HHS and EPA have still not come out with a final rule in response to their 2011 request for comment

HHS request for comments in the Federal Register

HHS Press Release page

Pre-publication preliminary version of the HHS recommendations.

Dr. Bill Osmunson submitted this comment on April 22, 2012.

March 21, 2012

I’d like to introduce Donna Graham, Cindy Fischer, Mary Fischer, Kathleen Grieci, Sheryl Ladette, Vicki Rosenan and Christine Unckles who were first-time fluoride fighters for us on March 21 at the Everett City Council, having come because of James’ ad in the Everett Herald.

To watch this fabulous team in action, testifying to the Everett council, go to this link below, then fast-forward to the spot you want to view.

http://everett.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=603

James Deal 00:26:00

Donna Graham 00:29:50

Cindy Fischer 00:33:10

Kathleen Grieci 00:34:30

Alli Larkin 00:36:30

Audrey Adams 00:40:55

Sheryl Ladette 00:45:25

When I watch the video, hearing all the testimonies again, I am amazed at how well everyone did! I am particularly impressed by the four new participants (Donna, Cindy, Kathleen and Sheryl) who had no idea you were going to speak at the council meeting that night and nailed it beautifully anyway!!

You were all so sincere, gracious and well-spoken. You thanked the council, you didn’t get angry (sometimes harder than it seems), your voice was calm but convicted and each of you spoke from your own heart, which gave the council many different points of view and different reasons to not fluoridate. The Council won’t suddenly decide not to fluoridate based on our testimonies, but with continued public pressure, education and awareness, they might stop it eventually.

I’d also like to introduce Guy Paduano from Kirkland who contacted me through FAN and would like to become involved. He has some IT experience (YEAH!)

Welcome to all of you!

Audrey Adams

Alli Larkin, Vice-President
Washington Action for Safe Water

March 14, 2012

To the Washington Board of Health

I hope you have done your ‘due diligence’ and read “The Case Against Fluoride” by Dr. Paul Connett that we gave each of you.  I am going to share part of an email that Dr. Connett sent out to the Fluoride Action Network.

The subject is, “An Ambitious Campaign Against An Unacceptable Realty”.  The title of the article is, “My Involvement With Fluoridation”.*

“When we published our book I thought it would raise the level of the debate. It has not. The promoters have not produced a single scientific response to our text. They have so much money to spin the issue that they have simply ignored this book, just as they ignored the landmark NRC report on fluoride’s toxicology of 2006.

 

This is nothing new. The promoters have ignored the demands of normal scientific debate for over 60 years. Instead, they have used two strategies: 1) insist that “authority” is on their side using a list of endorsements and 2) claim that opponents know nothing about “real science.”

 

Both strategies have worked superbly because they have served to intimidate most doctors, dentists and academics and kept them from reading the literature for themselves. Additionally, every time that more strong scientific evidence is presented that would convince anyone with an open mind that fluoridation is a bad idea (e.g. Bassin’s study on osteosarcoma; the 25 IQ studies; Li’s study on hip fractures, etc.), we have people supposedly “on our own side” giving these studies the kiss of death with nutty rants about Hitler and Stalin. I sometimes wonder if the proponents pay these people!

 

Every day I am confronted by the fact that the world doesn’t really function on a rational level on this and many other issues. As a scientist concerned about health this is a painful realization. Who would have thought that there are health professionals out there who would lend their names to a practice that may be harming people – may even be killing a few young men with osteosarcoma -without examining the issue carefully for themselves? Who would have thought that there are public health officers who confidently tell decision makers that it is “safe and effective” simply because their employer (e.g. Health Canada; CDC; UK Ministry of Health; Australian health authorities in every state etc) tells them to do so.

 

I keep going for several reasons. Firstly, I am working with some really wonderful people around the world who continue to stand up for the truth on this issue. Secondly, I realize that other people in history have fought even harder battles with far more pain and sacrifice and have finally won against the odds. I remember reading a statement from the South African author Alan Paton (Cry the beloved Country) during the apartheid era, “The only way to endure man’s inhumanity to man is to make one’s own life an example of man’s humanity to man.” Those few words have inspired me ever since.”

Please make this a “Safer and Healthier Washington” by removing the toxic waste silicofluoride out of Washington’s public water supply.

* Read the full statement from Dr. Paul Connett here.

Factory Farms

Aerial shot of the Nelson Faria Dairy in Royal, Wash. Note the tiny dots that are the dairy cows congregating in the holding pens. (Image by Google Maps.)

In a precedent-setting decision earlier this month that received scant national coverage, a federal district court judge in Washington state ordered a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation), also known as a factory farm, to monitor groundwater, drainage, and soil for illegal pollution resulting from its grossly inadequate manure management practices in violation of the Clean Water Act. This first-ever ruling holding a CAFO accountable for its pollution was a result of a lawsuit by the nonprofit Community Association for Restoration of the Environment (CARE) against the Nelson Faria Dairy in Royal, Wash. The ruling upholds the terms of a 2006 settlement CARE had with the dairy’s previous owners, which the current owners subsequently ignored.

The case underscores one of the major problems with CAFOs, which is the massive amount of manure they produce and the manners by which operators dispose of it, which have major environmental implications. According to the EPA, “a single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day,” which is “equivalent to that of 20-40 people.” The quantity of manure produced by one dairy cow can be multiplied on a CAFO by hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of heads. This higher concentration of CAFO animals leads to a higher concentration of animal waste, a problem that holds true for all types of livestock raised in these operations. As CARE describes the scale of the waste problem:

Operations like the Nelson Faria Dairy produce as much waste as a city of over 200,000 people. Unlike cities, however, which treat their wastes, the dairy industry applies manure to agricultural fields primarily to get rid of it.

Photo by Tonvolz.

In moderation, manure is a great soil fertilizer, but the sheer amount (and concentration) of untreated waste generated by CAFOs is a serious liability. When too much manure is spread out over fields for soil to properly absorb it, or when manure lagoons leak, overflow, or rupture, rain and stormwater runoff can carry the waste into groundwater and nearby waterways. This over-application or discharge of CAFO animal waste is an egregious example of nonpoint source pollution, where the source(s) is diffuse and can have a wide distribution area. Untreated animal waste is a hazard for both public health and ecosystems because it can contain harmful quantities of nutrients, pathogens, and heavy metals. (Ecocentric has covered the problems associated with large amounts of untreated CAFO animal waste.)

The case of the improper handling of manure on the Nelson Faria Dairy is typical of the CAFO industry. While state and federal animal waste rules exist, their enforcement is lax at best. As CARE president, Helen Reddout, explained:

The Washington Department of Agriculture had recently inspected the dairy and found that it was doing an excellent job managing its manure. Nothing could be further from the truth … It is now time for the agencies who are supposed to be protecting our health to follow the precedent set by this Order. Our state and federal laws were aimed at protecting people and now it’s time for the agencies responsible for safeguarding public health to do just that.

Reddout goes on to explain the reality of state agency CAFO inspections:

Washington Departments of Ecology and Agriculture (WSDA) are supposed to monitor and regulate the dairy industry to ensure that operations do not harm public health or the environment. Unfortunately, inspections often involve nothing more than cursory visits by WSDA staff. If problems are found, dairy owners receive only a slap on the wrist, at best.

The hope is that this court victory against CAFO manure handling and pollution — little mentioned in the media — will help set a precedent toward better practices, regulation, and enforcement of the CAFO industry. Reddout acknowledges that this court victory is one small step, albeit an important one, that shows that CAFOs aren’t above the law and puts them on notice for pollution practices, a particularly big deal for the economically (and thus politically) strong Yakima Valley dairy industry. Based on the compelling evidence of agricultural water contamination in the Lower Yakima Valley, and bolstered by the recent ruling, the EPA selected the area for inclusion in a study monitoring nitrate pollution in groundwater. Reddout expects the EPA report to be released in late spring 2012.

CARE and their allies in the Royal City area deserve our congratulations for this major legal victory that may ultimately inspire a regulatory approach to CAFOs capable of safeguarding human and ecological health. Government agencies must acknowledge the great harm cased by CAFO pollution and hold the industry accountable for the true costs CAFOs impose upon the public.

As expressed by CARE’s lead attorney, Charlie Tebbutt, “Citizens have once again proven that the CAFO industry is a huge polluter. It is time for the state agencies to step up.”

To find out how many CAFOs are in your area, check out Food & Water Watch’s Factory Farm Map.

This post originally appeared on Ecocentric.

Kai Olson-Sawyer is a Research and Policy Analyst in the GRACE Water and Energy Programs where he also works on H2O Conserve project operations. Prior to joining GRACE, Kai was employed at the World Forestry Center in Portland, Oregon and researched with NYC Apollo Alliance. His body is composed of 60 percent water.

1-14-12

Tour of Everett Water Treatment Plant at Sultan.

Let’s use January 28, Saturday, as the tentative date. Lets tell as many people as possible and see if that date works. I will try to get KSER Radio to announce it.

It is not hard to get to. You can go out either 522 to Monroe and then on 2 to Sultan.

Or you can go east from Everett on Hwy 2. The filtration and fluoridation plant is immediately to the south of Lake Chaplain.

http://washington.hometownlocator.com/maps/feature-map,ftc,1,fid,1517626,n,lake%20chaplain.cfm

Or we could organize carpools.

Regarding the meeting with the City Attorneys on Monday, this is my follow up letter.

http://fluoride-class-action.com/the-fluoride-maze

We are still waiting for the video, Tim.

The Salem News has published an article by Dr. Bill Osmunson:

Dec-20-2011 22:05

Do Not Give Fluoridated Water to Babies or Pregnant Mothers

Dr. Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH for Salem-News.com

There is still not one single prospective double blinded randomized controlled trial of fluoridation.

From the article: Fluoride Linked to Pre-term Birth and Anemia in Pregnancy published by marvelous-girl.com

(WILSONVILLE, Ore.) – If you are upset with the lack of SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) oversight of Bernie Madoff, then fluoridation will break your heart. The incompetent oversight of Health and Human Services, CDC, EPA, and FDA CDER dwarfs the Madoff scandal. Those who have blind trust in all government regulators need not read further.

CONTAMINATED WASTE

Fluoridation is the process of adding a highly toxic industrial waste, often contaminated with lead and arsenic, to public water. In contrast, naturally occurring fluoride is usually calcium fluoride, about 800 times less toxic.

MOTHER’S MILK

In 2006 the CDC and others advised that infants should not consume fluoridated water. Fluoridated water contains around 200 times more fluoride than mother’s milk and is not safe for infants. Caution: do not mix infant formula with fluoridated water. Salem water is not safe for infants.

Mother’s breast milk provides complete nutrition for babies and is virtually fluoride free. A baby’s kidneys are only about 20% developed and their blood brain barrier has not fully formed. Most babies are consuming some formula, often made with tap water, up to four times more liquids for their weight as do adults.

Below is an EPA (2011 DRA) graph. All the children above the black line are ingesting too much fluoride. The EPA has attempted to paint the best picture possible. EPA does not include infants younger than six months of age. EPA only includes 90% of the children and provides a 1:1 margin of safety (1:10 or 1:100 is standard). The EPA increased the RfD by 33% and failed to include total fluoride exposure. Even then, more than a quarter of children are ingesting too much fluoride.

FLUORIDE IS AN UNAPPROVED DRUG

The FDA requires fluoride toothpaste labels to say “Drug Facts” “Use a Pea Size” “Do Not Swallow.” There is 0.25 mg of fluoride in a pea-sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste, the same as in one glass of fluoridated water! The FDA CDER advises not to swallow the same amount of fluoride as the City of Salem forces everyone to swallow in each glass of water.

Washington and Idaho Boards of Pharmacy confirmed fluoride is a drug and FDA CDER before Congress testified that fluoride is a drug and unapproved. Pharmacists sell fluoride for ingestion only by prescription, and unapproved drugs are illegal drugs.

There is still not one single prospective double blinded randomized controlled trial of fluoridation. The ingestion of fluoride in any form for the prevention of dental caries has never been approved by the FDA CDER. HHS, CDC and EPA evade Congress supporting corporate interests based on biased historic science, not much better than witchcraft.

LACK OF BENEFIT

EPA scientists concluded: “The toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring everyone to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of government.”

Graphing Iida’s data, finds an increase in dental fluorosis with increased fluoride (blue lines). Caries experience (red lines) finds virtually no benefit from fluoridation.

Colquhoun’s 1997 graph below shows a steady decline in dental caries regardless of fluoridation. We all agree fluoridation did not prevent dental caries before fluoridation started.

Compare developed countries of the world and fluoridation makes no difference. All have reduced dental caries to similar low levels.

Ranking states on the percentage of the whole population fluoridated finds no common cause. Fluoridation makes no difference.

How on earth do the CDC dentists protect their corporate fluoridating friends and claim for every dollar spent on fluoridation saves $38 in dentistry? Simple. When measured evidence doesn’t support policy, CDC dentists use estimates based on assumptions. Wouldn’t we all like to use estimates of assumptions to balance our check books or “prove” to our bosses we are worth our wages?

RISKS AND HARM

With little or no benefit, any risk or cost is unacceptable. CDC dentists claim safety by ignoring most risks.

Xiang in 2003 & 2005 published data illustrated below. An 8 IQ point drop with increased (0.04 ppm compared with 0.08 ppm) fasting blood serum fluoride concentrations, about half a standard deviation IQ drop throughout the entire population. Salem water is frying our brains.

The CDC reports less than 0.02 ppm fluoride serum concentration is “normal.” And studies find many have fluoride serum levels more than 10 times normal. What is your child’s serum fluoride concentration?

Ranking the states based on fluoridation and plotting the reported mental retardation rate confirms triple the number of mentally retarded (graph below), half a standard deviation.

25 human studies confirm ingesting fluoride damages the brain. The fetus and infants are most at risk.

Close to $1,000/yr less income is reported with each IQ point loss. With 180 million fluoridated in the USA, you do the math. The CDC dentists and HHS are unprecedented in their harm to the American public.

Dental fluorosis is an undisputed biomarker of excess fluoride ingestion, a toxic overdose and 41% of adolescents now have dental fluorosis. Repairs for dental fluorosis can cost over $1,000 per tooth, replaced about every 15 years.

Fluoride is an enzymatic reactor and the damage to cells, thyroid, kidneys, teeth, brains, GI tract, and bones has hundreds of published studies.

We do not give our consent to be fluoridated. If someone wants to ingest fluoride, they can disregard the FDA and swallow a pea size of toothpaste, but don’t force your neighbors to ingest the illegal fluoride drug.

More at www.fluoridealert.org; www.slweb.org, www.washingtonsafewater.com; www.fluorideresearch.org

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

Wilsonville, OR 97070

bill@teachingsmiles.com

Click here to read the rest of the article.

From Gary Flanzer:

Dear Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District Commissioner,

I am a long time Klahanie resident and in the Plateau water district.

I just read that the city of Fairbanks, Alaska has decided to discontinue adding fluoride to its water supply after a task force found new health concerns after conducting a year-long independent study using the latest data. I have attached to this email a copy of the results of the April 2011 Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force.

News Report: http://newsminer.com/bookmark/13889457-Fairbanks-City-Council-halts-additional-fluoride-in-city-water

As you may already know, the city of Calgary, Canada in February of this year also decided not to continue to fluoridate its drinking water after scientists changed their support of the drinking water additive.

Due to the recent concerns expressed in the Fairbanks report, including a 2006 potential link to cancer, I urge the commissioners here to revisit its 2003 decision (Resolution 3121 dated Dec 15, 2003 – not unanimous) to introduce fluoridation to our Issaquah /Sammamish drinking water. As I’m sure the health of our residents is your top concern, I request a hearing be held to consider this new data, not available in 2003. (Please see attached 54 page pdf file.)

Sincerely yours,

Gary Flanzer, Webmaster
www.webcityusa.com

***

“You do not have to teach the grass to grow, you just have to move the rocks off it.”

***

Reply from the Sammamish Plateau Water District re Fluoride Issue:

Mr. Flanzer,

Thank you for your comments and the material you passed along. I am glad to see you shared your message directly with the commissioners as the introduction of fluoride to our water supply is a policy decision the commission addressed some time ago. To change the direction would also be a matter requiring commissioner consideration.

You may want to consider contacting the commissioners directly or attending one of our commission meetings in the future to further explain your position.

Thank you,

Should Washington Action for Safe Water change its name?

Should we be Fluoride Free Washington? What do you think?

***

From Golda:

I’ve been pondering this comment.  At first I kinda shook my head in agreement but the term continues to come up.  I just did a search for the popularity of the term Fluoride Free.  At this point it appears that this might be our best name yet. 

Popularity of using Fluoride Free:

Fluoride Free Windsor
Fluoride Free Austin
Fluoride Free Fairbanks
Fluoride Free Sacramento
Fluoride Free Australia
Fluoride Free NZ
Fluoride Free Wexford
Fluoride Free Portsmouth
Fluoride Free Murray River
Fluoride Free Moncton, Canada
Fluoride Free Winnipeg
Perth Fluoride Free, Australia
Fluoride Free Florida
Fluoride Free Taranaki, NZ
Fluoride Free Waterloo
Fluoride Free Britain
Fluoride Free Yuma
Fluoride Free Findlay
Fluoride Free Ireland
Fluoride Free World
Fluoride Free New York City

By far the most popular term for anti-fluoridation organizations is Fluoride Free ______.  It could be a strong element of bonding us with worldwide anti-fluoride orgs.  Worth considering seriously.

Golda Starr

***

From Bill:

Indeed.  FAN has been encouraging the term Fluoride Free.

A very positive term.

If I were going to start from scratch, or if it were up to me, I would use the term “Fluoride Free Washington.”

In fact, keeping WASW and starting FFW would also be a good idea.

Right now I’m working with Fluoride Free TV (Tualatin Valley).

People know we are not Fluoride Free at this time, so I don’t think most people would jump to the conclusion that Washington is already Fluoride Free.

I’m not good at marketing and have no preference.

Bill

***

From James:

Over half the people think fluoride is good and think anti-fluoride people are nut jobs.

We come in and say we are looking at all aspects of water safety.

We are not just against fluoride. We are against lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lithium, statins in water. And maybe aluminum flocculent.

Maybe we should take a stand against Weed and Feed atrazine in lawn fertilizer. Why is it legal for people to put a powerful poison on their lawns?

And we are against a particular kind of fluoride especially, silicofluoride, because it leaches lead and is an enzyme interrupter, although in the last sentence we always say we are against any kind of fluoride in water.

And we have some allies who are pro-fluoride. Some are in favor of fluoride applied topically but opposed to putting it in the water because the dose cannot be controlled and because of the type of industrial waste fluoride used.

I am opposed to topical fluoride across the board, but I am willing to make allies with pro-topical fluoride people to stop water fluoridation.

WASW is a good name. It sounds objective. It allows us to attack water fluoridation specifically without attacking topical fluoride.

WASW offers more angles of attack than Fluoride Free Washington.

We are the objective protectors of our water.

So I think we should be happy that we have such a good name. That’s just my opinion. I’ll go with the majority opinion.

James

***

What do you think?

Mercer Island needs separate water supply

Mercer Island Reporter – November 14, 2011 · 4:37 PM

Our goal is to educate the City Council about the lead, arsenic and silicofluoride that Seattle adds to Mercer Island water.

Neither the City Council nor the public ever had a chance to vote on whether they wanted dilute toxic waste added to their water.

We are proposing that Mercer Island demand that Seattle provide water free of any additives other than a little chlorine to kill microbes and a little alkalizer to raise the pH of our acidic snowmelt water to a more neutral, slightly alkaline level.

Seattle probably has numerous pipelines coming down from the Tolt and Cedar watersheds, and it should be no problem to bring silicofluoride free water down in at least one of them.

Seattle ought to install a new pipeline if necessary to deliver “just water” to Mercer Island.

In the meantime, Seattle ought to indemnify and hold Mercer Island harmless against the possibility of a lawsuit by residents of Mercer Island against the city.

We invite Islanders to meet with us at 6 p.m. before the next City Council meeting in the City Hall lobby on Nov. 21 to learn more.

James Robert Deal, Attorney, Vice-President

Washington Action for Safe Water

JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington  98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

WATER DISTRICTS ARE TURNING OFF THE FLUORIDE

November 21, 2011

Bruce Bassett – Councilmember        Jane Brahm – Councilmember
Mike Cero – Councilmember             Mike Grady – Councilmember
Dan Grausz – Councilmember          Jim Pearlman, Mayor

El Jahncke – Deputy Mayor

City of Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th Street
Mercer Island WA 98040

Dear Council Members, Mayor, and Deputy Mayor:

I am the president of Fluoride Class Action and the vice-president of Washington Action for Safe Water. I write this letter on behalf of Fluoride Class Action. Members of Fluoride Class Action and Washington Action for Safe Water live in Mercer Island and drink Seattle water.

Over the last year, the following communities have stopped adding fluoride to their drinking water. That’s approximately 2,538,500 people.

