Public Drinking Water Case Study

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.

(2015) and Dodd et al. (2014), Decker & Lipton (2015) have utilized data qualitatively, which verily served the purpose of gaining rich information on the perceptions of the respondents on dental care and health. This is also important to consider, especially since most of the studies are done quantitatively. Although both qualitative and quantitative studies are good on their own, both also have considerable weaknesses. It would be interesting as well to see more researches done in mixed method in order to fill in the weaknesses of these two. It will be also good to note if the study by Decker & Lipton (2015) can be replicated in different sample—such as other minority groups or a more heterogeneous sample. In this way, the scholar literature can be expanded by our knowledge about dental health that is growing to be a public health issue in United States and in other parts of the world. Given the qualitative data gathered by Decker & Lipton (2015), it will be helpful if better public policies are made to cater to these sensitive populations. This is also true in the suggestion of Dodd et al. (2014) on the widening of the Medicaid coverage among adults—and on the reconsideration not to deflouridate the water supply in New York in the study by Edelstein et al. (2015). As mentioned by Edelstein et al. (2015), removing the fluoride content in the New York water supply could only worsen the rates of early childhood carries. In the long run,

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

One of the biggest sources of fluoride in your child's life is tap water. The EPA has a guideline that requires municipal water in the US to contain no more than 4 mg of fluoride per liter of water, or 4 ppm. However, to find out how much is in your local water supply you can simply call the phone number on your water bill and ask.

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 state automatically provides the water in lakes with fluoride. Have you ever bought bottled water and says its from the finest water in the U.S. In fact, Ice Mountain Bottled Water get there water the same place where we get our water. How come they think that tap is just flooded with germs and bacteria, because bottled water can have the same elements that tap 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

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.

The Washington state government involvement in this case is neither due to some shift in public opinion or social movement demanding political change. The change is basically due to the new information and guidelines provided by the federal Department of Health and Human Services of 0.7 ml/L (Washington State Department of Health, 2017). With the cognition that what was once considered low levels of fluoride can cause health issues such as skeletal fluorosis and other negative effects according to the Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). Policymakers are

To fluoride water in a community, the average cost annually per person would range somewhere between 40 cents to $2.70. For someone in a lower socioeconomic community, this is more affordable than most other oral health options. In England, 5 year old children from socially deprived parts of Birmingham, where water is fluoridated, had fewer decayed, missing and filled teeth (1.35 on average) compared to 5 years olds from the well-off parts of Herefordshire where water is not fluoridated who had on average 1.78 teeth decayed, missing and

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.

Water fluoridation is said to help lower tooth caries which then causes tooth lose. The article also explains that tooth lose in adults is not always caused by tooth caries, it can be caused by trauma, dental diseases, wearing down of the teeth and the ability to take care of their teeth. Other factors like smoking, education, and income have to be factored into because they influence the health of the person which plays a part in tooth lose. The author argues that water fluoridation does help to prevent tooth caries but it does have the possibilities of other health issues. The author supports that water fluoridation helps to prevent caries by stating the in higher fluoridated water areas 12.2% people had all of their own teeth compared to 7.7% in less fluoridated water. The author explains that in various studies that health issues such as cancer, skin and skeletal diseases and neurological can be caused from water fluoridation. One weakness of this experiment is that the people checked their own oral health instead of a health professional, which causes issues on the reliability of their results. This article will be useful when using statistics on supporting that water fluoridation is beneficial with the exception that the judgment of the people’s teeth health was determined by their selves instead of by a

In 1945 Grand Rapids, Michigan was the first city to put fluoride in their water. Many people don’t think about what actually is in water, they think nothing of what it could contain when they drink it. Most don’t think about the fluoride that is in the water they are drinking in the moment. Even less know why there is fluoride in their water. The reason being is that the government puts fluoride in our water to control us.

The present study reveals that about 25% and 62% of the total respondents were drinking water from which contained arsenic and E.coli at a level of >10 ppb and 1 cfu/100ml, respectively. The situation seems to be very concerning because in comparison with arsenic and E.coli contaminated water in HH, the percentage of HH respondents arsenic is much less than E.coli. The findings (percentages) are relatively higher than the findings in a past survey conducted in 2009 on the arsenic concentration, where in the HH level it was 23.1% [19]. Moreover, E. coli contamination in the HH drinking water is also remarkably higher in the present study compared to other past survey (more than 50%) reported in 2009 (Bangladesh