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