: Galletti, P. & Joyet, G. (1958). Effect of Fluorine on Thyroidal Iodine Metabolism in Hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology; 18:1102-1110 http://www.fluoridealert.org/galletti.htm
  70. Brain Research Study Reporting that Fluoride Administers the Uptake of Aluminum into the Brain: Varner, J.A. et al (1998). “Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride and Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity” Brain Research, 784, 284-298.
  71. Epidemiological Studies Reporting Association Between Fluoridated Water and Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Children: Masters, R. et al. (2000). Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead. Neurotoxicology. 21:6, 1091-1099.
  72. Another Epidemiological Study Reporting Association Between Fluoridated Water and Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Children: Masters, R.D. and Coplan, M. (1999). “Water treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity” International Journal of Environmental Studies. September.
  73. Fluoride is a Mutagen: Department of Health and Human Services (1991). Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Appendix H. H1-H6.
  74. EPA’s Dr. William Marcus Discussing his Objections to the NTP’s Downgrading of the Tumors:
  75. Marcus, W. (1990). Memorandum from Dr. William Marcus, to Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW, US EPA, DATED MAY 1, 1990, and subsequent memos. These can be viewed on the web at http://www.fluoridealert.org/marcus.htm
  76. Marcus, W. (1995). Radio Interview with Dr. Gary Null. March 10. See www.fluoridealert.org/ifin-19.htm
  77. Study Finding Decreased Female Fertility in Areas with Elevated Fluoride in the Water: Freni SC. (1994). Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. J Toxicology and Environmental Health 42:109-121.
  78. Statement from EPA Headquarters Union on Why they Oppose Fluoridation: Hirzy, J.W. (1999). Why the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation. Press release from National Treasury Employees Union, May 1, 1999. (For text see http://www.fluoridealert.org/HP-Epa.htm )

Chlorinated Water Can Affect Cancer Risk

Chlorinated Water Can Affect Cancer Risk

Epidemiology. 1998;9(1):21-28, 29-35

Lifetime consumption of chlorinated tap water can more than double the risk of bladder and rectal cancers in certain individuals, two new studies conclude.

Both studies examined the lifetime water-consumption patterns, diets and lifestyles of over 2,200 middle-aged and elderly people suffering from either bladder, colon, or rectal cancers. Those profiles were then compared with those of a pool of nearly 2,000 healthy ‘controls’.

Recent research has suggested that chlorine reacts with naturally-found organic compounds in water to form what the study authors call “chlorination byproducts.”

They say many of these byproducts are “mutagenic and/or carcinogenic.” The first study found that smoking men who drank chlorinated tap water for more than 40 years faced double the risk of bladder cancer compared with smoking men who drank nonchlorinated water. Women who drank chlorinated water, on the other hand, had only slightly raised risks for bladder cancers, regardless of (their) smoking status.

The second study found that rates for rectal cancers for both sexes escalated with duration of consumption of chlorinated water. Individuals on low-fiber diets who also drank chlorinated water for over 40 years more than doubled their risk for rectal cancer, compared with lifetime drinkers of nonchlorinated water.

Similar differences were also found between the risk patterns of chlorinated-water drinkers who exercised at least once a week, and those who exercised just once a month, or less. Experts have long recommended regular exercise as one means of reducing one’s risk of rectal and other cancers.

The study found no link between the long-term consumption of chlorinated tap water and the incidence of colon cancer. This was not surprising, the researchers explain, since colon tumors have very different patterns of genesis and development compared with rectal tumors.

They speculate that the source of chlorinated tap water may help determine its potential to promote cancers.

Since surface water (such as that found in lakes and reservoirs) usually contains higher concentrations of organic compounds, the study authors say it is also more likely to contain higher levels of (potentially carcinogenic) chlorination byproducts, compared with water sourced from deep underground.