The following letter by Pati Caputto (President of the Clean Water Advocates) was sent to the Coloradoan Editor, and published on October 9, 2003:

For several reasons, our city decision-makers must consider stalling the expenditure of $500,000 on new water fluoridation equipment.

If the city should spend this $500,000 to upgrade the fluoridation equipment, it is highly likely that within a year and a half (one-tenth of the equipment's lifetime), the vote of the people and new positions from current studies will support our Water Board's recommendation that Fort Collins stop fluoridating its water. Major money down the proverbial drain, as they say, when the mandate comes to STOP!

Clean Water Advocates, a local, citizen nonprofit group, is dedicated to putting this issue on the next city ballot in March of 2005. We have a Web site ( www.fortcollins CWA.org ), have raised and continue to raise funds for this purpose and for the purpose of continuing to educate the populace about our concerns about fluoridation.

It is our intention to expose the truths and the lies about fluoridation, knowing that the people will surely vote to stop fluoridating.

Consider the plethora of federal and university level studies that are currently under commission with regard to the health safety and efficacy of fluoridation.

I remind readers that the National Toxicology Program has just this year begun its own review of the health effects and potential for toxic levels of fluoride because of water fluoridation. We can expect that report within the next one to two years.

As reported in the August 2003 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) has begun another review of the problems of water fluoridation, spurred by new research on fluoride's health effects and at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Their review expects to be complete in November of 2004. The formal charge for the new NRC review is to examine the toxicological, epidemiological, clinical and exposure data published on fluoride since 1993.

Joyce M. Donohue, toxicologist in EPA's Office of Water points out that in past calculations of fluoride standards, EPA assumed that all fluoride exposure comes from drinking water, when in fact it also originates from food processed with fluoridated water, personal care products, food fertilized or treated with fluoride compounds (*I would add: food watered with fluoridated water, even in otherwise organic gardens), and supplements. "In setting standards for all other drinking water contaminants except barium, EPA has considered exposure from many different sources, not just water," she said.

Donohue is also quoted as saying that since the NRC review in 1993, research indicates that over the past decade, people have had greater exposure to fluoride, the prevalence of dental fluorosis may have increased, and that studies have raised questions about whether topical exposure to fluoride may prove much more important than systemic exposure. Her panel will also be considering the new research, which suggests that low levels of fluoride have developmental effects and effects on the brain.

Folks, these studies will essentially be brand new updates of all the literature the Fluoride Technical Study Group admitted in their scope for review. We mustn't proceed with such a large investment in something that is under extensive review at a higher level. Access Clean Water Advocates' Web site or www.fluoridealert.org for information and updates in the meantime.

There is so much information to consider today, I know, but this issue is way overdue for overhaul and review.

I hope you will all take the time over the next year and a half to attend our forums and access these Web sites to know what our concerns are about the potentially devastating ramifications of continuing water fluoridation.