What reason would it be?

Besides the mentioned benefits of more decay resistant teeth AND bones being able to flex instead of fracture AND Osteoporosis treatment.....
'Optimal' Fl level when teeth are formed makes teeth more abrasion resistant through life. Topical (rinse/gel/toothpaste) Fl helps with abrasion resistance, too, but if you only use topical, how often do we use it?...... I can't stand at the sink all day.....
Topical use of Fl helps fight gum disease (periodontal disease)also.
As medicine for osteoporosis it must be taken systemically.....(HORRORS!), but studies are currently being done on the Fl generation (kids in the 1950s)to see if osteoporosis is reduced in elder years with Fl use in youth. Epidemiological studies take lots of time and numbers to be beyond distortion of conclusions.

Yes, the recommended level has been/is being reduced by the powers that be to 0.7 ppm. Some kids drink a LOT of water and frozen juice reconstituted with water etc, and others hardly any water, so dosage IS difficult by water supply. Note that the only 'damage' was small white spots on the teeth that the parents of 'perfect' children have trouble dealing with. On the brite side, more of the positive benefits are there until 2x rec dose some enamel damage does occur.

I think some of the quote might have gotten scrambled, but I have to agree that Fl in teeth has no benefit before eruption of those teeth.

I'll not bang this gong further. However I will say that xylitol gum/candy used regularly by persons of ALL ages CAN benefit with cavity/decay reduction. Europe HAS done a better job of using that to fight decay than the US has. I pat them on the back. I see both being FAR better than either/or.

gimpy

PS:xylitol can be searched on the web.

Also sticking with the OP's original question:

1) Use an unfluoridated source - rainfall, stream, spring, or other "natural" source - just be sure your source is pathogen free.

2) With a problem of this magnitude, surely there must be a commercial source offering "poison free" water. If not, someone is missing a bet....

3) Move to Haiti. I don't know, but I'll bet their water is not fluoridated. If that is not the case, there are probably other countries that would fit the bill

Many countries don't have Fluoridated water. I don't think its a question of whether the country is a developed or an underdeveloped country. Perhaps its more a question of choice. When asked if consumers wanted Fluoridation of water or not, the water consumer will mostly reject the idea as they do not want to receive mass medicated/poisoned/tainted water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country

BTW I don't think I have ever had Fluoridated water except when staying with relatives in England (an area which apparently had Fluoridated water according to the Wiki article), the taste of the water was pretty rank (grey scum formed inside the tea cup), but this may have been down to other impurities (I always seemed to also suffered considerable leg cramps when sleeping, which I put down to the disgusting water only when visiting). Is there a major difference in taste between Fluoridated water and the real stuff?

Just for yuks --

Looks like Flouride levels in my state are between .8 an 1.5 mg/L.

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/fluoride-data.xls

"The World Health Organization recommends a guideline maximum fluoride value of 1.5 mg/L as a level at which fluorosis should be minimal.[59]"

"the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on aesthetic appearance or on public health.[10]"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Safety)

-john

Nope, grew up drinking water directly from an Alaskan stream. The water here is just fine, flouride and all.

"real stuff" -- you crack me up. :-)

-john

I suspect that as city councils look to cost-shifting to mitigate their considerable budget woes, they will become less concerned about the nebulous cost of cavities and more concerned with the demonstrable cost of chemicals, treatment plants, haz-mat disposal, and water plant maintenance workers and their pensions.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Clinch_2010_Costs_Artificial_Water_Fluoridation.pdf

I don't mean to belabor the point, however I wanted to correct what I think was an incorrect statement I made earlier when I said that not enough research has been done. Actually, it's more accurate to say that not enough research has been published.

After researching some more, it appears that there has been a lot of research done on human exposure to fluoride since the 40's and 50's, however, we are not entitled to see the results. Much government research is still classified and results of industry-sponsored research (remember, tons of fluoride are produced by industry) are proprietary and not published. And this includes low dose research, not just highly toxic amounts.

A chilling exposé on the topic of government research into fluoride is Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb .

That piece also sheds some light on Chaosmagnet's question about what other reason could there be to fluoridate water in the first place other than the innocent objective of helping prevent cavities.