Argumentative Essay: The Use Of Fluoride In Water

Another issue of controversy is the safety of the chemicals used to fluoridate water. The most commonly used additives are silicofluorides, not the fluoride salts used in dental products (such as sodium fluoride and stannous fluoride). Silicofluorides are one of the by-products from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers. The toxicity database on silicofluorides is sparse and questions have been raised about the assumption that they completely dissociate in water and, therefore, have toxicity similar to the fluoride salts tested in laboratory studies and used in consumer products (Coplan and Masters 2001). It also has been maintained that, because of individual variations in exposure to fluoride, it is difficult to ensure that the right individual dose to protect against dental caries is provided through large-scale water fluoridation. In addition, a body of information has developed that indicates the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic (Zero et al. 1992; Rölla and Ekstrand 1996; Featherstone 1999; Limeback 1999a; Clarkson and McLoughlin 2000; CDC 2001; Fejerskov

Although with all this information on the benefits of treating public water there is still information that is overlooked by governments. Fluoride is a pollutant, insecticide, poison, and a byproduct of fertilizer, nuclear power plants, and metal processing. Fluoride is also found in many processed goods, dental hygiene products, and pharmaceuticals meaning the average person’s intake is most likely far greater than the recommended levels. In the 1930s they were looking for an easy way to dispose of the toxic byproduct. During this time period one of the largest aluminum companies funded a test to determine how bad or good fluoride actually was to the people, this is when it was first deemed as a beneficial treatment. To me it seems kind of fishy that a company more worried about public relations and how to dispose of the toxic byproduct was trusted to carry out the testing themselves. This thinking came from the era where it was thought that smoking cigarettes would

Fluoridation of group drinking water is a main consideration in charge of the decrease in dental caries (tooth rot) . The historical backdrop of water fluoridation is a great case of clinical perception prompting epidemiologic examination and group based general wellbeing intercession. Albeit other fluoride-containing items are accessible, water fluoridation remains the most fair and practical strategy for conveying fluoride to all individuals from most groups, paying little respect to age, instructive achievement, or wage level.

Fluoride has been used by people for many decades. The most common use is in toothpaste. Fluoride was added to toothpaste to lower the amount of dental cavities that one gets, and works by protecting the enamel (outer hard layer over the tooth). Another use of fluoride is in drinking water. It was added to drinking water to also help with tooth decay. Many people are debating whether or not this is truly safe. In the essay, “The Fluoride Conspiracy”, by Laurie Higgs, she talks about the use of fluoride drinking waters and dangers it brings by using logos, pathos, and ethos.

Few object to the therapeutic use of fluoride to stop tooth decay, but fluoridation, the addition of fluoride to the public water supply, can spark avid controversy. Most dentists, medical groups, and government officials argue that fluoridation is a cheap and risk-free venture that doubles cavity prevention. In contrast, a small minority of dentists and conservative political groups argue that fluoride is a hazardous, poisonous substance that should not be consumed. Some antifluoridationists even claim that fluoridation is an untrustworthy form of socialized medicine. But rather than just attacking fluoridation as socialized medicine, opponents originally claimed that it was a conspiracy to poison or brainwash Americans through

According to World Health Organization data obtained from a study on 12 year old’s levels of tooth decay, fluoride has had very little effect, if any at all, on tooth decay. Countries such as Japan, Italy, and Iceland, who are non-fluoridated countries, actually have about the same level of tooth decay decrease as countries that have fluoridated water. Fluoride is considered a drug, according to the FDA, which means that it is a medical treatment. Medical treatments are not to be given unless the patient agrees to the treatment, therefore, placing fluoride into the public water supply violates informed consent seeing as how citizens are not given the opportunity to vote on the matter. Even if people could vote on the situation, not all people are going to agree with and since it is considered a drug, it

Department of Health and Human Services address some of the public concerns about water fluoridation such as its effects on health and its ethical implication in the community. Some of the concerns express by the public were: safety of fluoride additives, fluoride’s impact on the brain, specifically citing lower IQ in children, effects of fluoride in the endocrine system, and cost effectiveness. In all cases, it was determine that in a concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter, fluorided water was safe for consumption. Legal implications about community water fluoridation have been thoroughly reviewed by the U.S. court systems and the results have always being that water fluoridation is a proper means of promoting public health and welfare. Also, it is important to have in mind, that the state and local governments decide whether or not to implement water fluoridation after considering evidence regarding its benefits and

The investigation is about if Adelaide’s water should be fluoridated if it could cause problems to humans. This issue was chosen because it is an important issue that affects everybody. In this investigation some things that will be talked about is how fluoridation works and the positives and negatives of fluoridation such as the benefits of drinking fluoridated water.

I have been assigned the role of the leader of Fluoride Action Network. The Fluoride Action Network is a non-profit organization and an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures. The organization’s mission is to “provide comprehensive and up-to-date information regarding all aspects of fluoride” and to “remain vigilant monitoring government agency actions that may impact public’s exposure to fluoride.”1

The Centers for Disease Control have proclaimed water fluoridation as one the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century (ADA 2010). Although water fluoridation has sparked a great deal of controversy, properly fluoridated water has been proven to be safe and effective (Harding & O’Mullane, 2013). Proper water fluoridation includes consistent monitoring of fluoride concentrations to keep them at safe levels, within 0.8 – 1.0ppm (Harding & O’Mullane, 2013). When these measures are taken, fluoridated water is a great preventive measure and helps to improve or maintain the oral health of a population. Community water fluoridation is also very cost effective and helps with preventing dental caries. By implementing community water

Currently, the majority of the United States is fluoridating with industrial waste without sound scientific evidence of the potential environmental and health impacts. The American Dental Association and other governmental agencies rely on bad science that was done over seventy years ago to justify water fluoridation. The governmental agencies continue to claim it safeguards against cavities. However, recent studies have proven there is no correlation between fluoride and cavity prevention. Communities without fluoridation are shown to have the same decline in cavities as non-fluoridated communities. These results can be attributed to improved diets and dental healthcare. Furthermore, the studies that are being conducted on health prove that fluoridation irreversibly harms the body. Extensive studies on the effects of fluoridation in the environment also need to occur.

Since the practice’s initiation in the 1940s, water fluoridation has been contested at various stages of its introduction to the general populace, with groups often quoting adverse side effects studied in assorted experiments around the world. This semi-scientific basis quickly morphed into a more politically skewed, emotive argument in the late 40s and 50s during the Second Red Scare. In this time, many conspiracies surfaced revolving around the central idea of a communistic entity undermining the American public’s health and reducing the overall vigor of the populace. In more recent times, water fluoridation contention has taken on a similar political agenda, with a few far-right groups spreading the idea that the government (usually the American government) is using water fluoridation to help them subdue and control the masses. Alongside this politically influenced argument comes a

This article talks about some facts of water fluoridation. First this article addresses when fluoride was first put into the water and why it was put there. The article explains the health issues that could possibly come from the fluoridation of water. These issues include skeletal fluorosis, kidney disease and dental fluorosis. The article also talks about how the amount of fluoride each person gets cannot be controlled very well. This article acknowledges more of the negative side effects of water fluoridation rather than talking about the positive. However the weakness of this article is that the author privileges the negative

Fluorine is added in water in certain countries and used in toothpaste so that it can strengthen people’s teeth.

Credibility Statement: As a person who has been brushing his teeth for many years without knowing the effects that fluoride can cause, I decided to do extensive research on the topic to find out what we are really putting in our bodies.