Dear Rick,

Your letter to Congressman Petri was very good. I would like to pass along a few tips that have gotten some responses from people who were previously pro-fluoridators. I like to use the approach that first states what everybody has agreed upon in the U.S. and progress to the more controversial.

First it is agreed by all people who think themselves knowledgeable about fluoride that the effect on teeth is limited to children three years or younger. That means that the effect on teeth is limited to children three years or younger. That means everybody else who is three years and one day or older is exposed unnecessarily.

Second I reiterate that when using the measures of filled, partially filled and missing teeth-comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies the world over, including the U.S.A., --there is either no significant difference--or more often, people using fluoridated water have significantly more caries. That even very small amounts of fluoride cause brittle, hard to repair teeth.

Third, I cite the studies that demonstrate that the rate of hip fracture is at least double amongst people 65 or older in fluoridated areas---including the most recent studies less than one year old. That people who imbibe fluoridated water are twice as likely to be hard of hearing at age 65 or older.

Fourth, I state that the act of fluoridating water increases lead exposure expecially to children because of two facts-- a. The fluoride added to drinking water often has up to 400 mg of lead per liter and b. The corrosive action of fluoride extracts lead from pipes and solder joints increasing lead exposure of the young. (Babies up to e months absorb 16 times as much lead per unit body weight than adults. Black babies and children because of genetic make-up absorb significantly more lead than white babies.)

Fifth, I tell the story of the two large prosepective studies (the best kind of epidemiology evidence available) completed in New Jersey and New York State that determined the incidence of osteosarcoma (almost always fatal) in men under 18 years of age increased by 6 to 8 fold. That an increase of this magnitude is prima facia evidence of a real ongoing effect. I remind them that one of President Kennedy's nephews had the disease.

I find that people are simply not willing to believe that our government would condone the addition of a compound to the water supply that was not efficacious. This is why in my opinion it has not been possible to convince enough people of conscience to review the fluoride story. You must remember that the National Academy of Science released a report that sort of said fluoridation was OK. They do not know that the members hand-picked for the panel were known to be pro-fluoridation. They were not present when the pathologist from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology stated that any bone or tooth structure that contains fluoride is weak, crumbling and highly undesirable. They were not present when the board calculated that the amount of fluoride ingested daily was far higher than previously believed. They discovered that soft drinks including, Coke, Pepsi and Seven-Up were made by diluting concentrate with fluoridated water. That Kool-Aid, baby formula etc. also would have fluoride. They were informed that these exposures were not considered by EPA when setting the current standard.

They did not allow me to explain that the levels of fluoride found in the bones of rodents who had osteosarcoma was lower than the level found in human adults exposed to allowable levels of fluoride. I was not permitted to explain that with the exception of fluoride, no other compounds including radioactive compounds, have been able to produce osteocarcomas in rodents.

I hope these facts will help.