I have read the opening statement and am unable to concur that any conclusion can be termed "Overwhelming". More like under whelming.

Oh well it looks like no logic (mine or others) can argue with an obsession (yours).

I prefer to continue enjoying the benefits of fluoridation for my 69th year.

mjpb

Circumcision is a good idea?

What absolute bollocks, 'No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants.'

http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm

I'm seventy one years old. Born in Surrey UK, my progressive mother believed in fluoride.
I have lost about seven teeth due to accidents and fights as a youngster but when I go to the dentist for a mild toothache (I've never had a bad toothache in my life) the dentist is amazed at the condition of my teeth.
It's a bit like the scientists who say that cattle make no difference to fire when they graze in the Alps. After fires, why are the cattle grazing leases so quick to restore themselves while the National Parks are sterile?
Maybe flouride is bad. Didn't do me any harm.

I must've been under a rock because I didn't realise that the fluoridation conspiracy was still alive!

"It is same nut jobs that oppose vaccination that oppose floridation."
Precisely, Shadow Minister! Their claims are not backed up by any valid evidence.

I find the results of research and studies in favour of fluoridation convincing.

There has not been found a link between fluoridation and negative effects, apart from some staining of teeth when OVER fluoridation occurs (much more than 1 part-per-million).

Side note:
I have to agree with cornflower about circumcision; a totally unnecessary procedure.
It's ridiculous to hack into babies' genitals without having a medical reason for it.

Without wanting to go too off track with the other aspect of preventative medicine but Cornflower it is just like immunisation for boys.

You say that no national medical organisation in the world recommends the procedure be routinely performed on infant boys and gave a link to the website of a group who oppose it. That needs to be contextualised. In the 70s the baby was thrown out with the bath water. Medical organisations were unaware of the benefits as the research had not clearly established anything. The statement would be both literally and substantively true at that time. However things have changed since then with medical benefits clearly established and medical associations who don't support it have at least back tracked considerably.

The World Health Organisation pushes it for adults in sub saharan Africa because of the urgency in stemming the epidemic. It can't wait 20 years.
http://www.auanet.org/content/press/press_releases/article.cfm?articleNo=169

The Centre of Disease Control are rumoured to be on the verge of advocating it and the American Academy of Paediatrics currently have a neutral position but are reevaluating in light of recent research. The Royal Australian College of Paediatrics are reviewing their position however there is no current indication that they will advocate it.

Celivia,

I agree to the extent that "It's ridiculous to hack into babies' genitals without having a medical reason for it." (not that that really happens - the procedure only involves the removal of a flap of skin from the genitals) just like it would be ridiculous to stab babies repeatedly with a sharpened piece of metal without having a medical reason for it. However in both cases the potential medical benefits are clearly established and the risks low.

Hi mjpb,
"However in both cases the potential medical benefits are clearly established and the risks low."

But 'potential' medical benefits are not the same as actual established medical benefits.
There might be a benefit for males living in countries where there's lack of hygiene and lack of condoms such as parts of Africa, but in a country like Australia I have not come across an article that points out a definite medical benefit.

I think that without a consensus about definite medical benefits, it is unethical to perform circumcision because a baby cannot give consent. Until there is a significant reason for circumcision, it needs to be a decision that every adult (18+) male will have to make for themselves.

Sorry for being off-topic as this thread is about fluoridation, but I suppose there is not much left to say about that.