In this article
Fluoride levels in Georgia’s drinking water have been monitored and managed for decades, drawing attention both regionally and nationally for their consistently high coverage rates. This article presents a comprehensive collection of statistics illustrating how Georgia’s community water fluoridation measures have evolved over time, along with key comparisons to surrounding states.
The data shared here is intended to provide clear numerical insights into Georgia’s fluoridation practices. It covers coverage percentages, concentration monitoring results, health outcome metrics, and regional variances, placing emphasis on statistics that are especially likely to be cited by researchers, health professionals, and policymakers.
Below are several highlights illustrating the broad scope of Georgia’s water fluoridation statistics.
These metrics frame the broader narrative of how well Georgia has maintained widespread access to fluoridated drinking water over the past two decades. Further sections detail coverage trends, key health indicators, and comparisons to neighboring states.
Tracking Georgia’s water fluoridation rates from 2005 to 2025 reveals consistently high coverage compared to national averages.
These figures illustrate Georgia’s relative success in maintaining high fluoridation levels. The following table shows historical snapshots of population coverage in Georgia alongside national benchmarks.
Year | GA Coverage (%) | National Coverage (%) |
---|---|---|
2006 | 96.0 | 64.0 |
2018 | 95.2 | ~66.3 |
2020 | 72.7 | 62.9 |
These high levels of coverage continue to be monitored, ensuring adjustments can be made if the fluoride concentration falls outside recommended parameters.
Georgia’s legal mandate requires incorporation of fluoride in community water systems exceeding a certain population threshold, resulting in widespread program adherence.
Regular sampling and lab tests across more than 340 public water systems help ensure stable, compliant fluoride dosing. The table below highlights select examples of system-wide compliance in recent years.
Timeframe | Target Fluoride (ppm) | Compliance Rate (%) |
---|---|---|
2005–2015 | 0.7–1.2 | 94 |
2015–2025 | 0.7 | 98 |
Urban systems benefiting from automated controllers frequently hit precise targets, whereas rural locations can experience periodic fluctuations and slightly higher operating costs.
Dental health measures in Georgia reflect consistent fluoride exposure across most communities. This section focuses on caries prevalence and fluorosis statistics.
These statistics highlight both the protective advantages of widespread fluoride exposure and the common but generally mild presence of fluorosis. The following table summarizes selected indicators spanning a 15-year period.
Indicator | 2005 | 2020 |
---|---|---|
Fluorosis Prevalence (%) | 51 | 45 |
Annual School Absences for Dental Issues (Relative %) | 100 (Baseline) | 82 |
Difference in Caries per Child (Fluoridated vs Non-fluoridated) | 1.5 fewer | 2.1 fewer |
The gradual shift in fluorosis rates and lower caries incidence underscores the influence of stable fluoride levels in mitigating tooth decay while managing possible cosmetic effects.
Assessing Georgia’s data relative to Southeastern neighbors underlines the state’s strong fluoridation record.
Beyond coverage rates, Georgia also records about 25% lower caries incidence compared to non-fluoridated regions in Florida and South Carolina. The table below provides an at-a-glance comparison of selected Southeastern states.
State | CWS Coverage (%) | Total Pop. Served (Millions) |
---|---|---|
Georgia | 95.2 (2018) 72.7 (2020) |
~10.6 |
Florida | 78.0 | 16.2 |
South Carolina | 68.4 | 3.4 |
Alabama | 85.4 | 4.3 |
Tennessee | 73.1 | 5.8 |
Georgia’s robust legislative structure and frequent monitoring contribute to a higher coverage relative to several adjoining states, potentially correlating with lower incidence of tooth decay.
While Georgia’s program remains comparatively strong, certain factors affect fluoridation efforts across the state.
These factors underscore the operational and social dimensions of ensuring consistent fluoride dosages, particularly for smaller communities without updated infrastructures.
Overall, Georgia’s high compliance levels, consistent concentration monitoring, and notable declines in dental caries highlight the results of sustained statewide fluoridation. Despite some remaining challenges, these statistics confirm the program’s significant impact on oral health across diverse communities.
In this article