FLUORIDE AND FLUORIDATION LINKS
by James Robert Deal
Mortgage Broker/Attorney

Fluoridation Census, 1992, Centers for Disease Control, http://fluoridealert.org/cdc.f.census.v2.pdf.

Fluoride Intoxication, by Kaj Roholm, Danish researcher, 1937, http://www.scribd.com/doc/11757791/Fluorine-Intoxication-Kaj-Roholm-1937-Copenhagen.

American Diabetes Association was sent a "Formal Notice of Failure to Warn and Responsibility to Amend Incorrect Public Statements."
On January 22, 2009, Dan Stockin of The Lillie Center, put the American Diabetes Association on notice with this letter at http://fluoridealert.org/stockin.diabetes.1-22-09.pdf on behalf of the millions of people with diabetes and the millions more with pre-diabetes.

(I have posted this page on my blog at http://FluorideClassAction.WordPress.com. However, for now read this version, because not all the links on the blog work. WordPress is both easy and hard to use. I would appreciate any tips you can give me.) 

Click here to read the first "broadsheet" I published back in 2005. I took it with me to the Herb Fair in Whatcom County that year and held a workshop on the issue. A fluoridation storm had been brewing in Skagit County for some time. See this article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer dated January 16, 2007. Efforts to fluoridate drinking water there were ultimately beaten back by well-informed volunteers who were outspent 100 to 1 by a group of uninformed dentist.

Why do dentists line up behind fluoridation? Not all do. Many scholarly dentists have read the studies and are coming forward. Dentists who support fluoridation have generally not read the literature on the subject. I believe that dentists supported fluoridation for so long for the same reason almost everyone  else did. The phosphate fertilizer, aluminum, and uranium industries all had fluoride left over after they manufactured their products. They could not dump it in lake, river, or ocean, nor dig a whole and pour it in. So they invented a need for it: They put it in our drinking water. They diluted it to the point where most of the elements and compounds were "undetectible." The were still there, just in smaller concentrations.

Fluoride is generally fatal at 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. It meets the definition of a poison under Washington law. At lower concentrations it is still a poison. The effects are cumulative and set in gradually. Generally, we are not killed, although our health is eroded and for some life may be shortened. In 2007 I decided to do what ever I could to get this slow poison out of our water.  I wrote this letter to Governor Gregoire.

I made the point that fluoride dissolves almost everything, including lead. Lead solder for use in plumbing was not outlawed until 1986, so this might explain why lead continues to show up in water fountains in old Seattle schools, at levels up to 1,600 ppb, far above the EPA maximum of 20 ppb.

Denise Clifford, director of the Washington Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water, sent me this reply on August 20, 2007. She said that the fluoride could not dissolve the lead because the pH of the water was always monitored and kept within safe limits. I would asks those qualified in chemistry to e-mail me and tell me whether this statement of overbroad of just flat wrong.

Ms. Clifford admitted that mercury, lead, and arsenic were present in the fluoridation materials, but said the quantities were too tiny to worry about. She cited ANSI/NSF Standard 60 as proof that fluoridation materials were safe. However, ANSI/NSF 60 has not been updated in light of the National Research Council study done in 2006. You can read the National Research Council study online or buy it as a book or download.

I sent a Public Disclosure Request to the city of Seattle on August 4, 2007.

One of the documents I got back was a 2004 assay showing that Seattle was testing for the presence of many heavy metals. Columns 2 represents the water in its pristine condition, while column 3 represents the water after it is fluoridated. After treatment aluminum goes from zero to 18.1 ppb (parts per billion), barium goes from zero to 1.6 ppb, copper goes from zero to 1.3 ppb, and sulfate goes from zero to 1.26 ppb.

Note the many elements market "u." The "u" means that the element in question is not present at a certain level but that the element was tested for. These elements may be present at some lower level.  A 2007 assay done by Seattle Public Utilities may be easier to read. The phosphate ore out of which fluoride can contain all of the following elements and many more. The following elements were tested for and found not to be present at the following levels:

No testing was done for uranium, radium, radon, and polonium, although these radionuclides are generally found in the same ore as phosphate and fluoride. Perhaps no testing was done because the possible levels are so law. There are milligrams (one part in a million), micrograms (one part in a billion) and picograms (one part in a trillion). Picograms of polonium 210 degrading to lead 210 produce a big burst of  carcinogenic alpha rays. See the February 24, 2008, letter I wrote to the Washington Legislature.  

Most people do not grasp the scale of the fluoride added to our water. It is shipped to the pristine Tolt and Cedar River watersheds in huge tanker cars that carry 40,000 pounds of the stuff. It ends up in Puget Sound.  It is waste disposal through disbursement.

The fluoride added is not medical grade sodium fluoride.  It is a mixture of dozens and possibly hundreds of elements and chemicals. Most of the fluoride that goes into our water is the waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

In order to produce phosphorus that can be quickly absorbed by plants, raw phosphate ore must be processed. Phosphate ore contains many heavy metals and is around 4% fluoride. Sulfuric acid is added to the ore. Fluorine gasses are produced. In the past they would be vented up the smokestack, and entire counties would be poisoned by the fumes. Today the fumes must pass through a scrubber liquor, which captures most of the fluoride along with the heavy metals. What is left is put in tankers with no filtration or any further processing and shipped to the Tolt and Cedar.  Common fluoride is the unprocessed slurry liquor left over after phosphate fertilizer or aluminum or uranium is produced. 

I am not convinced that phosphorus needs to be obtained using sulfuric acid. Plants did nicely for the last 10,000 years without chemically reconstituted phosphate fertilizer. There are other sources of phosphorus; when applied they release the phosphorus more slowly. But are we not just a little too impatient about everything?

The phosphate fertilizer industry is itself a pollution nightmare. In addition to producing millions of gallons of fluoride, it also yields millions of tons of useless left over "gypsum." Gypsum is mostly silicon.  This pretty white small gravel gypsum would be perfect for building roadbed foundations. Unfortunately it is radioactive. So it is stacked in gigantic piles a hundred feet high that extend over areas the size of cities. There it will remain for all eternity. Unfortunately, a sink hole opened up under a gypsum pile in Florida, and millions of tons of the stuff fell into the Florida aquifer, permanently polluting the river of water that runs under the state.  Click here for more scandalous information about the phosphate fertilizer industry.  

See the “Certificate of Analysis, Fluorosilic Acid, Car No: SHPX204519, March 12, 2005,” which I received from the city of Seattle. The arsenic level before dilution is 52 ppm. The lead level before dilution is <1 ppm. Divide those by a dilution factor of 240,000, and the resulting parts per billion are very low. However, arsenic and lead are so nasty that the only acceptable amount to be adding to our water is zero. Further, the generally high levels of lead found in drinking water in fluoridated cities may come not from the lead added but from the lead solder in the pipes dissolved by the fluoride.

On September 18, 2007, I replied to Denise Clifford's letter, writing directly to the Governor, asking her to use her emergency powers to ban water fluoridation in Washington.

On March 24, 2008, I wrote to Governor Gregoire regarding my concerns that the state of Washington, the cities, the counties, and the local water districts could all be exposed to legal liability: Given the conclusions of the National Research Council report, there is now no accepted "safe" level of fluoride. It is negligent and even reckless behavior to be adding any fluoride to drinking water. I said that I had no intention of filing a suit or encouraging others to do so. The Governor did not respond to this letter, or subsequent letters, and so I have decided that although I myself will not file suit, I will assist and encourage other attorneys to do so. It appears that it is necessary to wield a sledgehammer to change fluoridation policy.

Having learned that the Governor was a super-delegate and had declared herself a Barak Obama delegate, I wrote her another letter on the same day, exhorting her to be an agent of change.

On May 7, 2008, Seattle Mayor Greg Nichols organized a major press release and photo opportunity around the scandalous numbers of plastic bottles, mostly water bottles, that are tossed daily into the garbage. The Mayor encouraged everyone to drink tap water instead of bottled water, proclaiming, "When we deliver that water to your home or work, it is clean and fresh and healthy."

I wrote a reply and sent it to Dr. Bill Osmunson, a general and cosmetic dentist in Bellevue, who also has a master's degree in public health. I asked him to join with me and sign the letter. He agreed and assisted me in clearing up certain points in the letter. Neither of us expected the Post-Intelligencer to publish the letter, given the tendency for the media to side with the pro-fluoridation forces.  The letter appeared on May 14, 2008, although several important sentences were edited out, apparently to shorten it. This is the text of the letter as originally written. I have italicized the sentences which were removed by the Post-Intelligencer editor.

May 9, 2008

 

Mark Trahant, Editorial Page Editor

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Box 1909

Seattle WA  98111-1909

 

Sent by fax to 206-448-8184

Sent by e-mail to editpage@seattlepi.com, MarkTrahant@seattlepi.com

 

To The Editor,

 

We are writing regarding your May 8 article entitled "Drink Tap Water, Not Bottled Water, City Urges."

 

We share Seattle’s concern about the overwhelming number of plastic bottles we use and discard. On the other hand, Seattle tap water is fluoridated. The American Dental Association advises against giving fluoridated tap water to infants during their first year. Mothers are told to mix powdered formula with store-bought fluoride free water, presumably in plastic bottles.

 

New scientific studies, including one by the prestigious National Research Counsel, make it clear that all of us, not just babies, are consuming too much fluoride. Thousands of scientists, including many scholarly dentists, have signed statements demanding that water fluoridation end, as has happened in Europe. The Nobel and Pasteur Institutes have rejected fluoridation.

 

Fluoride is not an essential dietary nutrient. Fluoride only protects teeth against decay when it is added topically. Adding it to drinking water only makes bone and teeth more brittle and more prone to fractures and pitting and does nothing to reduce decay. Incidence of decay is the same or lower in areas where water is not fluoridated.

 

Fluorosis is gradual and cumulative. Around 50% of fluoride taken in is retained in bones and teeth and in certain organs such as the pineal gland, resulting in a drop in melatonin production and early onset of puberty.

 

Fluorine is the most electronegative element, and it binds strongly with most other elements, including the calcium in bones and nerves and including trace elements needed for enzymatic activity to proceed.

 

The NSC study and others conclude that fluoridation at current levels contributes to dental fluorosis, bone cancer, arthritis, bone fractures, thyroid reduction, diabetes, obesity, kidney damage, reproductive problems, lower IQ and retardation.

 

Seattle water is fluoridated to a level of around 1 ppm (parts per million). The EPA maximum contaminant level is 4 ppm. Are we then safe? No, because fluoride is in everything made with tap water—bread beer, rice, cola, reconstituted juice, cereal, etc.

 

Athletes, those who do strenuous labor, and children who run and play and drink a lot of water are especially overdosed with fluoride. 

 

The NRC study concluded that the 4 ppm standard is far too high and that the EPA should set a new lower maximum level. Thus, there is now no recognized safe maximum contaminant level for fluoride.

 

Pending determination of a new safe maximum, Washington cities, counties, and water districts should cease water fluoridation or face the possibility of a class action lawsuit for civil damages.

 

Links to documentation backing up all these assertions can be found at www.FluorideClassAction.WordPress.com.

 

Sincerely,

 

James Robert Deal

Attorney at Law

  

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

Aesthetic Dentistry of Bellevue

Click here to see Dr. Osmunson's YouTube video.

On another front Dr. Osmunson has been hard at work trying to convince the city of Seattle to establish a taskforce to study the fluoridation issue. Thus far the response has been the close minded assertion that fluoridation is a tested and validated procedure and no further inquiry will be made into the issue. 

Dr. Osmunson takes the position that because fluoridation materials have such a profound and profoundly negative effect on the body, fluoridation materials must be classified as either a poison as defined in state law or the kind of drug for which a prescription must be obtained under state law. Such a drug, what we would call a "prescription drug,"  is technically referred to in old Washington statutes as a "legend drug." When laws were passed fifty years ago authorizing water districts to fluoridate drinking water, almost no one suspected that fluoride could have negative effects. The state law authorizing fluoridation made no finding that fluoridation would be helpful and would not harm those who consumed fluoridated water. Now we know better.  The National Research Council study said in effect that the current 1 ppm fluoridation level for drinking water was too high and should be lowered. Thus the old EPA finding that 1 ppm was acceptable is invalid. There is no current accepted safe level of fluoridation materials in drinking water. The law allowing fluoridation did not invalidate the law requiring a prescription. There is no prescription. Dr. Osmunson asks the water districts to produce the prescription.

Adding fluoride to drinking water is mass medication. In light of current knowledge, the water districts must have some specific professional signing a prescription. A prescription is a doctor's or dentist's certification that the drug being prescribed will treat a certain malady and that it will do no harm other than certain low risk possible harms as listed in comprehensive disclosures circulated with the prescribed drug. No government agency has ever issued any statement which would constitute such a prescription. The water districts are practicing medicine or dentistry without a license, or are poisoning the water at low levels, and could be sued for any resulting harms. It was Dr. Osmunson, who gave me the bright idea that the best way to deal with this problem was to start a class action lawsuit. See Dr. Osmunson's very informative challenge issued to the water districts, including Seattle Public Utilities.

After months of studying how best to proceed, I decided to start with fluoridation here in my local water district here in Lynnwood, the Alderwood Water District, which buys already fluoridated water from Everett Utilities.

So delivered a Request for Documents under the Public Records Act, dated July 31, 2008. Click here to see Everett's response.

My Notice of Legal Liability for Water Fluoridation--Notice to Preserve and Not Destroy Evidence addressed to Everett and Alderwood have not yet been delivered. Click here to see a draft of the document. I will deliver it soon, now that I have reviewed Everett and Alderwood responses to my Request for Documents. 

In November, 2008, a Port Angeles group, Yes 4 Clean Water,  asked me to file an amicus brief in their case. Port Angeles water commissioners had fluoridated city water two years ago without putting the issue to a public vote. The Washington Dental Service Foundation, lackeys for the fluoridation industry, put up $400,000 to pay for the new fluoridation equipment. The money probably came from the fluoride industry. City fathers signed a contract with the WDSF agreeing to refund the money if the city stopped fluoridating its water. Citizens were outraged and gathered sufficient signatures to put the matter to a vote. The City sued to prevent the matter from going to the ballot, arguing that water fluoridation was an administrative matter, not a matter of substance. A clear example of a mere administrative matter would be treating water to achieve the proper pH or kill bacteria. Fluoride is not added to change the pH or kill bacteria, but to medicate those who drink the water, in the belief that fluoride will protect teeth.

The City won its case in Superior Court and in the Court of Appeals, and so Yes 4 Clean Water appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. I pointed out in my Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Support of Motion for Review that the administrative-substantive debate was a mere distraction because there was a statute in the Revised Code of Washington that applied and which stated clearly that the people have the right to vote on whether to fluoridate their water.  RCW 57.08.012 states:

Fluoridation of Water Authorized

A water district by a majority vote of its board of commissioners may fluoridate the water supply system of the water district. The commissioners may cause the proposition of fluoridation of the water supply to be submitted to the electors of the water district at any general election or special election to be called for the purpose of voting on the proposition. The proposition must be approved by a majority of the electors voting on the proposition to become effective.

The Supreme Court ruled that Fluoride Class Action could file an amicus brief and gave the opposition the opportunity to reply to my arguments.  The pro-fluoridation reply is due by January 5, 2009.

The Port Angeles case is being bankrolled mostly by Dr. Eloise Kailin of Yes 4 Clean Water. If you can, please donate to this important effort.

A lawsuit is brewing in San Diego and is soon to be filed. The plaintiffs claim they are being assaulted through the unwanted intrusion of a poison into their bodies. They will ask for an injunction. I hope they sue for damages too.

