Fluoridated Water Position Essay

Despite several studies on the effects of fluoridated water on oral health qualifying water fluoridation as a prophylactic for dental caries, activists argue that the fluoridation of community water causes deterioration of enamel and serious overall adverse health conditions. Among these conditions are bone and kidney damage, neurotoxicity, dental fluorosis, and endocrine manipulation. While the claims of these adverse fluoride effects are justified and have not yet been scientifically contested, studies have reciprocated in that these conditions only have a significant presence in areas served with fluoride to water concentration of 1.0 ppm or greater. Today, the United States and Canada set water fluoridation at 0.7 ppm (Harding & O’Mullane,

2013).
Research indicates that fluoride concentrations between 0.8 and 1.2 ppm in public water systems—a range previously adopted by the United States’ Department of Health and Human Services and analogous to the 0.8 to 1.0 ppm range in Canada—create an imbalanced risk/gain outcome where there is an insufficient marginal utility of the excess fluoride to promote oral health, due to the inverse marginal prevalence of dental fluorosis (Harding & O’Mullane, 2013).

In a study previously conducted, the researchers concluded that the detrimental effects of fluoridated water are too significant to ignore (Campbell, 2013); however, the subject base studied had consumed water with an average fluoride concentration of approximately 1.0 ppm. This limitation bids for research to be conducted with other limitations, such as on a subject base in a water system that has an average fluoride concentration of approximately 0.7 ppm. For the purpose of this study, 1.0 ppm

(part per million) will be equivalent to 1 mg/L (milligram of fluoride per liter of water) and will be used instead of the SI unit for fluoride in water μg/mL, to conform to previous research. If the fluoride content in city water is moderated to 0.7 ppm, then the respective subjects will have promoted oral health compared to subjects consuming the control 0.0 ppm fluoridated water or greater than 0.7 ppm fluoridated water used in other studies. A correlation between the demographics—gender, age, socioeconomic status, and residential history—and oral health will be present. With the majority of subjects being native to the south Texas region, the results will contrast to research conducted in other regions of the world, within each demographic category.
This study will address the efficacy and merit of fluoridated water with fluoride concentrations between 0.6 and 0.8 ppm, with a target of 0.7 ppm, in the South Texas area and compare the results to research conducted in areas with varying fluoride concentrations and subject demographics.

This research may be useful to government regulatory committees such as the United States’ Department of Health and Human Services and to activist seeking research that supports the fluoridation of water and its continued

use.

Research Statement:
This study will address the efficacy and merit of fluoridated water with fluoride concentrations between 0.6 and 0.8 ppm, with a target of 0.7 ppm, in the South Texas area and compare the results to research conducted in areas with varying fluoride concentrations and subject-base demographics.
Subproblems:
How will demographics affect the research in comparison with that of other studies?
Hypothesis:
If the fluoride content in city water is moderated to 0.7 ppm, then the respective subjects will have promoted oral health compared to subjects consuming the control 0.0 ppm fluoridated water or the greater than 0.7 ppm fluoridated water used in other studies. A correlation between the demographics—gender, age, socioeconomic status, and residential history—and oral health will be present. With the majority of subjects being native to the south Texas region, the results will contrast to research conducted in other regions of the world, within each demographic category.
Delimitations:
1. There will be some inaccuracy as it is probable that the subjects drink bottled water that has a different fluoride concentration than that of their community water system.
2. Subjects will drink varying amounts of water, and essentially fluoride, which may obscure the results.
Assumptions:
All participants drink the community water under their system’s jurisdiction without third-party filters such as Brita.
Abbreviations:
1. ppm means part(s) per million
2. mg/L means milligrams per Liter
3. μg/mL means micrograms per milliliter