Fluoride should not be added to drinking water.

Thanks again to my opponent for a great debate. Thanks to readers who have made it this far. I think the use of emotive terms like "poison" and "propaganda" could potentially skew this debate in many reader's eyes and I will again prove that these words are being inappropriately used by my opponent. POISON: My opponent has accepted that all substances are potentially poisonous as per the first rule of toxicity (dose determines effect) he then attempts to make distinctions (based on dosage required for lethal effect) to say that: "Fluoride is poison, water is not." However this debate is not about whether fluoride itself is "poisonous" but whether it should be added to water. At a level of 1ppm, fluoridated water is not remotely "poisonous" as proved in my last round. Also as all water contains fluoride and my opponent states that water is not "poison" he must accept this fact. -- PROPAGANDA: This is a very subjective term, the definition supplied by my opponent is so broad it includes: "the spreading of ... information ... for the purpose of helping ... a cause...and ... facts ... spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause" I can't really object to this definition but I think using the term 'propaganda' with it's sinister connotations is deliberately misleading. -- PROPER USE: My opponent grudgingly concedes "that fluoride may prevent cavities." He has to because it is a fact that it does. He says: "Fluoride in toothpaste = good. Fluoride in water = BAD" although some fluoride is of course swallowed when you brush your teeth with a fluoride toothpaste. I am happy that my daughter is growing up in one of the few parts of England where the water supply is fluoridated. " 'Manchester and Birmingham have much the same demographics. Manchester is not fluoridated, while Birmingham has had fluoridation for 40 years — and the level of caries (tooth decay) in children in Manchester is twice that in Birmingham. 'That has to be due to water fluoridation.' Prof Davies points out that if fluoride is as dangerous as its detractors claim, there would be a marked rise in cancers where it's added to water." http://www.thesun.co.uk... -- WASTE OF MONEY: As I have already pointed out, the reduction in NHS dental costs for children in areas with fluoridated water supplies makes this policy excellent value for money. My opponent does not refute this but continues to use his "poisonous" argument. -- TOO MUCH FLUORIDE ALREADY / OPPONENT'S SOURCES: When I said: "Please compare them with independent journalistic and recognised scientific sources to see the disparity." I was of course referring to the sources posted by myself, sorry if I did not make this clear. The issue I had was not so much with the statistic itself but with my opponent's suggestion that the statistic: "we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount" actually came from the ADA themselves which of course it doesn't. Throughout this debate my opponent has used anti-fluoridation websites as his sources, the only non-biased link he has posted is to Wikipedia. In contrast all my sources have been from journalism or science sites. For a real scientific study on Fluoride intake which actually shows kids in non-fluoridated areas ingesting the most fluoride see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... -- The best people to talk to about dental health are dentists. Dentists support fluoridation: http://www.edinburghdentist.co.uk... http://www.nelm.nhs.uk... Fluoride aids dental health and helps prevent tooth decay, for this reason it should be added to water supplies in areas where children do not get enough fluoride at a level of 1ppm in line with current guidelines. Resolution negated. Thankyou.