Statements regarding the scientific controversy surrounding water fluoridation are generally regarded as artefacts of antifluoridationist activity, with actual scientific debate over water fluoridation being resolved decades ago. Almost all major dental and health organisations either support water fluoridation or have found no association between it and adverse health effects [20]. Nonetheless, propagating the idea of an ongoing scientific debate gives the illusion of scientific uncertainty and is a favoured tactic of water fluoridation opponents..

Interestingly this is exactly the same tactic used by creationists and intelligent design advocates against evolution.

Under the guise of being objective you seem the most deceptive. Most countries which do not fluoridate have decreased cavities as fast and often faster show the WHO data very clearly which can be found on the internet also. The US health department and CDC mayb e by accidnet only report that the cause of cavity decreases was fluoridation not mentioning cause was never proven, just claimed.
The Fluoride Deception is half documents released about 1996 which prove organized deception by government and industry.
The 2006 NRC is over 500 pages of admissions of research never followed up on after alarming findings were made for over a dozen diseases.
India has vast research documenting disease caused or worsened at all levels of fluoride exposure.
Are you claiming the 11 EPA science unions were tricked by the internet or have they been consistant that fraud and deception has caused management to ignore the risks and exagerate any ingested benefit. Thrash ,I have lost trust in your ability to even get the siomple things straight. Dentists have a severe conflict of interest they do not disclose and in the US are not qualified to speak outside the oral cavity as a dentist. They can give their personal opinion all they want. The ADA has clearly in court claimed their opinions are just that and do not give them any legal risk no matter the safety claim. Yes on fluoridation also.
Please feel free to cite one chronic study on H2SiF6 for health or safety as not one exists and almost all fluoridation is w3ith this smokestack chemical waste. The iaomt@org give real science on toxic issues like fluoride and mercury which most dentists ignore. They cite real science.

Am I asking too much to show just one researcher that can show a mechanism of ingested benefit. Even the CDC and ADA now admit(just not to the public) the primary benefit is topical. By the way none have shown a mechanism that this happens at 1ppm. The Uk Health did admit in Aug 2008 that toothpaste below 1000ppm had little measurable benefit below 1000ppm for young kids. Same for the Aussies about three months ago but they suggested 5000ppm would be much more effective byut with much greater dental fluoroisis. Featherstone JADA 2000shjows it about as well as any but FAN has the list of 20 plus.
Three court cases at state level found fluoridation without benefit and a risk for diseases such as cancer kidney disease. The findings have never been overturned on findings but jurisdiction as the FEDs control the police state power issue.
The people with the best qualifications and position to know the facts and the fraud are the EPA unions and they have clearly shown in detail the fraud commited to keep fluoridation. nteu280.org is their own union site and has the history of the fraud and science for those that care for science instead of PR.
Kumar NY Health department just came out with a new study with 1986-7 data that proves the biggest US study ever with 39,207 kids in 84 communities proves again more fluoride, more dental fluorisis but none to 1.2ppm yields about the same cavities. Just more dental fluorisis with fluoride. They refused to release the data until they could come up with a method of distorting the data in 1990. Only delayed eruption was distorted to PROVE benefit. Actually a 1 year delayed effect. That 10 page study by DR Y is on FAN.
Kumar also showed in 1996 Newburgh the Crown Jewel of Fluoridation was paste as they had more cavities then the still unfluoridated control city Kingston. Lots more dental fluorosis was the fluoridation reward as usual. That is a lose lose for those that can count.
Please3 explain the Warren Levy Iowa 2008 findings that more fluoride did not give less cavities but did give more dental flurosis. Levy said stop using the term optimal dose as it is outdated. Same for Burt Eklund dental textbook. Stop using the outdated term optimal dose.
Burt 2007 Detroit documeted near 100% cavities in 5 year old after almost 60 years of fluoridation for most biggest cities. Cavuities are increasing out of control based upon poor nutrition in the poor. Burts words not mine.
The CDC still documents bl;cks have double the dental fluorisis of whites and much uglier moderate and severe but this is not news as the very first Grand Rapids 1945 experment with Russell 1962. 40% Blacks and 19% whites but 10% was to be the halt fluoridation as failure rate so it was not mentioned to the public. In 2007 3 health professionals I know brought ethics charges against the CDC to inform blaks if this risk. The CDC refused. Informed consent should be a right but is rare in fluoridation.
Please show a researcher that documents a mechanism of ingested pre eruptive benefit.
Yoder K.M. 2007 shows when tested by ADA only a tiny % of dental profesionals unstood the new theory of fluoridation. Most are studk in the theory long disproved of long disproved pre eruptive infant benefit. Dentists are a risk from extreme ignorance for their patients who trust their knowledge and honesty completely. Yoder says will be unable to properly advise patients until they understand current scie3nce. They do no have a clue from those Fluoridation promoters I talk to. Mercury fillings at least have over 50% of US dentists refusing to install but the ADA still give total support to safety. My guess is dentists looked at the data which all shows dental office personal were at greatest risk for damage even more the patients. Most dentists are far from stupid and will protect their own self interest.
In the US with our payment system most flat refuse to treat the poor. Cosmetic repairs such as dental fluroisis has doubled in income in the last 10 years. 2o years ago dentists made less then doctors but now make much more. Cosmetic repairs and not treating the poor are the foundation for many of more income. Only 4 of over 200 in my county treat medicaid dental poor kids so 45,000 of 50,000 are underserved by their figures. For many years we had no public health dentist but now have one. Not much of a solution. Most fear being swamped so refuse to treat even one poor kid. I know because I ask them. I go to the clinics. Our first public dentist did not treat a single kid for 18 months while the office was remodeled then 6 a day with a staff of 4. Was he sleeping? He quit after 3 months of actually working then many months later the new guy got paid per head 45 dollars and treated average 30 kids a day. The other dentist did 1/5 as many. Most of the very poorest have given up and do not even try to find a dentist to treat them anymore. Fluoridation is nothing more them a smoke screen government uses to make it look like they care.
H2SiF6 damages water quality making it corrosive and lead leaching. It destroys pipes and equipment expeciall with disinfectants like chloramine which makes it up to 9 times more corrosive and leaching. Maas 2007 Coplan 2007 Masters Coplan 1996 Dartmouth proved H2SiF6 caused 41% more lead in kids blood. Lead alone means it is a loser even if it reduced cavities.

Incidently, I did look up the Warren Levy study you mention. The study concerns the overuse of fluoride and does not support removing it altogether. In fact, the most telling point is that most of the scientists involved in the study including Steven M Levy, the head of the team that conducted the study, support the continued use of fluoride in water. They do say that in areas where there is a good level of dental care that the case for fluoridation is not as strong as it once was.

"Instead of just pushing for more fluoride, we need to find the right balance," Levy says.

Scientific American, January 2008.

Dont' you just love those peer reviewed studies appearing in peer review journals?