Fluoride-Class-Action


Letter to Governor Gregoir 3-24-8

 

JAMES ROBERT DEAL, P.S.

5105 200th Street SW, Suite 100
Lynnwood, Washington  98036-6397

Telephone (425) 771-1110, fax (425) 776-8081

JamesRobertDeal@JamesDeal.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 24, 2008

 

Governor Christine Gregoire

Office of the Governor

PO Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002

Sent by 1st Class Mail and by Fax to: 360-753-4110

 

Dear Governor Gregoire,

 

I wrote you a letter on February 24 regarding my observation that the fact that the state of Washington approves and regulates the addition of fluoride to our water poses a serious risk that the state and the local water districts can be sued by those damaged.

 

I have done further research, and so I am sending you a revised version of the letter, including both my previous comments and additional comments at the end.

 

What I said previously was as follows:

 

I always seem to write letters to you which are critical. I want to make it clear that I generally approve of the political work you are doing.

 

However, there is an area where I believe you are falling down: You are failing to protect the health of the people of Washington. I have written you previously regarding the adverse health effects of fluoridation. You have turned my letters over to your assistants, and they have responded with answers that are incorrect and incomplete.

 

I have sent you pounds of information regarding these adverse health effects. The science on fluoridation has been building slowly but steadily. The science is now in. This is serious. It is now clear that fluoridation materials are harmful to health.

 

These health affects are cosmetic: At the one part per million level which the state of Washington authorizes fluoride to be added, ten percent of kids will get fluorosis of their teeth, dark and light spots which make them want to keep their mouths closed when they smile. Or they can spend $1,200 per tooth getting veneers applied. Around 20 teeth are visible, so that would cost $24,000.  Veneers wear out, and around five replacements will be needed over the course of these kids’ lives. Let’s see, that’s $120,000. The effect is most severe for the poor: As nutrition levels drop, vulnerability to the bad effects of fluoridation materials increases.

 

The health affects are more than cosmetic: Fluoride accumulates in teeth and bones and over the years causes bones to become harder and heavier but more brittle. Teeth crack and break. Fluoride causes some teeth to become pitted, and decay is greatly increased.

 

Our mothers sometimes fall and break their brittle hips. Sometimes they break their brittle hips and fall. My mother’s neck bones cracked and, she was implanted with a steel spine that fused four vertebrae. She lived to 90, and I am glad to say she lived the last five years of her life with my wife and me. Although she experienced a lot of pain, she had a great sense of humor and brought a lot of happiness to our lives. I was sitting by her bed when she died. She would have lived longer had the steel apparatus not become infected. One thing leads to another. Well, back to the subject.

 

There is substantial evidence of a causal connection between fluoridation materials and the following maladies: increased bone fractures, Stage 1 skeletal fluorosis (arthritic joint stiffness and pain), decreased thyroid function, impaired glucose tolerance (Type II diabetes), earlier sexual maturity, lowered IQ, and possibly osteosarcoma.

 

For your convenience, I will now give you some of the statutes and regulations dealing with fluoridation:

 

RCW 57.08.012

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.

 

WAC 246-290-460 Fluoridation of drinking water.

 

(1)      Purveyors shall obtain written department approval of fluoridation treatment facilities before placing them in service.

(2)      Where fluoridation is practiced, purveyors shall maintain fluoride concentrations in the range 0.8 through 1.3 mg/L throughout the distribution system.

(3)      Where fluoridation is practiced, purveyors shall take the following actions to ensure that concentrations remain at optimal levels and that fluoridation facilities and monitoring equipment are operating properly:

 

RCW 43.20.050

Powers and duties of state board of health — State public health report — Delegation of authority — Enforcement of rules.

 

(2) In order to protect public health, the state board of health shall:

(a)      Adopt rules necessary to assure safe and reliable public drinking water and to protect the public health. Such rules shall establish requirements regarding: …

(ii)      Drinking water quality standards, monitoring requirements, and laboratory certification requirements;

 

WAC 246-290-460

Fluoridation of drinking water

 
 

 

(1)      Purveyors shall obtain written department approval of fluoridation treatment facilities before placing them in service.

