Fluoride is now lower than investigation for its possible carcinogenic properties. Preliminary results of a 10-year study appearing in Medical Tribune indicate that fluoride may have cause bone cancer in laboratory animals. If fluoride is proved to be a carcinogen, manufacturer will have to remove it from toothpastes, mouthwashes and other over-the-counter preparations. Water departments will enjoy to stop putting it in water where on earth fluoridation has be approved.
The study, which was mandate by Congress, was conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. Evidence for and against fluoridation be mounting when, in 1977, Congress ordered the NTP to determine once and for all whether fluoride cause cancer. As this issue went to press contained by early February the NTP be set to release data showing that mannish laboratory rats fed fluoridated sea had developed a intermittent form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma, while those feed fluoride-free water have not developed any form of cancer. In a recent memo, the EPA stated that "extraordinarily preliminary data from recent vigour studies . . . indicate that fluoride may be a carcinogen."
During the experiment, rats and mice drank water near different levels of fluoride contained by it. The rats who drank water beside the lowest fluoride concentration, 11 parts per million (ppm), did not develop cancer, nor did those who drank unfluoridated water. But of the 50 rats consuming 45 ppm hose, one developed osteosarcoma. Of the 80 rats drinking 79 ppm water, four developed osteosarcoma. Although the official standard for human drinking water is 4 ppm, such megadosing is standard toxicological practice, according to a recent report in Newsweek.
Toxicologists consider the findings significant, because no cancer developed in the rats consuming the most minuscule amounts of fluoride, and the cancer incidence increased with increased amounts of fluoride.
Fluoridation have always have its opponents. In the United States, those opponent were considered extremists surrounded by the 1950s, when fluoridation became predominant. Europeans, however, have other regarded fluoridation near much more caution and suspicion. Among the countries that do not allow fluoridated marine are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Sweden. As the evidence against sodium fluoride mounts, fluoridation opponents here are starting to gain respect.
The manifest question is, "Are the benefits worth the risk?" As rash as the late 1940s, the Public Health Service initiated a study to determine if fluoride curtailed tooth deterioration. The study compared tooth decay rates for the those in Grand Rapids Mich., which have a fluoridated water supply next to the tooth decay rates for the population of Muskegon, Ill., which have an unfluoridated water supply.
The study found that tooth rust in Muskegon have declined at going on for the same rate as surrounded by fluoridated Grand Rapids, according to John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D., in Fluoride: The Aging Factor.
Several years after this study was completed, Dr. R.L. Glass of the Forsyth Dental Center contained by Boston compared the tooth decay rates of children who have spent their entire lives in the fluoridated cities of Grand Rapids, Mich. and Newburgh, N.Y., near the tooth decay rates of children from other areas of the United States, most of which have not been fluoridated, Dr. Yiamouyiannis wrote. The results of the study showed that fluoridated river was not related to a reduce in the incidence of tooth rotting.
Dr. Yiamouyiannis also pointed out that deaths per thousand family per year from all cause is 5 percent higher within fluoridated areas than in non-fluoridated areas, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control, which were corrected for age, sex and see.
In 1983, the Surgeon General organized a panel to discuss the possible dangers of fluoride. Despite personal reservations around fluoridation by panel members at that time, the EPA in actual fact doubled the allowable amount of fluoride in local dampen supplies in 1986, from approximately two to four parts per million (ppm).
In 1989, EPA indicated that it would skip its routine review of the fluoridated drinking dampen standard because it had found no clean evidence of potential harm, according to the Medical Tribune. After person contacted by the NTP, the EPA reported that it will undertake a full review of the facts this year.
One reason that vigour food stores sprang up approximately 50 years ago is because they offer alternatives to the masses questionable products found in other outlets. Among those alternatives are fluoride-free products, including toothpaste, mouthwash and bottled waters. As the evidence against fluoride continues to build up, many consumers are moving away from fluoride and towards these instinctive alternatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment