James:
Thank you for your activities to stop fluoridation.
Our COF group has  gotten our City Council in Lafayette, LA to oppose fluoridation by 8 to 1.
Within the last month we forced a small nearby city, Crowley,  to hold an election so citizens can decide.
Our next goals are major cities of Lake Charles and New Orleans.

As I stated anyone may use my letter as they wish.

 

 

The effect of fluoride on health is the most important reason to oppose fluoridation; however, even after  local community politicians have received all my information, they may not do  sufficient reading to withstand the raving of local dentists. But, they really understand and are very concerned about budgetary issues involving a waste of tax money. I tell them how angry the citizens will be when they learn about this waste.

Following is a letter I use with considerable success.  Please feel free to use it or modify it as you wish.

To:      ____________________ City CouncilFrom:  James W. Reeves, Ph.D.

Retired Professor of Civil Engineering in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA

 

No doubt you know about the vast profits resulting from selling the industrial toxic waste, Hexafluorosilicic Acid, to use in community drinking water, together with its contaminants of arsenic, lead, radium, etc. It is no wonder it adversely affects children’s teeth, brains, and other organs, resulting in a lowered  IQ.

 

You also know that fluoridation is totally ineffective for helping children’s teeth and that it causes cancer, brittle bones,  thyroid destruction,  etc., (see www.fluoridealert.org).

 

Every council member should be aware that it is also an absolute waste of tax money.  I am a retired Civil Engineering Professor (over 30 years), so I am professionally qualified to offer the following information. You can certainly confirm these facts with your water department.

 

People drink only 1/2% of the water they use. The remaining 99 ½% provided by the community goes directly down the drain.

 

For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be in water consumed  by the people, and less than $0.50 would be consumed by children.

We are told that the whole reason to add this chemical to drinking water is for children’s teeth. So even if it were effective for children, distribution by drinking water is the most wasteful method. How is it possible that you can justify delivering 50 cents for each $1000 of added chemical?

 

That would be comparable to buying 1 gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.

 

Can you think of a more wasteful government program? Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical.

James Reeves