Kidney foundation withdraws support of water floridation [Archive]

speech

06-26-2008, 04:01 PM

The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation citing the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report indicating that kidney patients are more susceptible to fluoride's bone and teeth-damaging effects.

The kidney-impaired retained more fluoride and risk skeletal fluorosis (an arthritic-type bone disease), fractures and severe enamel fluorosis, which may increase the risk of dental decay, reports the NRC.

Fluoride is added to U.S. water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay. Fluoride is also in foods, beverages, drugs and dental products.

The National Kidney Foundation's (NKF) former fluoridation position statement also carried surprising cautions. The NKF advised monitoring children's fluoride intake along with patients with chronic kidney impairment, those with excessive fluoride intake, and those with prolonged disease.

NKF now admits, "Exposure from food and beverages is difficult to monitor, since FDA food labels do not quantify fluoride content."

The NKF's April 15, 2008 statement goes further: "Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure. More than 20 million Americans have CKD, and most don't even know it. More than 20 million others are at increased risk for developing CKD."

"There is consistent evidence that impairment of kidney function results in changes to the way in which fluoride is metabolized and eliminated from the body, resulting in an increased burden of fluoride," concludes Kidney Health Australia.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=379.msg1039;topicseen#new

lucius

06-26-2008, 05:58 PM

Good news!

Here is a bit of double-speak from Grand Rapids of all places; the first city in the world to fluoridate its public water system:

"The belated questioning of fluoride in the most unlikely of places stems partly from unsettled questions—some new, some old—about possible links to cancer and thyroid and kidney problems if too much fluoride is ingested. But the push here mirrors a spreading nationwide awareness and re-examination of the health impact of a wide variety of chemicals added to food, health-care products and water, as well as the use of pesticides."

Still maintaining that trace viability of 'problems if too much fluoride is ingested', discounting fluoride's disturbing bio-accumulative aspects. More at: 'Towns question fluoride use': http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-fluoride-jones_23jun23%2C0%2C6241215.story

Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine (2000), Opposes Fluoridation

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history. It is directly contrary to the efforts which are prompted by the increasing chemical pollution of our environment and the increasing understanding of the dangers of this. Our health authorities will in the future be involved to an even greater extent with the problems which this pollution brings in its train, problems of a very high degree of complexity as regards difficulties in quantitative surveying, interactions with other substances, etc. Our community will require even greater resources to be put to use to hold chemical exposure down to an acceptable level. The fact that in this situation a poison should deliberately be distributed throughout our environment in enormous quantities represents an ill-considered action, especially as this is a poison which, through industrialization, will probably find its way in increasing quantities into our environment. Water fluoridation also goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy. Not only in that the dose cannot be adapted to individual requirements. It is, in addition, based on a completely irrelevant factor, namely consumption of drinking water, which varies greatly between individuals and is, moreover, very poorly surveyed.

Apart from these general considerations, a number of different reasons can be advanced against water fluoridation. In the first place, in our country - judging from current Scandinavian studies - no marked reduction in caries can be expected; one cannot, in fact, be sure that there will be any completely positive effect. Secondly, there is the danger of adverse effects in some individuals, among other things in the form of enamel damage, an increased tendency to caries and other symptoms of ailments, together with disruptions to the development of the growing individual. There is, if not definite proof, sound reason for doubt relating to such negative effects of water fluoridation.

Against the background of the remarks above, it is hardly surprising that water fluoridation now seems to be on the way out. In Europe (with the exception of the eastern countries) it occurs to a very limited extent (among about 1% of the population). The latest change is that Holland has discontinued it and, as it appears, definitely shelved plans for continued fluoridation."

Learn more about Dr. Arvid Carlsson at http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/2000/carlsson-cv.html