Water Fluoridation Case Study

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

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.

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

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

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 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

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.

Health experts generally recommend consuming eight to ten cups of water a day. The amount may vary based on body size, physical activity, and exposure to hot weather. More consumers are tending to drink bottled water for the convenience and supposed purity. Some even substitute these expensive bottles of water instead of fluoridated tap water. A recent study shows that Americans consumed more than five billion gallons of bottled water in 2000, more than double the amount from the previous decade. However, if this bottled water is your main source of drinking water, you could be missing the decay and caries preventing benefits of fluoride. As discussed earlier, many manufacturers completely remove or reduce the amount of fluoride in their bottles of water. Water fluoridation is a community health measure that is widely researched, documented, and accepted for its role in preventing tooth decay. In areas where natural fluoride occurs in tap water below optimal levels, many communities add it to the tap water to make certain that residents receive the benefits of

For over 60 years, Americans have been inundated with propaganda proclaiming the benefits of artificially fluoridating the public’s drinking water to prevent tooth decay. I do not use the term “propaganda” lightly. In fact the “father” of modern propaganda, nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays was brought in to sell spiking America’s public water supply with fluoride (Pilger). This was critical to protect the American Aluminum Company (ALCOA), the world’s largest aluminum producer, from litigation from their workers who were exposed to toxic levels of sodium fluoride. Fluoride in the public water supply is a detriment to the health of Americans and provides no positive benefits while presenting great risk. Fluoridated water is poison, it is proven to decrease IQ, and it is medicating the public with an FDA classified tranquilizer without the informed consent of the citizens.

Visiting a dentist, in most cases, is not exactly an event that someone looks forward to. Oral hygiene is important in making sure that no problems arise for teeth, however, and the issue of unhealthy teeth has been combatted by advertisements, and more recently, the additive of fluoride into tap water. Fluoride has been important in the process of improving the dental health of Americans; after the addition of fluoride into tap water, tooth decay decreased drastically among Americans and most significantly among young children. It’s argued, however, that fluoride is dangerous, not required, and a violation of someone 's rights by being added to water. In reality, fluoride is a safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay by being added

Recent research, however, has consistently shown it to be an insufficient and not an effective form of prevention to tooth decay. In the most largely conducted longitudinal study following infants through childhood, there has been no correlation with increased fluorine concentration in water and decreased tooth decay (Warren, 2008). Yet, there was a correlation between increased water fluoridation and increased dental fluorosis (Warren, 2008). These results align closely with that of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDR) study conducted in 1986-1987. When water fluoride concentration was less than 0.3mg/L, 55.5% children were shown to have tooth decay, while the children with dental fluorosis was 14.6% (Yiamouyiannnis, 1990). However, as the water fluoride concentration increased to over 1.2mg/L, the incidence of children with tooth decay was 56.4%, while the incidence of children with fluorosis rose significantly to 40.5% (Yiamouyiannnis, 1990). Fluoridation of water has also been shown to be

population that are on public water systems have access to fluoridated water. In order to truly make a change and improve the overall oral health of American citizens, each state needs to raise this number to 100%. The CDC estimates that the return investment for community water fluoridation, including productivity losses, ranged from $4 in small communities of 5,000 people or less, to $27 in large communities of 200,000 people or more. Nearly everyone would enjoy the benefits of the community water fluoridation which include having to deal with fewer cavities that are less severe, less need for fillings, and a greater chance for teeth not reaching such an unhealthy state that they need to be removed. It’s no wonder why community water fluoridation is recommended by the American Dental Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, US Public Health Service, and World Health

Fluoridation of drinking water serving communities of more than 5000 people is now the law. The anti-fluoridation advocates, continue to as they have done in the past, fight fluoridation tooth and nail. This is an ongoing conflict.

Some of the arguments have proven to hold more weight than others. One reasonable point that is traditionally argued is determining how individuals receive the optimal dosage of fluoride. Noting less affluent communities tend to use tap water for often it would seem reasonable that they would receive an increased body burden. Not only is the amount of public drinking water ingested in each person uncontrollable, the number of fluoridated products a person uses is completely variable. Individuals not only receive fluoride from water, but also toothpastes, mouthwash, certain foods, and beverages, and so is it possible to control the fluoride level for each individual? In a review of water fluoridation, “the EU (European Union) Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks highlight that young children are likely to exceed the upper tolerable limits for fluoride consumption in areas with water fluoridation greater than 0.8 ppm and using fluoride toothpaste” (Peckham and Awofeso). The delivery process of fluoride leaves much to be