Consuming foodstuffs that degrade teeth (sugar and starch) and lower nutrient levels is the problem, not a lack of fluoride in city water. Sodium fluoride, the type of fluoride that's used, is an industrial waste byproduct anyways (it's also used to make nuclear bombs). I really don't know why anyone would want that in their HIGHLY ABSORBENT mouths and digestive tracts to begin with. http://fluoridealert.org/ar...http://fluoridealert.org/co...

why would anyone encourage children to drink San Jose's arsenic-tainted water after yet another toxic chemical, fluoride, is added to it.

A USA Today article says that San Jose has very high arsenic levels. No one should be encouraged to drink arsenic for the political expedience of fluoridationists and the special interests they truly represent.. USA Today "63 million Americans exposed to unsafe drinking water,"
"San Jose has high levels of arsenic above the Drinking Water Standards"

https://amp.usatoday.com/am...

America's Pediatricians and Family Physicians along with well over 100 other groups of sophisticated committed scientists and professionals are on easily verified public record affirming this decision. Fluoridation at the optimal concentration of 0.7 ppm prevents cavities, saves tons of money with lower dental bills and is completely safe.

While community water fluoridation (CWF) is not a silver bullet, it importantly decreases the oral health disparities which come with economic disadvantage. To argue against CWF is to argue for greater pain, suffering, greater health inequality and lifelong oral health disadvantage.

Fortunately for San Jose's citizens (of all ages) this council has the courage to look past the loud and aggressive opposition and make a decision in line with the overwhelming consensus of experts.

"Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children’s IQ" https://www.huffingtonpost....https://www.hsph.harvard.ed.... Is anyone aware of where the type of fluoride that's used to fluoridate water comes from?--or what else it's used for?? If every one in school is taught the same false nonsense, are we being informed by intelligent and KNOWLEDGEABLE authorities? Or are we being informed by intelligent and MISINFORMED authorities? If someone where's a lab coat at work, or has spent an additional eight years in an institution of "higher learning", does that make them infallible? As a side note... many scientists in the US also say there's no scientific evidence for the efficacy of cannabinoids in medicinal applications; yet there are MANY patents--held by chemical companies--on synthetic THC alone. I'm sorry to say it, but... the "authorities" in the US are on the brink of losing all credibility.

And economic disadvantage? Do you mean to tell me that "rich kids" don't get cavities? It's not a matter of needing fluoride. It's a matter of being well nourished and NOT consuming foods or drinks that damage teeth to begin with. And it doesn't help that the authorities in the US still recommend that Americans consume too much sugar and too much sticky, tooth-rotting starch.

Fluoridation avoids half of the dental bills for poor kids. There are no alternative programs to achieve the health and economic benefits for these little preschool kids who do not choose their diets, their family, whether or not they brush their teeth or see dental professionals for preventative care.

Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay -- Louisiana, 1995-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. CDC 1999

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pre...

Without fluoridation Medicaid budgets must bear the cost of this mistaken opposition.

Say America's pediatricians through the American Academy of Pediatrics:

"Water fluoridation is a cost-effective means of preventing dental caries, with the lifetime cost per person equaling less than the cost of 1 dental restoration. In short, fluoridated water is the cheapest and most effective way to deliver anticaries benefits to communities."

Pediatricians are not stupid lemmings. They only wish the best for their young patients. If your view were the truth physician's support of fluoridation would evaporate.

Your argument well illustrates that fluoridation opponents must believe that somehow state and federal health agencies, aided by these many expert scientific communities are lying and helping to poison over 2000 million Americans.

This is pure crackpottery.

In Sept, researchers at top American and Canadian universities published the findings of their NIH sponsored multi-year study. They found that prenatal low dose exposure to fluoride consistent with doses in 'optimally' fluoridated communities lowered the IQ in offspring by up to 6 points on a dose-response trend line. (Bashash et al. 2017) An American study in 2015 found tens of thousands more 11 year olds diagnosed with hyperactivity in fluoridated towns than unfluoridated towns. (Malin & Till 2015) EPA scientists have labeled fluoride as one of the top 21 out of 400 'developmental neurointoxicants' - a brain poison. (Mundy et al. 2009, 2015)

More than half of American teens this decade have some level of dental fluorosis, with 1 in 5 having brown stains and even pitting or missing enamel on at least two brittle teeth poisoned by too much fluoride during youth. Only 1 in 100 had this level of fluorosis in the 1980s - and that was still too many. Kids with fluorosis have more learning disabilities consistent with severity of fluorosis.

Fluoridation chemicals are contaminated with lead, aluminum, arsenic, etc. (Mullenix 2014) Plus they accelerate destruction of infrastructure.

Go ahead, San Jose - but allow more money for SPED costs and infrastructure. Also, you'll need more dentists for costly repairs to damaged teeth. "If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc." - Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)

“Seabreezes”, who also posts under the name of Karen Spencer of Massachusetts, is a close affiliate of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”. The misrepresentations, half-truths, and misinformation she presents here are typical of that which are constantly disseminated by Spencer and her “FAN”.

1. The Bashash, et al study utilized existing data on urinary fluoride content of pregnant women living in unfluoridated Mexico, to postulate the effect of prenatal exposure on the offspring of these women. The limitations of this study, as clearly noted in the study itself, rendered it to have no current applicability to optimally fluoridated water in the US.

The most obvious disqualifier to comparison with fluoridated water in the US is that there is no data on urinary fluoride content of pregnant women residing in fluoridated areas of the US. As pregnancy affects these concentrations, attempting to compare urinary fluoride content of pregnant women in Mexico, with that of non-pregnant adults in the US is apples to oranges.

Another clearly noted limitation was the inability of the researchers to control for key variables other than fluoride which could very well have been responsible for the findings of this study.

Other clearly noted limitations included the lack of information on iodine in the iodized fluoridated salt which was chronically consumed by the Mexican women, the lack of information on how much fluoride exposure was from the water and how much from other sources, and the fact that there appeared to be no effect on offspring of those women with urinary fluoride content below 0.8 mg/liter

Finally.......In a September, 2017 email to Dr. Johnny Johnson, Jr,  Dr. Angeles Mier Martinez, one of the lead researchers in the Bashash, et al. Mexican study, relayed:

A. “As an individual, I am happy to go on the record to say that I continue to support water fluoridation”

B. “If I were pregnant today I would consume fluoridated water, and that if I lived in Mexico I would limit my salt intake.”

C.  “I am involved in this research because I am committed to contribute to the science to ensure fluoridation is safe for all.”
 
E. Angeles Martinez Mier, DDS, MSD, PhD
Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health
Indiana University School of Dentistry
415 Lansing Street
Indianapolis IN 46202

2. The Malin/Till ADHD study has been widely discredited in the scientific literature for its inadequate control for confounders, poor methodologies and reaching a conclusion not supported by the peer-reviewed science. This study is a prime example of the the type of “evidence” antifluoridationists claim to be the “science” which supports their position.

3. The Mundy paper lists, in alphabetical order, approximately 150 substances in the same category as fluoride. They are not assigned as top, middle, or bottom. This same list also contains such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (sweetener), ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages). Salicylate (aspirin), caffeine, and nicotine.

Does “seabreezes” fear neurotoxicity when she consumes caffeinated coffee, soft drinks, or chocolate? Doubtful.

4. The dental fluorosis statistics “seabreezes” cites are from her antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”, not from any credible source.

The only dental fluorosis which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.

The “brown stains and even pitting or missing enamel on at least two brittle teeth poisoned by too much fluoride during youth.” are defining characteristics of severe dental fluorosis. This level of dental fluorosis is rare in the US, occurs only as a result of chronic exposure to abnormally high levels of fluoride during the teeth developing years of 0-8, and is obviously not associated with optimally fluoridated water. As clearly noted by the report of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, severe dental fluorosis does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content below 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third that level.

5. Mullinex 2014 assessed the content of raw, undiluted fluoridation substances. It has no relevance to fluoridated water at the tap.

All water at the tap must meet all of the stringent, EPA mandated quality certification requirements under Standard 60 of NSF International. Standard 60 requires there to be no contaminant present in water at the tap in excess of 10% of the EPA mandated maximum allowable level (MCL) for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets these requirements. In actuality, under strict NSF testing, there are no detectable contaminants in water fluoridated with the appropriate amount of fluoridation substance. It takes use of 10 times the manufacturer’s recommended single use amount of fluoridation substance in order to detect any contaminants, whatsoever.

6. Fluoridation substances immediately and completely hydrolyze (dissociate) upon addition to drinking water. They do not even make it out of the water treatment plant. It is therefore not possible for these substances to “accelerate the destruction of infrastructure”, which is why there is no valid evidence to support claims that it does.

7. The erroneous, unsubstantiated opinion of some “Michael Taras, DMD”, notwithstanding, there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimal level fluoride “hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc”. In the 72 year history of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects. Zero.

8. Any “costly repairs to damaged teeth” will be from untreated dental decay which can be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Communications Officer
American Fluoridation Society

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass poisoning. Welcome to America. The material added to drinking water is toxic waste. Not one shred of data can be supplied to prove it's safe. Quite to the contrary. According to multiple studies, fluoride is correlated with lower IQ. If you are not concerned about that, it literally might be the fluoride working. https://www.huffingtonpost....

Rod

1. There is no “toxic waste” involved with water fluoridation.

2. The only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which humans have been ingesting in water since the beginning of time, and trace contaminants in amounts far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety. There is no valid evidence that any of this is in any manner unsafe. There is therefore no reason for any “shred” of data on its safety.

3. None of the “multiple studies” claiming correlation of fluoride to lower IQ, has any relevance to fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated.

4. There is no reason to be “concerned” with baseless claims and speculation of antifluoridationists.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Communications Officer
American Fluoridation Society

You should probably stop using that name. Your shilling efforts are being monitored and recorded by the public. The fact that you're a part of the "American Fluoridation Society" reeks a little to much of the "Ministry of Truth". Longitudinal studies show that IQ is on average lower in populations with fluoridated water. These are Ivy league schools doing meta analyses. The "maximum allowable levels" and the "optimal levels" do not account for the fact that fluoride is in more than one sources in our food/water supply. You can find fluoride at different concentrations in different products or municipal programs, drinking water, products made with items that use fluoridated water. The benefits, the cost, do not outweigh the unmitigated control of daily intake. WHY USE IT? It's basically an industrial byproduct that was once locally linked to improved cavity rates and so we must forever think of it as such? You are evil.

1. “Shill” is the childish, stale nonsense put forth by uninformed antifluoridationists in lame attempts to discredit the facts and evidence refuting the misinformation constantly disseminated by those unscrupulous antifluoridationists.

2. My purpose for constantly correcting the misinformation posted by antifluoridationists is precisely so that the public and decision-makers will monitor and record the facts and evidence I present, while beginning to understand that there is little, if anything, stated by antifluoridationists which can be trusted as being accurate.

3. There are no valid, peer-reviewed longitudinal studies, or such studies of any other format, which show “IQ is on average lowered in populations with fluoridated water.” The citizens of Boston, and other fluoridated areas in which are located top educational, medical, engineering, and research facilities, might take issue with your ridiculous claim.

4. There are no “Ivy-league schools doing meta-analyses” involving optimally fluoridated water.

5. To claim that the EPA mandated maximum allowable level of fluoride in water, and the US DHHS officially recommended optimal level of fluoride in water, do not account for all other sources of fluoride intake is beyond ridiculous. Simply because it has recently dawned on antifluoridationists that water is not the only source of fluoride intake does not mean that our regulatory agencies haven’t taken that fact into full consideration ever since establisment of these levels, or that that they don’t fully consider this fact in periodic reviews of their policies.

6. The fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water is far more stringently controlled that that from non-fluoridated water systems. For every one liter of optimally fluoridated water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested. The US CDC has estimated that of total fluoride intake from all sources, 75% is from water and beverages. The US National Academy of Medicine established daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources before adverse effects may occur, is 10 mg. A simple math equation demonstrates that before this threshold could even be neared from ingestion of optimally fluoridated water in addition to that from all other normal sources of fluoride intake, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

The fluoride content of non-fluoridated water systems can vary greatly, can be far greater than that in fluoridated systems, and is capped only by the US EPA mandated maximum allowable level of 4.0 mg/liter as opposed to the 0.7 mg/liter cap in fluoridated systems.

Which systems seem to have “unmitigated control of daily intake”?

7. Peer-reviewed science has demonstrated a cost-savings to communities of $15-$50, or more, per $1 spent on fluoridation. Arguments against fluoridation based on cost are uninformed and short-sighted.

8. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. There are no such anions that are “an industrial by-product” of anything. They are naturally occurring.

9. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies, current through the present, clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of significant amounts of dangerous dental infection in entire populations. I will gladly cite as many as anyone would reasonably care to read.

