What's your agenda in coming in and claiming the paper is irrelevant? It would have been better to let people read the paper and come to their own conclusions instead of draft off of your biased summary. If you actually read the paper, you would see that some of the regions that reported neurotoxic effects had levels that were lower than the legal limit in the US. Furthermore, the paper claimed that other toxins were factored in to the conclusion. See:

> Drinking water may contain other neurotoxicants, such as arsenic, but exclusion of studies including arsenic and iodine as co-exposures in a sensitivity analysis resulted in a lower estimate, although the difference was not significant.

But this story is already off the front page and you succeeded in burying my post and defending fluoride for some strange reason, so you win.