Few object to the therapeutic use of fluoride to stop tooth decay, but fluoridation, the addition of fluoride to the public water supply, can spark avid controversy. Most dentists, medical groups, and government officials argue that fluoridation is a cheap and risk-free venture that doubles cavity prevention. In contrast, a small minority of dentists and conservative political groups argue that fluoride is a hazardous, poisonous substance that should not be consumed. Some antifluoridationists even claim that fluoridation is an untrustworthy form of socialized medicine. But rather than just attacking fluoridation as socialized medicine, opponents originally claimed that it was a conspiracy to poison or brainwash Americans through the water supply. This theory arose in the 1940s when the scientific community refused to endorse or reject fluoridation, thus allowing the debate to expand into the social sphere. While fluoridation opposition may be subconsciously inspired by naturalism, the social development of fluoridation into a Communist or fascist conspiracy resulted from a conscious effort by conservatives to suppress a growing government.
The fluoridation debate results from a visible conflict of paradigms; profluoridationists seek to protect the communal good, while antifluoridationists defend individual rights. According to William Gamson, “Antifluoridation literature is frequently concerned with… intrusion of government into private realms and with violation of individual liberty and choice” (Gamson, 527). Such concerns are often embodied in the characterizations of fluoridation as mass medication and socialized medicine. One expression identifies water treatment as a violation of free choice while the other po...
... middle of paper ...
...3 May 2003.
Schrecker, Ellen. The Age of McCarthyism. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2002.
The Blue Book of the John Birch Society. Belmont, Massachusetts: Robert Welch, 1961.
United States. House of Representatives. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commence:
Hearings on Fluoridation of Water. Washington, GPO, 1954.
United States. House of Representatives. House Special Committee on Un-American Activities.
Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the U.S. Volume 9. Washington,
GPO, 1972.
United States. Supplement to Cumulative Index to Publications of the Committee on
Un-American Activities, 1955 through 1968. Washington: GOP,1970.
Waldbott, George L. Fluoridation: the Great Dilema. Larwerence, Kansas:
Coronado Press, 1978.
We often say how lucky we are to live in a place where we have access to safe water at any time but what if that was questioned? What if our water isn’t safe; it’s just that now we can’t see the dangers? Throughout the world 25 first world countries fluoridate some amount of their water artificially; almost half of these countries have the majority of their population drinking this chemically enhanced liquid every single day. In the UK 11% of us only have access to fluoridated water [70% in Ireland], and in the USA its 60%. After a quick browse on Google, the information about fluoride that can be learned from the NHS is mainly about teeth and tooth decay as fluoride is put in our toothpaste due to its claimed abilities to help tooth enamel fight attack [nothing has ever alluded to supporting this claim]. What can’t be seen at
Maude Barlow’s “Water Incorporated: The Commodification of the World’s Water” gives a voice to a very real but vastly unknown issue: the privatization of water. I refer to it as vastly unknown because it wasn’t until this article that I was even aware such a power struggle existed. Barlow first introduces startling statistics, meant to grab the attention of its reader. Once she has your attention, she introduces the “new generation of trade and investment agreements.” (306) This includes referencing many different acronyms such as, FTAA, NAFTA, GTAA and WWF. FTAA, NAFTA, and GTAA are the villains of this story. Simply put, the privatization of water would end in socioeconomic turmoil and dehydration worldwide.
Thesis Statement: Concerns for water fluoridation stem from the toxicity of fluoride, the dangers fluoride pose to the body, and equal declining tooth decay seen for fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries.
No one really knows the long-term effects of these substances, individually or in unpredictable combination, either on human health or on the health of the ecosystems upon which we, and all life, depend. The chemicals are not the same as the ones Carson indicted in Silent Spring, yet they are produced, sold, and used on an unsuspecting public by the same interconnected complex of profit-driven companies and government authorities. Carson’s words in her “Fable for Tomorrow” still apply, as if we lived in the future that she imagined: “No witchcraft, no enemy action” had produced our “stricken world. The people had done it themselves” (Carson, 1962,
Fluoride is a trace of nutrients that occurs naturally in water and foods (Wilson). Fluoride has been a problem in the US for quite some time now. And as time goes along, it gets more worse. The only way to fight this problem off is to use less fluoride in our daily lives. This is something everyone should know about because it is getting to the point where it is affecting people's health. The question is, is fluoride being overused in the US? Many people are getting little benefits by the naturally occurring fluoride, plus they are getting more fluoride from the dentist office. There is only a certain amount of fluoride you should intake per day, and these days those numbers are higher than they should be. Fluoride is shown that is it being overused in the US by health issues, chemical intake, and children concerns.
Both Barnett’s claim that bottled water is not better than tap water (139-141) and Gleick’s claim that specialized water is not better than tap water (118-120) demonstrate that companies’ claims are unreasonable. Furthermore, consumers assume bottled water is better than tap water because they have the impression that tap water is dangerous because of the tap water incident in “2003 [where] 400,000 people [got] sick” from drinking tap water. One may wonder whether companies use this incident to remind consumers how dangerous tap water is with the way Gleick presents bottled water companies even after the tap water is taken care of. Because Gleick portrays the deception of advertisement from bottled water businesses, he makes it clear that Barnett hints that they are taking advantage of the case by informing consumers that their water is safer than tap water in an indirect, subtle way. However, Barnett ensures readers that tap water are safe to drink again after the incident by proving that both bottled water and tap water are equally safe to drink with a study she provides: The testing from Florida Trend (magazine brand) concludes that Publix brand bottled water and tap water both contains “0.020milligrams per liter [of] THMs (trihalomethanes)”, a “common byproduct…linked to increased risk of cancer” (139-140). Although other bottled water brands may not have
Zhang, J. (2009, July 13). More Scrutiny Urged for Bottled Water . Retrieved April 19, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203577304574276473594279310?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970203577304574276473594279310.html
I chose to watch the Frontline episode on “Poisoned Waters”. This documentary showed the environmental issues involving case studies on the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound. By examining how these rising pollutants along with industrial contaminants like PCB, lead, mercury and agricultural pollution. America has kept from making many of the nation’s waterways fishable and swim able again. This was a goal set by Congress nearly four decades ago.
Johnson tries to convince that although bottled water is convenient to use and sometimes even becomes a life savior, it should be avoided at any cost and tap water should only be preferred. This claim allows The Shorthorn readers to be sure that the author is taking account of both positives as well as negatives of bottled water but includes comparatively lots of negative factors to persuade readers that bottled water should be avoided. She supports this claim by reasons such as bottled water has a negative impact on human health, plastic has a negative impact on the environment, and the plastic bottle is just a waste of money and energy. She also supports her claim of convenience of bottled water by talking about reusable water bottles ' convenience. These reasons are important to those readers who prefer bottled water and are not aware of its negative
The water supply of Florida is important for a number of reasons. But it is crucial because it not only helped develop human society but it is also continually sustaining it. There are a number of phases and processes that take place to make this happen.
The actor dressed as a dentist boldly asserts, “Only Colgate Total has an antibacterial ingredient.” The simple statement without a source does not logically convince adults who think about the fact that other brands probably contain a different antibacterial ingredient. The brand attempts to provide additional logic, but this too has no clear basis. The man states, “Only Colgate Total reduces plaque by up to 98% and gingivitis by up to 88%.” These statements appear in text on the screen, but lack any listed sources or studies that could support the claim. Without another brand to compare Colgate Total to or studies proving the superior effectiveness of the toothpaste, many educated viewers could see that the commercial has no real scientific basis or supported logic behind its brazen claims, leaving the audience feeling as if Colgate simply provided them with a pretty face that will provide no real
To conclude, any government policy that makes pacticular behaviours mandatory, such as the fluoridation of water will be controversial. Supposing water fluoridation is a safe and effective means of preventing tooth decay, I take the position arguing for flouridation. However, where controversy exists around its safety and effectiveness my position shifts in support of arguments against flouridation. Given this controversy does exist, and considerations there are other potentially less harmful ways fluoride can be administrated to the public, the I believe that benefits of artificial fluoridation are disproportionately less than the potiential risks, and that public water supplies should not be flouridated.
The average human can not live any longer than three days without water. Many of the world’s fresh water sources are running dry or are being contaminated, particularly in developing nations, leaving many without safe water to drink. Only two and a half percent of the Earth’s water is freshwater, and less than one percent is accessible by humans (not tied up in ice caps). This one percent of the Earth’s water supply is expected to sustain a population of over 7 billion people, each needing 2.6 liters a day to remain fully healthy, plus all of the water required for agriculture and industry. These scenarios will only become more and more prevalent as time moves on and we consume more water. The United Nations has classified our planet as being in the midst of a global “water crisis.” Global water supply and shortages are becoming an incredibly real and serious issue, and planning for the future is key to preventing population decline due to a lack of safe drinking water. Shortages of drinking water lead to wars and serious international conflict for basic human survival needs. One of the most popularly and commonly proposed solutions to this problem is to create seawater desalination plants to remove salt from ocean water to make it safe to drink. These water desalination plants, however, are not a viable option to carry us in to the future due to their potentially harmful impacts and expenses.
The. Drinking Water: A History. New York: Overlook Duckworth, 2012. Print. The.