As someone who has a PhD in chemistry and has researched the issue of fluoridation for 9 years, I take great exception to Michael Shaw's denigration of opponents of this practice as "conspiracy nuts". Of course such people exist, but they represent a very small fraction of the people who oppose fluoridation on scientific and ethical grounds, which includes Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the winner of the Nobel prize for Medicine in 2000.

If this web site is supposed to be science based, it amazes me that you tolerate Shaw trashing a PhD thesis, that he hadn't even read at the time of his commentary!

What Dr. Elise Bassin (a pediatric dentist and not an "anti-fluoridation" nut) found in a matched case-control study was a "robust" association between the exposure of young boys to fluoridated water in their 6th-8th years and a significant increase in osteosarcoma by the age of 20. Her study is particularly important, in my view, because it may well explain why some earlier studies have not found this relationship (some others have), see our

submissions to the National Research Council which is currently reviewing fluoride toxicology in water at the request of the US EPA at

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/fan-nrc.part1.pdf

and http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/fannrc.part2.pdf.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to be disturbed by what has happened since Bassin successfully defended her thesis in May 2001.

First, in November 2002 her thesis adviser, Professor Chester Douglass, who signed off on her thesis, gave a presentation to the British Fluoridation Society in London, and assured the audience that there was no association

between fluoridation and osteosarcoma without mentioning his own student's findings. Now it is possible that in the intervening months Douglass had found weaknesses in Bassin's results, but he was still duty bound to mention

her findings and explain those weaknesses. But he didn't. Nor did he discuss her findings when he reported to the NIEHS (the funder of the work). It is on these grounds that the Environmental Working Group called for an inquiry into Douglass's behavior (see www.ewg.org).

Had not a member of the Fluoride Action Network (my son in fact) gone to the rare books section of the Harvard Library, and copied the relevant chapter of Bassin thesis, the public-at-large would never have heard of this work

(see WSJ, B1, July 22, 2005). If Bassin is correct, a practice to which 170 millions of Americans are exposed daily, may be contributing to a rare but frequently fatal bone cancer in young men. This is not something to be

dismissed as lightly as Michael Shaw attempts to do.

I do not have enough space to lay out all the scientific evidence that fluoridation is neither as effective nor safe as proponents have previously believed, but for your readers who wish to see the science I urge them to go to and examine some of the other serious health end points which are occurring within a factor of three of the fluoride levels used in water fluoridation programs (1 part per million).These include: a possible increase in bone fractures in children

(Alarcon-Herrera, 2001); increasing hip fractures in the elderly at 1.54.3 ppm (Li, 2001); lowering of IQ at 1.8 ppm (Xiang, 2003); lowering of thyroid function at 2.3 ppm (Bachinskii, 1985) and lowering of fertility at 3 ppm (Freni, 1994). Not all these findings may be confirmed in future studies but there are enough red flags being waved right now (including Bassin findings) for a reasonable person to reject a practice for which the biggest survey in the US was only able to show an average saving of 0.6

of one permanent tooth surface (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990).

Moreover, most European countries have not copied us on water fluoridation and yet their teeth are just as good, if not better than ours, see http://www.fluorideaction.net/who-dmft.htm

Sadly, proponents of fluoridation still attempt to win the argument by citing "authority" and denigrating opponents. This unscientific tactic has worked for 60 years, but hopefully web sites like yours can bring some scientific integrity to the discussion.

Readers who may wish to test the paradigm of fluoridation "safety and effectiveness" should see how many of the "50 Reasons to Oppose fluoridation" they can rebut with scientific references. See:

http://www.fluorideaction.net/50reasons.htm. If they can, hopefully they will join the growing number of citizens and scientists from around the world who are calling for an end to this archaic practice.

© 2005 HealthNewsDigest.com