Yeah. It's not an entirely salient point. It does, however, underline the ubiquitous nature of fluorine.
The biggest source of Flourine in the environment is just the normal weathering of rocks that contain it. The biggest of the anthropogenic sources include brick production, phosphate fertiliser application and coal burning.
The minor amount added to drinking water really wouldn't be the biggest issue if it was as toxic as it's made out to be.
The hypocracy of people exaggerating the scale of the problems and piling-on about other instances in their manic drive to turn this place into an echo chamber is depressing.
The deeper reason is that they believe in a highly hierarachical society in which they have earned the right to be in the top strata. That's why they chase the big donors. That's why their calculations will always put themselves and their grip on power above: the basic needs of impoverished Americans; or the lives of innocent civilians getting bombed out of existance; or future generations that will inherit our strung out eco system; and about countless other maladies and evils that beset our tettering civilisation.
They are not leftwing, they are the corporate bulwark against leftwing ideas. They are not big tent, they promulgate a very narrow reading of reality to the benefit of their paymasters.
I think this is a bit naive. Both partys will have done their homework and have a fairly good idea what it is those disenfranchised voters want. The problem is is what they want is at odds with what the party's big donors want.
Any chemical that can exist as a solid, a liquid and a gas at the same time isn't safe to put into our bodies!