March 8, 1968

Miss Elise Jerard 115

Central Park West New York

City 10023

Dear Miss Jerard:

Your letter to me is like a number of others that I have received from antagonists of the fluoridation of water, in its emotional and pejorative language.

I believe that I have made a good decision about the matter of fluoridation of domestic water supplies. I have examined the evidence available to me, and have reached the same decision that my friend Professor Theorell reached, through the same process.

I have taken a public stand on fluoridation of water supplies for many years, and my support of fluoridation was discussed in the New York Times and elsewhere, during the last ten years. My stand was taken long before I was elected Honorary President of the International Society for Research on Nutrition and Vital Substances. It is insulting of you to criticize me for having accepted the invitation to me to be Honorary President of this Society.

I must say that the fact that you are willing to make this insulting statement fits in with the pattern of your writing generally. Many of your statements are lacking in a rational or logical basis. For example, you mention that some anesthetics contain fluorine. The presence of fluorine in anesthetics has nothing to do with the fluoridation of water supplies. These anesthetic agents are stable against hydrolysis and other attack in the human body, and do not liberate any fluoride ion.

Also, in your letter there is a suggestion of contrast between "natural fluorides" and "artificial fluoridation". This contrast does not have any rational basis. I believe that I have made this point to you in an earlier letter.

I suggest that you take enough time to study the scientific basis of the arguments that you present, and then reject those that do not have any scientific basis.

Sincerely,

Linus Pauling

LP:jj