Fluoridation not associated with hip fracture, heart attacks of osteosarcoma – new study


A new Swedish study confirms fluoride does not increase risks of hip fracture, myocardial infarction, or osteosarcoma.

Community water fluoridation appears to have no association with increased risk of hip fracture, myocardial infarction or osteosarcoma.

That’s the conclusion from a new Swedish study. And these conclusions agree with most findings from earlier studies.

Peggy Näsman describes this new study in her PhD thesis:

Näsman, P. (2016). Epidemiological studies of fluoride exposure and hip fracture , myocardial infarction and osteosarcoma.

She used Swedish nationwide population-based registers for her investigations.

Sweden does not use community water fluoridation but its drinking water contains fluoride at various levels, including optimum or even higher concentrations. So Swedish population data are ideal for looking at possible links between the level of fluoride intake and specific health effects.

Näsman found no association between fluoride exposure level and risk of hip fracture using a  cohort of 452,824 eligible people with an exposure to the same drinking water source from birth. The drinking water fluoride levels  ranged between <0.1 and 2.7 mg/L . Similarly, she found no association between fluoride level and the risk of osteoporotic (low-trauma) hip fracture.

However, stratified analyses suggested that fluoride exposure in people younger than 80 years of age was, in fact, associated with a decreased risk for hip fracture.

There was also no association between fluoride exposure level and risk of myocardial infarction using a cohort of 455,619 eligible people with an  exposure to the same drinking water source from birth.  The drinking water fluoride levels  ranged between <0.1 and 2.7 mg/L . There was also no association with fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction.

Finally, Näsman found no association between drinking water fluoride exposure and risk of osteosarcoma using a case-control study consisting of 363 eligible osteosarcoma cases identified in the Swedish Cancer Register, and 1,815 control subjects randomly selected from the Total Population Register. Here the drinking water fluoride levels ranged between 0.03 and 2.75 mg/L.

Anti-fluoridation campaigners often cite cherry-picked studies based on unreliable work or small numbers of subjects to argue that community water fluoridation is harmful. They have specifically claimed fluoridation causes increased risks of hip fracture,myocardial infarction, and osteosarcoma. However, the bulk of the scientific literature does not support these claims and this study once again confirms that.

Näsman is publishing her findings in three scientific publications:

Näsman P, Ekstrand J, Granath F, Ekbom A, Fored CM. Estimated drinking water fluoride exposure and risk of hip fracture: a cohort study. J Dent Res. 2013 92(11):1029-34.

Näsman P, Granath F, Ekstrand J, Ekbom A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Fored CM. Natural fluoride in drinking water and myocardial infarction: a cohort study in Sweden. Science of the Total Environment. 2016 562:305-11.

Näsman P, Granath F, Ekstrand J, Ekbom A, Sandborgh Englund G, Naimi- Akbar A, Fored CM. Natural fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma: a case-control study in Sweden. [Submitted]

Similar articles

13 responses to “Fluoridation not associated with hip fracture, heart attacks of osteosarcoma – new study

  1. It is contended by some that ingestion of fluoride interferes with the production of testosterone, which has implications for bone health. Testing this contention would be more to the point, or is this already well established.


  2. In Sweden they eat a lot of fish, recently averaging 380g per week. So they will get a fairly balanced range of minerals, including a lot of fluoride from fish bones. In a cold country they may not drink so much water so fluoride from it may not be such a large factor in dietary intake compared to fish. They also eat a lot of fermented fish so will be good for vitamin K2 necessary to get calcium to go to the bones rather than the arteries, which will impinge on teh heart health, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surstr%C3%B6mming

    The study was of 473,277 adults born in Sweden between 1900 and 1919 with 60,773 hip fractures or nearly 1 in 8 people which is quite high anyway. They eat They do a lot of skiing which produces hip fractures, probably leaving fewer in the lower impact group. Fluoridated North America also has a high rate.


  3. Mikesh – it is contended by some that fluoride causes all sorts of ills. But the important thing is evidence.

    Can you cite any credible source for fluoride interfering with testosterone production in humans when at the concentrations used in community water fluoridation?

    If you can then we have something to look at and discuss.


  4. soundhill,

    You’re making too many assumptions here and not exactly explaining your train of thought.

    “In Sweden they eat a lot of fish…” – and a lot of other things as well! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_cuisine In fact the Swedish diet would appear to be more varied than that of New Zealand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_cuisine
    Does your referral to fish eating have anything to do with hip fracture? Published evidence would appear not. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20572022

    Sweden has a lot of hip fractures – correct, similar incidence to North America and New Zealand. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004072

    “They eat…” Yes, I agree that the Swedish population eats, but don’t see how it contributes to any discussion.

