Like many other countries, water fluoridation in the United States is a controversial issue. In May 2000, 42 of the 50 largest US cities had water fluoridation. On January 25, 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first community in the United States that fluidized its drinking water to prevent tooth decay.
Fluoridation became the official policy of the US Public Health Service in 1951, and by 1960 fluoridated water had been widely used in the US, reaching about 50 million people. In 2006, 69.2% of the US population in the public water system received fluoridated water, amounting to 61.5% of the total US population. By the end of 2012, 67.1% of the US population gets water from a community water system (CWS) that supplies fluoridated water at or above the recommended level. They include 3.5% of the population residing in CWS with natural fluoride at or above the recommended level. 74.6% of those in CWS receive water with fluoride at or above the recommended level.
US regulations for bottled water do not require disclosure of fluoride content. A bottled water survey in Cleveland and in Iowa, published in 2000, found that most had fluoride levels well below the 1 mg/L level common in tap waters.
Video Water fluoridation in the United States
History
The public water fluid in the United States is partly due to Dr. Frederick McKay, who pressed the dental community to investigate what came to be known as "Colorado Chocolate Stains." This condition, now known as dental fluorosis, when in severe form is characterized by cracking and pitting in teeth. Of the 2,945 children examined in 1909 by Dr. McKay, 87.5% has some degree of stain or spots. All affected children are from the Pikes Peak area. Despite the negative impact on the physical appearance of their teeth, children with stained teeth, dappled and creaking also have fewer holes than other children. McKay brought this to the attention of Greene Vardiman Black, and Black's interest was followed by a greater interest in the dental profession.
The initial hypothesis for staining includes poor nutrition, excessive consumption of pork or milk, radium exposure, childhood illness, or lack of calcium in local drinking water. In 1931, researchers from the American Aluminum Company (ALCOA) concluded that Colorado stain causes a high concentration of fluoride ion in drinking water in the region (ranging from 2 to 13.7 mg/L) and areas with low concentrations having none staining (1 mg/L or less). Pikes Peak rock formations contain cryolite minerals, one of its constituents is fluorine. When rain and snow fall, the resulting runoff water dissolves the fluoride that enters the water supply.
The dental and aluminum researchers then move towards a relatively safe determination of fluoride levels to be added to the water supply. The study has two objectives: (1) to alert people with high concentrations of fluoride from harm, initiate reduction of fluoride levels to reduce incidence of fluorosis, and (2) to encourage people with low concentrations of fluoride in drinking water to add fluoride to help prevent tooth decay. In 2006, 69.2% of the US population in the public water system received fluoridated water, 61.5% of the total US population; 3.0% of the population in the public water system receives natural fluoride.
In April 2015, fluoride levels in the United States were lowered for the first time in 50 years, to a recommended minimum level of 0.7ppm, because too much fluoride exposure has become a common problem for children's teeth, seen in the form of white patches. The basis was the result of two national surveys (1999-2004 NHANES) that assessed the prevalence of dental fluorosis, and found that two out of five adolescents had tooth scratches or spottiness on their teeth - an increase in most of the very light or lightweight forms.
Initial study
A study of the varying amounts of fluoride in water is led by Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental officer from the US Public Health Service. In 1936 and 1937, Dr. Dean and another dentist compare the statistics of Amarillo, which has a fluoride content of 2.8 - 3.9 mg/L, and a low fluoride Wichita waterfall. The data is thought to show fewer cavities in Amarillo children, but the study was never published. Dr. Dean on the fluoride-dental caries relationship, published in 1942, included 7,000 children from 21 cities in Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. This study concludes that the optimal amount of fluoride that minimizes the risk of severe fluorosis but has a positive benefit for tooth decay is 1 mg per day, per adult. Although fluoride is more abundant in the present environment, it is estimated to correlate with a concentration of 1 mg/L.
In 1937, dentists Henry Klein and Carroll E. Palmer had considered the possibility of fluoridation to prevent cavities after evaluation of data collected by the Public Health Service team on dental checkings of Native American children. In a series of papers published thereafter (1937-1941), but ignored by his colleagues in the United States, Klein summarized his findings on dental development in children and related problems in epidemiological investigations of caries prevalence.
In 1939, Dr. Gerald J. Cox performed laboratory tests using mice fed aluminum and fluoride. Dr. Cox recommends adding fluoride to drinking water (or other media such as milk or bottled water) to improve oral health.
In the mid-1940s, four widely quoted studies were conducted. The researchers investigated cities that had fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. The first couple were Muskegon, Michigan and Grand Rapids, Michigan, making the first Grand Rapids community in the world to add fluoride to their drinking water to try to provide dental health benefits on January 25, 1945. Kingston, New York paired with Newburgh, New York. Oak Park, Illinois is paired with Evanston, Illinois. Sarnia, Ontario paired up with Brantford, Ontario, Canada.
In 1952 the Nebraska Representative of A.L. Miller complained that no research was undertaken to assess potential adverse health risks for senior citizens, pregnant women, or people with chronic illness due to fluoridation exposure. Decreased incidence of tooth decay was found in some cities that have added fluoride to water supplies. Early comparison studies would then be criticized as, "primitive," with, "the absence of quantitative virtual, statistical methods... nonrandom methods for selecting data and... high sensitivity of outcomes in the way in which the study populations are grouped..." in journal Nature .
Maps Water fluoridation in the United States
Water fluoridation
In May 2000, 42 of the 50 largest US cities had water fluoridation. According to a 2002 study, 67% of the US population lived in communities with fluoridated water at the time.
The US Centers for Disease Control has identified water fluoridation society as one of the top ten outstanding public health achievements of the 20th century. The CDC recommends fluoridation of water at a level of 0.7-1.2 mg/L, depending on the climate. The CDC also recommends parents to monitor the use of fluoride toothpaste, and water use with fluoride concentrations above 2 mg/L, in children up to 8 years of age. There is a CDC database to examine the status of water fluoridation in the water environment.
In 1998, 70% of people surveyed in a survey conducted by the American Dental Association (ADA) believed that community water should be fluoridated, with 18% disagreeing and the remainder yet to be decided. In November 2006, the ADA began recommending parents that infants aged 0 to 12 months should have their formulas prepared with fluoride-free water or contain low fluoride levels to reduce the risk of fluorosis.
The problem of whether or not to fluoridate water supplies often arises in local governments. For example, on November 8, 2005, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan voted 63% to 37% in favor of restoring fluoridation in public drinking water following the 2004 ballot initiative to stop water fluoridation in the city. At the same time, voters in Xenia, Ohio; Springfield, Ohio; Bellingham, Washington; and Tooele City, Utah all reject water fluoridation.
At Skagit County in Washington state, the county commissioner in 2007 voted 2 to 1 to order a local utility district district to start fluoridating public water supplies in January 2009. $ 1.2 million will be provided by privately funded Washington Dental Service. The Foundation began building the equipment needed to add fluoride to the Judy Dam, which supplies most of Skagit Valley water customers. The sources and types of fluoride to be added to drinking water of more than 70,000 residents have not been disclosed. However, in February 2009, Skagit County commissioners canceled the 2007 order, citing cost and possible lawsuits.
The cost of adding fluoridation to water from 44 Florida communities has been investigated by the State Health Office in Tallahassee. In communities with a population of more than 50,000 people, the cost of fluoridation is estimated at 31 cents per person per year. Estimated cost rose to $ 2.12 per person in areas with populations below 10,000. Unintended consequences, such as equipment damage, can substantially increase the financial burden, as well as health risks, for consumers.
In the US, Hispanics and Latino Americans were significantly more likely to consume bottles than tap water, and the use of bottled water and filters increased dramatically in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Decision on water fluoridation
Many political and popular entities and activities determine whether fluoride is added to the water supply. They include courts, local government, popular referendums, and water authorities.
Court case
Fluoridation has been the subject of many court cases in which activists have sued the municipality, asserting that their right to approve medical treatment and legal proceedings are violated by the required water fluoridation. Individuals have sued the municipality for a number of diseases they believe are caused by the fluoridation of municipal water supplies. In most of these cases, courts have supported cities, have not found or only weak links between health problems and widespread fluoridation of water. To date, no federal appeals court or final state court (ie, state supreme court) has found water fluoridation to be unlawful.
Initial case
The busyness of the case was heard in many state courts in the US in the 1950s during the early years of water fluoridation. State courts consistently continue to support fluoridation to continue, to analogize fluoridation for mandatory vaccinations and the use of other chemicals to clean up public water supplies, both of which have a long history of acceptance by the courts.
In 1952, a Federal Regulation was adopted stating in part, "The Federal Security Agency will consider the fluorine-containing water supply, within the limits recommended by the Health Service, as it can not be followed up under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act."