10. Any “evil” ones would be those such as you who seek to deprive entire populations the disease preventive benefit of water fluoridation, based on nothing but false statements, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation.....because you are too lazy to properly educate yourselves on the issue before disseminating uninformed nonsense.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Communications Officer
American Fluoridation Society

What do you call this MR. Steven Slott? http://www.sciencedirect.co...

Where do you practice dentistry? What incentive do you have to spread this information about such a negligible improvement in dental health? Why do you have no LinkedIn page? Why does the only information about your dental practice point to a phone number whose office line refers to a Michael Battle? You reek of fake news and government sponsored information.

I ”call this” irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water. As clearly stated in Choi’s study, “Elevated fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be neurotoxic.”. Water is fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

Instead of wasting time googling online commenters, you would be far better served by seeking to properly educate yourself on this issue from reliable, respected sources.......and actually reading the studies you cite.

Feel free to provide valid documentation that anything I have provided is “fake news and government sponsored information”. Your inevitable inability to do so will taken as your admission that the one “reeking of fake news” is obviously you.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

I'm not pretending to be an authority on the matter, you clearly are, and you have provided no proof of your credentials. You keep trying to straw man anything I say, deliberately misrepresenting the points I make. Optimally fluoridated water is 0.7ppm, sure, what about Fluoridated water.. plus fluoride toothpast, plus bottled water, plus any food stuffs that all have been created in a fluoridated water environment. You are intentionally failing to speak to those factors. Where is your degree and what was your doctorate on?

1. I’m not “pretending” anything. “pretending to be an authority on the matter” are your words, not mine. There is no place that I have ever claimed to be an authority on fluoridation. I simply post facts supported by valid evidence. My credentials, degree, or doctorate, are irrelevant. The facts and evidence I present are easily verifiable. They speak for themselves, regardless who presents them.

2. I have not “misrepresented” any “points” you claim to have made. I have simply exposed and refuted the false claims and misinformation you’ve posted on this page.

3. I have, indeed, clearly spoken to the factor of total fluoride intake, in items #5 and 6 of one of my previous comments. Perhaps you should actually read my comments before you make false claims about them.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Communications Officer
American Fluoridation Society

Your signature is an attempt to appear authoritative on the matter, you claim to be part of a fluoridation society, wow, you look unbiased! You keep referring to the fluoridated water and points 5 and 6 do not mention anything about other sources of fluoride in the food supply at large. You are not exposing or refuting anything I say, nor are you presenting any proof that you are who you say you are. If you truly had the expertise I think you would proud to prove it. Keep deflecting my points and vaguely attack me with semantics in effort to discredit what are very real concerns. Why can't you get off your high horse and explain where you're coming from, what horse you have in this race instead of just vaguely saying something scientific and pretending that the proof is in the pudding, it is not.

Younity - It is obvious you make comments like, "points 5 and 6 do not mention anything about other sources of fluoride in the food supply at large." without actually reading/understanding the material you are addressing. However, you have provided yet another perfect example of how fluoridation opponents fabricate claims and arguments with absolutely no regard for accuracy, validity or truth.

From Dr. Slott's comment, "6. ... For every one liter of optimally fluoridated water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested. The US CDC has estimated that of total fluoride intake from all sources, 75% is from water and beverages." Where is the other 25% from if not 'other sources'? Point #5 also addresses other sources of fluoride ions besides water."

You claim that you're " not pretending to be an authority on the matter [of fluoridation]". It is obvious that you are not an authority on fluoridation, yet you are challenging the data provided by a dentist who has decades of experience dealing with patients who have (and have not) been exposed to fluoridated water. Clearly you presume to have a better understanding of the issue than Dr. Slott. Please explain exactly what your credentials (training and experience) in science or health care which would give your opinions any credibility.

There are other sources of fluoride, not just drinking water. You and Steve Slott are both intentionally not addressing this very real fact.

There are other products people use everyday that contain fluoride, you must consider the very real possibility that aggregate sources of fluoride would put someone over the optimal limit for their health, and as that paper I referenced said, is a very real concern for toxicity among developing minds.

Please address the other aggregate sources of fluoride and respond to how the water treatment is managed to compensate or why a blanket water supply dose is a good idea when people are regularly ingesting uncontrolled amounts of fluoride through other sources. You are purposefully not speaking to this point so well that I have no other option to believe that you are a bad actor who is maliciously spreading propaganda and must be benefiting financially from doing so.

Steve Slott pretends he's a dentist, what are you authoritative credentials?

I have a graduate degree in biology, but if you believe Dr. Slott is a pretend dentist you have absolutely no respect for facts.

So far in your comments you have provided no evidence to support your anti-F activism. It appears you might simply believe the anti-F propaganda without actually understanding any of the studies - a pretend activist.

If you actually understand the subject please cite two studies you believe prove there is any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water and describe exactly why the studies should have changed the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe. I have seen no studies that prove drinking water containing 0.7 ppm fluoride ions is harmful nor have most of the science and health professionals in the world. That is why over 100 national and international science and health organizations and their thousands of members continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation to reduce tooth decay.

All alleged “evidence” presented by fluoridation opponents used in their attempts to influence public opinions has been carefully evaluated and dismissed by mainstream scientific & health communities. When presented to the public this “evidence” will have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) The study will have nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW); 2) The study will deal with exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW; 3) Actual conclusions have been deliberately distorted/misused/misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only be suggestion of a possible correlation without proper adjustment for other potential causes, and they are proof of nothing; 5) The study will be unrepeatable &/or 6) The claim will be a complete fabrication.

Again, what studies can you provide which prove anything.

How do you fail to understand? Here.. I'll do my best.
7:00 am Wake up
7:05 am Drink Optimally Fluoridated™ cup of water
7:10 am Take shower with Non-Optimally Fluoridated™ water
7:20 am Brush teeth with Dentist recommend Optimally Fluoridated™ toothpaste. Great to know we're fighting cavities!
7:30 am Make coffee with beans created with Non-Optimally Fluoridated™ water, combine coffee grinds with Optimally Fluoridated™ water, yummy coffee. I like it creamy and sweet so add some Non-Optimally Fluoridated™ artificial sweetener and some half&half created from milk from cows and cream that was blended with Optimally Fluoridated™ water.
7:35 am Make some oatmeal that was washed with Optimally Fluoridated™ water.
7:45 am fill your water bottle with Optimally Fluoridated™ water and get on the road to work.
Pretty much everything in your daily routine could contain some amount of fluoride on top of what water you drink from the municipal supply. This is why I keep using the term "aggregate" that you 3 dunces fail to ever acknowledge. This isn't about living your life in a vacuum where you only drink Optimally Fluoridated™ water and die never interacting with another atom of the universe like you make it seem.
You are obviously ignoring all the repercussions of putting fluoride in water and asking for specific examples of acute overdose instead of just realizing that developmental toxicity doesn't require acute overdose to have a net negative effect on health. I'm not arguing this from a cost-benefit perspective as you seem to imply at the start of your post. I want pure water when I drink water, and I would support anything to make water nothing but pure water without any other chemicals or anomalies but we live with what we got and the least I can do is take a stand and say stop adding fluoride to water in the USA and the least you could do is understand why we don't want to risk the health of our kids and community for what could be avoided with a generally decent diet.

It’s a cost issue to me. Teach people to brush their teeth in 2017.

The costs of treating preventable dental decay which could be reduced by water fluoridation are far higher than the costs to fluoridate water in most communities That, of course, does not include a reduction in suffering from tooth decay provided by fluoridation. Fluoridation opponents care nothing about public health.

Costs And Savings Associated With Community Water Fluoridation In The United States, 2016 - O'Connell J. et al. "Based on 2013 estimated costs ($324 million), net savings (savings minus costs) from fluoridation systems were estimated to be $6,469 million." That's a $20 return on investment for each $1 spent.

John Johnson, you and Mr. Slott need to stop pretending to be anything but robots.

Obviously it is inconceivable to you that there are intelligent people who actuality do understand the science of fluoridation, and have the integrity to post accurate information rather than misinformational nonsense as do antifluoridationists.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Communications Officer
American Fluoridation Society

http://www.sciencedirect.co...

"This pilot study in a community with stable lifetime fluoride exposures supports the notion that fluoride in drinking water may produce developmental neurotoxicity, and that the dose-dependence underlying this relationship needs to be characterized in detail."

This speaks to my point that an uncontrolled amount of fluoride throughout the water system, food environment, and other products make fluoride relatively uncontrolled and there is potential for easily going above the recommended medically useful dose.

But yes, continue to ignore that there are citizens who can look past your bullshit existence and shell society.

What kinda dole are you getting out of this? You seem to be completely passionless.

