One thing that's always been like a junk-science beacon for me in regards to water fluoridation is the decree that the ppm of fluoride in water varies depending

One thing that's always been like a junk-science beacon for me in regards to water fluoridation is the decree that the ppm of fluoride in water varies depending on whether you're in a hot climate or a cold climate because "people who live in warm climates tend to drink more water". That and systemic reviews such as the York review (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf) which basically states there has been very little high-quality studies done on the effects of water fluoridation. Admittedly that systemic review was released in 2000, and unfortunately for conspiracy theorists the York review concluded there may be a slight benefit and at worst a slight disbenefit to water fluoridation, but in their executive summary they did say: "Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken" That's almost half a century since we've been touting the 'scientifically proven' benefits of water fluoridation, which I just find stunning. So unlike yourself I'm very unimpressed with the scientific evidence, and have come to the conclusion that a half-baked health policy was implemented in an age of questionable scientific rigour. Human and establishment tendency to refuse to admit fault or error has guaranteed this rather flaky practice continues in many parts of the west today.