Community Water Fluoridations

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

Nearly 145 million Americans are currently receiving the benefits of optimally fluoridated water. With the 1995 enactment of Assembly Bill 733 in California, ten states and territories in the United States now mandate fluoridation through legislation. Besides California, these include seven other states (Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and South Dakota), as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Three states (South Dakota, Rhode Island and Kentucky), as well as the District of Columbia, have achieved the ultimate success with 100 percent of their treatable community water systems providing the benefits of fluoridation to their citizens.

Fluoride in drinking water has been a hot topic in the past decade. Some communities are all for it and some are completely against it. With such a range of opinions on the matter some organizations have took it upon themselves to present the pros and cons of the fluoride to the public so they can make informed decisions. Often times these surveys are bias to one side or the other, so I shall be giving information on both sides of the issue, the future outlook, and my personal opinion in order to help inform you to decide on your own.

The prevention of caries is accomplished through the execution of a variety of measures, such as the fluoridation of the drinking water supply as well as the utilization of sealants and topical fluorides (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2625). Despite the ease of preventability of tooth decay, it is one of the most common childhood chronic diseases, with more than half of the nation’s children having detectable caries (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2625). Unfortunately, only 62% of water supplies are fluoridated, and underserved communities with low-income and minority families are usually the ones who are disproportionately affected (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2626). Low-income individuals are generally less likely to seek preventative care, increasing their costs of neglected oral diseases and morbidity factors (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2626). In addition, only one in five children who are covered by Medicaid are authorized for preventative oral healthcare, while restorative care is generally not even a consideration (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2625).

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.

Reduces amount of children having dental related GA. Does the potential risks of fluoridation outweigh the risk of GA

In United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Healthy People 2020 (2011), the report talks about how many improvements have occurred in oral health but there is still a lot more improvement needed. The report further explains how water fluoridation has been one of the most efficient ways to reduce decay across the nation. Mostly everyone has access to water and if the water is fluoridated, then those with little or no access to dental care are getting preventative dental care in the form of a fluoride regimen in their daily water intake. (HHS, Healthy People 2020, 2011) Given this, it would only make sense that the government would employ a dental professional to assess the water fluoridation in every state.

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.

This is because according to the department of health, Rnzcgp this process is not able to be regulated and the dosage is dependent on the person’s circumstances i.e age which can result in health problems. When too large a dose is absorbed into the system according to the The United Nation news it can cause health issues relating to skeletal and dental fluorosis. The compound is also shown to affect the brain and kidney negatively. Fluoridation is a system by which the town or country is taking responsibility for its people. The proposed action is not to fluoridate teeth by adding fluoride to the entire water supply which will affect every person’s entire body with fluoride, but to instead educate about the benefits of using toothpaste which people already commonly use. People can suffer adverse effects because the government would further their own goal. There is no controversy about the people and side effect because I propose not fluoridating. So the evidence is that there will be 100% no risk to getting the side effects, and yet there is no limitation of restricting tooth hygiene and maintaining tooth health through personal care. The evidence of science is that not using a material eliminates the potential for side effects. Personally I find that instead of treating drinking water we should be treating personal care products such as tooth paste which is more effective action. Therefore there is no risk of affecting the entire population in the hands of just a

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

Fluoridation of drinking water addresses the health issue of tooth decay and the related dental problems associated with it.1 Fluoride is associated with this health issue since fluoride has been recognized as an important nutrient for healthy teeth.1

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.

The current data suggests that water fluoridation disproportionately harms low-income and minority communities. In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control released the results of a national survey of dental fluorosis, which was conducted between 1999 and 2002. According to the results, in the U.S., African American children have significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis.2 Same observation has been made in other studies as well. Another study conduced in Indianapolis, Indiana, shows that “the prevalence of dental fluorosis in African American children (80.1%) was significantly higher than in Whites (62.5%). 3

Transition: At the time, fluoridating the drinking water may have seemed like a new and revolutionary program that would protect America 's teeth, but many doctors and scientists have become skeptical of fluoride’s true effectiveness and overall safety.