As you can see, fluorosis only becomes a huge concern at the moderate phases, a stage which very rarely occurs. In spite of these infrequent drawbacks, the fluoridation of water is seen as a public health measure, benefiting the community. Being backed by scientific evidence in favour of its inclusion, maintaining the optimal amount of fluoride is a service. Studies show that in countries without fluoridated water 33. 4% more patients needed fillings due to tooth decay. The Academy of General Dentistry stated that “Fluoride makes the entire tooth structure more resistant to decay and promotes remineralization.
Which aids in repairing early decay before damage is even visible… drinking tap water to receive fluoride is safe, and it is easier on your wallet than going to the dentist for a filling. ” Coming from a respected association from the U. S -a country where fluoridated water is common place- it is reassuring that through professional studies a clear conclusion can be drawn. This also relates to the public myth that taking it out from water is cost-effective. The real truth is that fluoridation is the most cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay.
It is statistically proven that the NHS could save millions of pounds. Reducing the amount of extractions by 55%. With only 15 out of 152 authorities being given purified water the country has fallen into what the British Dental Health Foundation called a “tooth extraction crisis”. With the amount of children being admitted to hospitals with dental problems increasing, fluoridated water is becoming a requirement rather than a choice. Currently only 12% of the country live in fluoridated areas, which has a huge impact on the NHS; spending ? 30 million per year on tooth extractions.
With an annual deficit of ? 2bn putting pressure on the NHS other, cheaper means of health care need to be explored. Six million people are currently being supplied with fluoridated water and it is statistically proven that there is less tooth decay and overall better dental hygiene. Fluoride helps to make teeth more resistant to acid attacks from bacteria and sugars. It also has the ability to reverse early tooth decay in children younger than 6 years. Tooth decay has become one of the most common dental problem in the UK for all ages due to the difficulty found when brushing molar teeth.
This is seen as further evidence to introduce more fluoridation schemes cross the UK. As shown by the diagram very few areas on the UK have been fluoridated. Pilot schemes were first introduced in 1964 in Birmingham. Since then an organisation branded the Public Heath England Monitoring (PHE) was created to monitor the effects of the schemes in public areas. They are tasked to produce a report every 4 years to ensure that those living in the areas are not at risk of over exposure. This demonstrates that the government has put into place the necessary precautions.
In their most recent 2014 report it wrote on average: five-year olds in fluoridated areas are 15% less likely to have tooth decay than those in non-fluoridated areas” and “12-year olds are 11% less likely” In terms of hospital admissions -which are a huge problem for the NHS- they reported that there are 45% fewer children with dental caries. Such a huge improvement when compared to those areas without fluoride. On the other hand, in terms of dental fluorosis is was written that after a study based on those living in Newcastle upon Tyne compared to non-fluoridated Manchester, the amount of 12 year olds that had the condition was very low in both areas. % in Newcastle and 0. 2% in Manchester.
There is a small difference showing that fluorosis has very little significance on the population, becoming clear that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. In terms of younger people getting enough fluoride is critical to developing teeth as testified by the American Academy of Paediatrics who also recommended that parents should provide children between 6months to 16years fluoride supplements. Multiple respected institutions have repeatedly defended fluoridated water, through qualified studies and past evidence.
In 1991 water Industry act was introduced to adjust the fluoride levels. It was set to be 1. 5mg fluoride per litre was the maximum amount permitted. This meant that dangerous levels of fluoride could never be reached. In terms of Fluoride reducing IQ; America has been provided with fluoridated water for 70years and between the 1940s and 1990s the average IQ score has risen by 15points. When comparing the statistics to the myths it is clear than though they have the same circumstances as us in the UK the average IQ hasn’t fallen but rather increased.
In relation to the 50 studies from China, Mongolia and Iran (which found a link between the two) they were proven to not conduct specific enough tests that related fluoride to IQ scores and did not look at the cause of what affected the marks. With too many external variables effecting the tests authors have ruled out the liability of the studies. Factors such as schooling and nutrition have a large impact on a child’s IQ, so without taking these into control a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn. In 2014 a British Journal “The Lancet” was published by one of the same authors which contributed to the false studies.
It stated the names of numerous harmful chemicals including fluoride. Conversely, once reviewed the claims it made were not supported by evidence. The article’s reasoning came from a single study from the previous 57. When comparing this to the 3000 plus studies produced on the matter there is an overwhelming majority in favour of fluorides safety. Community has and always will be the most important concern for the country so people would never be put in a dangerous environment. The acidic properties that the ion carries are thought to provide the perfect conditions for cancer cells to thrive.
Reasoning for this comes in many forms, for example with bladder cancer, because fluoride is excreted in urine the lining of the bladder is exposed to elevated concentrations. Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) on the other hand is thought to be a result of the deposition of fluoride into our bones due something called the mitogenic effect. Mitogen is a chemical substance which encourages cell division, which would then lead onto uncontrolled mitosis; cancer. Fluoride was found to gather in areas of the bone where they are growing. Such areas are called growth plates and are where osteosarcomas develop.
Theorised that the excess fluoride promotes growth within the cells at the growth plates, it would increase the probability of cancer developing. However, the U. S Public Health Service review of data concluded that there was no credible evidence for this and the Royal Society of New Zealand found the claims were not even supported by scientific evidence, discrediting all claims of association between fluoride and cancer. Amongst statements from these two institutions, many other respected establishments agreed the claims were false.
After decades of studying the link no suggestive evidence has even been found, on the other hand, with the same amount of time internationally it has been enforced that fluoride is safe from cancer. Otherwise the government would be illegally testing on its populace. With the economic situation that the UK is in, being in a recession, and the huge ? 2 billion hole in the NHS, cuts are constantly being made. This is a huge reason why people are against the inclusion of fluoride in their water. There is a misconception that by stopping the fluoridation of water it would benefit their local councils by saving money.
The truth is that the benefits which the chemical provides to the public saves a tremendous amount, holding a great value for money. By preventing expensive treatments with a simple measure that can be reached by all members of the community. As I have already written, tooth decay is a vast problem in the UK with experts calling the amount of children being admitted to hospital for it “disturbing”. In 2014 and 2015 33,781 children aged under 10 had to be treated for tooth decay, showing a rising amount per year since 2011. Over the four years 128,588 cases were reported.
Healthcare proffesors have begun to call it unacceptable that people cannot prevent such an easy to counter disease. Overall, the amount of treatments needed to be performed cost the NHS millions. Therefore the cheapest alternative is fluoridation. Not only can everybody have access to it, it is proven to protect teeth from decay. On top of this, tooth decay has been scientifically related to other diseases like heart disease, therefore, it can help prevent multiple unecesary treatments saving the governement a great deal of money. All over the globe people people have rejected fluoridation due to the many deceptions spread about it.
Misleading websites such as the Fluoride Action Network provide the public with bias information which creates a misconception of the truth. They write that over 70 communities have rejected fluoride since 2010, however they do not tell us about the significant increase in areas which have accepted the change in their drinking water. Whem you look at sources which present all the facts it is clear that over 60 million people introduced fluoride into their water since 1992. However over the past 70years it has been slowly integrated into communities due to light being shed on the benefits it carrries.
