Dear All,

One way or another, news items about the NRC report; Bassin’s thesis and the Douglass cover-up are appearing in the media in many places. In some cases this is coming from journalists, in others it is coming from media releases and in still others it is coming from letters to the editor. Here are a few of them:

In yesterdays’s Sunday Mercury conjecture was raised by campaigners about a possible connection between fluoridation of Birmingham - one of the largest cities fluoridated in the UK - and a very high rate of mortality in children less than one year of age. This story is coupled with reference to both the NRC report and the Bassin article (see item 1).

In Boston the Harvard Crimson covered the publication of the Bassin article and reminded their University readers of the continued investigation of Bassin’s thesis adviser, Professor Chester Douglass. In the article Douglass is quoted as claiming that he put Bassin’s thesis in his communication to the NIEHS and the NRC not as a supporting reference (in fact Bassin’s thesis totally contradicted the claim in his report that his studies had not found a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma) but as “a related publication”. This is not a credible explanation. Related publication, or not, Douglass was obliged by normal academic ethical standards, to have told his funders that this “related publication” came from one of his own students and who, using his own data, completely contradicted what he was telling them. This ethical requirement becomes even stronger when one recognizes that his funders had no way of reading Bassin’s thesis, save taking a plane to Boston! (see item 2).

A dental trade online newsletter picked up the NYSCOF press release putting the Bassin article into the context of the timeline on other findings in this area.

A Press release from Dr. Y.L. Boen, yet another dentist breaking ranks with the ADA’s pro-fluoridation position, uses both the NRC report and the Bassin article to support her position. Dr. Boen says that she is “confident that a complete vindication of her anti-fluoridation stance and an American Dental Association (ADA) fluoridation support reversal will come within the next decade” (see item 3).

Also from Portland, comes a guest editorial from Gordon Empey, DMD., MPH, who describes himself as “the dental health consultant to the Oregon Department of Human Services.” His statement is another pro-fluoridation effort to separate the NRC report from water fluoridation. Ironically he continues to cite the claim that CDC described fluoridation as one of the “top 10″ public health achievements of the twentieth century without noting that this 1999 report relied on the NRC (1993) review to establish the safety of fluoridation - the very same body which has now provided 450 pages delineating heath problems at 4 ppm and lower (see item 4).

The managing editor of the Texarkana Democrat has written a thoughtful piece indicating that the NRC report is forcing more people to take this debate seriously (see item 5).

In a letter in today’s Rutland Herald, from Luise Light, a Bellows Falls Trustee who opposes fluoridation, challmneges Dr. Steve Arthur’s assertions that the NRC report has no relevance to water fluoridation (see item 6).

Carol Kopf has a short but powerful letter in a Springfield newspaper (see item 7).

Wayne Logbeck has a letter in the Hutchinson paper (see item 8).

Ellen and I managed to get a very long letter outlining the findings of the NRC report into two newspapers (St. Lawrence Plaindealer, which serves Canton, and the Courier, which serves both Potsdam and Massena. These newspapers do not have an electronic version. Both Potsdam and Massena remain fluoridated.

I urge all our readers to send off letters to their local media, especially if they have failed to cover either the NRC report or the Bassin article. I think the many pieces below will provide plenty of inspiration and ammunition. Please send us copies of any that are published.

Paul Connett

——————————————————————————————-

http://businesscontent.verizon.net/pages/verizon/Story.nsp?story_id=91642298&category=&ID=verizon&scategory=Computers&

FLOURIDE LINKED TO HIGH BABY DEATH RATE ; EXCLUSIVE US Study Backs Midland Campaign

Sunday Mercury; Birmingham (UK), April 9, 2006

FLUORIDE in tap water could be linked to Birmingham’s high infant mortality rate, campaigners claim.

More babies die before their first birthday in the city than any other part of the country.

Campaigners blame the fluoride which is added to the region’s tap water - claims they say are supported by new US research.

The American study found that children who drink water containing fluoride are more at risk of developing cancer.

The research by Harvard University scientists found a strong link between fluoridated drinking water and osteocarcma, a rare and often fatal bone cancer.

Sue King, from the Fluoride Action Network, said: “This is yet more proof of the harm that adding fluoride to tap water can cause.

