This paper was presented in 'Odisha Environment Congress, 2016' which had the focal theme 'Environment : Water, Sanitation & Hygiene
Bimal Prasad Pandia
INTRODUCTION
Fluoride is an important requirement of the
human body. At the same time it is also a big threat. High fluoride causes a
severe disease – fluorosis. Many underdeveloped and developing countries are
grappling with high concentration of fluoride. India is fluorosis endemic
country. Fluoride enters the body through various means but water is the
primary carrier. High fluoride containing water and food causes fluorosis
disease. In advanced stages fluorosis causes severe crippling of bones and
joints and also leads to premature death. There are other social, economic and
behavioural consequences of fluorosis. Fluorosis can be mitigated. But if not mitigated and allowed
to advance then it cannot be cured. Fluorosis, being an untreatable
disease, can only be mitigated through prevention and control. In recent period
many studies and pilot programmes have found potentials of reversing fluorosis,
especially in children.
Since, it is a preventable disease and
is largely caused by poor water quality and poor awareness; there is a big need
to attempt fluorosis mitigation and combat through planned and intertwined
actions involving different aspects of it.
Current efforts of fluorosis combat
have mostly been one dimensional as that has been largely stayed limited to
provide safer water sources. Even that objective has not been fully met and
other aspects stay unattended. There is a need to have a fresh look and without
delay because it is a human rights violation and a serious crime against
humanity if fluorosis is allowed to continue and spread, and the affected
people are left unattended.
FLUORIDE MAY BE GOOD OR BAD, BUT
FLUOROSIS IS SERIOUSLY BAD
The beneficial impacts and requirements of
fluoride were discovered first. The
history of identifying need for additional supply of fluoride dates back to the
very beginning of 20th Century. The story of fluoridation begins
with a mystery staining of the teeth first described by dentist Dr. Frederick
McKay in Colorado in 1901 and, independently in Naples in 1902 by Dr. J.M.
Eager, an American dentist stationed in Italy (Mullen, 2005). Many studies
found that water naturally fluoridated at 1ppm clearly benefited dental
health. Such findings led to fluoridation, a
process of adding fluoride in drinking water. As per Mullen
(2005), as many as 40 countries had artificial water fluoridation schemes in
existence. Around 50 million people around the world receive water
naturally fluoridated at a concentration of around 1 mg/litre. But much before beginning of artificial fluoridation,
toothpastes started adding fluoride. Fluoride was added to toothpastes first in 1914 and continued thereafter. It was started after discovery that fluoride
significantly decreases dental cavities (Denise, 2012). In India water fluoridation has not been
attempted but most Indian toothpaste makers started adding fluoride and also
advertised such additions prominently in the 1970s and the decade thereafter.
The good effects of fluoride might have invited attentions first but the bad affects, in shape of fluorosis disease, have been widespread and too damaging. The Oxford dictionary defines fluorosis as ‘a chronic condition caused by excessive intake of fluorine compounds. Ingestion of excess fluoride, most commonly in drinking-water, causes fluorosis which affects the teeth and bones (WHO, 1993). In acute cases, affected person become crippled and may die premature.
The adverse affects of fluoride were first observed in the 1930s. The dental effects of fluoride naturally present in public drinking water were established during the 1930s and 40s by Trendley Dean and his colleagues at the US Public Health Service. In a series of epidemiological studies across the United States they demonstrated that as the concentration of fluoride naturally present in drinking water increased, the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis increased and, the prevalence and severity of dental caries decreased (Lennon et.al. 2004).
The good effects of fluoride might have invited attentions first but the bad affects, in shape of fluorosis disease, have been widespread and too damaging. The Oxford dictionary defines fluorosis as ‘a chronic condition caused by excessive intake of fluorine compounds. Ingestion of excess fluoride, most commonly in drinking-water, causes fluorosis which affects the teeth and bones (WHO, 1993). In acute cases, affected person become crippled and may die premature.
The adverse affects of fluoride were first observed in the 1930s. The dental effects of fluoride naturally present in public drinking water were established during the 1930s and 40s by Trendley Dean and his colleagues at the US Public Health Service. In a series of epidemiological studies across the United States they demonstrated that as the concentration of fluoride naturally present in drinking water increased, the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis increased and, the prevalence and severity of dental caries decreased (Lennon et.al. 2004).
Reddy (2015)
has listed out beneficial and harmful effects of fluoride.
