This endorsement ["Chew on This," WW, May 1, 2013] simply reiterates all the tired old clichéd notions about the supposed benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water.

There is a lot of science now to show that it is problematic and we should not be drugging the public water supply. There are so many reasons to oppose adding fluoride from industrial waste to the water, but the overriding and most significant one is that it is an assault on our civil liberties. It is drugging without informed consent.

If the WW editors want to drink fluoridated water, have at it. Get some fluoride tablets or just drink a glass of orange juice. The problem is that we are subjected to too much fluoride in our food and drinks as it is. We definitely don't need to add any more. But the bottom line is it goes against our right to [drink] clean water.

There is no evidence that ingesting fluoride is beneficial to anyone. It's bad for the environment too, as the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations have pointed out. Clean water is a human and animal right. Just say no to the drugging of our pure Bull Run water.

—"Courtney Scott"

In 1996, I went up against a tobacco-company representative on Measure 44, which would increase taxes on cigarettes. I was the executive vice president of the Oregon American Cancer Society at the time. Back then, WW supported our side and called the tobacco lobby's arguments "bullshit." I remember writing a thank-you letter and saying I wished I could say that.

I can say this now: In a very long career, I've been up against the spin doctors of the tobacco industry, Monsanto and  Exxon Mobil. They have nothing on the spin doctors of the pro-fluoride gang in being masters of deception. WW had a chance to speak truth to power. You didn't.

Rick North

I thought WW was a progressive publication. It's pretty sad you haven't researched fluoridation with all the debating that has gone on; pathetic really. It's a harmful chemical, not some benign thing. I'm no longer a fan of WW. Vote no in May to protect the entire public.

—"Mike James"


Michael C. Zusman's review of Quartet undermines WW's reputation as a reliable source of food criticism ["Way Off-Key," May 1, 2013]. In the review, Zusman implies that Quartet dilutes its crab cake with "cheap brown gulf shrimp." He offers no evidence for this damning and daringly specific accusation. That kind of reporting is potentially fatal to Quartet and damaging to the restaurant industry as a whole.

Mr. Zusman is a [Multnomah County Circuit Court] judge. His editor, Martin Cizmar, has a law degree. In a court of law, unsubstantiated accusations are not only frowned upon, they are not allowed. Luckily, this isn't a courtroom, it's just journalism.

Leather Storrs, chef/owner of Noble Rot
James L. Huffman, dean emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law School

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR must include the author's street address and phone number for verification. Letters must be 250 or fewer words.
Submit to: 2220 NW Quimby St., Portland, OR 97210.
Fax: (503) 243-1115. Email: