Fluoride Effects

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 aim of this work is to compile support and opposition for the motion ‘should we artificially fluoridate our water supply’. Scientific literature has been used throughout in order to provide reliable points. Some personal views and points have been expressed.

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

This article limitation is it built on prior knowledge, local advertisement, and past articles written in the Oregonian. Portlanders were inundated with misleading information during the campaign against community water fluorination supported by local media and the Oregonian. Many locals used lawn signs to iterate there are risk to fluoride Opponents believed fluorine was an industrial byproduct4, a chemical and focused on trace amounts of contaminants that would be forcing toxins into the body. Some opponents were the Portland medical professionals, as documented in KPTV 12-Fox News.2 Medical professional stated it harms the bones, brain, thyroid gland, the immune system and the effects on children developing brains are unknown.2 More importantly, Portlanders should not knowingly add fluoride to our clean water supply.2

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

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

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.

There is ample evidence that fluoride is harmful to health: that is why it has been banned or discontinued in 21 European countries, Japan and Hawaii. A major report ordered by Congress in January 1990 from the U.S. government's National Toxicological Program links fluoride with bone and mouth cancer, a rare form of liver cancer, and thyroid cancer. In his book Fluoride: The Aging Factor, Dr. Yiamouyiannis refers to a 1977 study that found 10,000 to 20,000 excess deaths were

What if you found out that the water in your house was poisoning you and your family? How would you feel knowing that the water your family uses everyday might slowly be killing them? Many people believe that the government is secretly poisoning communities across the country by putting fluoride in our tap water. Others believe that fluoride is a safe product that benefits us. Most scientists and researchers are split on whether fluoride is harmful or not. The United States has been fluoridating communities’ water supplies since the early 1940’s (livescience.com, 2013). In this essay we will be looking to see if fluoride should be in our water supply or not.

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.