It is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that we get as many letters to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and into the EPA docket on this as possible...by AUGUST 4. As of 6:00 pm last night (Friday July 21) we had 22 letters sent in.

We have a SIMPLE system that allows you and your friends to do this ONLINE. You simply add your name and contact details - and any comments or modifications you want to the letter (see copy below) -and with the push of button your letter will be sent to Johnson with a request that the letter also be entered into the EPA dockets on this.

Go to: http://actionstudio.org/?go=2367 If for some reason that doesn't work try cutting and pasting it in.

This is winnable. We have more going for us on this than at any other time.

1) We have the support of EWG, Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association.

2) We have a top notch law firm in DC handling our case if this goes to court.

3) The EPA's case is very poor. Its Pesticide divison has been blatant about twisting the science in the interests of its "client" Dow AgroSciences. It used the VERY SAME standard (the MCLG of 4 ppm) in THREE different ways, to come up with THREE DIFFERENT supposedly "safe" dosages for infants- the second and third of these manipulations coming as a response to the interventions of FAN, EWG and Beyond Pesticides. The final supposedly "safe" dosage for an infant is now TEN TIMES higher than for an adult!

4) Now the NRC (March 22, 2006) has told the EPA that their starting point for these manipulations is not safe any way!

I will be providing a COUNTDOWN on how many letters we get sent in, so please sign the online letter and send it off today - and please get as many other people to do it as well - Go to: http://actionstudio.org/?go=2367

Thank you - please help us WIN this one. Remember each person who receives this request will learn about several important things:

1) Our kids are being overexposed to fluoride.

2) It is going to get worse.

3) The NRC report which indicates that the 4 ppm standard is not safe and needs to be lowered.

4) There are serious health concerns which are now on the scientific table.

All of these help to undermine the case for water fluoridation.

This is a time when those of you who send on the more important FAN bulletins to your own email list, will do just that and at the same time give us a rough count on what your "amplifying capacity" is by filling in the blanks:

My email address is ____________________ I live in ______________(state) and I have the caopcity to send out emails to ______________people.

Here is our early feedback on this amplifying capacity. Each number represents a different respondent. Is your state in the list yet?

States:

Early responses:

ARKANSAS 15 +13

CALIFORNIA 25 + 5 + 303 + 60

COLORADO 300 + 10 = 310

HAWAII 25

ILLINOIS 20

MASSACHUSETTS 24 + 12 = 36

MISSOURI 6

OREGON 315

TENNESSEE 35

VERMONT 11

WASHINGTON 127 + 50 + 75 = 252

QUEBEC 100

NSW (Australia) 80

Totals:

CALIFORNIA 393 (4)

OREGON 315

COLORADO 310 (2)

WASHINGTON 252 (3)

MASSACHUSETTS 36 (2)

TENNESSEE 35

HAWAII 25

ILLINOIS 20

ARKANSAS 28 (2)

VERMONT 11

MISSOURI 6

QUEBEC 100

NSW (Australia) 80

Paul Connett

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The ONLINE letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson

(go to http://actionstudio.org/?go=2367 to add your name to this letter)

Dear EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson:

I am deeply concerned about a new fluoride-based pesticide (sulfuryl fluoride) that EPA is allowing to be sprayed on all processed foods and a broad assortment of raw food. While EPA's decision may benefit the bottom line of Dow AgroSciences, it does not protect the public health, or the public interest.

The public expects EPA to employ the best science available in its approval of pesticides. However, it is apparent that this did not happen with sulfuryl fluoride. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences recently concluded that the safety standard used by EPA to approve sulfuryl fluoride is, in fact, not safe at all.

Moreover, as the NAS report makes clear, and as is evident by the growing number of children with dental fluorosis, many Americans are being OVER-exposed to fluoride. There is no safety margin for additional fluoride exposures that will result from sulfuryl fluoride. I am particularly concerned for susceptible subsets of consumers, including children, people with kidney disease, people with excess thirst (e.g. diabetics, athletes, and laborers) and people with nutrient deficiencies.

Finally, as Director of EPA, I would like you to investigate why EPA increased the allowable dosage for infants and children not once, but twice, during its approval process for sulfuryl fluoride. In direct violation of the Food Quality Protection Act, these manipulations have left our children ten times less protected than adults.

For these, and the many other reasons detailed in the petition to EPA, I urge you to revoke all food-based uses of sulfuryl fluoride.

Please add my comments to the docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0373.

Go to http://actionstudio.org/?go=2367 to add your name (and comments) to this letter