Nov. 13– Amesbury, Massachusetts
Oct. 25 — Palmer, Alaska (8,400)
Oct. 18 — Lawrenceburg, Tennessee (11,000)
Oct. 16 — Churchill, Manitoba (1000)
Oct. 13 — New Plymouth, New Zealand (50,000)
Oct. 4 — Pinellas County, Florida (700,000)
Sept. 30 — Spencer, Indiana/ BPP Water (10,500)
Sept. 22 — College Station, Texas (100,000)
Sept. 12 — Slave Lake, Alberta (7,000)
Sept. 6 — Hohenwald, Tennessee (4,000)
Aug. 16 — Pottstown, Pennsylvania (15,500)
Aug. 15 — Spring Hill, Tennessee (30,000)
Aug. 8 — Philomath, Oregon (4,500)
July 20 — Taber, Alberta (6,500)
July 4 — Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan (5,000)
June 30 — Taumarunui, New Zealand (5,000)
June 6 — Fairbanks, Alaska (30,500)
May 18 — Naples Village, New York (1070)
May 16 — Mount Clemons, Michigan (17,300)
April 21 — Lago Vista, Texas (6,500)
Mar. 17 — Marcellus, Michigan (1,100)
Feb. 16 — Independence, Virginia (1000)
Feb. 8 — Calgary, Alberta (1,300,000)
Feb. 7 — Yellow Springs, Ohio (3200)
Feb. 7 — Vercheres, Quebec (5240)
Jan. 19 — Schuylkill Haven, PA (5,500)
Nov. 15, 2010 — Sparta, North Carolina (2,000)
Nov. 4, 2010 — Tellico, TN (900)
Oct. 25, 2010 — Waterloo, St. Jacobs, and Elmira, Ontario (103,000)l

Sincerely,

Everett is the county seat of Snohomish County, Washington.

I live in Lynnwood, in the southwest part of  the county.

The Everett Utility District supplies water to some 700,000 users, most of them in the central and southern part of the county, including Lynnwood where I live.

Everett sells water to the Alderwood Water District, which sells it to Lynnwood, which sells it to me.

The water comes from Spada Lake and Lake Chaplain, which are to the north and east of Sultan, and which drain into the Sultan river, which drains into the Snohomish, which drains into the sea.

In 2008 I made several speeches to the Alderwood Water District. Alderwood’s defense was that it had no control over what is in the water.

I disagree. They have a duty to demand and negotiate for the delivery of water that is not fluoridated. And until it is delivered, they have a duty to demand, on behalf of the citizens of Lynnwood, to require that Everett hold Lynnwood harmless in case of suit by injured plaintiffs.

In 2008 I submitted a Notice of Potential Liability to Everett as well as requests for disclosure of documents.

On June 9, 2011, I submitted this Notice of Liability to Everett for Water Contamination and Notice to Consult with Insurance Carrier.

On June 11, 2011, I handed out this Notice of Liability Flier Edition to 500 people at the Everett Garden Fair.

On June 12, 2011, I hand delivered this letter to the Bailey AME Church in Everett, along with other materials. On the same day I attended worship services at the Second Baptist Church of  Everett and talked with deacon and pastor about my project.

On June 22, 2011, I wrote this letter to the Second Baptist Church, asking this church, predominantly black, to help spearhead the de-fluoridation effort in Everett.

On June 22, 2011, I posted this news release about Alveda King, Bernice King, and Andrew Young coming out against water fluoridation.

See
Notice of Liability to the City of Everett for Water Contamination, dated June 9, 2011.

See
Notice of Liability to the City of Everett for Water Contamination delivered July 20, 2011.
Hear:
Audio of presentation made

Renewed Notice of Liability to the City of Everett for Water Contamination, delivered August 3, 2011.
Hear:
Audio of presentations made by James Robert Deal, Olemara Peters, Golda Starr.

***

This page is under construction. I am moving a lot of posts and pages on Everett topics from www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com to www.WashingtonSafeWater.com.

PROTECT THE PENINSULA’S FUTURE, CLALLAM COUNTY
CITIZENS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, and ELOISE KAILIN,
Appellants,
v.
CITY OF PORT ANGELES, and CITY OF FORKS,
Respondents.

Citizens of Port Angeles and Forks have filed suit again against their cities.

Read the latest brief asking the Washington Supreme Court to take the case directly, without it having to proceed through the mid-level Court of Appeals.

Read about the previous suit here.

WASHINGTON ACTION FOR SAFE WATER
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington  98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110
James@WashingtonSafeWater.com

November 16, 2011

Audio Recording

The last time I addressed the Everett City Council, I mentioned, as I frequently do, that there is lead in the silicofluoride added to Everett drinking water and that silicofluoride leaches lead from pipes.

Council member Jeff Moore took exception and said that I should not compare Seattle’s problem with lead in schools with Everett.  He said that Everett schools had taken care of the lead problem.

In my efforts to inform the Everett City Council about the lead-arsenic-silicofluoride problem, I have noted that Council members just do not believe that their water contains lead – or arsenic. Council Member Paul Roberts, formerly a director of the Marysville Water District, has stated that Everett had the best water in the world, implying that it contains no lead or arsenic impurities.

So I looked through the documents returned to me in response to my 2008 Request for Documents.

I handed out copies of this particular document to the Council members, a 2006 water quality report, one of many documents which show there is up to .063 ppm lead in Everett drinking water, that is 63 ppb. See the item circled. Bear in mind that the same document shows that the EPA MCL – Maximum Contaminant Level – is 15 ppb.

Note also the information in footnote number 3. This lead level is measured at “178 consumer taps”. This information does not tell us the age of the houses and buildings in which these consumer taps are located.

A NSF letter from 2000 says that there can be up to 1.6 ppb lead in water after the silicofluoride is dilution 240,000 times to get the fluoride level down to 1 ppm. A 2008 NSF Fluoride Fact Sheet says the maximum is only .6 ppb. NSF Fact Sheets are updated only every three or four years. There has not been a new one since 2008.

Even if Everett has replaced all the lead bearing brass and galvanized pipes from its schools and all the brass fittings, it has not solved the problem. That is because there are still lead bearing pipes and fittings in homes, apartments, office buildings, commercial buildings, and churches. The typical lead level in brass pipes is 8.0% while for pipes installed before 1986 the level can be up to 30%.

Unless Everett is going to pay to replace all lead bearing pipe in all homes, apartments, office buildings, commercial buildings, and churches, it has not solved the lead problem in drinking water.

Further, Everett is failing to follow federal law, which requires that it give notice to water consumers of lead content in their water.

Another one to add to the disingenuous list is that many cities like St. Petersburg that are fluoridated buy Zephyrhills Spring Water.  I found the water company truck outside city hall back in 1994 and asked the driver if the water was for the city council, and he said “Yes, all and all the other departments.  I called the city utility department and asked for a letter specifying how long were they getting the water, what departments.  The letter came back saying all the city departments were getting the water, and it began right back in 1994 when fluoridation began!

I advise everyone reading this to call your utilities department, request the AWWA Standard for Fluorosilicic Acid B703-06 or the latest standard as this one is from 2006.  The standard advises the utilities foreman to take samples from top, middle and bottom when the acid arrives and check for heavy metals and uranium, radium 226-228 levels.  It also notes in Foreword page ix: “AWWA B7030-00 addresses additives requirments in Sec. 4.3 of the standard.  The transfer of contaminants from chemicals to processed water or the residual solids is becomming a problem of greater concern.”

Also, toothpaste with fluorides uses prescription-grade whereas the water fluorides are referenced even in the dictionary as commercial-grade, but, whoa! Don’t swallow the toothpaste, but swig down all the fluoridated water, soft drinks, canned foods, and on and on.

Hope and pray for a Requiem for F,

Anita K, St. Petersburg

***
Pinellas County City Council in Florida voted to remove fluoridation from the city drinking water. (700,000 residents of Tampa-St. Petersburg region on West coast of Florida)

Commissioner Norm Roach, who championed the effort, is interviewed by Dr. Stan Monteith on his victory against public drinking water fluoridation:

audio:
http://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net:8080/110111c.mp3

related story:

Pinellas County Commission votes to remove toxic fluoride from water supply of more than 700,000 Floridians :

http://www.naturalnews.com/033801_fluoride_water_supply.html#ixzz1d3brx4QK

Justice Department seeks to pass rule allowing government officials to lie in response to FOIA requests

Saturday, November 05, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

410Share
[Share this Article]

(NaturalNews) A powerful tool that allows ordinary citizens to obtain crucial information from government archives, the US Department of State (DOA) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is under attack. The Daily Caller reports that the US Justice Department wants to revise the law to allow government officials to lie about, or conceal the very existence of, records that it does not wish to release publicly.

The Justice Department claims that the law needs to be revised to protect sensitive information from being released. But current FOIA provisions already exempt certain information from having to be supplied, as long as those requesting the information are given a proper explanation as to why it cannot be released.

But the new rule would allow officials to not only conceal the information, but also to blatantly lie about it. In other words, when the federal government wants to keep certain dirty little secrets under wraps, even “secrets” not protected by the exemption, it will simply be able to tell those requesting such information that it does not exist.

“(The rule) will dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government information to be twisted to permit federal law enforcement agencies to actively lie to the American people,” said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and OpenTheGovernment.org, in a joint public statement (http://www.openthegovernment.org/si…).

FOIA requests, of course, have been crucial in exposing all kinds of government corruption. A FOIA request exposed US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano as a liar concerning the safety of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) naked body scanners, for instance (http://www.naturalnews.com/032839_b…).

“The problem is, if you’re a FOIA requester and the agency says they don’t have the records, you have no reason to doubt that,” said CREW chief counsel Anne Weismann concerning the proposal. “But if they cite an exemption, you have the option to sue.”

The proposed FOIA revisions were first published back in March, and the Justice Department began taking public comments on them for a short period of time. Due to massive public backlash, the agency is once again accepting comments. You can submit your own comments by contacting:

Office of Information Policy (OIP)
Suite 11050
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-3642

Sources for this article include:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034066_FOIA_Justice_Department.html#ixzz1cvQnbiQC

5th Nov. 2011

WASHINGTON ACTION FOR SAFE WATER
James@WashingtonSafeWater.com
www.WashingtonSafeSater.com

November 5, 2011
A PRESS RELEASE FOR CANDIDATES:

WASHINGTON ACTION FOR SAFE WATER VERY CONCERNED ABOUT LEAD, ARSENIC, AND SILICOFLUORIDE

ADDED TO OUR WATER:

A SMALL AMOUNT OF A KNOWN POISON

ADDED TO THE THING WE CONSUME MOST

IS NOT OKAY

Press Release

Videos

Golda had Stage 3 kidney disease, quit drinking Everett water, recovered kidney function

Fluoride suppliers disclaim all liability but still hide behind NSF claims of fluoride safety

 The precautionary principal should be applied

Daughter of Martin Luther King’s says this is the next civil rights issue -
because Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor are disproportionately harmed by fluoridation

Who fluoridates? Who has rejected it?

