<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: California EPA Committee Designates Fluoride as Priority for Review for Public Warnings about Risk of Cancer to Consumers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.airandaqua.com/blogs/california-epa-committee-designates-fluoride-as-priority-for-review-for-public-warnings-about-risk-of-cancer-to-consumers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.airandaqua.com/blogs/california-epa-committee-designates-fluoride-as-priority-for-review-for-public-warnings-about-risk-of-cancer-to-consumers/</link>
	<description>Brought to you by AirAndAqua.com - Stay up to date with Air and Water quality warnings in your area!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 00:34:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: dentalguy</title>
		<link>http://www.airandaqua.com/blogs/california-epa-committee-designates-fluoride-as-priority-for-review-for-public-warnings-about-risk-of-cancer-to-consumers/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>dentalguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.airandaqua.com/blogs/?p=220#comment-27</guid>
		<description>Having been at the hearing myself, I think this article is very misleading as to what the prioritization means, and more importantly, doesn&#039;t mean. The committee chairman stated several times that just because the committee members recommended a &#039;high&#039; priority for any chemical, that in no way indicated it has the potential to be carcinogenic. In fact, when he spoke about fluoride he said that it has &quot;an important widespread exposure&quot; to people of California. I am also curious why you linked to the one public comment on the issue and not all of the comments submitted to the committee, including those from pro-fluoride people?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having been at the hearing myself, I think this article is very misleading as to what the prioritization means, and more importantly, doesn&#8217;t mean. The committee chairman stated several times that just because the committee members recommended a &#8216;high&#8217; priority for any chemical, that in no way indicated it has the potential to be carcinogenic. In fact, when he spoke about fluoride he said that it has &#8220;an important widespread exposure&#8221; to people of California. I am also curious why you linked to the one public comment on the issue and not all of the comments submitted to the committee, including those from pro-fluoride people?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

