It was in the 1940’s when water fluoridation first went underway. However, it was only a decade after when studies about it started to get into the line. Results showed that the process decreases cavities especially among children who are frequently exposed to fluoridated water. Although the process has been praised by many during its early years in the glare of publicity, it also has its equal share of controversy. Its effectiveness and safety are a few of the things that have been debated quite often. This article is written with the help of Springfield, MA.
An acceptable sociological explanation of the fluoridation debate remains indefinable. In spite of decades of investigation on the topic, the tenacity and passion in fluoridation arguments are yet partly understood by social experts. An understanding of the issue has significant implications. If, according to experts, fluoridation is indisputably a useful and harmless measure, then the perception of letting the public to vote on and reject it must be examined.
Fluoridation contains of the adding of the element fluorine to the water supply. The goal of which is to drop dental caries or tooth decay among the public who consumes the processed water. Fluorine, which is an extremely volatile element, is normally combined in a compound such as sodium fluoride, and makes its fluoride ion. The preferred concentration in public water supplies is roughly more or less one part per million depending on the temperature and the amount of water people are likely to take.
There are many studies showing that children drinking fluoridated water have lessened the rate of dental caries. A distinctive figure claim is roughly 50% reduction. This is apparently a big benefit for children's teeth; however, there are still no generally recognized benefits for adults from ingesting fluoridated water.
What does the research really tell us?
In dental schools, dentists were trained that ingested fluoride in children will help them develop the tooth enamel. This first layer of the teeth acts as a covering and protection and applying methods to strengthen it makes the teeth more resistant to tooth decay. Also, they have been trained that topically applied fluoride would make enamel surface much denser because of the fluoride ions. Tooth decay is then stopped because the teeth become even more resistant to acids, which are produced by plaque bacteria.
This belief continued until Featherstone, alongside with other prominent researchers on fluoride, has discovered that ingested fluoride does not considerably lessen decay, and that fluoride’s chief effect is merely topical. Their studies have shown that the level of fluoride provided into dental mineral by systemic assimilation is inadequate to play an important role in caries deterrence.
The argument has become widespread as to why some are doing water fluoridation and why some doctors still prescribe fluoride supplements? Dr. Paul Connett, a retired chemistry professor, has stated that “ingesting fluoride for the reason of cavity prevention can be as good as swallowing sunblock to keep your skin from being burnt".
Some have hypothesized that ingesting fluoridated water will have to lead to fluoride in the saliva. A study has shown that there is, in fact, an advanced expanse of fluoride in the saliva where water is fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated parts, but in both circumstances the amount is very low. And this concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cavity-causing activity.
Safety of fluoridation
According to Dr. Arvid Carlsson, a Swedish scientist, fluoridation is in contradiction of all norms of pharmacology. He has also stated that this process is already obsolete and doctors who are still prescribing it, is against science.
There have been studies connecting fluoride contact with a few of health alarms. Disruption of thyroid purpose, augmented hip fracture among elderly, initial stages of skeletal fluorosis, diminished IQ level among children, mutilating dental fluorosis, mistrust of amplified incidence of bone cancer among males, all have been identified in some studies.
There is much to be learned from advance studies of the fluoridation dispute. But rather than supposing in advance that both the systematic arguments and fluoridation campaign are not a big deal, a more successful approach would deal with the borders to debate more equally. In this way a better understanding of both the disagreement with and promotion of fluoridation process can be acquired, in both un-fluoridated and highly fluoridated nations.