Dickie

You still seem convinced that water fluoridation is harmful, but your claims re lead and silicofluorides, and osteosarcoma in adolescent males, seem quite unfounded. So do you have other evidence that leaves you convinced? I'm sure you have plenty, so perhaps you could present the scientific claim for harm from water fluoridation which you find most convincing?

There are millions of substances in the world, but which should we fear? Irrationally fearing one may take your thoughts from many more harmful.

And you might like to look at this very favourable review of water fluoridation by the National Health And Medical Research Council:

http://nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/index.htm

Thank you for the link Fester - a link where you appear to ignore the ambiguity of the contents. The term "insufficient evidence" or "no evidence" does not mean that something is proven. There is also "insufficient evidence" to prove everyone will contract mesothelioma who inhales asbestos fibres:

"Cancer

"The evidence shows variations on either side of the effect, however
only two studies present statistically significant results,
one showing an increase and one a decrease in cancer
incidence.

Fluorosis

"There is consistent evidence that water fluoridation
results in the development of dental fluorosis, however,
the majority of dental fluorosis is not considered to be of
‘aesthetic concern’.

"Well that's some admission from your NHMRC, Fester. "Consistent evidence." And this ambiguity, promoting fluoride, is carried throughout this report!

www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm

Furthermore, you have also chosen to ignore the survey I posted, conducted recently by the Australian Health and Welfare Institute, which stated:

"Every second six-year-old child in Australia has a decayed, missing or filled baby tooth. And on average every 12-year-old has cavities in their adult teeth.

"These are the latest findings in a report by the Australian Health and Welfare Institute. The report's author, Jason Armfield, says there's been a steady increase in dental disease among children.

"JASON ARMFIELD: Since the mid 1990s amongst younger children we've seen a steady increase, year by year by year, and we're also starting to see increases now amongst older children too which is a little bit of a concern. So child oral health in Australia is actually getting worse.

Despite the massive water fluoridation programmes in Australia, children's teeth are rotting which is the most glaring evidence to date that fluoride does not prevent tooth decay.

In addition, I do believe you are flogging a dead horse Fester when you fail to correctly interpret the ambiguous and contradictory propaganda put out by government aligned agencies, propaganda which you foolishly present as scientific proof that fluoride is good for you.

Dickie

"The term "insufficient evidence" or "no evidence" does not mean that something is proven."

This is a popular line of argument with global warming skeptics. In both cases you have a question that is impossible to prove absolutely. But in each case, you test other hypotheses from most likely to least likely. In the process you either find other feasible explanations in the case of global warming, or evidence of harm in the case of water fluoridation. The more you test, the more certain you can be. If fact, the likelihood that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure is far more certain than the AGW hypothesis.

As a further example, it is logical for me to assume that you would advance the strongest arguments against water fluoridation first. The arguments you forwarded turned out to be poor ones. Now while I suspect that you have no further substantial arguments to advance against water fluoridation, I cannot prove this. But the longer you fail to present valid evidence to support your argument, the more certain I can be that this is so. It isn't ideal I agree, but when you wont show your cards then what else am I to do?

"you have also chosen to ignore the survey I posted"

This is based on the assumption that you have requested a response to your link, and is false.

"Despite the massive water fluoridation programmes in Australia, children's teeth are rotting which is the most glaring evidence to date that fluoride does not prevent tooth decay."

This reasoning is invalid, as unfluoridated Queensland has a higher decay rate than the fluoridated states. Unfortunately, water fluoridation is not a magic bullet. but it is a very cost effective way of making a difference.

"when you fail to correctly interpret the ambiguous and contradictory propaganda put out by government aligned agencies, propaganda which you foolishly present as scientific proof that fluoride is good for you."

Instead of getting bogged down with conspiracy theories, how about you present a single valid argument for water fluoridation being harmful?