(2)      Where fluoridation is practiced, purveyors shall maintain fluoride concentrations in the range 0.8 through 1.3 mg/L throughout the distribution system.

(3)      Where fluoridation is practiced, purveyors shall take the following actions to ensure that concentrations remain at optimal levels and that fluoridation facilities and monitoring equipment are operating properly:

(a)      Daily monitoring.

(i)       Take daily monitoring samples for each point of fluoride addition and analyze the fluoride concentration. Samples must be taken downstream from each fluoride injection point at the first sample tap where adequate mixing has occurred.

(ii)      Record the results of daily analyses in a monthly report format acceptable to the department. A report must be made for each point of fluoride addition.

(iii)     Submit monthly monitoring reports to the department within the first ten days of the month following the month in which the samples were collected.

(b)      Monthly split sampling.

(i)       Take a monthly split sample at the same location where routine daily monitoring samples are taken. A monthly split sample must be taken for each point of fluoride addition.

(ii)      Analyze a portion of the sample and record the results on the lab sample submittal form and on the monthly report form.

(iii)     Forward the remainder of the sample, along with the completed sample form to the state public health laboratory, or other state-certified laboratory, for fluoride analysis.

(iv)     If a split sample is found by the certified lab to be:

(A)     Not within the range of 0.8 to 1.3 mg/l, the purveyor’s fluoridation process shall be considered out of compliance.

(B)     Differing by more than 0.30 mg/l from the purveyor’s analytical result, the purveyor’s fluoride testing shall be considered out of control.

(4)      Purveyors shall conduct analyses prescribed in subsection (3) of this section in accordance with procedures listed in the most recent edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.

(5)      The purveyor may be required by the department to increase the frequency, and/or change the location of sampling prescribed in subsection (3) of this section to ensure the adequacy and consistency of fluoridation.

 

The state of Washington specifically authorizes water district boards to vote fluoridation in or to call an election and let the public vote fluoridation in. The state generally approves of the addition of fluoridation materials to drinking water. The state requires the water districts to select from a short list of available fluoridation materials. The state thus approves of the contents of the fluoridation materials. The state regulates the concentration.

 

There are other sources of fluoridation materials: the bread, the beer, the pesticides, and the Prozac. But the law does not say Washington can escape liability because there are other sources. If Washington’s negligence is one of several proximate causes, then Washington is liable.

 

There are other negligent acts which Washington has committed and which would be easy to prove: Fluoride is the most active of all acids. Fluoride dissolves lead. There is a lot of lead solder in a lot of old pipes in Washington. Lead solder in pipes was not outlawed until 1986. No amount of lead consumption is considered safe. Not only does the acid leach the lead out of the solder, there is actually lead in the fluoridation materials added. It is listed along with arsenic on Cargill’s bill of shipping.

 

The state of Washington—with its many laboratories doing water testing, with its scientists keeping up with the literature, and with pro bono attorneys like me alerting you to the harmful nature of fluoridation materials—knows, or should know in the exercise of a reasonable level of prudence, that adding fluoridation materials to drinking water is harmful.

 

The harmful nature of fluoridation materials is clear. Liability wise, I think the case against Washington is air tight. The state and all the local water districts could be sued “big time.”

 

I strongly suggest that you and Rob McKenna set up an Attorney General’s special research task force and look closely at the law and the science on this question. That is the minimum you must do at this point to terminate any further liability on the part of Washington.

 

Having done your research, you should halt fluoridation by Governor’s emergency decree, pending legislative review. You can announce the findings made by your task force and say that you stopped the practice as soon as you became aware of the validity of the health concerns.

 

And you could bring the resources of the state of Washington to bear against the fertilizer companies that sold us this swill and claimed it was a good product. Sue them the same way you sued the tobacco companies.

 

I am not a scientist. But I believe I understand the science involved. Nor am I a litigator. But I believe I correctly see the exposure that the state of Washington has regarding this matter.

 

Emphasis added: I am not threatening to sue the state of Washington. I am not a litigator. I am not going to publish this letter on any web site or send it out to the newspapers or to my e-mail list. I don’t want to give people the idea of hiring a class action law firm and suing the state Washington. (The Governor did not respond to this letter and therefore I feel I am released from any obligation I might have not to publish this letter.)

 

I just want to see Washington stop doing the wrong thing and start doing the right thing.

 

I want Washington to lead the way in CHANGE on this issue.

 

My dentist friend Dr. Bob Osmunson and I would like to visit you to discuss these matters. See Dr. Bob’s YouTube video at http://www.fluoridealert.org.

 

Can we call your secretary and make an appointment?

 

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal

Attorney at Law

Advertisements


Fluoride and Health, Letter to WA House of Reps 2-24-8
February 24, 2008, 7:04 am
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , ,

 

JAMES ROBERT DEAL, P.S.
5105 200th Street SW, Suite 100
Lynnwood, Washington  98036-6397
425-771-1110,  fax 425-776-8081
www.JamesRobertDeal.com

February 24, 2008

 

Rep. Tom Campbell
Chair, Select Committee on Environmental Health
House of Representatives
334 John L. O’Brien Building
Olympia, WA 98504

 

Dear Rep. Campbell,

 

Regarding fluoride there is now broad agreement on the following points:

 

Fluoride, the negatively charged ion of fluorine, is not an “essential nutrient. … There is no known essential biochemical role for fluoride in any animal, including humans.”  University of Kansas Letter from 15 MDs, PhDs, and DDSs, to the National Academy of Sciences, October 15, 1997, http://sonic.net/kryptox/nutri/alberts.htm.

Fluoride does not protect teeth against decay unless it is added topically. Adding it to drinking water makes bone more heavy and brittle. The fluorosis of the bones is gradual and cumulative. Around 50% of fluoride taken in is retained in bones. Hip fractures among the elderly are increased by fluoride consumption. Some old folks fall down and break their hips. Others break their hips and fall down. University of Kansas Letter; Professionals’ Statement Calling for an End to Water Fluoridation, August 9, 2007,

http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html.

 

There is mounting evidence that fluoride in the percentages currently consumed can cause bone cancer, osteosarcoma, particularly in young male humans and young male mice. (University of Kansas Letter.)

 

Seattle water is fluoridated to a level of 1 ppm, but we are consuming a lot more fluoride than just what is in the tap water, and that is because much of the food and drink we eat is made with fluoridated water. Fluoride is in our bread, pastries, pasta, candies, colas, reconstituted juices, beer, and any food prepared using fluoridated water. Further fruits and vegetables are fertilized with fluoridated fertilizers and treated with fluoride pesticides, and the EPA allows fluoride residues of 7 ppm in grapes, fruits, and potatoes, and up to 15 ppm in kiwi fruit. Fluoride and Fluorinated Pesticides, The Campaign Against Sulfuryl Fluoride, http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pesticides.htm. See the copy attached.

 

I call your attention to:

Infants Should Not have Fluoridated Tap Water
American Dental Association Press Release, November 13, 2006, http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3351.cfm

 

In this press release, the American Dental Association warns that fluoridated water has a profound adverse effect on young children and particularly infants. Mothers are absolutely forbidden to use fluoridated tap water to make formula.

 

Formula made with fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than the average 0.004 ppm concentration found in human breast milk in non-fluoridated areas.

 

To prevent tooth damage, the American Dental Association (ADA) warned its members that fluoridated water should not be mixed into concentrated formula or foods intended for babies one year and younger…. The Environmental Protection Agency is required to consider the most vulnerable populations when setting allowable water fluoride levels. To protect babies, allowable water fluoride levels must be near zero.

 

The problem with such advice is that it is hard for poor people to follow. Distilled water bought at the grocery store is somewhat expensive. A water distiller can cost $300.

 

The “fluoride” added to Seattle water is not medical grade sodium fluoride. These “fluoridation materials,” as I call them, are the unprocessed scrubber liquor that filters out the gasses produced when sulfuric acid is added to raw phosphate rock to produce phosphate fertilizer. The rock contains 2% to 4% fluorine compounds, which are captured in the scrubber liquor and sent unprocessed to Seattle in rail tanker cars, each carrying around 50,000 pounds of the liquor. Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection by George C. Glasser in the Earth Island Journal Online, http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_phosphates.html.

 

I call your attention to the attached:

Certificate of Analysis
Fluorosilic Acid
Car No: SHPX204519
March 12, 2005

 

This shipping label was obtained from documents delivered to me by the City of Seattle.  It shows that the active ingredient in the trailer tank car is fluorosilicic acid, which makes up 24% of the brew. It includes other unnamed acids, designated on the Certificate of Analysis as “.54% free acid.”

See also the Landsburg Fluoride Shipment receipt showing a tanker shipment of 45,920 pounds. A copy is attached.

The respected National Research Council had done a peer reviewed study about these issues entitled

Fluoride in Drinking Water:
A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

 

Read this document online at the above address or purchase a print copy at the same e-mail address.

 

See also:

Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report:
Fluoride  in Drinking Water,
Robert J. Carton,
Fluoride 39(3) 163-172, July-September 2006,
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/carton-2006.pdf.

 

The NRC scientists who issued the report stated their conclusions on points where the science was certain or virtually certain. They did not speculate. They did not state conclusions regarding points where there is any significant doubt. It is a cautious and conservative report.

 

Nevertheless, the NRC scientists concluded that the current allowable EPA drinking water maximum level of fluoride which can safely be consumed, the Maximum Contaminant Level should be reduced from the current 4 ppm level to some lower level. When the fluoridated food and drink we consume is added in, and especially for those who exercise a lot or who work hard or who drink a lot of water, including those who drink a lot because of medical conditions, they are probably exceeding this equivalent level.

 

The NRC scientists found that levels of fluoride currently allowed in drinking water cause unsightly dental fluorosis in 10% of children or more, increased bone fractures, and Stage 1 skeletal fluorosis (arthritic joint stiffness and pain).

 

The NRC scientists cited evidence which they said caused them to be concerned about the connection between fluoridation materials and the following health problems: “decreased thyroid function, impaired glucose tolerance (Type II diabetes), and earlier sexual maturity.” Some of these maladies result from fluoridation levels as low as .7 ppm. They called for more research on these issues.

 

The NRC scientists expressed concern about a possible connection between fluoridation materials and “four different human lueukemic cell lines.” The NRC scientists again recommended more research.

 

I call your attention to a document entitled

 

Seattle Public Utilities, Surface Water Analysis,
February 10th – 11th, 2004.

 

For your convenience I am enclosing a copy.

 

This document compares Cedar River water before and after treatment at Lake Young. See columns 3 and 4. It also compares Tolt River water before and after treatment at an unnamed treatment facility. See columns 7 and 8.

 

This chart shows that certain heavy metals are not present at various levels, generally the “maximum containment level.” This chart contains a wealth of information and raises a multitude of questions. It appears that there are more heavy metals in our water after the fluoridation materials are added.

 

The assay registers contaminants down to one part per million (1 ppm), which is one milligram per liter (1mg/L). In other cases it registers below one part per billion, (1ppb), which is one microgram. The assay even goes as low as .2 ppb for some elements.

 

Relying on other evidence, the “Certificate of Analysis, Fluorosilic Acid, Car No: SHPX204519, March 12, 2005,” referred to above, it is clear that we are adding arsenic and lead. 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, asenic is so nasty that the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or MCLG is set at zero, meaning that we should not be adding any arsenic to our drinking water.

 

The Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, was 50 ppb since 1942. The Clinton administration lowered it to 10 ppb, but upon taking office, the Bush administration reversed this policy, rolling it back to the 50 ppb MCL. Experts say that a better MCL would be 3 ppb or less.

 

Regarding lead, bear in mind that fluoride dissolves lead. Bear in mind that old buildings, including schools, contain pipes soldered with lead. The use of lead solder in pipes was banned in 1986. Fluorine acids are the most aggressive of all acids. Fluoridation materials added to Seattle water add to levels of lead in school drinking fountains, because they contains lead and also—my speculation—because they can dissolve the solder in the pipes. Reporters express complete bewilderment as to how lead could get into the water. See: Elevated Lead Levels Found in 35 Seattle Schools, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 8, 2006, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/%20local/291566_lead08ww.html. See attached.

 

The hypothesis to be tested is whether the fluorosilicates sitting in the pipes over the summer dissolve the old lead solder, releasing lead.

 

For a point-by-point rebuttal of the Centers For Disease Control’s support of fluoridation, see:

The Emperor Has No Clothes:
A Critique of the CDC’s Promotion of Fluoridation
by Paul Connett, Ph.D.
Revised October 3, 2000
http://fluoridealert.org/cdc.htm

See also

The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:

An Environmental Overview

Michael Connett

May 2003

http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

 

See also:

 

Alzheimer’s in America:

The Aluminum-Phosphate Fertilizer Connection

Lynn Landes

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0819-06.htm

 

See also:

 

Why Fluoride Is An Environmental Issue
Bar Smith
Earth Island Journal
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/
fluoride/fluroide_editorial.html
.

 

I call your attention to:

 

10 Facts AboutFluoride
December 2006
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm

 

I call your attention to:

 

Professionals’ Statement Calling for an End to Water Fluoridation
August 9, 2007
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
statement.august.2007.html
:

 

Some 1,400 dentists, medical doctors, research doctors, toxicologists, and other scientific professionals have signed this statement. A copy is enclosed for your convenience along with the comments of many of the signers, found at: http://www.fluorideaction.org/
statement.quotes.aug.2007.pdf
.

 

A short summary of the points made in the Professionals’ Statement is as follows:

Fluoridation results in the following maladies: an increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis and, possibly osteosarcoma.

 

Fluoridation and other exposures to fluorides causes 32% of American children to have dental fluorosis.

 

Studies since the 1980s show that when fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities are compared, there is no difference in levels of tooth decay.

 

The American Dental Association recommends that tap water not be used to reconstitute infant formula during the first 12 months of life because it results in ingestion of too much fluoride. Formula made with fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than the average 0.004 ppm concentration found in human breast milk in non-fluoridated areas.

 

Fluoride reduces tooth decay only if it is applied topically, not when it is ingested. Thus, adding fluoride to drinking water does not reduce tooth decay.

 

There is a causal connection between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma, particularly in young boys.

 

Fluoride used in drinking water is an industrial grade waste product which has never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion

 

The Seattle Public Utilities assay was apparently not sensitive enough to detect heavy metals present in amounts below .2 parts per billion. However, it is clear from reading from the general literature regarding fluoridation materials produced by the phosphate fertilizer industry, which produces the fluoridation materials used by the city of Seattle, that the fluoridation materials contain other elements, including those which are “hot.” I mean “hot” in the sense that they are radioactive. Yes, radioactive.

 

The rock out of which phosphate fertilizer is made contains substantial amounts of fluoride, arsenic, and lead. It also contains uranium and radium, which decay into radioactive lead, radioactive bismuth, and radioactive polonium. Mines in Florida and Louisiana that produce phosphate fertilizer have also produced uranium, and they will produce uranium again when uranium prices rise. Meanwhile trace amounts of uranium and the elements it decays into are being added as fertilizers and pesticides to our grains, fruits, and vegetables, and added to our water. While the levels of radionuclides is low, they are there in our drinking water, continuously emitting alpha and beta rays.

 

I call your attention again to an article mentioned previously:

 

Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection
by George C. Glasser
Earth Island Journal Online, http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/
fluoride_phosphates.html.

 

I quote from George Glasser’s article:

 

While the uranium and radium in fluorosilicic acid are known carcinogens, two decay products of uranium are even more carcinogenic: radon-222 and polonium-210.

 

… EPA Office of Drinking Water official Joseph A. Cotruvo and Public Health Service fluoridation engineer Thomas Reeves have acknowledged the presence of radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid.

 

Radon-222 is not an immediate threat because it stops emitting alpha radiation and decays into lead-214 in 3.86 days. Lead-214 appears to be harmless but it eventually decays into bismuth-214 and then into polonium-214. Unless someone knew to look for specific isotopes, no one would know that a transmutation into the polonium isotope had occurred.

 

Polonium-210, a decay product of bismuth-210, has a half-life of 138 days and gives off intense alpha radiation as it decays into regular lead and becomes stable. Any polonium-210 that might be present in the phosphate concentrate could pose a significant health threat. A very small amount of polonium-210 can be very dangerous, giving off 5,000 times more alpha radiation than the same amount of radium. As little as 0.03 microcuries (6.8 trillionths of a gram) of polonium-210 can be carcinogenic to humans. (http://www.earthisland.org/
eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_phosphates.html
.)

 

The lead isotope behaves like calcium in the body. It may be stored in the bones for years before turning into polonium-210 and triggering a carcinogenic release of alpha radiation.

 

Drinking water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid contains radon at every sequence of its decay to polonium. The fresher the pollution concentrate, the more polonium it will contain.

 

As long as the amount of contaminants added to the drinking water (including radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid) do not exceed the limits set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has no regulatory problem with the use of any contaminated products for drinking water treatment.

 

If you have read this far, I suspect that you are wondering three things: First, why we are still adding fluoridation materials to our water? Second, how could the “experts” have been so wrong for so many years about fluoride?

 

The explanation is simple: The production of phosphate fertilizer, uranium, and aluminum all produce fluorosilicate wastes. Big industrialists would rather sell the waste at a profit than dispose of it at a loss. So the big industrialists hired dentists and other experts to sell their toxic product at a big profit to state legislatures and city councils.

 

I am an attorney. I have a special interest in public health and environmental law. We attorneys have a duty to do pro bono publico work. My work for the public good is to shed light on these issues and ask these questions and explain to you how so many “experts” could have gotten it so wrong and how so many of us could let ourselves be suckered for so long.

 

We humans are suckers. We are innately gullible. We are conformists. We have huge brains, but they are mostly blank computing space badly programmed. We construct rationalizations that justify the status quo and allow us to be manipulated by dental “experts” and big industrialists.

 

A majority has believed the experts up to now. But being in the majority does not prove you are right. The majority has been wrong on many issues: The majority advocated slavery, anti-Semitism, the subjugation of women, exposing unwanted children and selling them into slavery, killing witches, and the idea that the earth was flat. The majority changed on those issues, and it will soon change on the fluoridation issue.

 

I have written to Governor Gregoire regarding this matter. Her staff has responded in a way which does fully or correctly address the questions I have raised. The general theme of the response, authored by Denise Clifford, Director of the Office of Drinking Water, is that the fluoridation materials added to our water only contain small amounts of pollutants, and therefore I should not be concerned. 

 

I drive to a well on 164th Street SW, just west of I-5, and fill big jugs with artesian well water, which we use for cooking and drinking. But this only partially protects me. There are fluoridation materials in many of the foods we eat and drink. Phosphate fertilizer is actually fed to cattle. Insecticides made of fluoride are sprayed on my fruits and vegetables. When I take a shower, the fluoride and other toxins are absorbed through my skin. For profit, rich industrialists are poisoning us, themselves, and even their children.

 

I do not have a research staff to call on. You do. I am asking that you set up a task force and call on the scientists working for or under contract to the state of Washington to do its own thorough assay of fluoridation materials and make an accurate list of all the dozens, maybe hundreds of compounds it contains along with the concentrations. I suggest your staff then study the literature regarding whether it is wise to be adding any amount of them to our drinking water.

 

Recall the difficulty which anti-tobacco forces had because cigarette smoke contains so many different compounds. It is entirely possible that the many elements and compounds in fluoride could potentiate each other.

 

Further, I disagree with the generalization typically made that the contamination is down in the parts per million and parts per billion and therefore cannot be of any significance. Our water should be as pure as possible. Fluoride only hardens teeth if applied to the surface, not when it is drunk. We do not have any obligation to the fertilizer industry to take its toxic waste off its hands.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal

Attorney at Law

 

Enclosures:

 

University of Kansas Letter from 15 MDs, PhDs, and DDSs, to the National Academy of Sciences, October 15, 1997, http://sonic.net/kryptox/nutri/alberts.htm

 

Professionals’ Statement Calling for an End to Water Fluoridation, August 9, 2007, http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html

 

Quotations from many of the signers of Professionals’ Statement, found at:  http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.quotes.aug.2007.pdf

 

Fluoride and Fluorinated Pesticides, The Campaign Against Sulfuryl Fluoride, http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pesticides.htm

 

Infants Should Not have Fluoridated Tap Water

American Dental Association Press Release, November 13, 2006, http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3351.cfm

 

Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection by George C. Glasser in the Earth Island Journal Online, http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_phosphates.html

 

Certificate of Analysis, Fluorosilic Acid, Car No: SHPX204519, March 12, 2005

 

Landsburg Fluoride Shipment receipt showing a tanker shipment of 45,920 pounds

 

 

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, National Academy of Sciences, http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

 

National Academies Press order form, and online copy of United States National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water

 

Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water, from Fluoride, July – September 2006

Seattle Public Utilities, Surface Water Analysis, February 10th – 11th, 2004.

 

Elevated Lead Levels Found in 35 Seattle Schools, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 8, 2006, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/291566_lead08ww.html

 

Thallium, Wikipedia

 

Consumer Factsheet on Thallium, EPA

 

The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Critique of the CDC’s Promotion of Fluoridation, by Paul Connett, Ph.D., Revised October 3, 2000, http://fluoridealert.org/cdc.htm

 

The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental Overview, Michael Connett, May 2003, http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

 

Alzheimer’s in America: The Aluminum-Phosphate Fertilizer Connection

Lynn Landes, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0819-06.htm

 

Why Fluoride Is An Environmental Issue, Bar Smith, Earth Island Journal

http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluroide_editorial.html.

 

10 Facts AboutFluoride, December 2006, http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm

 

Professionals’ Statement Calling for an End to Water Fluoridation, August 9, 2007, http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html

 

Copies were sent by e-mail to:

campbell.tom@leg.wa.gov;  

hudgins.zack@leg.wa.gov;

newhouse.dan@leg.wa.gov;

sump.bob@leg.wa.gov;

hunt.sam@leg.wa.gov;

chase.maralyn@leg.wa.gov;

morrell.dawn@leg.wa.gov

wood.alex@leg.wa.gov

 

***

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
See My Book on the Link between the Environment and Diet
A Comprehensive Approach to Transportation, Transit, and Land Use, by James Robert Deal
http://comprehensive-transportation.blogspot.com

Read about the Fluoride Scandal
Bellevue Dentist Bill Osmunson Speaks out on Fluoride

Seattle Dentist Paul Rubin speaks out on fluoridation

Mail a letter to the Governor about these and other isues:

  • Governor Christine Gregoire
  • Office of the Governor
  • PO Box 40002
  • Olympia, WA 98504-0002
  • Fax: 360-753-4110

Send an e-mail to the Governor

Send your response to me by going to www.JamesRobertDeal.com