It's not necessary to be an expert to have an opinion, and its not necessary to be an expert to vote. This is my problem; not whether fluoride is good or bad.

Its a scientific matter, average joe (including myself) doesnt have access or the time to investigate sources of data, backgrounds of funding, full detailed reports rather than scientific journalism (which is usually inaccurate), and doesnt have the awareness or correct approach of how to make these decisions (ie its bad for you but also good for you, x people may experience problems but y people get benefits. decisons on vaccines are done this way - 3 people will die but 4million wont get xxx disease).

I too have an opinion on fluoride (which has a 50% chance to be wrong), but think the public should only be engaged when a matter of pure opinion/ desire is involved, and one largely without an ethical challenge if possible. People shouldnt be voting on which science they believe. If thats unclear, commission more research. If science was based on polls, marketing and involved the average joe (who is usually an idiot), e=mc2 could be e=mc3