The debate over the benefits versus risks of water fluoridation heated up when news came out of a possible cover-up of a link between fluoride and a rare form of cancer. But the news reports didn't change the minds of friends or foes of the chemical widely touted to reduce cavities. Last week, federal investigators and officials of Harvard University began examining accusations that the Harvard School of Dental Medicine epidemiologist had told federal officials he found no significant correlation between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer affecting young boys.

However, Chester Douglass, the epidemiologist in question, also supervised research for a 2001 doctoral thesis that concluded boys exposed to fluoridated water were more likely to contract the disease.

As a newcomer to fluoridation, Davis County cannot yet track fluoride's health effects.

But Brigham City has had fluoridated water for more than 40 years and health officials there have seen no indication the rates of osteosarcoma are any higher there than in the general population.

Glen Kinney, the regional epidemiologist for the Bear River Health Department, which encompasses Brigham City, said he has seen no indication that rates of osteosarcoma are any higher there than elsewhere in Utah.

Kinney, who lives in Layton, said statistics gathered between 1977 and 2001 show Box Elder County, with 14 cases of the rare cancer, is not statistically different from the rest of the state, which was not fluoridated during that time frame.

Osteosarcoma is a rare, but lethal form of cancer that affects males nearly twice as often as females. Patients live an average of three years after diagnoses.

Proponents of fluoridation, including some of the world's best known medical organizations, agree that more than 50 years of research has demonstrated the safety and efficacy of fluoride in preventing dental caries. Kinney himself agrees with that assessment. "We know the number of dental cavities has dramatically improved."

Michael E. Easley, one of the most prominent proponents of fluoride, wrote in 1999, "Studies indicate that a $100,000 investment in water fluoridation prevents 500,000 cavities. Moreover," he said, "for each dollar invested in fluoridation, over $80 in dental treatment costs are prevented, amounting to an 80:1 benefit-to-cost ratio. Few disease prevention efforts and even fewer government-sponsored programs achieve that level of return in investment."

However, Lorna Rosen-stein of Waterwatch of Utah and a Layton resident said that according to studies her group has followed, osteosarcoma "increased dramatically," among teen boys in fluoridated areas of the country, but not in unfluoridated areas.

The revelation of the Harvard controversy doesn't surprise Rosenstein, who said the opponents of fluoridation have long believed the chemical can cause bone cancer.

She said that the New Jersey Department of Health reported incidents of osteosarcoma three to seven times higher in fluoridated areas.

"While it is uncertain why the cancer affects only males, one study has suggested that very low levels of fluoride can interfere with the male hormone testosterone, which is involved in making hormone growth," Rosenstein said.

Anti-fluoride forces have long maintained that fluoride collects in the bones, and instead of strengthening them, it weakens them, causing more hip fractures and other bone problems.

Rosenstein and other fluoride opponents say one of the problems is that water system operators use contaminated fluoride substances which may include contaminants ranging from arsenic to radon 222 to silver, and others which vary from batch to batch.

Rosenstein questioned, "Is the death of one young boy from osteosarcoma an adequate exchange for fluoride's highly-contested ability to save a small percentage of a cavity in a child's tooth?"

mwilliams@davisclipper.com