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma analogized water fluoridation for mandatory vaccination in the 1954 case. The court noted, "We think the weight of a well-established modern precedent supports the municipal right to adopt reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to increase their water supply necessary to protect and improve public health , although no epidemic is imminent and no infectious diseases or viruses are directly involved.... To us it seems silly and there is no consequence in considering the public health phase of the case that substances to be added to water can be classified as minerals rather than drugs, antiseptics or germ killers, as well as little, if any, the consequences of whether fluoridation produces beneficial results for public health by killing germs in the water, or by hardening teeth or building up immunity in them against the bacteria that cause caries. Tooth decay, If the latter, there is no principle difference between compulsory vaccination or inoculation, which for many years, has been well established as a vali d training of police forces. "
In the case of 1955 Froncek v. City of Milwaukee, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed a circuit court ruling that "fluoridation is not a practice of medicine, dentistry, or pharmacy, by the City." And that "legislation is a public health act, which brings a real relationship , substantial, and reasonable to the health of the city. "
Supreme Court of Ohio, in 1955 Kraus v. City of Cleveland, said, "The Plaintiffs' argument that fluoridation is a mass drug, unlawful and counterfeit medicinal practices can be answered in its entirety.Obviously, the addition of fluoride to water supplies does not violate such principles more than chlorination water, which has been in effect many times. " Consensus fluoridation
In 1973, when the case continued to be brought to state courts, the consensus developed that fluoridation, at least from a legal point of view, was acceptable. In 1973 Beck v. Beverly Hills City Council, California Court of Appeal, Second District, said, "The courts through the United States uniformly state that water fluoridation is a proper and proper exercise of police force for the benefit of public health. The problem is no longer an open question. " Contemporary challenges
Most contemporary debates about water fluoridation revolve around the question of how consumer demand for fluoride is determined and processed, the costs and benefits of fluoridation considered, how conflicts over supply and production are addressed or resolved, and how the benefits of relevant health policies are. can both reconstruct in terms of their expected losses.
Advocates continue to make contemporary challenges for the spread of fluoridation. For example, in 2002, the city of Watsonville, California, chose to ignore California laws that require fluoridation of water systems with 10,000 or more connections, and disputes between cities and countries end in court. Courtesy and secondary court appeals decided to support the country and its fluoration mandate, and the California Supreme Court refused to hear the case in February 2006. Since 2000, courts in Washington, Maryland and Texas have reached the same conclusion.
Country law
San Diego, California began fluoridation of water in February 2011, although the City Code Section 67.0101, which prohibits the city from fluoridation. Local ordinances are preceded by California laws that require fluoridation when external sources of funding are available. In 2008, the First Commission of 5 San Diego County, a nationally funded state advocacy organization, provided nearly $ 4 million for San Diego, for fluoridation equipment and operating costs for the first two years of fluoridation. The organization was funded by tobacco taxes instituted by California Proposition 10 (1998). San Diego increased its water fluoride level to 0.7 mg/L, as recommended by the CDC.
In 2012, New Hampshire began requiring a fluoridate public water system to post the following notice in their consumer confidence report: "Your public water supply is fluoride According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under 6 months exclusively consumes milk formulas reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increase in dental fluorosis.Consult with your child health care provider for more information. "The law was passed with a large majority in the legislature and came into effect August 4.
Local Ordinance
On September 22, 2011, the College Station, Texas city council voted, 6-1, against the city's water supply that wetted fluoride. ending 22 years of fluoridation.
In 2011, the Pinellas County, Florida commission decided to stop adding fluoride to public drinking water in the city. The Tampa Bay Times editor Tim Nickens and columnist Daniel Ruth then published a series with ten editorials who opposed the decision in 2012, and two of the commissioners who have chosen to stop the fluoridation were elected out of office and replaced with candidates who have promised to add it back. In March 2013, after 6-1 votes, the county continued the addition of fluoride, which was characterized as "long considered the most effective method to prevent tooth decay". Nickens and Ruth were awarded the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing for their series.
The Hernando County, Florida District Board of Commissioners voted, 4-1, on 25 February 2014 not to initiate water fluoridation in the area.
Referendum
On May 21, 2013, voters in Portland, Oregon decided 61-39% not to start fluoridation of Portland water, which was supplied to 900,000 people. It was the fourth defeat of the fluoridation proposal in Portland, the first of which was in 1956. On September 12, 2012, the City Council of Portland unanimously adopted the Act. 185612, authorizes and directs the Portland Water Bureau to initiate fluoridation. Those who oppose the rule immediately begin the petition process to hold a referendum that can reverse the rules. In October, it was revealed that four city council members held an undisclosed meeting with pro-fluoridation lobbyists. The public calendar of all four does not mention the meeting, unless one meeting is mentioned with a vague title. This violates the city regulations that require disclosure of the meeting. More than 33,000 signatures were collected for the petition, which led to a referendum that defeated fluoridation. In the campaign, the pro-fluoridation side got rid of opponents $ 850,000 to $ 270,000.
See also
- Fluoride
- fluoride therapy
- Water fluoridation controversy
- Health care in the United States
References
External links
- My Water Fluoride: CDC data at the Fluoride level in a water system in the US.
- Water Fluoridation Reporting Sheet (WFRS) Fact Sheet: describes the CDC system for collecting information on water fluoridation from CWS officers, in coordination with the EPA Safe Water Information System.
- (Historical) Statistical Reference on Water Fluoridation Status
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments