A recent article in the Daily Camera covered the problem of minute amounts of lead and arsenic being added to city of Boulder water as a result of fluoridation. In it you quoted Randall Weiner, one of the measure’s backers, as saying that “adding fluoride, even if the measure passes, might be feasible.” This is simply untrue! Please see the upcoming article in The Guide to Health and Healing, to be published in October, prior to the election. Further, Mr. Weiner states that if the ballot proposal passes, as a result, city of Boulder water will then be “without lead and arsenic.” This is simply untrue.
I suggest that your readers check with Mr. Ned Williams, Boulder public works director of utilities, and they will discover that very minute trace amounts of lead and arsenic and other “contaminants” would continue to exist in the water, due to “natural” contamination from other sources, e.g. old gold mining operations, agriculture, etc.
I want to make clear, in this sea of misinformation being provided to the voters, that these minute amounts are well below EPA safety limits (the agency that has jurisdiction over public water systems (not the FDA). Furthermore, the trace amounts fluoridation adds to the water system are comparably minuscule, contrary to some who would use scare tactics to make you believe otherwise. In fact, for example, the amount of arsenic in a local bottled water (which is fully “FDA Approved”), is 7 parts per billion, roughly 70 (seventy) times the amount resulting from fluoridation of the city of Boulder water!
Therefore, contrary to what ballot supporters would have us believe, FDA approval of bottled water (the only water over which FDA has jurisdiction) is actually less stringent than EPA approval over public water systems! It is high time that responsible media like the Daily Camera and The Guide to Health and Healing begin to check out the statements of both sides to be sure that the voters are getting accurate information. Otherwise, how can the voters ever hope to have an informed opinion on this highly complex, controversial decision? Oversimplification is not in the best interests of the voters or the city of Boulder.
Stephen Smith, DDS, lives near Boulder
The preceding was originally published as a letter to the editor of the Boulder Daily Camera on September 24, 2006.
This message is from the Vote No on 2B Committee,
supported by the many very concerned health professionals serving the people of Boulder.
