Listen to comments made by James Robert Deal to the Everett City Council on November 16, 2011 regarding lead in Everett drinking water.

In 2007 lead was found in Everett tap water at up to 63 ppm.

On January 28, 2012, members of Fluoride Class Action – James Robert Deal – and Washington Action for Safe Water – Audrey Adams, Dr. David John and Ed Mitsukawa – toured Everett Water District’s Lake Chaplain water treatment plant. Mark Weeks conducted the tour. He is the narrator on our voice recording of the visit. His job title is “Drinking Water Processing Analysist”. We were not allowed to take photos or videos of the water plant “for security reasons”. Even without the visual dimension, the interview provides an orientation regarding how water treatment and fluoridation work.

This is what the Certificate of Analysis, Bill of Lading, and Invoice have to say: around 47,000 pounds of acid, around 5,000 gallons, at $.3445 per pound, for a total cost of the shipment of  around $16,200 per load. Mark Weeks says there are around 18 shipments per year, more in summer when use doubles, less in winter, around one shipment every three weeks on average, for a yearly expenditure of around $290,000. Around 330 gallons of fluosilicic acid are pumped into drinking water daily.

To get to Lake Chaplain, go east from Everett on Highway 2:

It is January 28, 2012. I am at the entrance to the Lake Chaplain water treatment plant at around 800 feet above sea level. The main source lake is Spada Lake up at around 1,400 feet above sea level. This area is in the convergence zone. Moisture laden winds off the Pacific go around Mount Olympus and converge here and drop up to 160 inches of rain each year. When a big storm rolls in, there can be as much as a foot of rain or snow in a single day. Cliff Mass explains that Spada Lake will always supply Everett with more water than it can ever use and that the Everett supply system has more capacity than the Seattle system. I am driving the Buick LaSabre that my mother, Elizabeth Abraham Deal left me.

The Everett Water District allows tours. You must make an appointment. Entry to the plant itself is by permission only. The treatment plant is a closed area.

You must press a button and talk to the control room which will open the gate and let you in.

This forest road is immediately to the right of the entry to the treatment plant. The area to the east of Lake Chaplain and leading up to Spada Lake are Forest Service land, and so they are open to the public, although with limitations. There is a self-service sign up. There is no shooting. No fishing is allowed in Lake Chaplain. No bait fishing is allowed in Spada Lake. Only lure fishing is allowed. No motorized vehicles are allowed in either area. You have to pack in on foot. No overnight camping is allowed.

 

This is an audio recording of our treatment plant tour. Mark Weeks conducts the tour and answers our questions, with assistance from John Calhoun.

First recording.

My batteries ran low in my HandyH4N recorder, so I had to change them. I missed some of the interview.

Second recording.

Although we were not allowed to take photos or video of the treatment buildings – inside or out – interior of the building, you can “see” the buildings by following this schematic diagram.

Regarding the various buildings:

The fluoridation building: Fluoride tanker trucks carrying 5,000 gallons of fluosilicic acide back down into an entry bay. The bay is wide and long and slopes down up to a depth of six feet, so that if the truck spilled its entire load, the bay would contain it all. The cement is lined with epoxy so the acid will not burn through it.

The bay has an emergency shower in it, a big rubber house that is screwed into the tanker to offload the silicofluoride, an a smaller pressure hose which is connected to the other end of the tank to force all the liquid out of the tanker.

The fluoride building houses two 6,000 gallon tanks and a smaller mixing tank. The pipes and tanks are all CPVC. Fluoridation began in 1991, and all the pipes are due for replacement. Mark says that 20 years is the life expectancy for any CPVC pipe. Oddly, the CPVC tanks are not themselves being replaced.

As you enter the building you notice that the glass in the door is etched by the hydrogen flouride, HF, fluoric acid. It is in the air. When I entered the building I smelled a strange smell, and I immediately became dizzy. I should have left the building immediately. If you ever visit a fluoridation building, don’t breathe inside. Do some deep breathing before entering and hold your breath while you are inside.

The building has big fans on the ceiling to draw air out of the building, circulating the air in the building ten times an error. Mark explained that the fluorosilicic acid breaks down into gas. The gas is good at slipping through the joins in the CPVC pipes and tanks. Maybe that is why the pipes are being replaced. Not only is the building vented, but the tanks themselves are vented to outside air. Mark seemed to admit that the tanks leak some hydrogen fluoride.

I will add more later.

FLOCCULATION AND THEN FILTRATION

Water goes into flocculation tanks. The flocculent used is bauxite, aluminum sulfite. Flocculent brings together dirt, iron, magnesium, and microorganisms, which are negatively charged and which would never settle or precipitate without treatment because they are negatively charged and repel each other. The flocculent is positively charged.

Microorganisms concentrate in and around the dirt and minerals, and chlorination is ineffective unless the dirt and minerals are removed. Chlorine is added at several stages because it quickly evaporates out of open pools.

When the filtration medium is backwashed, it is backwashed with finished, that is, fluoridated water. The backwashed flocculent plus minerals, mud, and microorganisms go into a settling pond. Every few years the sediment builds up and has to be removed to a toxic waste storage landfill because there are small amounts of arsenic in it. Where does the arsenic came from? Some comes from the source water, but not all, because the source water is only around 8 ppm dissolved solids, mostly calcium and magnesium.

Some must come from the backwash water, which is fluoridated, and there is arsenic in the fluoridated water because the fluoridation materials contain arsenic. Mark says that the flocculent will precipatate arsenic. A flaw in the design of the facility then that most fluoridation materials are added after flocculation and filtration. The flocculent could remove the arsenic .

ALUMINUM

The use of aluminum as a flocculent is another design flaw – if the water is fluoridated. Flocculation with aluminum always leaves an aluminum residual in drinking water. The fluoride does not join with aluminum at neutral pH. However, in the stomach at acidic pH, aluminum and fluoride form aluminum fluoride, which will slip past the blood-brain barrier. I do not know the alternatives to aluminum as a flocculant, but as long as Everett is fluoridating, it should quit using aluminum as a flocculant.

EVERETT WILL HALT FLUORIDATION FEBRUARY 7 – IT SHOULD NOT RESUME FLUORIDATION

Around February 9, as soon as the current load of silicofluoride was used up, Everett halted fluoridation. The CPVC pipes need to be replaced. Fluoride Class Action takes the position that fluoridation should not resume. See our letter to Jenny Durkin, US Attorney in Seattle.

I will be updating this page with more information about how the water treatment process works.

Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout

 

Category :	Topic :
Environment (29)	Environment Issues (12)
Date Posted :	Source Date :
Jan 24, 2012	Dec 19, 2011

An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.

Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.

The IJHS article will be published Tuesday and will be available online as of 11 a.m. EST at http://www.radiation.org.

Just six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores. Subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water, and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S. The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92).

Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, said: “This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal. It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation.”

Mangano is executive director, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the author of 27 peer-reviewed medical journal articles and letters.

Internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, said: “Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults.”

Dr. Sherman is an adjunct professor, Western Michigan University, and contributing editor of “Chernobyl – Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” published by the NY Academy of Sciences in 2009, and author of “Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life’s Delicate Balance – Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues weekly reports on numbers of deaths for 122 U.S. cities with a population over 100,000, or about 25-30 percent of the U.S. In the 14 weeks after Fukushima fallout arrived in the U.S. (March 20 to June 25), deaths reported to the CDC rose 4.46 percent from the same period in 2010, compared to just 2.34 percent in the 14 weeks prior. Estimated excess deaths during this period for the entire U.S. are about 14,000.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of a related news event will be available on the Web at http://www.radiation.org as of 4 p.m. EST/2100 GMT on December 19, 2011. Embargoed copies of the medical journal article are available by contacting Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.

New Hampshire bills seek to outlaw foreign substances, including fluoride, from being added to public water supplies

(NaturalNews) The State of New Hampshire is quickly gaining momentum to be the first entire US state to outlaw adding fluoride chemicals to public water supplies. The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has reported that two bills currently before committee — HB 1529 and HB 1416 — seek to prohibit the addition of fluoride, herbicides and pesticides, lithium, and, in the case of HB 1416, any unnecessary chemicals into the public water supply.

HB 1529 strictly prohibits “the introduction of fluoride and herbicides into the drinking water of the state,” while HB 1416 prohibits the addition of any chemical substances, including fluoride. A hearing on HB 1416 took place on January 10, 2012, after having been referred to the state’s House Resources, Recreation, and Development committee.

The most promising of the two, HB 1416 received vocal support at the hearing from Rep. Anne Cartwright, who originally introduced the bill, as well as from Reps. Paul Mirski, Bob Kingsbury, and Laurie Pettengill. Other supporters included Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign manager, Roger Masters, PhD, who coauthored a study on fluoride and lead uptake, and a local doctor, public health nurse, and mother, all of whom submitted written testimonies.

The usual suspects of opposition were a host of state agencies, including the NH Dental Association, the NH Oral Health Coalition, the NH Public Health Association, and the NH Department of Health and Human Services. The only actual human beings that expressed personal opposition to the bills were three pediatricians, all of whom happen to be public health members as well.

Supporters of the bill came prepared, though, armed with plenty of questions and facts that blew major holes in the typical pro-fluoride rhetoric. Repeating US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) talking points about the so-called anti-cavity benefits of fluoride simply does not cut it anymore. And according to FAN, most of those on the committee seemed to recognize the flaws in pro-fluoride dogma.

The questions posed to those in support of fluoride addressed things like its uncontrolled dosage, or the high prevalence of dental fluorosis and other health conditions. Fluoride is the only drug forced on the public without consent, after all, and there is no way to regulate intake. And if the recommended daily dosage of fluoride for an adult is one milligram, he or she can only consume a single liter of tap water in most cities before exceeding this amount.

To learn more about the situation in New Hampshire and how you can help, visit:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/NH-Fluoride-Prohibition-Legislation.html?soid=1103759775597&aid=EixCf6SXU9o

 

 

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/034751_New_Hampshire_fluoride_water_supply.html