First of all, if you had actually read the paper you referenced, you would have discovered that there was no link found between drinking optimally fluoridated water and any "developmental neurotoxicity". Use of the phrase "supports the notion...may produce..." clearly indicates the lack of evidence that fluoridation is harmful - according to the authors, it is no more than a "notion". That is the problem with all of the paranoid anti-F propaganda. The only "evidence" provided supports, at best, a "notion" of possible harm.
https://openparachute.wordp...

This complete lack of compelling, legitimate evidence to support of the anti-F fear-mongering is the reason the scientific and health care communities continue to recognize fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure.

There are other sources of fluoride, not just drinking water. You and Steve Slott are both intentionally not addressing this very real fact.

There are other products people use everyday that contain fluoride, you must consider the very real possibility that aggregate sources of fluoride would put someone over the optimal limit for their health, and as that paper I referenced said, is a very real concern for toxicity among developing minds.

Please address the other aggregate sources of fluoride and respond to how the water treatment is managed to compensate or why a blanket water supply dose is a good idea when people are regularly ingesting uncontrolled amounts of fluoride through other sources. You are purposefully not speaking to this point so well that I have no other option to believe that you are a bad actor who is maliciously spreading propaganda and must be benefiting financially from doing so.

Steve Slott pretends he's a dentist, what are you authoritative credentials?

At a cost of about a dollar per person per year, there is no more economical source of fluoride. A bottle of ACT fluoride rinse will cost a family about $5 per month. Low income people would not normally buy an expensive fluoride rinse like this, therefore these are the people who would benefit most.

You say, " . . you must consider the very real possibility that aggregate sources of fluoride would put someone over the optimal limit for their health,"

Response: Fish has a very high level of fluoride. Please cite one documented example of any human being who has ever had a fluoride overdose from eating fish, or drinking red wine. There is one documented case of a woman in England who suffered skeletal fluorosis because she drank massive amounts of tea. More than the normal person. However, there has never been one documented case of any person who has ever suffered harm in any way because they drank optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime, despite the propaganda you appear to rely on.

Prove me wrong. Please cite an example of harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. And please cite the lawsuit that would have naturally followed from a local municipality intentionally putting something in a citizen's water causing them physical harm. -- In fact, there has never been a successful lawsuit for health reasons by anyone, against anyone, because harm was caused by drinking optimally fluoridated water (this, in the country in which more people enjoy the health benefits of optimally fluoridated water than any other place on the planet, and where lawsuits are so rampant, that McDonald's was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot).

Where did you come from, where did you go?
Where did you come from, Cotton-Eye Joe?

How do you fail to understand? Here.. I'll do my best.

7:00 am Wake up
7:05 am Drink Optimally Fluoridated™ cup of water
7:10 am Take shower with Non-Optimally Fluoridated™ water
7:20 am Brush teeth with Dentist recommend Optimally Fluoridated™ toothpaste. Great to know we're fighting cavities!
7:30 am Make coffee with beans created with Non-Optimally Fluoridated™ water, combine coffee grinds with Optimally Fluoridated™ water, yummy coffee. I like it creamy and sweet so add some Non-Optimally Fluoridated™ artificial sweetener and some half&half created from milk from cows and cream that was blended with Optimally Fluoridated™ water.
7:35 am Make some oatmeal that was washed with Optimally Fluoridated™ water.
7:45 am fill your water bottle with Optimally Fluoridated™ water and get on the road to work.

Pretty much everything in your daily routine could contain some amount of fluoride on top of what water you drink from the municipal supply. This is why I keep using the term "aggregate" that you 3 dunces fail to ever acknowledge. This isn't about living your life in a vacuum where you only drink Optimally Fluoridated™ water and die never interacting with another atom of the universe like you make it seem.

You are obviously ignoring all the repercussions of putting fluoride in water and asking for specific examples of acute overdose instead of just realizing that developmental toxicity doesn't require acute overdose to have a net negative effect on health. I'm not arguing this from a cost-benefit perspective as you seem to imply at the start of your post. I want pure water when I drink water, and I would support anything to make water nothing but pure water without any other chemicals or anomalies but we live with what we got and the least I can do is take a stand and say stop adding fluoride to water in the USA and the least you could do is understand why we don't want to risk the health of our kids and community for what could be avoided with a generally decent diet.

So that's a "No." You can't cite an example of harm from fluoride by anyone who drinks optimally fluoridated water. Nor can you cite an example of "net negative effect on health" from drinking optimally fluoridated water.

Uh who are you?

I am a guy who is asking you to justify your scare mongering. Obviously you can't.