Beneficial
and Biological effects of Fluoride:
Fluoride is
mainly present in bones and teeth. The beneficial effects of fluoride in traces
are overshadowed by its harmful effects caused due to its overconsumption. The
Biochemical functions of the Fluoride are as follows.
1. Fluoride
prevents the development of dental caries by forming a protective layer of acid
resistant fluoroapatite with hydroxylapatite of the dental enamel and prevents
the dental decay by bacterial acids.
2. Fluoride
inhibits the bacterial enzymes thus reduces the production of acids.
3. Fluoride is
necessary for the proper development of bones. 4. Sodium Fluoride (NaF)
inhibits the enzyme enolase of glycolysis.
4. Fluoroacetate
inhibits aconitase of citric acid cycle.
5. Fluoride
prevents osteoporosis in adults particularly in post – menopausal women.
Harmful effects of fluoride:
1. Fluoride in
less concentration (<0 .8mg="" associated="" carries="" children.="" dental="" development="" drinking="" in="" is="" o:p="" of="" the="" water="" with="">
2. Excessive
intake of the fluoride above 1.5 mg/L in children causes mottling and
discolouration of enamel, corroding of teeth. The teeth are weak and become
rough with characteristic brown or yellow patches on their surface. These
manifestations are collectively referred to as dental fluorosis.
3. An intake of
fluoride above 20mg/L is toxic and causes pathological changes in the bones.
Hypercalcification, increased bone density and sclerosis of the bones of limbs,
pelvis and spine. Even the ligaments of the spine and collagen of bones and
tendinous insertions get calcified. Neurological disturbances are also commonly
observed. These manifestations collectively constitute skeletal fluorosis.
4. In the
advanced stages, the individuals are crippled and cannot perform their daily
routine work due to stiff joints. The knees angle in and touch one another.
This condition is referred to as genue vvalgum or knock knee. This is due to
the outward bending of distal portion of knee joint and inward bending of its
proximal portion.
5. In some
cases, outward bowing of lower leg may occur. This condition is called as ganue
varum or tibia vara.
6. Sometimes
knee joint bends backwards. This condition is referred to as genue recurvatum
or back knee. This deformity is more common in women.
7. Floride also
affects the R.B.C cell wall. It is now known that when fluoride is ingested, it
will also accumulate on the erythrocyte membrane, besides other cells, tissues
and organs. The erythrocyte memberane in turn looses calcium content and
becomes amoeboid. This is referred to as non-skeletal fluorosis.
Fluorosis disease can occur in three forms: (a) Dental
fluorosis, (b) skeletal fluorosis, and (c) non-skeletal fluorosis. Acute cases
of fluorosis lead to severe physical crippling. The
late stages of skeletal and dental fluorosis are permanent and irreversible in
nature and are detrimental to the health of an individual and the community,
which in turn has adverse effects on growth, development & economy of the
country (NHP, 2016).
All fluorosis cases can be identified through pathological
examination of bone, blood, urine and serum. Dental and skeletal fluorosis, in
advanced stages of affect, can be identified through visible physical symptoms as
they significantly alter the tooth and bone textures and frames. Symptoms of
non-skeletal fluorosis are not visible to naked eye. They are manifested
through different ailments and symptoms. Studies have found that skeletal fluorosis complicates neurological functions,
causes kidney ailments, reduces intelligence quotient (IQ), affects
reproductivity, interferes with thyroid
gland function, increase diabetic problems etc. (Dey and Giri, 2015). Recent
studies have shown that fluorosis also causes mental retardation (Sharma and
Bapuji, 2015). Studies have suggested that fluoride might be
associated with alteration in reproductive hormones level, infertility, Down’s
syndrome, increased rate of congenital anomalies and cancers’ (Ghosh et.al,
2016).
Dr A. K. Susheela in 2016 has identified
extensive diseases linked to Fluorosis. The linked diseases are:
1.
Dental
fluorosis and extended effects in children with:
a. Thyroid hormone deficiencies;
b. Bone deformities; and
c. Neurotoxicogical affects.
2.
Cardio-vascular
diseases leading to high blood pressure, cholesterol and blood vessel
blockages.
3.
Anaemia
leading to non-absorption of nutrients and / or orally administered Iron and
Folic acid tablet to correct anaemia in pregnancy and adolescent boys and
girls.
4.
Renal
failure leading to kidney dialysis or kidney transplant.
Other studies have found out that fluoride affects foetus, nerves, heart and may cause loss of appetite,
nausea, pain in abdomen, intermittent diarrhea, muscular weakness, excessive
thirst, etc. (Nemade et.al, 2002).
Recently, the bad impacts of fluoride have
started far outweighing the good effects of fluoride. Fluorosis is emerging as
a worldwide problem and endemic at least in 25 countries. It has been reported
from fluoride belts: one that stretches from Syria through Jordan, Egypt,
Libya, Algeria, Sudan and Kenya, and another that stretches from Turkey through
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, India, northern Thailand and China. There are similar
belts in the Americas and Japan (NHP, 2016).
Because of a huge population, overwhelming
dependence on groundwater and huge deposits of fluoride bearing geological
formation; India is emerging as one of the biggest fluoride water bearing zone
and one of the fluorosis affected region of the world. The world’s fluoride
stores in the ground are estimated at 85 million tons. Out of which nearly 12
million tons are located in India (Roy, 2007). High levels of Fluoride are reported in 230 districts of 20
States. And it is growing. In 2001, Dr A K Susheela had found, from available
data of that time, that 15 states in
India are endemic for fluorosis (fluoride level in drinking water >1.5
mg/l), and about bout 62 million people in India suffer from dental, skeletal
and non-skeletal fluorosis. Out of these; six million are children below the
age of 14 years (Susheela and Bhatnagar, 2001). These many people being
affected with fluorosis is significant. This affected population constituted
5.85 percent of total population of that time. This is a huge number.
FLUOROSIS AND RESPONSES OF THE GOVERNMENT
Government
has a huge role and stake related to fluorosis. Article 21 of the Constitution
of India is about ‘Protection of life and personal liberty’. The said article
declares a fundamental right of the citizen that ‘No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law’.
The
Courts of India have clearly held that ‘right to life’ also includes ‘right to
water’. The Supreme Court has protected the right to clean and safe
water as part of the right to a healthy environment in a spate of water
pollution cases coming before it from the early nineties onwards (Kothari,
2008). In Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board V Prof M V Naydu, the Supreme Court did mention
that ‘all citizens have the fundamental right to have access to clean and safe drinking
water’ (Supreme Court of India, 1999).
While
the Courts have strongly and conclusively held that every citizen has a
fundamental right to clean and safe water, as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India; India is also a signatory to numerous important
international commitments including commitment on right to water and
sanitation. India is a signatory to the United Nations Resolution on Human Rights to Water & Sanitation. The said resolution recognises,
“the right to safe
and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for
the full enjoyment of life and all human rights” (United Nation, 2010).
The central and state governments have obviously declared
their intentions and commitments. The government of India is implementing a
massive National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP). The programme’s
objective is ‘to provide every rural person with adequate safe water for
drinking, cooking and other basic domestic needs on a sustainable basis, with a
minimum water quality standard, which should be conveniently accessible at all
times and in all situations’ (Press Information Bureau, 2013). In a response to the Rajya Sabha on July 21,
2015; the Union Health Minister said that “Government of India
supplements the efforts of the States by providing technical and financial
assistance under the centrally sponsored National Rural Drinking Water supply
Programme (NRDWP) for providing safe and adequate drinking water supply
facilities in rural areas of the country. Further, 5 percent of NRDWP Funds are
earmarked and allocated to those States facing problems of chemical
contamination in drinking water. Up to 67 percent of the NRDWP fund allocated
to States can be utilized for tackling water quality problems in rural areas.
In addition, Government of India provides 3 percent NRDWP funds on 100 percent
Central assistance basis to States for water quality monitoring and
surveillance , which inter alia include taking up works relating to setting up
of new or up gradation of district/sub-district water quality testing laboratories,
providing chemicals and consumables to laboratories, providing field test
kits/refills to Gram Panchayats etc. (Rajya Sabha, 2015).
Besides NRDWP, Government of India has started an exclusive
programme on fluorosis prevention and mitigation, “National Programme for
Prevention and Control of Fluorosis (NPPCF)”. The NPPCF which aims to prevent
and control Fluorosis disease in the country has set the following objectives:
·
To collect, assess and
use the baseline survey data of fluorosis of Ministry of Drinking Water Supply
for starting the project;
·
Comprehensive
management of fluorosis in the selected areas;
·
Capacity building for
prevention, diagnosis and management of fluorosis cases.
The NPPCF, launched in year 2008- has already included 111 most
affected districts of the country 09 in a phased manner.
While government is mandated by the Constitution,
international commitments and also a self adopted proactive welfare approach to
development; the non-government agencies too are playing quite important roles
in bits especially on matters relating to right to water, right to life etc.
