Research supports water flouridation

Research supports water flouridation
Letters
Mar 12, 2009
Seminar, February 26, 2009, “Drinking Water?Fluoridation”
You are no doubt aware that captioned seminar was cancelled. I had prepared a series of notes and questions prior to my planned attendance. Rather than waste the time and effort I have spent in detailed research, may I ask your indulgence to read, and possibly question or comment on my notes?
The criticism of drinking water fluoridation invariably offers a few clinically proven facts, then makes sweeping misleading and unsupported statements that seem to be related to these facts but aren't. One of the great favourites is the factual statement that the fluoride level in breast milk is very low. Indeed it is. However, they neglect to inform that a child is born with fluoride already present at much higher levels. Fluoride transfer takes place, via the placenta, from mother to child in the womb. The elemental composition of the human body will vary with place, time, and in the case of several trace elements, many fold. The fact remains that fluoride is a normal part of life. It is the thirteenth element in human body composition.
The mention of serious health risk from water fluoridation builds and misleads on the known fact that fluoride is toxic. This plays on the publics ignorance and fears as they have little awareness of the toxicity in of substances and chemicals used in our daily lives: few are aware that toxicity (or poison) is in the dose. This is followed by the misleading claim that the hydrofluorosilicic acid used in Halton's drinking water is industrial grade. This has an anxiety impact, as the public are totally unaware that many essential chemicals start - sometimes fortuitously - as a by-product of industrial processes followed by careful refining to make them fit for purpose.
The forgoing just a few of my notes but they all lead to the conclusion that the antifluoridationist rhetoric has become, on examination, so encumbered with unrelated distortions it enters the realm of research to find out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The base science and authority I have examined, and questioned, support the safety and effectiveness of drinking water fluoridation using approved hydrofluorosilicic acid, in trace amounts judged necessary, as a prophylactic measure. – Ivor Davies

This needs answering.
Several counter arguments I can think of, even if he is right about babies getting fluoride through the placenta it still does not counter the argument that the baby does not need any extra fluoride at birth than the amount found in mother's milk.
Secondly in the case of Southampton just over 200 tonnes of fluoride per year is needed to "treat" these socially deprived children and that means 4 tonnes of toxic substances such as mercury and arsenic going into our drinking water as it is only 98% pure. Does that make sense?
Also there is no control over the dose as we all drink different amounts.
Anyway if over 2000 professionals including a Nobel Prize winner have put their weight behind the argument that fluoridation is not safe why should we consider I Davies rhetoric.