New research confirms water fluoridation does not cause bone cancers

Osteosarcoma
The most common type of bone cancer is Osteosarcoma. Image credit:  Osteosarcoma

This time for Texas.

A new study confirms what other researchers have found elsewhere. It is reported in this recent paper:

Archer, N. P., Napier, T. S., & Villanacci, J. F. (2016). Fluoride exposure in public drinking water and childhood and adolescent osteosarcoma in Texas. Cancer Causes & Control

The paper concludes with this statement:

“No relationship was found between fluoride levels in public drinking water and childhood/adolescent osteosarcoma in Texas.”

The same conclusion has been drawn in many reviews of the literature. For example, a local review:

Broadbent, J., Wills, R., McMillan, J., Drummond, B., & Whyman, R. (2015). Evaluation of evidence behind some recent claims against community water fluoridation in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 6758(October), 1–18.

They pointed out that Bassin et al., (2006) “found a small but
statistically significant association with fluoridated water among the 60 cases [of osteosarcoma]  that occurred among males.”

Anti-fluoride campaigners have relied on this study, even though Bassin et al., (2006) had acknowledged methodological issues with their analysis and urged caution in interpreting their findings. Broadbent et al., (2015) say:

“The work of Bassin et al. (2006) stimulated further, more comprehensive research; however, the new studies have not replicated their findings.”

This conclusion was based on the findings of Kim et al. (2011), Comber et al. (2011), Levy & Leclerc (2012) and Blakey et al. (2014).

The New Zealand Fluoridation Information Service (2013) drew similar conclusions from their review of the literature but also checked out the New Zealand data. They reported in Community Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma:

“The analysis confirms that osteosarcoma is extremely rare in New Zealand with only 127 new cases registered during this period averaging 14.1 per year. The peak age is 10 to 19 years for both sexes. These rates indicate that there is no difference in the rates of osteosarcoma cases between areas with CWF [community water fluoridation] and areas without CWF for both sexes,”

The authoritative New Zealand Fluoridation Review (Eason et al., 2014. Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidencealso drew the same conclusion:

“We conclude that on the available evidence there is no appreciable risk of cancer arising from CWF.”

So, once again community water fluoridation has been found safe and a published study suggesting otherwise not confirmed. But I am betting this will not stop anti-fluoride campaigners continuing to cite the Bassin et al. (2006) study as the last word on the topic and “proof” CWF causes osteosarcoma.

Note: For the pet lovers out there.

PetsWelcome

You can also be reassured by this recent study:

Rebhun, R. B., Kass, P. H., Kent, M. S., Watson, K. D., Withers, S. S., Culp, W. T. N., & King, A. M. (2016). Evaluation of optimal water fluoridation on the incidence and skeletal distribution of naturally arising osteosarcoma in pet dogs. Veterinary and Comparative Oncology.

This concluded:

“Taken together, these analyses do not support the hypothesis that optimal fluoridation of drinking water contributes to naturally occurring [osteosarcoma] in dogs.”

Similar articles

7 responses to “New research confirms water fluoridation does not cause bone cancers

  1. Steve Slott

    Yeah, well that may be true for dogs if you say so, but Cathy Justus determined conclusively that fluoridated water caused the sickeness and death of her horses. She did so through a comprehensive, systematic google search which took well over 30 minutes, and obtaining the opinion of one out of only 9 veterinarians who finally told her that the symptoms she reported to him could be consistent with fluoride poisoning. So there we have it. There is no more concrete proof than that, as has been confirmed by the fluoride action network.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  2. Funny but I’m not reassured Ken . . . maybe it’s because I feel so much better NOT drinking the artificially fluoridated tap water . . . :}

    Like

  3. So Greenbuzzer, I won my bet – it was pretty safe wasn’t it?🙂

    “But I am betting this will not stop anti-fluoride campaigners continuing to cite the Bassin et al. (2006) study as the last word on the topic and “proof” CWF causes osteosarcoma.”

    Like

  4. “only 39 out of 100 experiments live up to their original claims.”

    And I suppose you tend to say all the teeth are likely to be good after seeing a few good ones in a mouth. But please don’t bypass checking each study Ken cites.

    “Background factors such as culture, location, population, or time of day affect the success rates of replication experiments, a new study suggests”

    http://retractionwatch.com/2016/05/23/context-matters-when-replicating-experiments-argues-study/

    Location implies latitude and Texas is far south getting lots of sunlight. They are some 84% whites, too, so will be good for vitamin D.

    Like

  5. Brian, you are burbling again. It’s hard to make any sense of such straw clutching.

    Are you suggesting the Bassin et al (2006) paper be retracted because no other researcher has managed to replicate the results?

    The authors did warn:

    “Further research is required to confirm or refute this observation.”

    The further research has refuted their observations. It happens all the time.

    But this is just one more example of the cherry-picking you and your FAN mates continually indulge in. Choosing and sticking with a study that does not “live up to its original claims.”

    Like

  6. soundhill1

    By latitude in the Bassin study:
    latitude cases
    29.65 12
    34.07 12
    38.9 11
    40.71 7
    41.25 5
    41.5 11
    41.79 11
    42.36 32

    It needs to be adjusted by population size.
    Note also the southerly Bassin area of Florida which had nearly 30% more blacks as a proportion of population compared to Texas and the recent study.

    Like

  7. soundhill1

    The 34 latitude is California which has fewer blacks but more Asians so was under 80% whites in the year 2000.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s