To add or not to add; that is the question

View PDF | Print View
by: Martin Fresh
Total views: 1
Word Count: 628
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 Time: 2:56 AM
0 comments

No matter how you look at it, our teeth are very important to us. They break down whatever food we consume, can stand a great amount of force if this unfortunately happens and they make a great first impression on whoever we are willing to impress. This could be a potential lover to a future boss so, on the whole, our gnashers play an extremely important role in our life. No matter how much we profess to disliking them, such as visiting the dentist or the rituals we partake in order to remove the pieces of food which could cause long term damage, one of the more natural ways which can help protect our teeth against the many possible dental problems is fluoride. This mineral, which occurs naturally, helps the aforementioned fight and is a very important element of overcoming dental problems. However, this issue has not always been represented in the most positive of lights.

The fluoride debate

The NHS discuss extensively about the importance fluoride plays in our lives, and the "Department of Health and British Dental Association" advise that fluoride should be added to tap water by adding 1mg of fluoride per litre of water. They claim that by doing this, the protection against tooth decay increases and therefore everybody benefits from this. However, it is not compulsory for local health authorities to do this as they may not agree with the view held by the "Department of Health and British Dental Association" or there might be opposition from those in the area where adding fluoride to tap water might become a possibility.

Fluoride in the news

One recent case which appeared in the UK's national news was in the early part of 2009, about proposals by Southampton City Council to add fluoride to the tap water system of its residents which is in fact the first water fluoridation project in twenty five years. The city that is famous for a Cruise Ship Port and a less than impressive football team found themselves being asked whether they wanted this to happen or not and 78% of those who were consulted opposed such an idea. The news at the time also noted the cons of such an idea; these include the health risks such as bone cancer, hip fractures and the lowering of IQ in children. Those who oppose this idea also say that it is against their civil liberties that they should have to be the ones who experience this especially when the mainstream of those who are going to be consuming the aforementioned product are against such plans.

Against their human rights?

There always are pros and cons against any idea laid down by any organisation which is going to affect a vast number of people. But, who is to say they are in the right or wrong? The health benefits of fluoride are certainly vast but should people be forced to consume something which they are opposed to? It seems that the people of Southampton were ignored by those voicing their opinion to what many claim to be a controversial decision but were their Council right in doing so? Surely, improving the dental health of their residents is for the power of good? Some might argue that this is against their human rights and those who they had voted in the councillors to represent them simply weren't doing their job.

If future decisions by other organisations or bodies are made about water fluoridation, maybe they will look towards the example set down by Southampton City Council and decide on whether what they did was a wise move or not for the health of their constituents.

About the Author

Whichever side you are on when it comes to the water fluoridation debate, there is no doubt that gum health is an essential practice, and so if you are suffering any problems then you should find some gum disease information.