{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013937282229965157, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.25, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Water fluoridation: a response to critics in Australia and New Zealand.

Recent questions about the effectiveness of water fluoridation have come from Diesendorf in Australia and Colquhoun in New Zealand. This report examines the arguments of both authors in detail and finds errors in each. Diesendorf employed an outdated view of how fluoride exerts its anticariogenic action and took a number of quotations out of context. Colquhoun's data are questionable. Neither author has produced evidence to challenge the established safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.