Dear All,

Bob Kopitzke has recently had a letter published in the The Coloradean  (printed below) which would be a nice model for others to use when responding to proponents’ claims that the NRC review has no relevance to the practice of water fluoridation. Bob explains that:

Bob says that since his letter was printed the pro-fluoride folks have had no response.

Bob Kopitzke told me in a phone call that about a year and half ago he thought those opposed to fluoridation were a little nutty. He changed his mind after listening to Pati Caputo give a talk on the health implications. Both Bob and Pati are coming to the FAN conference.

The number of states that will now be represented at the FAN conference (July 28-August 1, Canton, NY) has risen to 20 (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Washington). We are now expecting over 70 people and I am very happy to tell you that Mike Ewall is driving up from Philadelphia with two young interns from his organization Action PA. This is critically important because PA is facing a mandatory fluoridation bill in the Senate  - it has already passed in the House. If you live in PA and you want to come please contact Mike at  .

Is your state represented? It is still not too late to register for the conference (http://www.FluorideAction.net) and we are still looking for tax-deductible donations to help get two more people to the conference who eagerly wish to attend - Dan Stockin from Tennessee and Virgina Brown from St. Petersburg, Florida.

Today our local paper (The St. Lawrence Plaindealer) covered the conference, printing both our press release and a letter from us. We are also hoping that this same press release and our letters will be published in the local newspapers for Gouverneur, Massena, Ogdensburg, Potsdam and Watertown - all of which are fluoridated.

Paul Connett

———————————————————————————-

Bob’s letter

Editor

The Coloradoan recently published a series of letters stating that the National Research Council’s report on fluoride is not relevant to Fort Collins. Not true, under the heading Fluoride in Drinking Water, page 12, are two subheads natural and artificial: fluoridation of drinking water. Page 13 “this report does not evaluate nor make judgments about the benefits, safety or efficacy of artificial water fluoridation. That practice is reviewed only in terms of being a source of exposure to fluoride.” Page 20  “The major dietary source of fluoride for most people in the United States is fluoridated municipal drinking water, including water consumed directly, food and beverages prepared from municipal drinking water, and commercial beverages and foods originating from fluoridated municipalities.”

The NRC report makes it clear that the maximum contaminate level goal (MCLG) would have to be 2ppm to protect against just one health effect: severe dental fluorosis, pp 93-4. Accepting 2 ppm as the MCGL assumes that a child could develop severe dental fluorosis without being impacted in any other way.  It is preposterous to think that we can operate between a “beneficial” level of 1 ppm and a toxic level of 2 ppm without controlling how much water or food people consume. This absurd assumption flies in the face of the NRC exposure analysis in chapter 2 of their review.

Bob Kopitzke

Fort Collins