I don't even know what I am going to put in it yet.  I think it will be kind of like that 'drawer' that I have in which I stuff all those things that don't seem to have a place!

ACTUALLY....I have just found something to put in this section.  It is something that I have been passionate about for sometime.  Perhaps I have even had a conversation with you about it in an attempted to inform and convince you.  It is FLUORIDE.  "That stuff they put in toothpaste?"  - you say.  Yes!  That very same stuff.  And it also sometimes gets put in table salt (alone with Iodine), tap water, bottled water,  mouth washes, dental fillings.  Whats more if your municipal water supply has fluoride in it, you can be certain that so do the food and beverage products made with that water (soft drinks, bread, etc).  

Why should you be concerned about fluoride in tap water?  Please read the article excerpt below.

Note: The article excerpt below, written by senior members of the EPA (in the US), was taken from the fluoride Alert website http://www.fluoridealert.org/

---

Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation

by Dr. J. William Hirzy
Senior Vice President, NTEU Chapter 280

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", by investigative reporters Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson.

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it. We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail (1).

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.......(Continue reading article)