The same fraudsters who sold us tetraethyl lead sell us fluoride

To All Candidates for Office:

I write as vice-president of www.WashingtonSafeWater.com, president of www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com, and a member of www.FluorideDetective.com.

We submitted notice to Everett that the silicofluoride it adds to drinking water is the cheap, industrial grade, toxic-waste version of fluoride, that it contains lead and arsenic, and that it leaches lead from pipes.

http://fluoride-class-action.com/everett-2/notice-to-everett-7-20-11

http://fluoride-class-action.com/everett-2/notice-to-everett-8-3-2011

A separate group, Fluoride Class Action, submitted similar notice to Seattle.

http://fluoride-class-action.com/notice-of-liability-to-seattle-10-11-11

Members of Washington Safe Water and other groups “occupied” Seattle City Hall on October 31 and gave a press release. TV Channel 4 covered it.

http://www.prweb.com//releases/2011/10/prweb8920905.htm

We circulated hundreds of our fliers to those who work at and visit City Hall.

http://washingtonsafewater.com/occupy-seattle-flier-10-21-11

We have made a convincing case that fluoridation is ineffectual to reduce tooth decay and harmful to health in many ways.

http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/report-card-for-hhs

http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead

Council members of Everett and Seattle are dodging this issue, pretending it does not exist. Neither has responded in writing to our charges.

What we are asking is very reasonable: Put this issue on the regular agenda of every county, city, and water district. Talk about it openly. Hold hearings. Allow extensive discussion of the issue.

Take head out of sand.

If you find that it is reasonably possible that what we are saying is true – that sensitive populations are being harmed, then support a moratorium on fluoridation for one year.

During the one-year moratorium, call in experts on all sides of the issue who will give their professional opinion. Ask them the hard questions.

Note that we are not proposing that fluoridation facilities be decommissioned. The tap would simply be turned off for one year. Fluoridation could be restarted if that is the decision.

After hearing both sides of the issue, if city council members decide that adding an industrial grade, lead-arsenic-silicofluoride cocktail to our water poses no risk to any sensitive population – including infants, diabetics, arthritics, and those with kidney disease – then they may turn the fluoride spigot back on. Otherwise they should terminate it permanently.

Some counter: Why not leave the fluoride in, hold one year of hearings, and then make the up or down decision?

Because the burden of proof should not be on those who want lead-arsenic-silicofluoride to be removed. The burden of proof should be on those who want lead-arsenic-silicofluoride to be added. The precautionary principle requires this. Instituting a moratorium is a way of shifting the burden of proof and putting it where it ought to be.

Those water districts which buy pre-fluoridated water from Everett or Seattle should demand they be provided “just water”. Everett has at least four pipelines coming down from Spada Lake, and the one extending to southwest Everett contains “just water”, as requested by a manufacturing facility there.

Likewise, I assume that Seattle has multiple pipelines coming down from the headwaters of the Tolt and Cedar. New pipes could be installed if necessary. Seattle and Everett should pay the full cost – or stop fluoridating altogether.

Everett spends somewhere around $200,000 per year just to pay for the fertilizer smokestack, scrubber liquor silicofluoride. Seattle spends somewhere around $350,000. There are many other costs which are incurred in order to adapt the system to handle this highly acidic, toxic waste stew.

http://washingtonsafewater.com/costs.

Until “just water” is provided, the counties, cities, and water districts should insist that Everett and Seattle indemnify them from liability in case of suit by injured parties. They should also insist that Everett and Seattle certify and demonstrate that they have insurance adequate to cover potential damage claims.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. We have gone past a prima facie case. We have made a convincing case. We have shifted the burden of proof.

Put the issue on the agenda, hold open hearings, and institute a one-year moratorium. To do less is to disregard public health and to be untrue to your oath.

Sincerely,

Adding fluoride costly

Thursday, October 27, 2011

By Kathryn Lucariello Carroll County News

EUREKA SPRINGS — Citing preliminary cost estimates, Brad Hammond and Chris Hall of McGoodwin, Williams & Yates engineering firm told the Carroll-Boone Water District board Thursday that implementing state-mandated fluoride additive to the drinking water supply could cost around $1.27 million.

Hammond said their fluoride study was 90 percent complete, and they are waiting on supply prices.

The two did a presentation which looked at recommendations for the number of dispensing facilities, the type of fluoride to be used and cost.

Comparing building one injection facility versus two, Hammond said one facility would be cheaper and require less operator time, but would require injection in the water transmission line below both the east and west plants and would need two injection points, increasing “operational complexity.”

The two-facility option would have a separate building at each plant with fluoride added to the clearwells and would allow for easier monitoring with equipment already in place. The cost would be higher, however, and it would increase operator time.

“The actual feeding takes a few minutes, but operators need to wear special clothing. It will be dusty, so they’ll need masks,” Hammond said. “That would be the only time of day they’re in that building.”

He said he, Hall and the Carroll-Boone staff had toured the Beaver Water District fluoride plant and received helpful information, mostly about the building. McGoodwin, Williams & Yates engineered the Beaver fluoride plant years ago.

Of the three types of fluoride available for drinking water, fluorosilicic acid liquid, sodium fluoride powder and sodium fluorosilicate powder, they were recommending the third for several reasons.

Although it has less available fluoride (61 percent as opposed to 79 percent for the liquid), it has far less solubility (.0762 grams per 100 milliliters versus an infinite amount for the liquid form).

“The less soluble it is, the harder it is to overfeed it,” Hammond said, which increases its safety.

Although Hammond had not yet identified suppliers or country of origin for the fluoride, he said of the three types, sodium fluorosilicate powder has 98 to 99 percent commercial purity, with the liquid at 20 to 30 percent.

It is also the most economical of the three and is the one used by the Beaver Water District, which switched over from using the liquid years ago after fumes from the liquid severely damaged the injection facility.

The powder comes in 50 lb. bags, he said, and the district would probably go through about two bags per day at the west plant.

He gave recommendations for size and locations of the buildings as well. Each building would have enough space for the mixers, waterlines and pallet storage.

A breakdown of total project cost, which Hammond stressed is only an estimate at this point, shows $20,000 for site work, $380,000 for the east plant, $230,000 for the west plant, $280,000 for the feeder equipment, $30,000 for yard piping and a possible $330,000 for engineering and contingencies, which add up to $1.27 million. Hammond could not break down the actual engineering cost, apart from contingencies, he said.

“If the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission funded this, they usually allow about 10 percent for engineering design and another 8 percent during construction, so probably 15 to 20 percent. But I hate to use percentages because they may not be accurate.”

He said annual cost of the fluoride itself would probably be about $20,000.

The $280,000 equipment cost is all that would be funded by Delta Dental, who offered to fund equipment for any drinking water supplier in the state having to add fluoride under the mandate. The district would bear the remainder of the cost.

He said he and Hall will return when they get estimates from equipment manufacturers.

In other business, the board:

* Approved the 2012 budget, with a 3-percent, across-the-board payroll increase for all staff. Office Manager Jim Allison reported a record year of water sales, even though production costs were also increased because of spring flooding and summer drought.

* Heard Plant Manager John Summers report 1.5 million gallons of sludge have been removed from the sludge ponds so far this year and that total cost will probably run around $68,000. It is applied to fields in Garfield at no cost to the district.

* Heard Hall report the engineers recommend holding off on building the Kings River crossing parallel waterline and instead focus on replacing a 200-foot section of 24-inch line with 36-inch line where the Highway Department is planning the Green Forest bypass. more efficiently.

Fluoridation Problems Outweigh Benefits

Arkansas Approves Mandatory Fluoridation

Arkansas Oral Health Director Challenged Over Comments about Fluoridation

JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington  98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

PRESS RELEASE:
WASHINGTON ACTION FOR SAFE WATER
TO OCCUPY SEATTLE MUNICIPAL BUILDING MONDAY AT NOON
SEATTLE WATER IS NOT SAFE TO DRINK
DUE TO LEAD, ARSENIC, SILICOFLUORIDES ADDED

October 31, 2011

Summary:
On Monday at noon, members of Washington Action for Safe Water will occupy the foyer of the Seattle Municipal Building to deliver this press release, hand out our fliers, and as a group deliver them to the mayor, city council members, and city attorney. Bill Osmunson, Bellevue Dentist, and president of WASW, says: “Seattle adds the cheap, commercial, toxic waste version of fluoride to our water, known as silicofluoride. It is not FDA approved. It is not pharmaceutical grade. It contains lead and arsenic. And it leaches lead from pipes.”

***

Bill Osmunson, Bellevue Dentist, and president of WASW, says: “Seattle adds the cheap, commercial, toxic waste version of fluoride to our water, known as silicofluoride. It is not FDA approved. It is not pharmaceutical grade. It contains lead and arsenic, and it leaches lead from pipes.

On Monday at noon, members of WASW and other safe water groups will occupy the foyer of the Seattle Municipal Building to deliver this press release, hand out fliers, and as a group deliver them to the mayor, city council members, and city attorney.

Fluoride Class Action, a sister group which takes a tougher line and warns of coming lawsuits, has served Notice of Potential Liability on the city.

http://fluoride-class-action.com/notice-of-liability-to-seattle-10-11-11

Osmunson says, “Washington Action for Safe Water is demanding a written response and demanding that this issue be put the issue on the Seattle City Council agenda. All candidates for office are being asked if they will put this issue on the agenda and give it a fair hearing.”

http://fluoride-class-action.com/questionaire-to-candidates

According to James Robert Deal, Lynnwood attorney and vice-president of WASW, “In 2004 we learned that tap water in old Seattle schools contained lead at up to 1.6 parts per million, an extremently high level, higher than the fluoride level. Old schools contain brass pipes and fittings which can be from 8% to 30% lead. Much money has been spent replacing pipes, but the lead leaching problem in Seattle schools has not been solved. Ending fluoridation would stop most lead leaching and stop the dumbing down of our children.”

http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead

According to Deal, “Silicofluoride also contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen. There is no acceptable level of arsenic which may be added to drinking water.”

According to Ossmunson, who also has a degree in public health, “The CDC admits that 41% of children age 12-15 suffer from some degree of dental fluorosis, that 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of tooth surfaces affected), and that 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth, with up to 100% of tooth surfaces affected).”

Ossmunson says, “The CDC also admits that the effect of fluoride is topicial only. It makes as much sense to drink fluoride as it would to eat sunscreen.”

