Since the implementation of artificially introducing fluoride into water, a great amount of resistance has taken place. Many people claim that fluoridating community water sources can cause not only dental fluorosis, but a multitude of adverse systemic conditions. This perception has led to many political battles on the subject. The problems associated with fluoride ingestion tend to present when concentrations are higher that generally accepted. In communities with natural high fluoride concentrations, adverse effects have range from dental and skeletal fluorosis to decreased birth rates, increased kidney stones, impaired thyroid function, and lower intelligence (Chen, 2013, p. 1). These tend to be the concerns of the opposition to …show more content…
Showing a decrease in systemic exposure to fluoride. However, the study also found that urinary fluid concentrations were higher than drinking water concentrations (Chen, 2013, p. 7). The other factors measure, indicators of changes in bone metabolism that may result in adverse effects, remained low in low concentrations of fluoride in drinking water (Chen, 2013, p. 6). This shows that a low concentration of fluoride in drinking water does not cause the bone problems that many opposition to water fluoridation are concerned with. It does show that fluoride levels need to be closely monitored and the body’s metabolism of fluoride taken into account, because of some systemic accumulation. In another article about water fluoridation, we look at the dental risk and benefits of implementing this program. Well less saturated with pure scientific evidence, it provides factual information in a more understandable manor. The study centers on measurement of decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMF index) in the population of children five to fifteen years old, in Ireland, from the span of 1960 to 2002, in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas (Harding & O'Mullane, 2013, p. 133). The mean DMF score was significantly lower in children consuming fluoridated water over the rate of occurrence in those with non-fluoridated water (Harding & O'Mullane, 2013, p. 133). Though in recent years, the contrast is less severe. I speculated this may be due to an
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
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.
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.
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
In those case the person have to control the levels of fluorides because in most cases the levels are greater than FDA/CDC recommend but most people don't treat their water to lower the amount of fluoridation. In the case cities water systems fluoridation is monitored and adjusted to meet certain standards, low enough not to cause harm yet high enough to aid in preventing tooth decay. Tooth decay is a big health problem if not controlled. Which one the the water supply systems did you read about that was causing the health
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
Are you aware that fluoride that is used to help keep teeth healthy is actually a harmful compound. The number of products that contain fluoride is actually quite high. Many people may not know it is also in our drinking water. The scary thing is fluoride is now classified as a neurotoxin.
Fluoridation is not a natural process nature thought of it first that fluoride in high level occurs in fluoride water studies shown a segmented frog suffers significant damage including bone disease, changes in behavior and shorter life span
Research has been showed that such an improvement is due to many factors that combined together. One of these factors is systemic water fluoridation, which has been announced to have a substantial impact on children dental health, alongside with topical fluoride that can be found in mouthwash, toothpaste, and fluoride supplements. In addition to better nutrition, rising standards of living, and better access to dental care 76.
Fluoride compounds have been added to water supplies since as early as the 1950s because claims were made to support fluoride's use as a cavity preventer. However, studies conducted even decades before have shown that fluoride is an extremely hazardous substance that should be completely avoided. These views or claims about fluoride are just too contradictory, both cannot be true. Fluoride has hidden dangers that not enough people know about and should be removed from the water supplies despite false reports that it is actually beneficial, and the practice of water fluoridation should be completely eliminated.
Health experts generally recommend consuming eight to ten cups of water a day. The amount may vary based on body size, physical activity, and exposure to hot weather. More consumers are tending to drink bottled water for the convenience and supposed purity. Some even substitute these expensive bottles of water instead of fluoridated tap water. A recent study shows that Americans consumed more than five billion gallons of bottled water in 2000, more than double the amount from the previous decade. However, if this bottled water is your main source of drinking water, you could be missing the decay and caries preventing benefits of fluoride. As discussed earlier, many manufacturers completely remove or reduce the amount of fluoride in their bottles of water. Water fluoridation is a community health measure that is widely researched, documented, and accepted for its role in preventing tooth decay. In areas where natural fluoride occurs in tap water below optimal levels, many communities add it to the tap water to make certain that residents receive the benefits of
For over 60 years, Americans have been inundated with propaganda proclaiming the benefits of artificially fluoridating the public’s drinking water to prevent tooth decay. I do not use the term “propaganda” lightly. In fact the “father” of modern propaganda, nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays was brought in to sell spiking America’s public water supply with fluoride (Pilger). This was critical to protect the American Aluminum Company (ALCOA), the world’s largest aluminum producer, from litigation from their workers who were exposed to toxic levels of sodium fluoride. Fluoride in the public water supply is a detriment to the health of Americans and provides no positive benefits while presenting great risk. Fluoridated water is poison, it is proven to decrease IQ, and it is medicating the public with an FDA classified tranquilizer without the informed consent of the citizens.
This statement assumes that enough fluoride is added to water to harm whomever is drinking it; the actual amount of fluoride in drinking water is in the range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million. To help visualize that amount, just one part per million is one minute out of two years. For fluoride to be harmful to humans, someone would have to ingest 5 to 10 grams in the same sitting, the same as needing to drink more than 10,000 glasses of tap water at the same time, which is physically impossible. In fact, the human stomach can only hold about 34 ounces at it’s capacity, not close to the 80,000 ounces of tap water someone would need to ingest to die. Before getting close to being harmed by fluoride, water intoxication would potentially kill the individual. Not enough fluoride is added to have chronic effects too. Chronic fluoride toxicity occurs after being exposed to fluoride for long periods of times, developing after 10 years. Nevertheless, the amount added to fluoride is not enough to develop chronic fluoride toxicity. Therefore, the amount of fluoride added to water has no ill effects on populations.
Recent research, however, has consistently shown it to be an insufficient and not an effective form of prevention to tooth decay. In the most largely conducted longitudinal study following infants through childhood, there has been no correlation with increased fluorine concentration in water and decreased tooth decay (Warren, 2008). Yet, there was a correlation between increased water fluoridation and increased dental fluorosis (Warren, 2008). These results align closely with that of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDR) study conducted in 1986-1987. When water fluoride concentration was less than 0.3mg/L, 55.5% children were shown to have tooth decay, while the children with dental fluorosis was 14.6% (Yiamouyiannnis, 1990). However, as the water fluoride concentration increased to over 1.2mg/L, the incidence of children with tooth decay was 56.4%, while the incidence of children with fluorosis rose significantly to 40.5% (Yiamouyiannnis, 1990). Fluoridation of water has also been shown to be