Removal Of Fluoride By Nitric Acid Activated

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

While safety has been an issue frequently raised by those opposed to fluoridation, scientific data from peer-reviewed clinical research provide overwhelming evidence that the adjustment of fluoride levels in drinking water to the optimal level is undoubtedly safe. Hundreds of studies on fluoride metabolism have tracked the outcomes of ingested fluoride. Ingested fluoride essentially travels three metabolic pathways. It is either excreted by the kidneys, absorbed by the teeth or taken up in the skeleton. At optimal levels fluoride has never been demonstrated to cause skeletal fluorosis or other bone problems.

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

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

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.

Also, fluoride has long been known as a toxic substance. This is the reason that it has been used in pesticides and rodenticides and now

Your drinking water is also a concern since fluoride is now classified as a neurotoxin. One thing that is easy enough to do is to use a fluoride filter. These can be

The first stage involves the removal of solid and liquid particles through filtration. Sydney Water mainly uses ferric chloride to prevent the recurrence of murky water. They also use small amounts of long chain polymers (polyelectrolyte) as a secondary coagulant. It is then followed by the inactivation of microorganisms; to which all monitored filtering plants uses a strong oxidant for disinfection (in Sydney Water, chlorine is used). The last stage involves the addition of fluoride to the water to fulfil the requirements of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957. This, along with the added lime and carbon dioxide, reduces the corrosivity of

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.

Fluorine (F) is an element found in the 7th group of the periodic table from the halogen family. It’s an element that most reactive as it only needs to gain one electron to form Fluoride ion (F-). It’s in this form of fluoride that is found in our drinking water also known as fluoridated water. Water, food and living organisms are exposed to inorganic fluorides and they are hydrogen fluoride (HF), calcium fluoride (CaF2), sodium fluoride (NaF), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and silicofluoride. Fluoride compounds are plentiful in the earth’s crust and naturally found in rocks, soils, salt and sea water, representing approximately 0.06-0.09%.

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.