perhaps fluoridated rinses are the way to go and more people brush their teeth than once did but the benefits to dental health from fluoridation are pretty well documented.
"Water fluoridation has been called "one of the top 10 public health achievements" of the 20th century by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Fluoridation is cost effective; for every $1 spent $38 is saved. Communities with fluoridated water are proven to have fewer cavities (see article from Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Summer, 2010.)
Removing fluoride from water results in a median increase of caries by 18% (see article from the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, July, 2002.) Fluoride in water is easy to use as a public health measure because it is colorless, odorless, and tasteless.'
https://www.umassmed.edu/fmch/communityhealth/OralHealth/townlisting/
Latest figures from the New Zealand's own Ministry of Health show that non-fluoridated areas have healthier teeth than fluoridated areas. They don't advertise this, but we at Fluoride Free NZ try to :)
I'm not familiar with those cities, go you have a graph to compare poverty rates in those cities?
Most of the country is represented in this graph. Socio-economic information about New Zealand is readily available online. Google is your friend.
These kind of stats are shown around the globe. You're onto it though- dental decay is about poverty, it's not about fluoridation in the water.
http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
that huge study seemed to have excluded most studies from consideration
uh huh, and do you have a graph with the median income in those areas?
Kent University in England did a study of every GP office in the country and found a 60% increase in hypothyroidism for women when fluoride levels in water were tripled: https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/4137/stop-water-fluoridation-says-public-health-expert
tripled to what level?
The CHILDSMILE programme in Scotland is what works:
Much of the dental industry literature is based on the original aluminium industry funded researched performed by the infamous Kettering Labs.
Here is a table of results from the 2012 Malmo study
The note the absence of water fluoridation in the majority of the top 10 countries.
By the way, when we are talking about the addition of Fluoride to the water supply, it isn't pharmaceutical grade product, but an industrial process byproduct that would normally attract a large disposal fee.
Now if you wished to argue the benefits in using dental care products containing sodium fluoride as a topical treatment, that may be a different matter (although stannous or calcium fluoride are likely more effective and thus utilized in the more expensive toothpastes). However, after you have brushed your teeth do you swallow the toothpaste, or spit it out ? If ingestion of sodium fluoride is a bad idea then, why add it to the water supply ?