Office of Population Censuses & Surveys 
A more honest approach to the subject of dental health has been employed by the OPCS. The survey was structured so ...
Question: What do you think can be done to stop teeth rotting (or going bad)? NB. More than one answer could be given.
|Parents with children aged ...||5||8||12||15|
|Avoid sweet things||59||56||47||42|
|Have a balanced diet||26||26||27||28|
|Visit a dentist regularly||25||24||27||29|
|Preventative treatment at dentist||3||4||4||4|
|Take fluoride supplements / use fluoride toothpaste||5||3||4||5|
|* Add fluoride to water *||1||2||2||1|
|Fluoride ( nothing else specified )||2||2||1||2|
|More / better dental education||3||3||3||4|
|Other specified answer||0||1||2||1|
NB. Emphasis added to the response: "Add fluoride to water"
The above table is in contrast to the biased surveys often carried out to test peoples reaction to water fluoridation. This is where the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity comes in. The OPCS survey asked respondents a question which did not have a simple yes or no answer. It was not a leading question and the respondents had to use their own initiative.
Unbiased surveys v. biased opinion polls
Conversely, opinion polls sometimes propose a question based on emotional blackmail and supposition. For example, it may say: "do you believe that fluoride should be added to water if it prevents tooth decay". The question may seem quite harmless and innocent but it has been constructed in such a way that the expected answer has to be 'yes'. In other words ...
To say that fluoridation will reduce DMFT is fraudulent because it cannot be proven.
The emotional blackmail element is somewhat more subtle. Who, for example, would say 'no' to this type of question. To say 'no' would make you appear anti-social and selfish. So for this reason, you feel obliged to say yes. Finally, the question is obviously one-sided and does not allow any contrary opinion to be stated.
The lesson is this: If you really wnat an unbiased opinion, you have two choices. You can either go down the same route as the OPCS, or you can have a balanced debate where both arguments are heard and fairly presented. But those promoting fluoridation are always afraid of this 'fair play' rule. In fact, Professor Connett,an established opponent of water fluoridation, carries with him (in his briefacse) a 'rubber chicken'.
This is because when he wants to debate the subject, he often finds that proponents of water water fluoridation are just too afraid to debate with him. They know they cannot win with 'snake oil' quackery when challenged with genuine scientific thought and evidence. So, Professor Connett tends to find his debates are a little one-sided - unless you consider that the chicken is symbolic of the cowards in the pro-fluoridation movement (and who likely have as much logical thought process as a rubber chicken!).