“We have alerted Severn Trent and the Consumer Council for Water to this research.”

Only 10 per cent of the UK has fluoride added to its water.

Health bosses in the Midlands have ordered the chemical to be put in regional water since 1964 because they believe it prevents tooth decay.

But campaigners say it can cause cancer, thyroid problems and brain damage.

A report by the US National Academy of Sciences found that the federal ’safe limit for fluoride in American tap water did not protect children from dental fluorosis or increased bone fractures’.

It recommended that the allowable limit for fluoride in tap water be lowered immediately.

It was recently revealed that Birmingham has the highest infant mortality rate in England.

A baby born in Birmingham is eight times more likely to die before its first birthday than one in Surrey.

Bliss, a campaign group for families of premature babies, commissioned the research and is now calling on the Government to launch a fresh initiative to tackle infant mortality.

It says staying healthy in pregnancy and good ante-natal care could have a huge impact.

In 2004, 2,391 babies died before the age of one out of 500,000 births.

Two-thirds of such deaths are attributed to being born prematurely, but other factors play a role.

Heart of Birmingham Primary Care Trust had the highest infant mortality at 12.4 deaths per 1,000 - twice as high as the national average of 5.2.

In East Birmingham there were 9.2 deaths per 1,000 and 8.2 in Coventry.

The Government has promised to reduce infant mortality by 10 per cent by 2010.

Severn Trent declined to comment.

fionnuala_bourke@mrn.co.uk

—————————————————————————————————————-

Fluoride May Cause Cancer

Dental Health student’s study contradicts her adviser’s findings

Published On Monday, April 10, 2006

By DORIS A. HERNANDEZ

Crimson Staff Writer

A study associating drinking fluoridated water with osteosarcoma, a rare malignant bone tumor, was published last Wednesday on ’ÄúCancer Causes and Control’Äù, an online peer-review journal of Harvard University.

Elise B. Bassin, a clinical instructor in Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, who led the study, wrote in an e-mail that she found a significant relationship between fluoride and cancer’Äîcontradicting the findings of her dissertation adviser Chester Douglass, the chair of the Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology Department at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine.

’ÄúWe found an association between fluoride levels in drinking water during childhood and osteosarcoma for males diagnosed before age 20 years,’Äù she wrote.

Douglass’Äô $1.3 million dollar, 15 year study did not find a link between drinking fluoridated water and developing osteosarcoma. He said Bassin’Äôs study is a subset of his study and that he had not been able to replicate her results.

The Environmental Working Group, a Washington D.C. based advocacy group, recently filed an ethics complaint against Douglass because he allegedly cited Bassin’Äôs study in his report, despite the opposite conclusions reached by the two studies. Douglass said he just listed Bassin’Äôs study as a related publication and not a reference.

Douglass has received widespread criticism for defending the use of fluoride while being editor of a publication funded by a fluoride toothpaste maker.

Douglass wrote a letter in ’ÄúCancer Causes and Control,’Äù where Bassin’Äôs work was published, warning readers to take the results of Bassin’Äôs study with discretion.

’ÄúReaders are cautioned not to generalize and over-interpret results… before making conclusions, and before influencing any related policy decisions,’Äù he wrote.

’ÄîStaff writer Doris A. Hernandez can be reached at dahernan@fas.harvard.edu

http://www.pr.com/press-release/9026

Dr. Kyung L. Boen is among a sprinkling of dentists in the Portland Metropolitan area that are against adding fluoride to the water supply known as fluoridation. Dr. Boen believes that anti-fluoridation advocates in the United States have been partially vindicated by a new Harvard study and a recent National Academy of Sciences report. Dr. Boen is confident that a complete vindication of her anti-fluoridation stance and an ADA fluoridation support reversal will come within the next decade.

Portland, OR, April 09, 2006 –(PR.COM)– Dr. Kyung L. Boen is among a sprinkling of dentists in the Portland Metropolitan area that are against adding fluoride to the water supply known as fluoridation. While she advocates limited fluoride dental applications that are applied directly to the teeth, she generally promotes using a fluoride substitute such as Xylitol, which is safe for young children and even infants. Dr. Boen believes that anti-fluoridation advocates in the have been partially vindicated by a new Harvard study and a recent National Academy of Sciences report. Dr. Boen is confident that a complete vindication of her anti-fluoridation stance and an American Dental Association (ADA) fluoridation support reversal will come within the next decade.

It was reported this week that young boys who drink fluoridated water, considered safe by federal guidelines, are at an increased risk of developing bone cancer than boys who drink unfluoridated water, according to a new study published in the May issue of the Harvard journal, Cancer Causes and Control. A team of Harvard University scientists, led by Dr. Elise Bassin, found a 5-fold increased risk of developing Osteosarcoma in teenage boys who drank fluoridated water at ages 6, 7, and 8. The research, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, reinforces previous findings in both humans and animals.

This is only two weeks after the prestigious National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council recommended the immediate reduction of fluoride in drinking water. The committee reported that children exposed to the current maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water risk developing severe tooth enamal fluorosis, which is a condition characterized by teeth discoloration, enamel loss, and pitting of the teeth. The majority of the committee stated that the damage to teeth caused by severe enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect that is consistent with prevailing risk assessment definitions of adverse health effects. Additionally, the majority concluded that people who consume water containing that much fluoride, over a lifetime, are likely at increased risk for bone fractures.

Most interestingly for many to learn may be that relative to their body weight, infants and young children are exposed to 3 to 4 times as much fluoride as adults. Moreover, on average, approximately 10 percent of children in communities with water fluoride concentrations near or at 4 mg/L develop severe tooth enamel fluorosis. That means thousands and thousands of American children are being slowly poisoned and doomed to suffer enamel loss and pitted teeth due to this high-concentration of fluoride in their drinking water.

Some of the countries that do not fluoridate their water supply include Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Romania, and Sweden. Yet despite the fact that these countries have decided strongly against water-supply fluoridation, they have experienced the same significant declines in dental cavities as the United States. Approximately 68 percent of Americans currently have access to optimally fluoridated water.

The reported hazards to human health from ingesting fluoride include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. Most of the beverages we drink, such as beer, soda and juice, are made with fluoridated water. Fish and other foods contain fluoride. The fruits and vegetables we eat often are grown with fertilizers that contain fluoride, thus they can have high concentrations of fluoride such as grapes and watermelon. Most Americans cook their foods in fluoridated water.

Dr. Boen graduated from the renowned Oregon Health & Sciences University School of Dentistry in 1994. Five years later, she received her Fellowship from the Academy of General Dentistry. Dr. Boen is a solo-practitioner in her high-tech dental clinique and perhaps only one of a handful of dentists on the West Coast that personally offers invisalign, full orthodontics, i.v. sedation, CEREC 3D porcelain restorations, and Waterlase MD laser dentistry. The doctor holds dental licenses in Oregon, Washington and California.

For information: http://www.mkdentalclinique.com or

Contact: Mark B. Boen, J.D., Business Manager

Company: MK Dental Clinique
Telephone: 503-258-1112
Fax: 503-258-1953
http://www.mkdentalclinique.com

mkdentalclinique@gmail.com

————————————————————————————-

April 07, 2006

News stories about a new national report that recommends reduced fluoride levels in drinking water is causing confusion among people who have an interest in this issue.

As the consultant to the state’Äôs oral health program, I’d like to offer a perspective on the report and share some important facts about fluoridation.

The report, commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is intended to guide the EPA in developing standards for water systems with naturally occurring fluoride concentrations that serve about 0.5 percent of the nation’s population.

This report does not apply to communities that adjust the fluoride in water supplies at the lower levels effective for preventing tooth decay.

Natural fluoride, a mineral present in water, soil and air, is the focus of this report. It recommends that the maximum level of natural fluoride in drinking water be lowered from the current upper limit of 4 milligrams per liter. The report finds that children who continually drink water at these levels are not protected from a condition called severe enamel fluorosis, whose symptoms include discolored, pitted or hard-to-clean enamel. It also finds that a lifetime exposure to fluoride concentrations of 4 milligrams per liter or higher is likely to increase bone fractures.

