Also, one of the more interesting points from the article is this statement: "Virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the U.S."
Why would I ignore it when it proves my point? You're basing your conclusions off of China studies where the levels of fluoride they consider to be "high concentrations" are 3-60x the MAXIMUM amount ever used to fluoridate drinking water in the U.S. Ergo, application of such results to the U.S. tap water situation is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
The issue is that flouride in drinking water serves basically no purpose whatsoever:
"There is now a better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental decay.
What little benefit fluoridated water may still provide is derived primarily through topical means (after the teeth erupt and come in contact with fluorides in the oral cavity).
Fluoride does not need to be swallowed to be effective. It is not an essential nutrient. Nor should it be considered a desirable supplement for children living in non-fluoridated areas. Fluoride ingestion delays tooth eruption and this may account for some of the differences seen in the past between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas (i.e. dental decay is simply postponed). No fluoridation study has ever separated out the systemic effects of fluoride. Even if there were a systemic benefit from ingestion of fluoride, it would be miniscule and clinically irrelevant. The notion that systemic fluorides are needed in non-fluoridated areas is an outdated one that should be abandoned altogether."
-Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS
Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto
Decline in tooth decay has not been affected by ingesting fluoride. Being in toothpaste may help, but there are other factors that have helped. Whether or not you think its harmful to your health is one thing, but
there is no reason to be ingesting it AT ALL.