In December, 2008, the Arkansas Legislature took up a proposal to require fluoridation of all municipal water systems. Arkansas, like every other state I am aware of, allows communities to vote fluoride up or down, and many cities have recently voted it down. I used to live in Arkansas, so I decided to write the legislators of my native state, warning them that they could be subjecting the state to liability in a class action lawsuit.  See Notice of Legal Liability for Water Fluoridation--Notice to Preserve and Not Destroy Evidence.  Legislators were flooded with emails from around the world. The health subcommittee sent the fluoride proponents away with a rebuke. 

I also sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Arkansas Department of health. I received the following response from Reginald A. Rogers, Deputy General Counsel for the Arkansas Department of Health.  Attorney Rogers pled lack of information as to most of my questions. His lack of information as to No. 10 is revealing.  Question 10 is this:

Provide documents which show the presence of all elements and compounds in raw fluoridation materials, that is assays made of raw fluoridation materials as they come out of the tanker, before they are added to drinking water and are diluted.

Attorney Rogers' response was:

We do not have.

The Arkansas Department of Health should have this information. It should have assays done by the supplier, referred to as the "feedstock." If the supplier has not previously provided an assay, the Department of Health should obtain it from the supplier. Not to have this important data is gross negligence. Not to have it means that the state of Arkansas has no clue as to what is in its fluoridation materials. Arkansas only has assays done of fluoridation materials after they have been diluted 240,000 times, to the point where contaminants are present below the detection threshold.  The presumption is that any harmful element or compound diluted that far would be rendered harmless.  This is a reckless assumption to make.

If Arkansas wants to avoid liability it should take a sample of the feedstock to an advanced lab and have its own analysis done. I assure you, the results will be horrifying. We will learn the feedstock contains almost every toxic metal on the periodic table plus perhaps scores of toxic compounds.

I have asked numerous water districts and state health departments for an assay of the feedstock fluoride, right out of the tanker truck. None has such an assay. The closest thing to a feedstock assay is this Certificate of Analysis from Mosaic, one of the fluoride suppliers. It is not a complete assay and only reports on selected elements or compounds.

Attorney Rogers' answer to Question 27 was informative: Arkansas has no insurance to protect taxpayers in the case of a lawsuit over harm caused by fluoridation. The lawsuits are coming. I would recommend Arkansas obtain coverage.

Attorney Rogers provided this map showing which areas of Arkansas have fluoridated public water systems.

Attorney Rogers provided this anonymous 1995 Engineering And Administrative Recommendations for Water Fluoridation.  It probably comes from the CDC. It applies generally, not just to Arkansas.

Attorney Rogers provided the following document as well: Community Water Fluoridation: A Position Paper Prepared by the Office of Oral Health and the Science Advisory Committee.  It is authored by the Arkansas Department of Health.  In support of fluoridation it mostly cites CDC studies fact sheets, and such other secondary sources as college textbooks. To prove that fluoride reduces tooth decay it cites a CDC press release.  (See footnote 55.) Although the position paper is dated March 12, 2008, it makes no mention whatsoever of the 2006 National Science Council study on water fluoridation.   This is the most conspicuous proof that the position paper is completently written.

I am often asked why I work so hard against such stiff opposition. My response is that the pro-fluoridation forces have all the money, while we have all the science on our side. In the long run we cannot lose. The majority has been wrong on many issues: The majority advocated slavery, anti-Semitism, the subjugation of women, killing witches, the idea that the earth was flat, and slaughtering 40 billion factory farm animals each year for fatty food that ruins our health and our environment. Fluoridation is just another one of those dumb ideas that will pass away.   

***

Call me at 425-774-6611 or 888-999-2022 for further information. Or e-mail me. The fax number is 425-776-8081. Click here to sign up for my e-mail newsletters.

For details about how to apply for a mortgage go here. For information about mortgage modification go here.

Copyright © 2008 James Robert Deal. All rights reserved.