Community water fluoridation is the adjustment of fluoride in drinking water to a level of about 1 milligram per liter. The National Research Council report does not evaluate the risks or benefits of these lower concentrations. Most of the expert panel members who wrote the report indicate they do not question the use of lower levels of fluoride, which have been shown to reduce tooth decay by 18 percent to 40 percent.

Over the past 60 years, extensive research has shown that fluoridating public water supplies is a safe, effective and economical way to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridation has been extensively studied and is now widely accepted - nearly 170 million Americans (68 percent of the population) drink fluoridated water.

Tooth decay causes toothaches and premature loss of teeth in children. Infections and inflammations resulting from oral disease in adults have been linked to chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, HIV and even pregnancy complications. Good oral health is essential for good general health.

Following the report’s release, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the nation’s lead agency in promoting health and quality of life, issued a statement recommending continued community water fluoridation as a safe, effective and inexpensive way to prevent tooth decay. Nearly every reputable national and international health-related organization recognizes the benefits of water fluoridation and the past five Surgeons General have supported fluoridation.

Oregon ranks 48th out of 50 states for water fluoridation. Although Salem, Hood River, Corvallis, Beaverton and other communities have chosen fluoridation, only about 19 percent of the state’s residents drink fluoridated water.

I sincerely hope the NRC report does not dissuade Oregon communities from learning the facts about community water fluoridation, which has been called one of the 20th century’s Top 10 public health achievements. Learn more about the report at www.nationalacademies.org and http://www.ada.org/prof/index.asp#fluoride

Gordon Empey, DMD., MPH, is the dental health consultant to the Oregon Department of Human Services.

Great editorial from the managing Editor of the Texarkana Gazette.

http://www.texarkanagazette.com/articles/2006/04/09/local_news/opinion/opinions02.txt

Debate on fluoride not cut and dried

Column By LES MINOR

Managing Editor

The fluoridation of public water has been a contentious topic in Texarkana.

Attempts to add the chemical to the water system have twice been rejected by Texarkana, Ark., voters, and since the water utility is a shared operation of both the Texas and Arkansas sides of town, this has effectively quashed the efforts.

People pushing this agenda-primarily those championing the dental health benefits of fluoride-generally have looked at the opposition as if they were a bunch of kooks, or, even worse, ignorant, backwoods ingrates.

Those against fluoridation have said there are no dental health benefits from the ingestion of fluoride; but instead, because it is swallowed, it increases the risk of other health problems.

Fluoridation proponents are generally from the established medical and dental community, while opponents tend to get their voice from the academic and scientific community, although these lines are far from absolute.

Because of the way the argument has unfolded over the years, those favoring fluoridation tend to see themselves as beyond reproach, secure in the absolute backing of most major medical associations. Opponents, on the other hand, are often portrayed as radicals crying “wolf,” or yipping at the heels of establishment critics.

That may be changing by degrees.

For one thing, more and more communities are saying no to fluoridation. In the early years of this 60-year-old debate, there was little organized resistance and the odds strongly favored fluoride. Nowadays, votes on fluoridation are about as predictable as a coin flip. Some go one way; some go the other.

For another, there is new information that suggests the kooks weren’t without a cause.

Last month, the National Academy of Sciences released the results of its fluoride study-one of the most thorough in a long time. One telling recommendations of the study, which was paid for by the Environmental Protection Agency, is that there were enough health risks associated with fluoride that it recommended the current level of fluoride allowed in drinking water should be lowered.

Last month, the National Academy of Sciences released the results of its fluoride study-one of the most thorough in a long time. One telling recommendations of the study, which was paid for by the Environmental Protection Agency, is that there were enough health risks associated with fluoride that it recommended the current level of fluoride allowed in drinking water should be lowered.

The study also asked the EPA to do a risk assessment and determine a new maximum fluoride level. Currently the max is 4 milligrams per liter. Most water systems, including Texarkana’s is about 25 percent of that. Most areas that exceed that level, including some in Texas, do so because additional fluoride seeps into the water from other environment sources. But all of us are exposed to fluoride in multiple ways, not just the water system, and it is the total amount of fluoride that can increase the risk of harmful dental fluorosis.

But the report looks much deeper than the affect of fluoride on our teeth.

It found evidence that fluoride increases bone breaks, and, in the elderly, contributed to joint stiffness. The report showed a relationship between fluoride and Alzheimer’s disease, and questioned if it might marginally affect a child’s ability to learn (impair IQ).

The NAS report says that “fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone.”

It should be noted that there is a fairly wide difference between what the EPA considers the maximum level of fluoride in the water system (4 mg. per liter) and the best level for preventing cavities (about 1 mg. per liter).

Still, the report gives pause, not only because we all collect fluoride from a variety of sources, but because the potential side effects seem to infiltrate so many areas of our medical health.

When looking at the whole picture, opponents say simply that you can best protect your teeth by getting your fluoride from toothpaste and mouthwashes and you can best safeguard your bones by removing fluoride from your drinking water.

While dentists still largely believe the benefits outweigh the risks, fluoridation is no longer beyond dispute. At the very least, the report indicates a need for caution.

Virtues and vices sometimes come in the same package. What’s good for the teeth looks more and more like it’s bad for other body parts. That’s not a slam dunk, that’s a trade off.

If nothing else, as this debate goes forward, all of us who have an interest in this issue should to be more willing to question what we think we know about fluoride and its effect on all parts of the human body.

Does this mean that the pendulum has swung in the other direction?

It’s too early to tell. But it does seem as if the perceived gap between the two sides has closed, not only on the rhetorical front, but also on the substance of the argument.

____________________________________________________________________

Letter-to-the Editor, Rutland Herald, from Luise Light, a Bellows Falls Trustee who opposes fluoridation

April 10, 2006

In his letter of April 6, 2006, Dr. Steve Arthur, director of the Office of Oral Health in the Vermont Health Department, tells us that fluoride purposely added to drinking water is not what the National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC) was referring to in their landmark 560-page study, released on March 23, 2006, on the health impacts of fluoride consumption. The study, commissioned by the EPA, on the overall safety of fluoride in tap water, reports that the EPA’s current standards for fluoride in tap water are inadequate to protect the public’s health.

While recognizing the value of fluoride to dentistry, the study cites a substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed science that strongly suggests that adding fluoride to tap water is not the safest way to achieve dental health benefits. What’s more, a newly published study in the May issue of Cancer Causes and Control, a peer-reviewed publication of the National Cancer Institute, finds that young boys (ages 6, 7, and 8) who drink fluoridated water are at a five times greater risk of developing bone cancer, confirming previous studies in animals and humans.

Nationwide, 170 million people live in communities with fluoride added to their water. Research dating back decades has suggested a link between fluoride added to drinking water and cancer, in particular, bone cancer in young boys. Other studies have strongly suggested that fluoride (added or natural) can cause genetic mutations in bone cells related to childhood bone cancer.

Does the NRC distinguish between fluoride added to drinking water as a way to combat dental caries and naturally occurring fluoride in water, as Dr. Arthur tells us? No. But don’t take my word for it, here’s what the NRC report says :

“The NRC (1993) recommended further research to determine and compare the intake of fluoride from all sources, including fluoride containing dental products, in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. This chapter provides a review of the available information on fluoride exposure in the United States, including sources of fluoride exposure, intakes from various fluoride sources, and factors that could affect individuals’ exposures to fluoride.” (Chapter 2, p. 19)

“Most fluoride in drinking water is added in the form of fluosilicic acid ’Ķ collectively referred to as fluorosilicates. Of approximately 10,000 fluoridated water systems, 75 percent of them used fluorosilicates. This widespread use of silicofluorides has raised concerns on at least two levels. First, some reports (show) an association between the use of silicofluorides in community water and elevated blood concentrations of lead in children.” (p.43)

“Table 2-11 shows that, when tap water contains fluoride, nonnursing infants have the highest total exposure’Ķtwice the exposure for children 1-2 and 3-5 years old, and 3.4 times the exposure for adults.” (p.47)

It simply is not true that this report does not address the fluoridated water consumed in our community. For the first time, an NRC report has reviewed the adverse health impacts of consuming fluoride from all available sources, including fluoridated water, food, soft drinks, pharmaceuticals, emissions, and cigarette smoke, and find compelling evidence that exposures are too high.

