Thanks Nana.
So I made the mistake.
However all surveys conclude fluoridation halves tooth decay.
Yes it can be used as a poison in sufficient concentration and it can cause fluorosis of children’s teeth if over one part per million of fluoride is consumed every day as can happen with green tea made with fluoridated water.
I don’t know if eating chickens will cause fluoride, Arsenic, lead, Cadmium or Mercury poisoning but I have not heard of it although I know they can be contaminants.
That is the point. Contaminants are monitored to be at recommended safe levels and fluoridation has been around over 30 years and clearly is safe though may need slight reduction in fluoride levels where communities have naturally occurring fluoride or drink a lot of tea.
Yes I am a dentist and before fluoridation I had to extract teeth for some 2-year-old children but never after fluoridation.
Yes fluoridation does no prevent tooth decay, but is half the equation. See supertoothndk.org for the other half.

Supertooth & others - you sound open to debating fluoridation and taking in new information, something very rare among dental officials.
Arsenic, lead, mercury are definitely contaminants of the fluorosilicic acid and/or sodium silicofluoride that are used in Australian water fluoridation. They are listed as contaminants in the material data sheets from water suppliers.
Arsenic is a carcinogen, mercury and lead are neurotoxins, and fluoride itself is harmful to bones and is emerging in the scientific consensus as a neurotoxin. There is NO SAFE DOSE of arsenic. Nowhere among sensible scientific bodies is arsenic considered useful for health, it is a poison. What right do water authorities or governments have to increase our exposure to arsenic by adding contaminated (cheap & nasty) fluoride to our water?
By the way, there is no recent survey or study that shows fluoridation halves tooth decay. If that was the case QLD, with almost zero fluoridation in the state till last month, would have twice as much child tooth decay as other states. It does not. Its levels of tooth decay are within 10% of other states. In a number of age groups the heavily fluoridated states of Tasmania and ACT have higher tooth decay than QLD.
I understand that dentists have been heavily indoctrinated by fluoridation 'puff pieces' in their newsletters for decades. It is now an article of religious faith. But that does not excuse policy makers from studying the primary literature themselves, and pulling the wool away from their eyes.
Start with the 2000 York Review of fluoridation from Britain, and the 2006 review of the Toxicology of Fluoride in Drinking Water, by the US National Research Council. The strong evidence of harm to consumers in the latter review, from even low levels of fluoride in water, is very alarming. It is what led the US ADA and Centers for Disease Control to issue their warnings for infants to NOT use fluoridated water in making up baby formula. They are covering their backsides legally for the damages suits that are sure to emerge in the near future.

Thank you Ironer, for referring to Scientific reviews (not junk science).You are correct in saying that the wool has been pulled over our dentists eyes, but I would go further and say that the wool is being pulled over everyones eyes for too long.

Supertooth admits to being a dentist and then tells us how before fluoridation he/she had to extract teeth from some 2yr old children, but never after fluoridation. Was that a scientific study that was conducted by Supertooth? Did Supertooth take blood tests to see if the children were fluoride deficient or magnesium, calcium or selenium deficient and then blood tests after fluoridation to see if the fluoride levels had increased in their bodies? Or is Supertooth practicing junk medicine by assuming that fluoride had something to do with his patients having better teeth after fluoridation.

Perhaps the childrens diet had improved, perhaps those 2yr olds were suffering from baby bottle rot and now with mothers being told not to give their babies bottles with juice or flavoured milk to bed the rot has decreased. Perhaps the mothers of these children are practicing better oral hygiene for their children.

You see Supertooth, if someone would just run ONE Scientific Study in Australia and not take the word of other countries , this debate would be put to bed.

If we are all going to make assumptions like Supertooth then let me tell you, I am one of those so called fluoride generation babies and my mouth is full of fillings. My 4 children were raised without fluoride and they have fantastic teeth and 3 fillings between the 4 of them.

Super Nana Anna

I don't care honestly if fluoride helps to prevent tooth decay in kids or not. The main thing is: it is unethical to medicate the whole population for the sake of a minor group. Let's say, I don't want fall pregnant, please add the pill to our water supply, that I wouldn't bother to go to see my doctor?.
It is such an outdated 70-s view that all can be fixed just by swallowing one chemical or another. Following this route now almost 99% of Australian population is sick. There's been a FSANZ decision to add folate (to help mums-to be) and iodine (to help children become smarter)to all breads and flour.
When will be the end of this nonsense?

I thought fluoride was invented by the nazis to add to the concentration camps water supply to keep the inmates docile and stupid. I would predict that the current east european monopoly of womens tennis is partly due to their players growing up on non--flouridated water. New born babies are the most in danger of having flouride in their growing brain cells.

I tend to agree with wizardress about forced medication where there is still some scientific debate about possible harmful side effects. Where there are no harmful effects I have no problem about adding folate and iron to bread etc because there are are no potential risks.

My dental health vastly improved by moving from one state to another where the water was fluoridated so my own personal experience (and many others) would suggest there is vast experiential and rhetorical evidence to suggest further study is warranted.

One factor to consider is despite water fluoridation we are still living longer lives than previously. There is mounting evidence to suggest that introduction into the food chain of dangerous chemicals such as pesticides, hormones, GM food, etal that our lives might be longer but we are suffering more from allergies and immune disorders. There have been many theories: margarine, vaccinations, grains, high carbohydrate intake, obesity, mercury in fish - you name it.

Is fluoride toxicity accumulative or is it expelled by the body? What are the effects of fluoride long term if any? Is there a safe level that can be easily processed by the body ensuring dental health does not come at a higher cost?

Further study would certainly eliminate doubt and provide a clear way forward.