However,
with all such declarations, commitments and launching of programmes; while the
cause of fluorosis has got more focus the affect has hardly got much attention.
Identification, treatment, relief and rehabilitation of affected people have
hardly got any attention.
A
CRIMINAL NEGLECT STILL PERSISTS
There
are many aspects of fluorosis mitigation where lack of actions or inadequate
actions or faulty actions by different stakeholders, most prominently by the
government, have resulted in continuance of a criminal neglect.
The
first such neglect starts with a clear absence of identifying fluorosis
affected people and maintaining a database. Any status cannot properly be
assessed without a good database. Unfortunately, neither the Central government
nor the state governments have started maintaining a complete and correct
database of fluorosis patients. In fact, the NPPCF itself hasn’t also made it
an objective. The best it comes close by is its objective to ‘, assess and use the baseline
survey data of fluorosis of Ministry of Drinking Water Supply for starting the
project’. But the problem is that, the ministry Ministry of Drinking Water
Supply and Sanitation (MDWS) does not keep any database on ‘fluorosis’. MDWS
only conducts water quality tests for government created sources and identifies
the water sources having fluoride level of 1.5mg per litre. This is a big
stumbling block for a frontal attack on fluorosis and is showing in
non-coordinated and non-serious approach to implementation of numerous
government programmes. The government does not have any idea of how many people
are already affected with dental, skeletal or non-skeletal fluorosis. It only
refers to number of habitations identified by the Management Information System
(MIS) of MDWS as fluoride affected and draws an estimation of ‘people at risk’.
In absence of a clear database, such estimation can be
useful only if they are reliable. Unfortunately, the MDWS database cannot at
all be relied upon. For example, referring to the MIS of MDWS, union Health
Minister replied to Rajya Sabha on February 24, 2015 that 55,269 people of 279
habitations in Odisha (Rajya Sabha, 2015). This is a big understatement and hugely
contradicts information declared and stated elsewhere by the government
sources. In reply to a similar question, the government had informed to Rajya
Sabha on December 19, 2011 that 475 habitations of Odisha are fluoride
affected (Rajya Sabha, 2011). This
means, number of affected habitations in 2015 decreased from 2011 number. It
showed such a trend because the MIS of MDWS assumes that a habitation becomes
safe if government provides a safe source of water in that habitation. Such
kind of assumptions is highly erroneous and does a disservice to the intention
of eliminating fluorosis. For example, as back as in 31.12.2010, government of
Odisha had identified 905 habitations of Nuapada district alone as fluoride
affected. The government had further stated in that report that 426 of those
habitations have already been provided with safe water sources. That means only
410 habitations were left as affected habitations. Following similar
estimations governments have arrived at lesser number of affected habitations
in later years. In context of fluorosis, such an approach is full of many
hazards. That is evident from new cases of fluorosis emerging from so called
safe habitations. And hence, governments must give emphasis on proper
identification of fluorosis affected persons and not rely on information of
fluoride affected habitations.
Government’s
efforts have largely stayed limited to creation of infrastructures for
safe water supply only. The other
aspects of fluorosis have hardly been dealt with. Even the NPPCF has failed to
give emphases on its other important objectives, i.e. Comprehensive
management of fluorosis in the selected areas; and Capacity building for
prevention, diagnosis and management of fluorosis cases.
Had the
NPPCF achieved its objectives, India would have a clear database of fluorosis
patients, at least in the 111 districts included in the programme. The NPPCF
has hardly made any progress. The
NPPCF has allocated Rs 4,415 crore allocated under the programme, different
districts have spent only 1,615 crore. In other words only 36.6 percent of allocated money was spent. The chart below provides
state-wise figures of spent and unspent share out of allocations made under
NPPCF in the above period.
States like Odisha, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh have fared the worst in fluorosis combat programme. Odisha has spent
only 23.4 percent of 115.86 crore rupees allocated to it.
The NPPCF has failed to achieve its objective to
identify fluorosis affected people because of it has failed to create the
infrastructures and put in place the resources required. As per NPPCF guidelines
(MHFW, 2014), any suspected case of fluorosis can be confirmed after retrieval of a clinical history, by the
following tests:
·
Any
suspected case with high level of fluoride in urine (>1mg/L).
·
Any
suspected case with interosseous membrane calcification in the forearm
confirmed by X-ray Radiograph.
·
Any
suspected case, if kidney ailment is prevailing, serum fluoride need to be
tested, besides urine fluoride.
The above stipulations make it clear why there are so
few cases of fluorosis have been identified officially. While this is a big
bottleneck in fluorosis combat, the non-skeletal fluorosis has been neglected
even more. That is more complex and doctors often diagnose those as other
ailments. Ingole points out at gross inadequacy of fluorosis teaching in medical courses as another
reason for lack of proper attention and treatment of fluorosis affected people
or population exposed to fluoride threats. He mentions that ‘fluorosis is a neglected entity in community as well as amongst medical
fraternity. Text books may not offer detailed coverage of fluorosis. The minds
of medical students are not being impressed upon with the fluorosis
epidemiology, clinical effects and prevention’ (Ingole, 2016).
OTHER NEGLECTED ASPECTS OF FLUOROSIS
Fluorosis is of course a disease. But it is not a
health problem alone. It has far wider human resource, social and economic
consequences. Many studies have found that fluorosis affects level of education
and vice-versa.
Many studies have found that fluorosis affects
intelligence and education. Connett and Blank (2016)
informed that a total of 57 studies around the world have investigated the
relationship between fluoride and human intelligence and over 40 studies have
investigated the relationship of fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of
the 57 human studies as many as 50 studies have found that elevated fluoride
exposure is associated with reduced intelligence quotient (IQ). The studies on
animal have shown similar high relation. All 45 experiments on animals have
found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of
animals. There is another kind of relation of education and fluorosis. Shah and
Indu (2004) found that cases of fluorosis were reduced when education reached
high among male and female both. They concluded that education makes better
awareness, so people might be taking better care of themselves.
Any
discussion on fluorosis mostly starts and concludes with water or fluoride
affected water. But, food and nutrition also plays a major role in mitigating
or enhancing fluorosis. Cornet (2013) found that nutrient deficiencies enhance
fluoride toxicity. Krishnan and Indu (2016) convincingly declared that condition of juvenile fluorosis is unique in that it is a mix of both
high Fluoride entering the body, as well as Malnutrition. A good
nutrition helps in mitigation and control of fluorosis while the opposite happens
if there is lack of nutrition or if food intake is friendly to invite
fluorosis. Level of income and other social existence have a direct bearing on
nutrition or type of food intake. Thus, there is a big need to have a look at
the nutrition aspects of fluorosis.
Fluorosis
has impacted or potentials to impact, mostly adversely, many other aspects
related to a human being’s relation with society. Many studies have tried to
assess impact on fluorosis on marriage, reproductivity, differential gender
impacts, differential impacts on caste, income loss, productivity loss etc. Rao
(2001) had published a very short but significant small feature in Times of
India on December 16, 2001. It featured an unfortunate case of a fluoride hit
reason where people are not being able to get married. Studies have also found
out that fluoride might be associated with alteration in reproductive hormones
level, infertility, Down’s syndrome, increased rate of congenital anomalies and
cancers’ (Ghosh et.al, 2016).
Fluorosis
ruins individuals, families and the economies financially. Unfornately, those
aspects have not been studied or focused with seriousness. Krishanan (2010)
informs that estimations of social cost of diseases such as fluorosis often
neglect a larger section. Such estimations mostly consider (a) medical cost,
such as cost on medicine and cost on medical advice; and (b) wage loss, if
unable to work. But, many other aspects which are closely intertwined with
daily existences remain neglected such as: (a) impacts on livestock’s productivity (b)
cumulative labour loss in society, (c) impact on village gross domestic
product, and (d) intangible costs on social stigmas etc.
Relief, treatment and rehabilitation of fluorosis affected
people is another aspect that has been completely neglected. It is accepted
that fluososis when advances too much is non-curable. But recent studies by Krishnan
and Indu (2016) have
found out that fluoride toxicity can be reduced in early stages and especially
among the children. They did an intensive intervention with 25 children in Jhabua
district of Madhya Pradesh with a combination of fluoride free
water along with nutrition high in calcium, magnesium and vitamin C. Their
intervention found that there was a recovery of bone deformities in five
children and many improvements in others.
CONCLUSION
The current fluorosis focus is mostly limited to create
safer water sources. It conveniently ignores that such a creation is not
sufficient to mitigate fluororosis and provide relief to affected people. A problem
like fluorosis needs a planned, intensive and integrated approach. The approach
must include identification, mitigation, relief, rehabilitation and compensation.
Somehow, such an approach is found largely missing in India and Odisha. There
is a need to amend such mistake. Any continuation of that mistake is a
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and undermining of India’s
national and global commitment.