Ossmunson continues, “The CDC, ADA, and many other groups advise that infants should not drink fluoridated water nor consume formula made up with fluoridated water. Their kidneys are not developed, and they have trouble excreting it.”

Ossmunson says, “If fluoride is in tap water, it is all food and beverages made with tap water – cola, coffee, beer, reconstituted juices, bread, cereal, canned vegetables, rice, and restaurant food.”

Deal says, “The silicofluoride we drink is cumulative. The body has trouble eliminating it and stores half in bones and other organs. Silicofluoride builds up over a lifetime and causes or worsens hip fractures, arthritis, kidney disease, thyroid disease, and many other maladies.”

Deal says, “The effect of silicofluoride on Hispanics, Blacks, and the poor is greatest. Alveda King, Bernice King, and Andrew Young are leaders in the Fluoride-Gate movement. They see fluoride as the next civil rights issue.”

***

We will occupy the center of the Municipal Building foyer with our Washington Safe Water sign, which says “Tap Water – Not Safe To Drink – WashingtonSafeWater.com.

Send a news crew to the municipal building at Noon on Monday, October 31 for this press release. I will be there beginning at 11:00 for interviews. My phone number is 425-774-6611.

For comments call:

WHAT YOU CAN DO. Write or email the Seattle City Council or the Everett City Council or the council of whatever city, county, or water district you are in. Demand that they put the fluoride issue on the agenda and put a moratorium on fluoridation. Demand that the wells be reopen, the old wells which gave us water before the water systems were unified and industrialized – clean, cold, mineral-rich unpolluted water, containing zero ppb lead and zero ppb arsenic.

BAIT AND SWITCH. Seattle, Everett, and most US cities that fluoridate, do so with silicofluoride (SiF); around 8% use sodium fluoride (NaF). SiF and NaF are much more toxic than naturally occurring calcium fluoride (CaF). CaF can be fairly pure, depending on its source. NaF is industrial grade but relatively pure; SiF is industrial grade toxic waste, highly contaminated with heavy metals.

SiF CONTAINS LEAD.  The EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead is 15 ppb, and the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) is zero. Lead permeates all cells in the body, reduces IQ, and causes kidney disease and high blood pressure.

LEAD IN SCHOOL DRINKING WATER. In 2004 Seattle papers reported lead at up to 1,600 ppb (1.6 ppm, an extremely high level) found in drinking water in old Seattle schools. SiF, more so than sodium fluoride, leaches lead out of brass pipes.

New brass pipes contain around 8% lead and older pipes contain as much as 30% lead. Most old schools, old homes, old apartment buildings, old hospitals, old office buildings, and old factories contain brass pipes with high lead content, which SiF will leach out. If water districts stopped fluoridating, lead levels in water in old buildings and in blood would drop dramatically.

Seattle commissioned some early reports on the subject. Not one report even mentioned the possibility of a connection between lead levels and fluoridation! It is politically risky to mention anything critical about fluoride. Seattle began replacing pipes in schools – at enormous expense. Terminating fluoridation would stop most lead leaching, very quickly, and at no cost. And Seattle would save some $200 million per year. Moreover, even if replacing pipes in schools will solve the problem there, it would not solve the problem in old homes, old apartment buildings, old hospitals, old office buildings, old factories.

BLINDSPOT. Chemical, pharmaceutical, and toothpaste companies donate heavily to dental and medical colleges, and the colleges pressure dentists and physicians to support fluoridation. Fluoridation continues because we have been programmed to trust government agencies and those with MD and DDS after their names. It has become an article of faith. The ADA tells dentists that they need not try to understand the science behind fluoridation. They need only accept the mystery and spread the gospel of fluoridation. Dentists who question it have been excommunicated. Politicians who oppose it have to contend with the bottomless war chest of the pro-fluoride dental lobby.

ARSENIC. SiF also contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen. For arsenic the MCL is 10 ppb and the MCLG is zero. A zero MCLG for lead and arsenic means that there is no level of lead or arsenic which can safely be added to drinking water.

SiF AND NAF are carcinogens, mutagens, poisons. As little as seven grams of SiF or NaF, the weight of seven paper clips, can kill an adult. It would take a half pound of naturally occurring CaF to do the same. The one milligram of SiF per liter which our cities add to water is of course not immediately fatal, however, a healthy adult is only able to excrete half of all fluoride consumed, while the body retains the other half. Fluoride seeks out calcium and is retained in calcium rich areas of the body. Once in our bones, fluoride has a long half life and can be excreted only slowly – or if we continue to consume fluoride, not at all.

KIDNEYS at best only excrete half the fluoride we consume. The effect is cumulative. After a decade of drinking fluoridated water, our bones can be around 5,000 ppm fluoride, and it can make us stiff, lethargic, and depressed. In our 50s and 60s, bone and other tissues can be up to 12,000 ppm fluoride, depending on water hardness and diet, making bones brittle. Fractured pelvises are twice as common in fluoridated areas. One who drinks fluoridated water all his life will be less healthy as he ages and may have a shorter life span.

SYMPTOMS. Fluoride of all kinds affects bones, joints, and tendons and exacerbates arthritis. SiF particularly is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and a general enzyme inhibitor. Fluoride denatures proteins. It slowly attacks the thyroid, pituitary, pineal, and other glands. Fluoride builds up in the kidneys and prevents them from functioning normally and hastens death by kidney failure. Those on dialysis who quit consuming fluoride may recover and some may be able to quit dialysis.

ALZHEIMER’S. SiF breaks down in such a way that the fluoride ion binds with aluminum. Aluminum fluoride passes the blood-brain barrier, delivering aluminum into the brain, which is believed to cause or worsen Alzheimer’s disease.

BLACKS, HISPANICS, AND THE POOR in general are more sensitive to lead, arsenic, and fluoride than the general population. Alveda King, Bernice King, and Andrew Young lead the Fluoride-Gate movement. They see  fluoridation as a new civil rights issue because it hits minorities hardest.

BABIES are highly sensitive to lead, arsenic, and fluoride because their cells are still dividing and because they drink so much fluids relative to their body weight. Their kidneys are not mature and excrete only 20% of fluoride consumed. CDC, ADA, AMA, the surgeon general, and others have advised that formula not be mixed using fluoridated water. But the poor are unable to buy and haul fluoride-free water home or filter out the fluoride. Only an expensive reverse osmosis filter or distiller can remove the tiny fluoride ion. The poor are definitely being harmed, poor babies in particular. We are all being harmed, some more quickly than others.

ATHLETES, HARD LABORERS, DIABETICS, and those with kidney disease are highly vulnerable because they drink up to ten times as much water as typical people. Fluoride is a drug, but the dose cannot be controlled.

IN WESTERN WASHINGTON, we are especially susceptible to the slow but certain ravages of fluoride because our snow melt water is exceptionally soft and contains little calcium, which would bind with and tie up fluoride to some extent.

TOXIC WASTE. The silicofluoride used is the unfiltered and unprocessed scrubber liquor from the smoke stacks of phosphate fertilizer plants in Florida, Louisiana, Mexico, and China. It contains trace amounts of nearly every element on the periodic table. It is not pharmaceutical grade. SiF has never been approved by the FDA, EPA, or any other federal or state agency for consumption in tap water. Fluorides have been approved for topical use, as in toothpaste, but the fluoride is to be spat out. If it is swallowed, one is to call poison control.

THE NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION – NSF – is a chemical company trade association, funded by EPA to certify fluoride as safe and to approve its use. Washington and some 42 other states require that only NSF 60 fluoride be used. NSF claims on its web site and in the NSF 60 book that it obtains health and toxicological studies, however, this is a lie. NSF operates as a sham FDA.

THE OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER, one small branch within the CDC, run by pro-fluoridation dentists, pushes fluoridation, but the CDC has no authority whatsoever to approve or disapprove fluoridation. The CDC, EPA, and the surgeon general all endorse fluoridation. The CDC claims it is one of the greatest health advances of the 20^th Century. However, endorsements prove nothing. One must look at the science. Following release of the 2006 National Research Council Report on Fluoridation, it is clear that fluoridation is instead one of the greatest frauds of the 20^th Century.

SCRUBBER LIQUOR. Cities buy SiF by the tanker truck load and pour it at a steady rate, day after day into our water. Fluoridation is expensive. SiF particularly corrodes equipment and shortens its useful life. Hazmat suits must be worn to handle SiF. When the liquid is spilled on concrete, it burns a hole through it, as it will do to steel and glass. In this era of declining tax revenues and budget cuts it is hard to justify adding dilute toxic waste to drinking water. For every ton of SiF added to water, one must add a half ton of sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate – Draino® or soda ash.

NO INFORMED CONSENT. Fluoride is not a mere additive such as chlorine, which is there to kill microbes. Chlorine evaporates out of water overnight if left in an open pitcher. Fluoride is intended as medication and delivered without inquiry into preexisting conditions or conflicts with other drugs being taken, without informed consent, with no control over dose or duration of use, and without prescription.

TOOTH DECAY. Fluoride is added allegedly to reduce caries, however, documents posted on the CDC website claim only an 18-25% reduction in caries. Other credible studies show no reduction. Tooth decay has dropped just as much in non-fluoridated Europe as in fluoridated United States, so fluoridation cannot be the causal factor.

TOPICAL. Documents posted on the CDC website admit that the effect of fluoride on teeth is topical and not systemic, but strangely, CDC still endorses drinking fluoride. Other documents there admit that 41% of children 12 – 15 years old have at least mild fluorosis (white spots), while 8.6% suffer from moderate fluorosis (brown spots), and 3.6% suffer from severe fluorosis (brown spots and pitting). Fluorosis can be ugly. Fluorosis should not be forced on people just so tooth decay can allegedly be reduced and then only slightly. The way to cut tooth decay is to quit eating and drinking sugary drinking junk foods.

PERVASIVE. If we add fluoride to tap water, then fluoride is in everything made from tap water – cola, beer, coffee, soup, bread, cereal, restaurant food, and fruit juices reconstituted with tap water.

NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY have been served on Seattle and Everett in connection with the lead, arsenic, and fluoride which they add to our water. Cities should consult with their insurance carriers to confirm they will be covered when the class action and mass toxic tort actions come. Cities can reduce their liability by instituting an immediate one-year moratorium on fluoridation, thus showing good faith after all these years of fluoridating unquestioningly and without understanding the science. Failure on the part of these cities to look at the science regarding fluoridation will constitute reckless indifference to the harms caused and expose them to liability.

SMALLER WATER DISTRICTS, those which must buy fluoridated water from Seattle and Everett should demand that they receive non-fluoridated water. Multiple pipes come down from the mountains. In the meantime they should demand that they be held harmless from liability.

CLEAN AND PURE WATER is a fundamental human right. Forcing us to take a drug violates our right to control our own bodies. It should not be our duty to remove the toxic waste. Water departments should stop adding it.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Go to www.WashingtonSafeWater.com. Join for free.

Send out Freedom-of-Information reqests. Attend city council meetings and make three minute speeches during public comment period. Keep speaking and keeping writing until politicians respond. Send a fluoride questionnaire to all elected officials. Make them take a position. Look here for email addresses for Everett and Seattle councils.

RECRUIT ATTORNEYS to work on this project on a pro bono basis and send Notice of Potential Liability. (Attorneys, I encourage you to do this meaningful work pro bono, at least at this stage. Eventually fluoride lawsuits will be bigger than asbestos suits, and these cases can be profitable.) Attorneys can quickly put Fluoride Class Action and Washington Action for Safe Water documents on their own letterhead.

More reading: Letters to HHS and EPA: 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation, It is the same PR fraudsters who sold us tetraethyl lead who sold us fluoride.

Print this flier in quantity. You will find the Word version here. Modify this them if you want. Put the name of your organization on them. Hand them out. Forward them by email to others.

James Robert Deal, Attorney, WSBA Number 8103,
President, www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com,
Vice-President, www.WashingtonSafeWater.com
Member, www.FluorideDetective.com

Come to Mercer Island Monday at 6 pm – If you can’t come, send us your 2.5 minute speeches.

10-16-11

The Monday meeting of the Mercer Island City Council starts at 7 pm.

Washington Safe Water and other water groups are meeting at 6 pm, right there at the City Council building.

9611 Southeast 36th Street
Mercer Island, WA 98040-3732
(206) 236-3572

Clean Water supporters from far and wide should drive to Mercer Island. We need a lot of people there. You do not have to be from Mercer Island to come. Mercer Island’s fight is Lynnwood’s fight and Everett’s fight and Seattle’s fight.

It is the same silico-fluoridated water forced on all of us.

The justification for people from outside Mercer Island to speak is that as members of Washington Safe Water, you are there to represent and advocate for the members of Washington Safe Water who live in Mercer Island.

And anyone can join Washington Safe Water. All you need to do is say “count me in”. There are no required dues. Dues are optional. If you pay dues you get to vote, otherwise not.

There is strength in numbers.

So come!

Pile your friends and family into the van and carpool on down – or up.

Write a 2.5 minute speech. If you can’t decide what to say, go to www.WashingtonSafeWater.com or www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com and select a few paragraphs from any of the articles use them as your speech.

Directions:

http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=mercer+island+city+council&fb=1&gl=us&hq=city+council&hnear=0x54905d8b9b0d99b3:0xfacbf24df2a907e0,Mercer+Island,+WA&iwloc=lyrftr:transit,0x54906be810caf6bd:0x43c5394f46e7b5e5&ei=kHObTobGNoLciALazvnJDQ&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=transit-link&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQsQUwAQ

It is an easy bus ride. At the end of the meeting it we will be dark, and we will drive you the two blocks back to the Park ‘N’ Ride.

http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/schedules/s203_0_.html

http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/schedules/s213_0_.html

If you can’t come, if you are too far away, email us your 2.5 minute speech.

If you live in a different state or country, email us your 2.5 minute speech. We will get someone to read it.

We have people who will be attending who will need good speeches to read. Put your links in your speech, and send your speech by email to James@JamesRobertDeal.com.

And where ever you are, attend those city council and county council meetings and school board meetings.

Send emails to all the politicians. Harvest email addresses of elected officials and send them to me. I will put them all on notice.

This is an Occupy Mercer Island event.

Activate!

Get off the seat of do nothing!

This is easy! Let’s do it!

http://washingtonsafewater.com/juanita-socks-seattle-in-the-kisser/

http://fluoride-class-action.com/notice-of-liability-to-seattle-10-11-11

http://fluoride-class-action.com/where-does-your-politician-stand-on-silico-fluoridation

http://fluoride-class-action.com/questionaire-to-candidates

http://fluoride-class-action.com/new-york-times-more-communities-end-fluoridation

Sincerely,

James Robert Deal , Attorney
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036

Telephone: 425-771-1110
Fax: 425-776-8081

www.JamesRobertDeal.com

www.Mortgage-Modification-Attorney.com

www.WashingtonSafeWater.com

www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com

www.comprehensive-transportation.blogspot.com

www.nuclear-power-is-not-green.blogspot.com

Amend The Constitution Call a Convention

In a message dated 10/10/2011 9:41:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Nate.VanDuzer@seattle.gov writes:

Dear Juanita,

Thank you for your e-mail to Councilmember Burgess about fluoride. The attached Fact Sheet from Seattle Public Utilities contains information about the history of fluoride in our City’s water supply and why it continues to be provided.

Sincerely,

Nate Van Duzer

***

Dear Mr. VanDouzer,

Thank you for your reply.

Did you think that because my name is JUANITA that I must be stupid?!  Does the Seattle City Council think Hispanics are stupid?  That so called Fact Sheet is a bunch of baloney as you and Councilmember Burgess and the entire Seattle City Council ought to know.

Do you honestly think that I am stupid enough not to know the true facts about fluoridation for myself?  Or are you assuming that someone named JUANITA would not even be able to do research on the subject for themselves and that I just sit around all day eating tacos and doing a Mexican hat dance?  Shame on you and Councilmember Burgess for trying to hoodwink me with that insulting Seattle Public Utilities “Fact Sheet” so let’s stop playing games.

I know that Councilmember Burgess–as does every single other Councilmember- knows perfectly well about the lead, arsenic, mercury, chromium 6, radioactive contaminants, etc. and the FACT that hydrofluorosilicic acid–an unrefined hazardous industrial waste product–is infinitely MORE toxic than natural calcium fluoride.

I think you know these things too and if you don’t you better start educating yourself–if someone named JUANITA could possibly be smart enough to do some research for myself then I am sure that you can do some too.

If you already know these things about the toxic fluoridation then I really wonder how you sleep at night knowing that you are deliberately spreading purposefully misleading information that can and does lead to great physical harm to countless trusting people.  I know that there are certain things that I absolutely will not do because I have a conscience–and spreading purposefully misleading information that can and will cause harm to innocent people is certainly high on my list of absolute no no’s.  If my boss tried to get me to do something like that I would quit and seek employment elsewhere.

That so called Fact Sheet is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and you know it.  So interesting how it deliberately left out the FACTS about fluoridation that I listed above!

I am not being “provided” with fluoride–my Civil Rights are being violated by having it FORCED upon me against my will.  LULAC has stated that it certainly IS a Civil Rights Violation.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid is an unapproved drug.  You can quote Surgeon Generals, the ADA, the U.S. Public Health Services etc. all you like in your ridiculous “Fact Sheet” but the final Federal Court Ruling in Doe vs Rumsfeld states “that no one, not even the Federal government has the right to force anyone to take into their body a non approved drug.”

A FINAL FEDERAL COURT RULING certainly trumps any silly quotes in that deliberately misleading ”Fact Sheet”.

I suggest that the City Council start giving some very serious consideration to stopping the fluoridation ASAP.  If they will not do it because it is the right thing to do then they better start trying to figure out how they are going to be paying their legal bills and resulting judgements when the Civil Rights Violations Lawsuits start because I do not think their municipal nor their private insurance is going to cover them in this situation.

Thank you for your time and attention to this extremely serious matter.

Juanita

From
James Robert Deal Attorney
President www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com
Vice-President of www.WashingtonSafeWater.com

To
Fluoride Free Ottawa

We out here in Washington are following your efforts in Ottawa. I suggest our groups share ideas about how to achieve success.

I believe we are on our way to success here, working on two fronts. I think I can help you do the same thing there.

Washington Action for Safe Water www.WashingtonSafeWater.com works with the Department of Health, supplying them relentlessly them with science articles, appealing to the governor, just putting them in a corner and demonstrating that their superstitions about fluoridation are myths, and harmful ones too. This is Dr. Bill Osmunson’s front. He is up to his 14th proposal for safe water regulation making in Washington and Oregon. His latest one has to do with the link between fluoridation and kidney disease and the duty of the state to issue notice to those with kidney disease. Certain members of the Board of Health agree with Dr. Osmunson’s position.

The other front is to warn and threaten that litigation is coming, to recruit and inform attorneys, show them that they can make a bundle on fluoridation personal injury cases, holding continuing legal education seminars for attorneys. This is the work of Fluoride Class Action, www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com, and this is my front.

Members of both groups are visiting as many city council and county council meetings as possible. Typically three minutes is allowed during the public comment portion of the meeting. I have prepared sample speeches so that people can participate. I encourage people to use the sample speeches as starting points and to add their own ideas. Having sample speeches enables the leaders not to have to attend each city council meeting and is a way to delegate the effort and build the new leaders we need on every level.

The www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com method is not to file suit — not yet. Suit should be filed only after several months of preparation, identifying plaintiffs, and building up a big bankroll to fight the chemical industry.

Instead the method is to politicize the issue. The method is to “call them out”, to accuse them of negligent failure to warn and negligent failure to heed notices given, and negligent failure to study the science.

The method is to send Notices of Liability to city councils, mayors, county councils, and governors. Then send Requests for Production of Documents. When they respond, reply with an evaluation of their incomplete response.  Challenge them to check with their insurance company to determine if they are covered and what the policy limits are and whether defense expense is covered. Challenge them not to accept donations from pro-fluoridation dentists or pro-fluoridation chemical companies, for to do so could open an elected person to personal liability based on corruption of the process.

Make a special effort to recruit an attorney. Go visit personal injury attorneys. Print out the stuff on my web site. Work with them to help them to understand the science, to understand the legal issues, to identify fluoride damaged potential clients. Initially, the attorneys may be able to work pro bono. The attorneys will take my sample documents and put them on their letterhead. They can modify them as they please. It makes their job a lot easier. Having an attorney will give your group more oomph. It gives anybody hot flashes to get a letter from a law office. It even gives me hot flashes. In the long run, this could be a really profitable field of practice for an attorney.

Make a special effort to recruit medical doctors and dentists and people with PhDs in chemistry and biology. They have credibility.

It is important also to prepare petitions and hand them out on the courthouse steps. The best time to do it is during lunch hour or at quitting time when a lot of politically connected people are coming and going. I will be putting sample petition fliers on my web site. To make this work, add lots of signature lines at the bottom, so people can sign up. This is not intended to be a legal petition designed to get on the ballot. This is a first step in petitioning government.

Send questionnaires to all candidates. Guarantee them your help if they come out for de-fluoridation.

This issue must be politicized. We here are going to have elections in November and primaries before that. If we all put our shoulders into this and do a big heave ho together between now and the end of the election season, maybe we can achieve a breakthrough somewhere.

We believe it is possible to get Everett and Seattle to de-fluoridate – without having to sue them. Everett council members are reading our materials and listening.

I have done several drafts of the Complaint that could be filed. I will be sharing it as soon as it is ready. Once the Complaint is ready I will deliver it to Everett and Seattle. But I will not actually serve them nor will I file the case. Not yet.

Don’t file until you are totally primed and ready. Be prepared for a big-money counter-attack, a flood of depositions and interrogatories, transportation costs and fees to expert witnesses. Be ready to work full time on the case. You have to have a big war chest if you are going to file the case and you need to be part of an experienced litigation team.  So don’t file the case yet. Just come right up to the edge of filing it and use that a warning and a threat, as a way of getting the politicians’ attention. They understand balancing a budget and getting voted out of office. Fluoridation wastes a lot of money and rots the water equipment.  And it is getting more and more unpopular.

Get churches or other groups to lend their basement for meetings and invite their members and contacts. Prepare fliers and hand them out on at city hall during the lunch hour. Or use a library. Hold The Great Fluoride Debate. Dare opponents to show up. Proceed even if they fail to show.

My role at this time is to warn and threaten of impending lawsuits. Later, when the big lawsuits are under way, I will be available to serve as coordinating or consulting partner in the prosecution of the case. It takes large resources to take on one of these cases and do justice to them, so the big firms need to be brought in. When it comes to litigation I am only an assistant, although a helpful one. My place is explaining the science to the lawyers and helping the lawyers to be able to explain the science to the judge and jury.

The San Diego group has filed suit. They are doing it in federal court, which I believe is an excellent idea. The judges are better, and they have life tenure. They cannot be bribed or threatened as easily.

If this is helpful, I will write more later. I reserve the right to revise this later, when I have more time to review it.

James Robert Deal 8-13-11

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water: Largest Water Wholesaler in Southern California Sued for Illegal Use of an Unapproved Drug to Fulfill Fluoridation Program

SAN DIEGO, Aug. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, attorneys for citizen/consumers from San Diego, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties filed a lawsuit in the public interest of millions of consumers in Southern California, citing that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.

Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba.

JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington  98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

COMMENT REGARDING FLUORIDATION RULEMAKING
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY

June 4, 2011

Dear Mr. McLaughlin,

I am responding to WSR 11-11-046 Pre-Proposal Statement of Inquiry relating to water fluoridation. See:  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/laws/wsr/2011/11/11-11-046.htm.

I am sending you two letters which I recently sent to Health & Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. See www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/HHS. These letters show that fluoride does not prevent dental decay and in addition is harmful to teeth, bones, and many organs and systems of the human body.

I am enclosing hard copies of those letters. You may read them online, which is advantageous because you will be able to follow the links to other documents.

Read the html version of my Report Card for HHS and EPA, updated May 19, 2011 by clicking here: http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/report-card-for-hhs.

Or read the PDF version here: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/james-robert-deal-report-card-to-hhs-and-epa-5-19-11.pdf.

Read the html version of the Comment to HHS and EPA Regarding Lead, Arsenic, and Water Fluoridation, updated May 19, 2011, by clicking here: http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead.

Or read the PDF version here by  clicking here: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/james-robert-deal-comments-to-hhs-and-epa-regarding-lead-and-water-fluoridation-5-19-11.pdf.

HHS is proposing to lower its recommended fluoridation level to .7 ppm, and the Washington State Board of Health is proposing to follow the lead of HHS and revise WAC 246-290-460 to mirror the HHS recommendation.

However, HHS has absolutely no jurisdiction over water fluoridation and no authority to recommend fluoride be added to water at any level. The Board of Health should not be following the lead of HHS.

The SDWA specifically prohibits requiring the addition of any chemical to drinking water for medical purposes. See 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11)[3]:

No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”

Fluoride is added for “preventive health care purposes”. It is added for “purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”, such as removing other contaminants. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) defines a drug as an article

… intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animal. 21 U.S.C. 321 (g)(1)(B)

Fluoride mixed with water at any level meets federal definitions of the terms “drug” and “medication.” Fluoride is added for “preventive health care purposes”, and therefore fluoride is a drug.

HHS proposes to recommend fluoridation at .7 ppm. However, it cannot require fluoridation at any level. HHS should not recommend what it cannot require. The same is true of EPA.

The prohibition against requiring the addition of chemicals such as fluoride for medical purposes flows down to the states and to municipalities, as I explain in my letters.

Washington State Board of Health should not defer to HHS but should defer to the FDA. The Board of Health should pass a new rule which forbids municipalities from adding any amount of fluoride to drinking water unless and until the form of fluoride used and the concentration is approved by the FDA.

RCW 57.08.012 allows water districts to fluoridate drinking water, however, it does not say what type of fluoridation materials may be used nor at what level they may be used. Nor does that statute excuse municipalities from conforming to federal law and fluoridating (medicating) only with FDA approved fluoride. Fluoride travels in interstate commerce, and federal law trumps state law.

I make it clear in the letters attached that the silicofluorides used are much more harmful than sodium fluoride and that they contain lead and arsenic and leach lead out of pipes. Washington has failed to give the lead warnings, which federal law requires Washington to give.

NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY

The Washington State Board of Health and the State of Washington, by recommending and allowing water fluoridation with materials unapproved by the FDA, are exposing the agency to liability. Class action attorneys are working on preparing the lawsuits right now. Check with your insurance carrier to see if there is sufficient coverage for the massive damage verdicts which are coming.

Bear in mind that now that the Board of Health and its leadership have now been put on notice of their potential liability, continued fluoridation using current fluoridation chemicals and in the quantities used constitutes bad faith action and may subject the leadership of the Board of Health to personal liability for the harm caused. Check with your own personal insurance carrier to see if your umbrella policy covers you for poisoning the public with the most potent electron negative of the elements.

Sincerely,

Blessed are we that live fluoride free, that is if we stay home.

For me it is if I stay within King County Water District 54 where

I serve as President for the Board of Commissioners. Since we were

established in 1937, the water we deliver to our ratepayers is,

and always has been, chlorine and fluoride free. (Meeting frequent

DOH testing)

But now we are under attack, and it makes me relate personally

to the Wisconsin 14.  KCWD 54′s 50 year Franchise Agreement with the

City of Des Moines expired Feb. 11, 2011, just as KCWD 54 was ready

to go to bid on a major project, driven by the City of Des Moines in the

hopes of attracting major developers and putting about half the cost on the

ratepayers.  The City choosing not to renew the agreement, with minor legal changes,

sent us their Draft Prospal for a new Franchise Agreement.  I WILL NOT SIGN IT!

Nor will the other Commisioners. It  does not benefit the water district or the ratepayers.

Just the City, and that is plain wrong.

Our next step is for KCWD 54 Commissioner John Rayback to schedule a meeting with

Des Moines City Officials, and our attorneys. Hopefully they will come out with a Franchise

Agreement that is equitable for all. If not, we are prepared to do what needs to

be done to continue serving the ratepayers of KCWD 54 to the chemical-drug free

water that we have for 3/4′s of a century.

I will post updates here as they happen.

Alli

Washington Action for Safe Water

November 4, 2010

RE:       Environmental Justice Stakeholder Forum 10/28/10

Enforcement Group, Laws & Fluoridation, Action Item #1

Dear Mr. Kowalski,

I sincerely enjoyed meeting you and many other EPA staff during last Thursday’s Forum.  I felt very fortunate that there were four of you in the EJ Enforcement Group and, most importantly, that you listened to what I had to say and took my concerns seriously.

As you know, our EJ Enforcement Group determined that Goal #1 fit our topic the best:  “Eliminate, reduce or mitigate the burden of pollution and disproportionate, adverse public health and environmental impacts on low-income and minority communities and vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly.”

Water fluoridation is an Environmental Injustice to vulnerable populations:

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice upon those with chemical sensitivities who cannot drink, eat foods prepared with or bathe in fluoridated water without suffering serious health consequences, affecting a disproportionate number of children and adults with autism.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice to children because one-third living in fluoridated communities are expected to have dental fluorosis from excess fluoride and it is unreasonable to assume that a drug potent and toxic enough to permanently change the interior of the tooth has no effect on other organs, bones or health.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice against seniors because of the increase of bone fractures in fluoridated areas, which can be fatal for the most vulnerable elderly.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice against people of color because studies have shown blood lead levels higher in blacks than whites in fluoridated compared to unfluoridated areas.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice to children and adults with neurological disorders (including autism) and mental retardation because excess fluoride increases the rate of mental retardation, up to double in fluoridated areas compared to unfluoridated areas.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice to babies fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water because those babies will receive 250 times more fluoride than a baby on mother’s milk.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice to the poor, particularly, because they have no access to expensive fluoride-removal filtration systems, cannot transport bottled water from the store to their homes without a car, cannot afford to buy safe water for their babies and still do not have adequate access to dental care, have no better dental health than unfluoridated people but do have unnecessary health risks to because of it.

A review of the laws governing fluoride and water fluoridation is highly relevant to the public health, especially the most vulnerable.  Local and state authorities in Washington consider EPA the governing agency on fluoridation.  EPA’s authority over fluoridation has been cited repeatedly in petition denials from the Washington Board of Health and it perceives that EPA has fully certified the safety and effectiveness of fluoride for use on whole populations, presumably protecting the vulnerable.  We know these beliefs to be false.

The EJ Enforcement Group determined that our objective (loosely worded) was to enforce existing laws to protect vulnerable populations from “adverse public health and environmental impacts” from toxins, including those chemicals that may be added by governmental agencies.  Laws governing drugs apply to fluoride, but are being ignored.  Governmental agencies are not above the law, but have been allowed to act as if they are.

In discussing possible EJ Action Items regarding water fluoridation, you expressed concern that Region 10 cannot override or contradict EPA headquarters, however we at Washington Action for Safe Water (WASW) believe that what we are asking is simply a request of local compliance to stated EPA headquarter positions and the laws governing the EPA, FDA and state and local governments which have thus far been ignored, misinterpreted or brushed under the table for lack of someone willing or able to challenge it.  WASW, a non-profit with no paid staff, is challenging non-compliance here in Washington State.

Our Enforcement Group agreed to the following Action Items regarding fluoridation:

1. Analyze the WASW petitions submitted to the Wash. State Board of Health (BOH), especially where BOH has cited EPA in their denial of those petitions.
2. Meet with WASW board members, including Dr. Bill Osmunson, President, to discuss the petitions, process, legal issues and health effects of fluoridation.
3. Survey national activities on water fluoridation (suggested by EPA staff).
4. Determine if fluoridating water districts, BOH or other agencies are in compliance with state and federal laws governing the drug fluoride, as described in the WASW petitions that were denied by the BOH, citing EPA’s approval of fluoride.
5. If non-compliance is found, educate/inform local and state agencies of Region 10’s law interpretations regarding the drug, water fluoridation.

