MAY 27 1969

Apt. 1-A, Escondido Village
Stanford, California 94305
May 22, 1969

Professor Joshua Lederberg

Executive Head, Department of Biology
Stanford University

Stanford, California 94305

Dear Professor Lederberg:

I read your article in last week's Daily with great interest, not
only from a general point of view, but also because of my own
feelings on the long-term effects of fluoridation. I cannot

speak with authority on this subject, but certainly proponents of
fluoridation cannot make use of the argument that those of
chloridation can that the benefits may far outweigh any possible
detractions, for it is the human who is directly being treated by
the fluorine. In addition, the effects of fluorine compounds seem
even less well-known than those of chlorine.

If you are.again called upon to write an article for The Daily,

I would like to suggest a sequel on fluorine. I understand
that you have previouly written on this subject in your newspaper
column.

Be mys
(ae MGB tic mee”

John H. Brownéll
Graduate Student
Applied Physics Dept.

MAY 28 1969

I have been denounced on all sides for my position on this.
there are, in my mind, questions about fluoride that must still be
resolved, However, it is rather far down on the list of my urgent
concerns. If there is any risk, it is likely to involve at most a
few people with aberrant or deficient physiology in handling the fluoride
ion, and the advantages are manifest. If a community actually does
organize the effective distribution of fluoride to children's teeth,
it is obviously following a more prudent path still. Se while there
are reasonable questions, I would conclude that the merits somewhat
outweigh the perceived hazards. We should not neglect meanwhile to
investigate these further,

If fluoride is a significant hazard, we may have to work strenuously
to keep it out of many existing water supplies in communities that

are not now aware of its natural occurrence!