Fluoride Decline

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.

to neurotoxicity, development of osteosarcoma and interference with biochemical systems. Further exploration into these studies raised alarm bells in their relevance to the ‘fluoride debate’. For example I found the amount of fluoride being used in many studies to be well above any reported daily human consumption, for example Ge Y et. El. (30) Used 100mg doses (there was no mention of frequency) to prove a link between fluoride and apoptosis of brain cells. Other studies undertaken usually had too many variables, for example Liu H et. El attempted to study the effect of fluoride on male fertility using a population with high fluoride intake and another with low. The study doesn’t take into account other variables such as diet, volume / frequency of fluoride intake or genetics. The conclusions being drawn where tenuous, with, in my opinion, no conclusive evidence to prove the hypothesis, with the studies mentioning further research is

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.

Fluoride has been shown to be toxic and affects the brain and kidney when ingested. Research lasting one year has demonstrated that a very small quanitity of fluride added to water was suffiecient to cause changes to the kidney and brain could lead to Alzheimer’s. Fluoride allows aluminium a heavy metal to cross the blood brain barrier which can therefore cause this sickness associated with this element.

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

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

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

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%.

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

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

Proponents of fluoride in public drinking water cite its benefits, including cavity protection and prevention of tooth decay. Tooth decay in early years leading to many ill effects, including abscessed teeth, potential for sepsis, poor weight gain, and difficulty chewing food (HealthyNY.gov, 2008). According to Healthy NY (2008), fluorination decreased childhood tooth decay by 30% during a 3 to 12-year follow-up study (HealthyNY.gov, 2008). Tap water used to prepare bottles, drinking water and to prepare meals provide adequate levels of fluoride for growing children and is the most common route of

Fluorine is added in water in certain countries and used in toothpaste so that it can strengthen people’s teeth.

Credibility Statement: As a person who has been brushing his teeth for many years without knowing the effects that fluoride can cause, I decided to do extensive research on the topic to find out what we are really putting in our bodies.