Fluoridation Summary In A Man's Mouth Is His Castle

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.

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

In 1945, Brantford, Ontario, became the first Canadian city to add fluoride to its water.3 This was the first milestone that was involved in laying the groundwork for the achievement of adding fluoride to Canadian drinking water. Brantford was paired with neighbouring Sarnia in an 11-year case study of the effects of water fluoridation.3 This event was the first key process that contributed to the groundwork of this revolutionary idea. The rate of community water fluoridation in Canada has grown, with 45.1% of the total population now having access to fluoridated water.3 The implementation of this program has impacted a significant part of the Canadian population in a positive way. The benefit-cost ratio indicated that, at an expected average effectiveness of 30 % caries reduction, one dollar invested in the program saved $71.05–$82.83 per Quebec’s

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

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.

"Naturally fluoridated areas preceded the field trials" since fluoride occurs naturally in some areas. (Oral) Communities with naturally occurring fluoride in water supplies were chosen for the trials, because results could be seen in these communities without so many years of testing. The studies showed that fluoride reduces dental caries to some extent depending on the amount of ingestion. These positive results lead to water fluoridation becoming a popular practice throughout civilized areas of the world. Putting a substance like fluoride in municipal water supplies is a good way to medicate many people at a time, since everybody drinking from the water supply would have a constant intake of fluoride. "The big advantage of water fluoridation is that it benefits all residents in a community regardless of age, socio-economic status, education or employment." (Kirshen)

Today I will be writing about the ever going argument of “Is fluoridated water better for your health?” Many people have said that it is in fact the opposite but i intend to change their opinion with my research project. If you don't know what water fluoridation is, it is the adjustment of fluoride to the recommended level for preventing tooth decay.

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.

It also brings in how the media gets involved with the issue because some people opposed that water fluoridation should be mandatory. The article explains how tooth decay occurs and it also goes into full detail of how fluoride works in multiple ways to prevent tooth decay. The argument for and against water fluoridation on whether it improves dental is also examined in the article. One reason this article is useful for my research is that it describes three way that fluoride works to prevent tooth decay whereas most other sources that I have read does not describe how the fluoride works they only say that fluoride helps. This article also explains how tooth decay occurs, which most other articles do not describe. The author acknowledges the possible side effects from over fluoridation and states that there is very little evidence that water fluoridation causes any negative health side effects. However the author does not say what evidence supports the claim that is does not cause health issues, which weakness this article some. (184

A study conducted in the cities of Newburgh and Kingston, in New York have shown that the prevalence of cavities in the population is similar or even less in communities that doesn’t have artificial fluoridated water compared to the ones that have fluoride add to the water. This study conducted forty years ago is one considerable evidence that fluoridating the water isn’t strongly necessary nowadays to prevent tooth decay, considering that the access to fluoridated products, such as toothpaste, mouthwash and

Community water fluoridation is "the controlled addition of fluoride compound to a public water supply to achieve a concentration optimal for dental caries prevention" (Rockville,2000, cited in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015, p.1). Notwithstanding the general perception of community water fluoridation worldwide, which recognizes it as an opportunity, some opponents see it as a hazard.

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.

The above research presents common dangers associated with fluoride; however, the research methods are not reflective of actual fluoride use in the general population. For instance, Xiong’s research used excessive amounts of fluoride on test subjects, ranging from 2.15-2.96mg/L and 3.15-5.69mg/L (Xiong et al. 4). In comparison, the past fluoride level in Calgary’s water system was limited to an optimal level of 0.7mg/L (City of Calgary, par. 5). Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Oral Health stated, “to date, there no scientific evidence that exposure to fluoride at the levels found in optimally fluoridated water present any risk for the development of any disease processes” (University of Toronto 56). Therefore, Xiong’s research is at fault because the fluoride levels tested were not reflective of actual fluoride concentrations used in cities.