    “They do a lot of skiing” – I think (citation required) is indicated, because so do Aucklanders and no-one is suggesting that a similar incidence of hip fractures in Auckland is due to skiing.

    “…which produces hip fractures” – I agree, skiing produces some hip fractures, but most skiing fractures are not hip fractures. http://www.healthcentral.com/encyclopedia/hc/tibial-fracture-3168605/ If you have evidence otherwise then (citation required).

    “probably leaving fewer in the lower impact group.” – I think that clarification of what you mean is required here. An explanation of several steps in your thinking appears to have been skipped.

    “Fluoridated North America also has a high rate.” – again, an explanation is required. High rate of – fluoridation? hip fracture? skiing injury? skiing? hip fractures from skiing? something else you’ve thought of?

    Some clarity and precision in your thoughts as you convey them in writing would be appreciated.

    Sorry, Ken. I’m not meaning to derail the conversation. I tend to irritation when people demonstrate muddled and incoherent thinking and writing. I’ll shut up about it now.

    I agree with your opinion that this study appears to be another addition to the masses of evidence, accumulated over decades and millions of people, that community water fluoridation has no significant implications for human health other than reduction in dental caries.


  5. Pingback: Fluoride and health : epidemiological studies of fluoride exposure and hip fracture, myocardial infarction and osteosarcoma |

  6. I think what soundhill was trying to point out with the fish reference is the high amount of iodine normally associated with fish consumption. Iodine have been shown to increase fluoride excretion. That is to say that population with a high dietary fish intake will probably be somewhat protected against fluoride toxicity.


  7. Chee Young – could you please cite evidence for your claim that “Iodine have been shown to increase fluoride excretion.”?



  8. Well, it’ not really a scientific a paper. But this link has the right argument.


    And it make sense from basic chemistry. The more reactive chemical from the same group will displace the less reactive ones. Unless we change the concentration ratio. I guess, this might be too basic chemistry to be found in research papers.


  9. No, it’s not a credible citation, is it?

    One must be very careful about naively using the periodic table to draw conclusions about the chemical behaviour of individual species. For example, it is well understood that elements in the first row have quite a different chemistry to other elements in a group. This, together with the trends in a group with increasing atomic number must be taken into account in such considerations.

    But, in the end it is the facts on the ground that count. If what you claim is true then it will have been observed and reported. If it hasn’t then any wild speculation like this is worthless. This is why I asked you to cite evidence.

    What do you mean by the reactivity of a species? This requires defining the sort of reaction. Considering that the solubility of calcium iodide is very, very different to that of calcium fluoride what specific reaction are you referring to?


  10. happy new year! indeed, that is not a scientific paper. however, like I mentioned, the reactivity of elements in a group is elementary chemistry. at least, that was what I remember from school.

    I do agree that facts on the ground, empirical observations are paramount starting points for most hypothesis.

    there are actually plenty of research on the ground about the adverse effects of fluoridation on our body.

    take this one


    Effectiveness of sodium fluoride as a preservative of glucose in blood

    fluoridation is implicated in diabetes!

    and it is not just this research. there are many more out there, causing effects such as the lowering of IQ, to causing cancer and autism.

    for all the fanfare about how fluoridation is good for the teeth, proponents seems pretty oblivious to the harmful effects of fluoridation.

    482 characters, 75 words


  11. Chee Young – unsurprisingly your memory of the changes in chemistry within a periodic table group is naive. Hell, if things were that simple we would be using chloride to protect our teeth, wouldn’t we? 🙂

    You say “there are actually plenty of research on the ground about the adverse effects of fluoridation on our body.”

    But then seem to desperately search for some sort of “evidence” and select a completely inappropriate paper. Are you not aware that the concentration of fluoride used in blood preservation is thousands of times that relevant to community water fluoridation?

    This sort of desperation and inappropriate citation is typical of someone who does not have any evidence at all but is simply attempting to justify an unsupported bias.

    Fluoridation is not “implicated” in diabetes, cancer or autism. And far from the scientific community being “oblivious” to any possible harmful effects, these are constantly under consideration and review.

    Perhaps you should have a read of this recent review – it is authoritative, very readable and not too long:

    Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence. Retrieved from http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/commissioned-reviews/yr2014/health-effects-of-water-fluoridation/


  12. Heh. I do agree that using chloride for teeth protection is naive. And why, I thought there’s suppose to be no ad hominems. Well, it seems that your mind is set upon this issue, and I respect that. My last hope that you will not cherry picks only sources that supports your point of view. Have a good year ahead.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s