American Military University Removing Caffeine From Coffee Case Study Chapter 11 – States of Matter; Liquids and Solids Removing Caffeine from Coffee The

American Military University Removing Caffeine From Coffee Case Study Chapter 11 – States of Matter; Liquids and Solids

Removing Caffeine from Coffee

There are two parts to this assignment and the entire assignment is worth 20 points.

Look at the list of A Chemist Looks at… options from your chapter listed in the next slide. If there are two chapters in this module, you will choose one from options given. You will reflect on the topic and write about the information. You will write on each separately.(5 pts each)

Part 1 – Read the A Chemist Looks at… section and answer the questions. If there are two chapters in this module, you will choose 1 of the readings from the selections.

General questions that need to be answered in each:

What is the issue? Explain.
What is the chemistry?
What is happening? How could it be stopped/changed? Where is it happening?
What is your opinion? (If relevant)

Part 2 – Now you will take it further by researching related items in the news, in history, or wherever you find it. (Part 2) You are looking for thought provoking extensions of these topics. (15 points)

In this section you will:

Report your related topic/information fully.
Further investigate the chemistry, if appropriate.
Explain how it is related to the original topic.
What makes it thought provoking? What makes it interesting/concerning?
It makes it easier to write and read if you include headings for each section. Many of these were used in the attached example:
Most Recent Review
The chemistry in more detail
How did we get here?
History of the topic – older history, more recent history?
How effective is it?
Is it bad or good? Why is there still controversy? Here is the other side…
Is there a possible solution?
What do I think?
You may copy a section of specific data/information to further your point. (In the example, that is the list near the end In “Is it bad or good? Why is there still controversy…” titled 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation)
Include all sources to your related topic. These may be included in embedded hyperlinks, if desired.

How do I hand it in?

1. Where will you write this? You will write this paper, save it on your computer where you can find it.

2. Save it as AChemistLooksatMod1.YourName (Change the module number to match this module)

3. Submit it through the Safe Assignment link in our class. This checks your assignment against the internet, helping you to write an original document. You will be able to see the % located on the internet in the SA Report. If you are concerned, you may submit it as a draft to check the report percentage. Then you can revise and resubmit your final document. A Chemist Looks at… Example
Critical Thinking: Water Fluoridation (pg 391)
How does addition sodium fluoride to the public water supply promote dental health?
The text reports that a student completed in the 1950s demonstrated that children who great up
drinking natural fluoridated water had an average of 7 less cavities than those with without fluoridated
water.
The chemistry behind it is that tooth enamel is the hardest substance in the body – mainly
hydroxyapatite, Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2. However, it is vulnerable to bacteria which can cause pitting, resulting
in cavities. Fluoride converts Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2 to Ca10(PO4)6F2, which is more resistant to acids in the
mouth.
The text reports that in 2000, 42 of the 50 largest cities in the US had fluoridated drinking water and 2/3
of Americans drink fluoridated water. However the percentage of people drinking fluoridated water
varies widely from state to state and there is a fair amount of resistance to it in some areas. One reason
is that fluoride may cause brown mottling of teeth in children. As a result, the amount recommended
has been reduced to 0.7 ppm, and some cites have reduced it to 0.6 ppm.
Critical Thinking: Acid Rain (pg 424)
Just by looking at the photographs of the statue of George Washington, the first in 1935 and the second
is a recent image, the limestone is clearly being broken down by something. In reading the article, acid
rain attacks limestone by reacting with the calcium carbonate in the statue. Acid rain is not as acid as
one might think. The pH considered acid rain is a pH of 5 or below. Normal rain has a pH of about 5.5
due to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It dissolves in raindrops to form a dilute solution of
carbonic acid.
The gases that increase that acidity are oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. Sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxides
released by low-grade coal burning, mainly by industrial steel and electric power plants. Most of the
oxides of nitrogen are released by automobiles.
Acid rain is a global issue and countries all over the world are attempting to reduce it. Canada, the US,
Japan, and Germany all have plans for reducing emission of environmental pollutants. The future
solution appears to be to switch to hydroelectric and solar power that do not pollute the atmosphere.
However, specifically hydroelectric has environmental issues of its own, so much work is left to be done.
Additional Research Topic:
Water Fluoridation
Fluoridation is a controversial topic in many areas so I am selecting this as my additional research topic. I
plan to review the most recent government approved research, look at the history, then look at the
controversy. Finally, I will end with my personal opinion on the subject.
Most Recent Review
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.htm
reports that the benefits are well documented. In April 2013, the Community Preventive Services Task
Force Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation, 2000, 2013 completed its most recent
review of community water fluoridation. It recommended water fluoridation based on strong evidence
of effectiveness in reducing tooth decay across populations groups.
How did we get here?
According to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Fluoridation of Drinking Water to
Prevent Dental Caries , historically, extensively dental caries was common in the US at the beginning of
the 20th century. No effective measures existed for prevention and the most common result was tooth
extraction. Due to excessive tooth extraction, the military service in both world wars rejected applicants
who did not have six opposing teeth.
History of Water Fluoridation
Dr. Frederick S. McKay first noticed “mottled enamel” in his patients in Colorado Springs, CO, in 1901
and it became known as “Colorado brown stain.” He realized that teeth with this mottled stain seemed
to have fewer dental caries.
In 1909 in Bauxite, Arkansas, a Dr. F. L. Roberson noticed the same mottled enamel in children drinking
from the new deep well. The well was abandoned in 1927 due to concerns about mottled teeth until
H.V. Churchill (a chemist with the Aluminum Company of America) used spectrographic analysis that
identified high concentrations of fluoride (13.7 ppm) in the abandoned well. Hearing of his work, McKay,
from Colorado Springs, sent water samples to Churchill, focusing on areas where the mottled teeth were
most prevalent. These samples contained 2.0-12.0 ppm fluoride.
In 1931, H. Trendley Dean, D.D.S. at the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute conducted further
research on the “fluorosis,” now replacing the negative “mottled enamel.” He put together an
interdisciplinary team to research this data fully. He enlisted a senior chemist at NIH to develop a
technique for measuring fluoride in water to an accuracy of 0.1 ppm. He included experts in animal
dentistry, dental pathology, and water chemistry. As early as 1932, this team saw the correlation
between fluoride in the water and lowered cavity rates. By 1950, this research was integrated into
mainstream medical research and he was campaigning for fluoridation at a national level.
How effective is it?
According to the MMWR, the data shows the following in these age groups:
Children- 18% lower than among those living in communities without fluoridated water.
Adolescents – 8%-37% lower, with the mean at 26.5%. (1979 – 1989 in the US)
Adults – 20%-40% lower
It also appeared to be especially important for low socioeconomic groups.
Due to the prevalence of water bottling and processing of foods and beverages using fluoridated water,
the effects can be far reaching without being fully documented.
Is it bad or good? Why is there still controversy? Here is the other side…
Many sources can be found that support and debunk the use of fluoride in water. This one was
interesting because he relates what other nations around the world are doing. I think it is always a good
first step to see what other, similar groups are doing. The following list was developed by Paul Connett,
PhD in Sept of 2012. The article is titled 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
First he relates the following percentages of regions in countries that fluoridate their water.
Ireland – 73%
Poland – 1%
Spain 11%
U.K. – 11%
He states that most “developed countries,” including Japan and 97% of the western European
population, do not consume fluoridated water.
U.S. – 70%, equating to more than 185 million people
India, China, and parts of Africa have high natural fluoridated water levels and measure are being taken
to remove the fluoride due to health problems.
Here are the first 20 items on his list of 50 – copied directly from his article, some with a small part of his
explanations for each.
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or
mitigate disease (FDA 2000).
2) Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of
the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation.
3) The dose cannot be controlled. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the
dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water.
4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability.
5) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water.
6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease, not even tooth decay, is caused by a “fluoride
deficiency”.
7) The level in mothers’ milk is very low.
8) Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride
ingested each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in
calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001).
9) No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects.
10) There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s
effectiveness or safety.
11) Benefit is topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999,
2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not
systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since
the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to
deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the
form of toothpaste.
12) Fluoridation is not necessary.
13) Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth
decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey
ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children
from 84 communities) by the National Institute
of Dental Research showed little difference in
tooth decay among children in fluoridated and
non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989).
14) NIH-funded study on individual fluoride
ingestion and tooth decay found no significant
correlation. A multi-million dollar, U.S. National
Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study found
no significant relationship between tooth decay and fluoride intake among children. (Warren
2009)
15) Tooth decay is high in low-income communities that have been fluoridated for years.
16) Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped. Where fluoridation has
been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland,
dental decay has not increased but has generally continued to decrease (Maupomé 2001; Kunzel
& Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000; Seppa 2000).
17) Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation
started.
18) The studies that launched fluoridation were
methodologically flawed. The early trials conducted
between 1945 and 1955 in North America that helped to
launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their
poor methodology and poor choice of control
communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960, 1996;
Ziegelbecker 1970).
19) Children are being over-exposed to fluoride.
The highest doses of fluoride are going to
bottle-fed babies. Because of their sole reliance on
liquids for their food intake, infants consuming
formula made with fluoridated water have the highest
exposure to fluoride, by bodyweight, in the
population.
20)
What do I think?
That last article introduces some concerns that appear to be supported by scientific studies,
however, I’d want to read more about those studies before forming an opinion. However, it does
seem that the topical vs systemic rationale is pretty relevant. We can get quality topical
application through toothpaste and avoid potential issues with systemic ingestion. My person
opinion falls on the side of just using a good fluoridated toothpaste. I think that the water
approach was introduced to reach more people that may not have access to fluoridated
toothpaste, but now that is more accessible in many areas.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment