Public Health Benefits Of Fluoride
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
…show more content…
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. 1% 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 …show more content…
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
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. 1% 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 …show more content…
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