Very interesting Googling the Fluoride debate!
It seems the "pro" arguments are ONLY about dental health. The only real argment they put forward for its safety (fluoridation of water suplies), is that its been done for 50 years!
The other issue that I couldn't seem to find information on, was what evidence there was that older people who have been exposed to fluoridated water supplies have an accumulated effect on the pineal or thyroid glands.
If there was a cumulative effect I would expect to see that.

There is no doubt that fluoride is a toxin, but as with many things, when the dose is very low it is difficult to work out what the real effects are because of all the other things that can also affect the symptoms that are being researched.

A good example of that is the "activation effect". The predicted number of deaths from Chernobly was way above the actual numbers, because the predictions were made by scaling back linearly from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki data. What wasn't realised when they made the predictions was that there is an activation level of exposure where the body actually mops up the cancerous cells that are produced. When the rate of production of cancerous cells is low enough (low radiation dose) the bodies' normal mechanisms seem to cope, but above the activation level cancers show themselves.

It is possible that there is a similar mechanism with fluoridation.

We are lucky enough to live in a non-fluoridated area, but I work in an area that has fluoride added to the water.
I've decied to cut out fluoride in water and toothpaste for a while and see if I can notice any effect.
The thing is, what do I look out for?