Public Water Controversy

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).

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.

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

An article published in the Oregonian, “Portland and its aversion to fluoride reflects Oregon’s unusual politics”, presented views of Portlanders who have rejected adding fluoridation chemical to the city’s clean water supply.1 In September 2012 Portland city council approved adding fluorine to the city’s water supply.1 However, public outrage soon ensued leading to a special election to protect the water supply.1 In May 2013, Portlanders voted 61% to protect their clean water supply.1

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

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 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

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.