Many European countries have decided against fluoridating their citizens’ water. These countries include: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. What do they know that our Health Department doesn’t?

Perhaps the warning carried on all fluoride toothpaste sold in the U.S. should be read more carefully. It says: “Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.” Does that suggest that added fluoride in drinking water or dental products are safe?

To the contrary, fluoride is a profound poison. It accumulates in our bodies and can cause grave health effects, as the NRC report bears out. These include: lower IQs in children, thyroid disorders now rampant in the US, GI disorders also rampant in the US, and prevalent hip and spine fractures in older adults, among others. We know enough now to start limiting our exposure to fluoride. The risks to our health are just too great to keep doing what we’ve been doing for the past 60 years. There is no longer justification for adding fluoride to public water systems and too many reasons not to. I urge the residents of Bellows Falls to vote to remove fluoride from our municipal water system at our annual meeting on May 15. We must act prudently to protect our health and that of our children. There are other, safer ways to protect children’s teeth. Exposing them to the risks of lead poisoning, lower IQs and bone cancer are not it.

LUISE LIGHT,

Trustee

Bellows Falls

—————————————————————————————–

Letter to the editor from Carol Kopf to the Springfield News-Leader.

Compound a health hazard

Re: “Anti-fluoride alderwoman loses twice,” April 5 News-Leader.

It’s not your alderwoman who lost. It’s the people of Stockton who have lost. They were assured by their dentists, physicians and maybe even their newspaper that fluoridation is safe, effective and cheap.

Since fluoride is also in food, beverages, air emissions, pharmaceuticals and dental products, no individual really knows how much fluoride they consume each day.

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth and is failing to reduce tooth decay in America’s largest fluoridated cities.

But then I’m sure the voters who prescribed fluoride for their neighbors didn’t know that. Nor did they take the time to diagnose their neighbors for kidney disease, diabetes, thyroid disease ’Äî individuals the NRC said could be especially harmed by fluoride, even at the low levels added for water fluoridation.

Carol Kopf, Levittown, N.Y. The author represents the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation

—————————————————————————————————————-

Letter to the editor Hutchinson News from Wayne Logbeck.

http://www.hutchnews.com/opinion/westernfront/stories/fluoride041006.html

On March 22, the National Research Council’s (NRC) report, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” finally came out almost 16 months late. They were charged with reviewing the scientific literature from 1993 on and to make recommendations to the EPA on the safe Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of fluoride in water.

This was to be based on health effects only, not so-called dental benefits. Their conclusion is the MCL of 4 PPM is way too high.

In 1986, when the MCL was set at 4 PPM by management, the headquarters union of “workers” in Washington, D.C., said that was not protective of human health.

At that time, they also said that the MCL goal of fluoride in water should be 0. That would have put a stop to water fluoridation. About the same time, they filed a grievance so that they could have bottled water (without fluoride) to drink at work instead of Washington, D.C.’s fluoridated water.

For years, the CDC, ADA and others have been saying that dental fluorosis is only a cosmetic effect. The NRC report found that at 4 PPM, 10 percent of the population had severe dental fluorosis and it is an adverse health effect.

The NRC Committee also found that it was likely that there is an increase in bone fractures and increased risk of Stage II skeletal fluorosis. Furthermore, the committee expressed concerns similar to those of the union over adverse effects on the brain and central nervous system, as well as endocrine disruption, including effects on thyroid function. The committee report also cautions against assumptions - put forward by proponents of fluoridation - that there is no evidence that fluoride can cause cancer.

The May 2006 issue of Cancer Causes and Control will have a peer reviewed article by Elise Bassin about water fluoridation and osteoscarcoma cancer. She found that about 400 new cases diagnosed each year in this country are caused by fluoride in the water in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 PPM and consumed by boys when between the ages of 6 to 8. About half of them are fatal and there is no cure, the only treatment is amputation. This is not the first time that fluoride has been associated with cancer. But it is the best scientific study of humans to date.

None of this is new information. Having people think fluoride is good and not harmful is worth several billion dollars per year in this country.

The first class action suit has begun.

WAYNE LOGBECK

Hutchinson