Tap Water Persuasive Essay

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.

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

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

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

1. Many sources besides tap water. Before not a single tube of toothpaste had fluoride. Now every one of them has it. Many processed beverages and foods have elevated levels of fluoride. Other sources pesticides, tea Teflon pans, pharma,

American Dental Association (ADA) has written and article on “5 Reasons Why Fluoride in Water is Good for Communities”(ADA, 2017.). The ADA then proceeds to go into depth on each of these five topics, as I will summarize in my own words. First, fluoride prevents tooth decay by being present in the

One point is that you cannot regulate the total dose that can consumed by an individual. This ties into the argument that the same amount of fluoride would potentially be given to everyone, regardless of age, health, or vulnerability. It is also argued that the government forcing its citizens to take a medicine without the ability to consent or opt out of the treatment while still having access to public water systems is deemed unethical. However, these are small prices to pay in order to improve the quality of life for those who suffer with a lack of comfortable access to professional dentists and oral health specialist. The huge amount of benefits completely outweigh the small amount of cons that come with pushing for community water fluoridation to be accessible by everyone who resides in the U.S. Overall, drinking fluoridated water keeps teeth strong and reduces cavities/tooth decay by about 25% in children and adults. By preventing cavities, community water fluoridation has been shown to save money for families and for the U.S. healthcare

The Centers for Disease Control have proclaimed water fluoridation as one the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century (ADA 2010). Although water fluoridation has sparked a great deal of controversy, properly fluoridated water has been proven to be safe and effective (Harding & O’Mullane, 2013). Proper water fluoridation includes consistent monitoring of fluoride concentrations to keep them at safe levels, within 0.8 – 1.0ppm (Harding & O’Mullane, 2013). When these measures are taken, fluoridated water is a great preventive measure and helps to improve or maintain the oral health of a population. Community water fluoridation is also very cost effective and helps with preventing dental caries. By implementing community water

In 2014, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that Americans using community water systems had a 74% chance of receiving fluoridated water. However, many Americans do not know that there is fluoride in their water, what the fluoride is meant to do, or how fluoridating water has become a common practice. The lack of common knowledge on this subject helps to explain why there is also little attention paid to the possible risks of using this process.

Fluoride is a highly toxic substance, in terms of acute toxicity fluoride is just slightly less toxic than arsenic. Fluoride has long been used in pesticides and rat poison. Studies have shown that fluoride causes bone defects such as arthritis and skeletal fluorosis, thyroid disease, and even cancer. This raises the question, why would anyone think that water fluoridation is a good idea? (Fluoride Alert, 2017).

The fluoride within our drinking water has always been a hot topic for debate. It’s known to cause a number of health problems ranging from lowered thyroid function to cancer. Today we’re going to look at fluoride and the brain specifically. Fluoride damage to the brain happens to be one of the most active areas of research today. In the past thirty years, over one hundred studies that have taken place have found evidence to prove that fluoride exposure can actually damage the brain. This particular research has included:

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

Choi at al., (2012) did highlight the need for further research. Broadbent et al., (2014) showed no effect of fluoride on IQ at the optimum drinking water concentrations used in CWF. However, most of the reports reviewed by Choi et al., (2012) considered data from areas of endemic fluorosis where drinking water fluoride concentrations are higher. The pilot study (Choi et al., 2014) aims to test their hypothesis that increased fluoride exposure is related to impairments in neuro-behavioural development among school children in China where endemic fluorosis is common.