I am attaching the following documents pertaining to Action Item #1 (more to follow):

BOH Petition #1 FDA Drug Approval 5-11-10

BOH Petition #1 Recom by EHC to Deny 6-9-10

BOH Petition #1 Initial Denial 6-14-10

BOH Petition #1 Governor Appeal 9-13-10

BOH Petition #1 Resubmission Denial 10-14-10

BOH Petition #1 Thiessen NRC Review

11-4-10 Email Letter to Edward Kowalski EPA Reg-10 (this letter in Word)

I understand that the attachments I have sent with this email are a tremendous amount of information to read, let alone analyze—it certainly is for myself having no scientific, drug or chemical expertise whatsoever.  I have been forced into this battle for environmental justice because the inabilty to tolerate fluoride or fluoridated water in any form affects my autistic son every single day of his life, and therefore mine, because of his severe chemical sensitivities.  I have two friends with autistic children who also cannot tolerate fluoride.  This is not a coincidence because people with autism suffer from chemical sensitivities at a much higher rate than the average population due to their reduced ability to detoxify.

The possibility has not been ruled out that this reduced ability to detoxify, along with chronic exposure to chemical toxins from multiple sources, including water fluoridation, may be at the root of the development of autism.  No governmental agency has bothered thus far to study this possible link, that I know of, nor to conduct any scientific studies to determine if the chronic exposure to fluoridated water may contribute to the severity of autism.  Given the epidemic of autism, this is beyond shameful.  For my son, fluoridated water increases the severity of his symptoms deemed to be “characteristics of autism”, yet he becomes “less autistic” without fluoride.

My personal motivation is my extreme concern over those autistic children and adults who may be suffering profound pain from fluoridated water, as my son did before my discovery, though their parents and caregivers may not figure it out for years, if ever.  Pain, when experienced by individuals with low or no language, is often exhibited as “behavioral problems”.  Doctors generally treat behavioral problems with drugs rather than determine the source of the problem, only making the situation worse.  The person with autism, even if he recognizes the source himself, is very often unable to tell those around him that his shower, for example, gives him a screaming headache.

I am sending several emails to you to disperse the attachments.  WASW has submitted a total of seven petitions to the Board of Health; only the first three have been acted upon—all denied and all based on EPA’s authority and approval of fluoridation.  I will not be sending all of them at this time to spare you the sheer volume.

Because of the complexity and volume of information, I recommend a preliminary meeting with Dr. Bill Osmunson as soon as possible to help you understand the information I am sending.

I can’t express enough my appreciation to all of you at Region 10 for your interest in this Environmental Justice topic and your action at the local level.

Sincerely,

Audrey Adams, Board Member

Washington Action for Safe Water

10939 SE 183^rd Ct

Renton, WA 98055

425-271-2229

cc:        Donald Dossett & Dustan Bott, Office of Compliance & Enforcement, Region 10

Kendra Tyler, Assistant to DennisMcLerran, EPA Region 10 Administrator

Dr. Bill Osmunson DDS MPH and WASW Board

Additional email attachments:

2-A      BOH Petition #2 Concentration 8-16-10

2-B      BOH Petition #2 Denial 10-14-10

2-C      BOH Petition #2 Governor Appeal 10-19-10

3-A      BOH Petition #3 Lead (Deal) 9-13-10

3-B      BOH Petition #3 Denial 10-14-10

S-1      BOParmacy Determines Fluoride is a Drug 6-4-09

S-2      EPA FOI Request from WASW 6-14-10

S-3      EPA Response No Record of Authority 7-6-10

S-4      EPA Nat Pri Drinking Water Regulations 3-29-10

S-5      EPA Response to FAN atty 9-23-10

S-6      MOU Memo of Understanding FDA to EPA 1979

S-7      FDA FOI No Records Relinq Authority 6-30-10

S-8      FDA Letter to Congress 12-21-00

S-9      UW Study on Wash Decay Rates Fl vs Unfl 1995

Letter to Craig McLaughlin, Board of Health

from Dr. Bill Osmunson

Jan 13-2010

Greetings Craig,

Question:  On what Legislative authority (law) does the Board include the concept of efficacy when determining the safety of fluoridation?  In other words, what law, if any, gives the Board the authority to determine fluoridation’s efficacy?   In an effort not to keep your staff busy with public disclosure request or another petition for rule change, perhaps you could answer the following question easier and faster.  WASW has not made petitions based on the efficacy or economic impact of fluoridation because the Board is charged only with ensuring the safety of water.  The Legislature does not appear to have instructed the Board to weigh the balance between safety and efficacy of drug therapy, but just safety.

RCW 43.20.50 (2) “In order to protect public health, the state board of health shall: (a) Adopt rules for group A public water systems . . . necessary to assure safe and reliable public drinking water and to protect the public health.

Based on the Board’s statements (especially to deny our 5th petition, intent of use) it appears the Board does weigh the efficacy of fluoridation in with the decision to determine concentration.     Perhaps we should provide evidence on the lack of fluoridation’s efficacy?   Regards,   Bill

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

President, Washington Action for Safe Water

1418 – 112^th Ave NE

Bellevue Washington 98004

425.466.0100

bill@teachingsmiles.com

June 14, 2010

National Freedom of Information Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2822T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-1667      FAX (202) 566-2147
E-mail: hq.foia@epa.gov

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Sir or Madam:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following information to be provided to me:

#1.       A digital copy of the EPA’s equivalent of the FDA’s New Drug Approval process for the fluoridation drug when used at 0.8 ppm to 1.2 ppm in public water, to include EPA’s required documentation for chemistry, nonclinical pharmacology and toxicology, human pharmacokinetics and bioavailability, clinical microbiology, clinicals, safety, statistics, case report tabulations, patient information on any patient claims, patient certification, establishment descriptions, and required drug legend.

#2.       A digital copy of records, reports, papers, meeting minutes, correspondence or clarifications of the MOU 225079-2001 http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/PartnershipsCollaborations/MemorandaofUnderstandingMOUs/DomesticMOUs/ucm116216.htm between the EPA and FDA.  And any records further clarifying the intent of the MOU 225079-2001 or another MOU as to whether the EPA is permitted to approve the sale and use of substances defined as drugs by the FD&C Act, when the substance is added to public water. 

#3.       Records the EPA has of Congressional Authority which exempts drugs when added to public water from the New Drug Application regulatory process and FD&C Act and provides the EPA with authority to approve drugs when they are added to public water. 

            In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of any fees, you should know that I am the President of Washington Action for Safe Water a 501 (c) 3 Corporation, and I request a waiver of all fees for this request. 

Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not in our commercial interest.  The information will be used in creating new regulations for water safety in Washington State. 

If fees cannot be waved, please provide a list of documents and the costs associated with each.

I request that the information I seek be provided in electronic format, and I would like to receive it on a personal computer disk or a CD-ROM or email to bill@teachingsmiles.com or US postal service to the address below.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

President, Washington Action for Safe Water

1418 – 112^th Ave NE

Bellevue Washington 98004

425.466.0100

bill@teachingsmiles.com

cc Ned Therien, WBOH  ned.therien@doh.wa.gov

6-14-10   To David Sirota, ds@davidsirota.com:  

Your article in the Seattle Times on June 14 was good. http://washingtonsafewater.com/fluoride-warning-for-infants/   I like the fact that you included the effect of a meat diet on the environment.  

However, you need to inform yourself regarding tap water.

You said that “clean tap water is ubiquitously available in America.”   However, around 60% of us get tap water that is fluoridated. Fluoride is highly diluted poison.  

See http://washingtonsafewater.com/petition-to-board-of-health/  

See: http://fluoridealert.org  

See my own legal brief at http://www.box.net/shared/iedafn1jr7  

Fluorosilicic acid typically used to fluoridate water is the unfiltered scrubber liquor from the production of phosphate fertilizer. It contains lead and arsenic plus numerous other heavy metals.

The body retains half the fluoride we consume. Fluoride makes bones harder and more brittle. Fluoride is an enzyme interruptor.  

Some 1 to 5% of the population is hyper allergic to fluoride. See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/lohr-amicus-brief-fluoride-sensitized.pdf.pdf  

Fluoridated water is especially harmful to infants. See: http://washingtonsafewater.com/fluoride-warning-for-infants/  

For a good background intro to the subject see:  http://fluoride-class-action.com/the-story.  

This absurd practice arose as a method of disposing of toxic waste through dilution. It is illegal to dump fluoride into rivers or oceans, but fertilizer companies sell it to water districts where it is dumped in our water. See:  http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/363.html.  

What you should say is that tap water that non-fluoridated or fluoridated water that is distilled or run through a reverse osmosis filter is safe and ubiquitous and can be transported in bottles without people buying water in bottles.

It is a problem that some bottled water is fluoridated and there is no requirement that fluoride content be disclosed.  

Fluoride is a big issue, and as an environmentalist, you should familiarize yourself with the pros and cons.  

James Robert Deal V-P, www.WashingtonSafeWater.com

After just 20 minutes of one-sided discussion and prior to any public comment, it was no surprise that the Washington Board of Health voted to deny the Petition for Rule Making on Water Fluoridation that would have limited fluoridation to FDA approved substances only. To have approved the petition, a board member stated, would essentially stop all fluoridation in Washington. So true.

However, this is what the Environmental Health Committee, with verbal testimony presented by Ned Therien, “board staff”, recommended in person and was contained in a handout at the BOH meeting:

“Motion: The Board denies the petition for rule making from Dr. William Osmunson dated May 11, 2010 because the US Food and Drug Administration has a memorandum of understanding with the US Environmental Protection Agency clarifying that the latter agency has authority for regulating tap water.” The motion passed unanimously with virtually no debate.

After the vote, when public testimony was finally allowed, WASW president Dr. Bill Osmunson and WASW VP and attorney James Robert Deal strongly challenged the interpretation and legality of the basis of the BOH’s conclusion, specifically, the memorandum of understanding between the FDA and EPA. Attorney Gerald Steel and Eloise Kailin submitted a challenging letter as well. Myself, Olemara Peters and Phillip Bradshaw also testified regarding harm experienced by fluoridation and three more came in support of WASW—a total of 8. Next time maybe we’ll double or triple that?

This is just one step in the road. It was not a surprise and it is certainly not defeat in the long haul. As Bill said, this was a good learning experience and the BOH has not seen the last of us.