Woah, no need to get so angry, I'm merely asking questions (which you're not providing answers to).

I'm refuting the one thing you've mentioned multiple times; the "contaminated" source of fluoride. You make it seem like it's dangerous because "it comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants." Why do you keep bringing this up?

Since you brought it, up have you studied this at a university level? While I have not directly studied the fluoridation of water in university, I have studied chemistry. That is where all my questions are coming from. I'm not concerned about this from a dental perspective.

While that article is peer-reviewed and has sources, it's pertaining to a very specific region, and also is published in a fairly obscure journal with a trash impact factor.

This is also the first I've heard mention of pre-eruption benefits of fluoride. I've never stated I believe this, and have not heard anyone else mention this in favour of fluoridation.

Also as I mentioned in a previous comment, I am in no way saying the individual with a PhD in a social science is "full of shit". I'm just saying the article is an opinion piece, and reads like a conspiracy theorist wrote it. Think Charlie and Pepe Silvia from IASIP.

Many scientists (research-based) go into public policy as well. Mainly because they're capable of thinking critically and are able to contribute to policy in their area of expertise.

Also for the third time, are you a scientist, or have any scientific background?

Doesn't questioning all these things you're saying display critical thinking?