------------
REFERENCES
Connett M. & Blank T.
(2016); Fluoride and IQ: The 50 studies; Fluoride action network (Accessed online
at http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/ on 18.10.2016)
|
Cornet M. (2013); Nutrient
deficiencies enhance fluoride toxicity; Fluoride Action Network (accessed online
at http://fluoridealert.org/studies/nutrition/ on 14.10.2016 )
|
Denise P. (2012); A brief
history of toothpaste; Spear (Accessed online at https://www.speareducation.com/spear-review/2012/11/a-brief-history-of-toothpaste on 17.10.2016)
|
Dey S. and Giri B. (2015),
Fluoride fact on human health and health problems: A review; Medical and
Clinical reviews (Accessed online at http://medical-clinical-reviews.imedpub.com/fluoride-fact-on-human-health-and-health-problems-a-review.php?aid=7968 on 17.10.2016)
|
Ghosh A., Nanda S., Bharadwarj J., Kharb S., (2016);
Association of fluoride with Congenital Anomalies in Newborns; XXVIII
conference of the international society for fluoride research, Hyderabad
|
Government of Odisha (2011);
Letter no 871 dated 14.02.2011 of Chief Engineer RWSS, Department of Rural
Development, Government of Odisha
|
Ingole J., (2016); Teaching
fluorosis to undergraduates, interns and residents - Lacuna in the present
medical and dental education - the way forward; XXXIII conference of the
international society for fluoride research, Hyderabad
|
Kothari J., (2008); The
Right to Water: A Constitutional Perspective; International Environmental Law
Research Centre; (Accessed online at http://www.ielrc.org/activities/workshop_0612/content/d0607.pdf on 17.10.2016)
|
Krishnan S., (2010); Social
Cost of Groundwater Pollution in India; CareWater, IWMI-TATA (Accessed online
at
http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/Groundwater%20pollution_Social%20cost_Krishnan_CAREWATER_2010_0.pdf
on 06.10.2016)
|
Krishnan S., Indu R.,
(2016); Combining water and nutrition
to help recover young fluorosis patienets, XXXIII conference of the
international society for fluoride research, 2016
|
Lennon M.A., Whelton H.,
O’Mullane D., Ekstrand J., (2004); Rolling Revision of the WHO Guidelines for
Drinking-Water Quality; World Health Organisation
|
MHFW-Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare (2014); National programme for prevention and control of
fluorosis – Revised guidelines; Ministry of Health & Family welfare,
Government of India
|
Mullen J., (2005), History
of water fluoridation; British Dental Journal; 199, 1-4
|
Nemade P.D., Rao A.V.,
Alappat B.J., (2002) Removal of fluorides from water using low cost
adsorbents. Water Sci Technol Water Supply; 2:311–317
|
NHP-National Health Portal
(2016), Government of India (Accessed online at http://www.nhp.gov.in/disease/non-communicable-disease/fluorosis
accessed on 23.10.2016)
|
Press Information Bureau
(2013); National Rural Drinking Water Programme; Government of India
(Accessed online at http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=100016 on
18.10.2016)
|
Rajya Sabha
(2011); Unstarred
question no 2942-Supply of water
containing fluoride; Answered on 19.12.2011
|
Rajya Sabha (2015); Unstarred question no 118 – Fluoride in drinking water; Answered on February
24, 2015
|
Reddy B.S., (2016); Fluoride
– a double edged sword; International Journal of Modern Chemistry and Applied
Science 2016, 3(2), 344-346
|
Roy S., (2007); Remediation
of fluoride in waste water; Sholar’s press
|
Shah T., and Indu R.,
(2004); Fluorosis in Gujarat: A disaster ahead; Unpublished report of IWMI-Tata
Water policy programme; Vallabh Vidyanagar, India.
|
Supreme Court of India
(1999); A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu; 2 SCC 718-742.
|
Susheela A.K. and Bhatnagar
M., (2001); Experiences on Combating Fluorosis Cases in India; 3rd
International Workshop on Fluorosis Prevention and Defluoridation of Water;
51-60
|
Susheela A. K., (2016);
Fluorosis and linked diseases: A new dimension; XXXIII conference of the
international society for fluoride research; Hyderabad
|
United Nations (2010); Human
Rights to Water & Sanitation; Resolution 64/292
|
WHO (1993); Guidelines for
Drinking-water Quality; Volume 1. Recommendations. 2nd edition World Health
Organization, Geneva.
|
Email Story