NYSCOF – When Fluoridation Ends – Cavities Drop

New York – — Cavity rates declined in several cities that stopped water fluoridation, new studies report, contradicting American Dental Association (ADA) predictions. Fluoride added to about 2/3 of US public water supplies is supposed to reduce tooth decay but these six studies from dental journals show it hasn’t and, in fact, may have increased the likelihood of rotten choppers. . “No increase in caries (cavities) was found in Kuopio (Finland) 3 years after the discontinuation of water fluoridation,” according to Caries Research (1). In fact, when Kuopio was compared to a similar never-fluoridated Finnish town, cavity rates in both towns either remained the same or decreased six years after fluoridation was stopped in Kuopio. · Seven years after fluoridation ended in LaSalud, Cuba, cavities remained low in 6 to 9 year olds, decreased in 10 to 11 year-olds, significantly decreased in 12 to 13 year olds, while caries-free children increased dramatically, reports Caries Research (2). · East German scientists report, “following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed,” according to Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (3) . Additional surveys in the formerly-fluoridated towns of Spremberg and Zittau found. “Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased… following the cessation of water fluoridation.” · Not only did decay rates remain stable during an 11-month fluoridation break in Durham, NC, between September, 1990, and August, 1991 but dental fluorosis declined in children born during that period, according to the Journal of Dental Research (4) · In British Columbia, Canada, “the prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community,” reported in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. (5) · In 1973, the Dutch town of Tiel stopped fluoridation. Researchers counted drilled, missing, and filled tooth surfaces (DMFS) of Tiel’s 15-year olds, then collected identical data from never-fluoridated Culemborg. DMFS initially increased in Tiel then dipped to 11% of baseline from 1968/69 to 1987/88 while never-fluoridated Culemborg’s 15-year-olds had 72% less cavities over the same period, reports Caries Research. (6) A Canadian government report  (7) shows similar negative results and offers a reason. Fluoridation was launched in the 1940′s when dentists believed fluoride’s beneficial effects were achieved internally, through the bloodstream then absorbed inside the teeth. The Canadians report that “this effect is likely to be minor… The evidence for a post-eruptive (topical) effect,… is much stronger.” Therefore, swallowing fluoride doesn’t reduce tooth decay but does cause dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow or brown stained and sometimes pitted teeth. According to the ADA “Over time, dental decay can be expected to increase if water fluoridation in a community is discontinued, even if topical products such as fluoride toothpaste and fluorde rinses are widely used.” (10) However, non-fluoridated Nassau County, NY, has lower tooth decay rates than the state average despite that New York State is 73% fluoridated. (8,9) “Well, science proves the ADA is wrong about the claimed benefits of water fluoridation and they are wrong about the safety of water fluoridation, too” says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “Studies have linked fluoridation chemicals to increased blood lead levels, neurological defects, brittle bones, thyroid dysfunction, cancer and more,” says Beeber. Other US government studies and statistics support the findings of these six studies and the Canadian government report. For example, children in fluoridated-since-1945 Newburgh, New York, have no less tooth decay but significantly more dental fluorosis than children from never-fluoridated Kingston, New York, according to Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology June 1999. Hawaii and California, the least fluoridated US states (13.0% and 15.7%, respectively) also produce residents least likely to be toothless, according to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Yet Kentucky and West Virginia, 100% and 82.1% fluoridated, have the most toothless residents. References: (1) “Caries trends 1992-1998 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoridation,” Caries Research, Nov-Dec 2000 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11093019&dopt=Abstract (2) “Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in LaSalud, Cuba,” Caries Research Jan-Feb. 2000 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10601780&dopt=Abstract (3) “Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, October 2000 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11014515&dopt=Abstract (4) “The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis,” Journal of Dental Research, Feb. 2000 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10728978&dopt=Abstract (5) “Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, February 2001 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11153562&dopt=Abstract (6) “Caries experience of 15-year-old children in The Netherlands after discontinuation of water fluoridation,” Caries Research, 1993 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8519058&dopt=Abstract (7) Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation http://www.gov.on.ca:80/MOH/english/pub/ministry/fluoridation/fluoridation.html http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/Health/Docs/PDF/2005-2010_CHA.pdf (page 10) 9) http://www.nyspha.org/nysohp/workgroups/pdfs/sohp.pdf  (page 21) 10) http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf (Question 9, Page 15) Contacts: Paul Beeber, President, NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, PO Box 263, Old Bethpage, NY 11804 nys…@aol.com http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof Paul Connett, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University in Canton, pa…@fluoridealert.org Fluoride Action Network http://www.fluoridealert.org

Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego)
Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92078

January 17, 2012

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Reviewers,

The following information should be of help in evaluating the fluoride water ban petition, FDA2007-P-0346.

As provided to the FDA earlier, detailed statistical analyses by Ziegelbecker [12] indicate a wide variation in teeth caries incidence among people in a large U.S. population that is unrelated to fluoride levels in drinking water. Vitamin D and calcium, rather than fluoride, is important for normal teeth health and development. Variation in caries incidence found among people may be explained by variation in vitamin D and dietary calcium.

It has long been known that vitamin D, necessary for the proper assimilation of dietary calcium through the intestines, decreases dental caries. [Dr. Anthony Norman, world expert on the mechanism of action of vitamin D, is a former colleague.] The late Dr. Linus Pauling, a former mentor, founded the Orthomolecular Medicine organization, and the following description is paraphrased from a published article by that organization. The U.S. Public Health Service in 1950 ignored well-published data and accepted the idea that fluoride added to water might fight tooth decay.

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 19, 2009

Vitamin Deficiency Underlies Tooth Decay

There is especially strong evidence for a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and cavities. Dozens of studies were conducted in the 1930′s and 1940′s [1-11] that concluded that supplementing children with vitamin D prevents cavities.  Between 5,000 and 15,000 IU of vitamin D may be obtained from modest exposure to sunshine in the middle of the day. Recommending that people regularly use the capacity of their skin to make vitamin D is common sense.  1,000 to 2,000 IU per day of vitamin D in supplemental form is safe to help prevent tooth decay.

References:

[1] Tisdall, F.F. The effect of nutrition on the primary teeth. Child Development (1937) 8(1), 102-4.

[2] McBeath, E.C. Nutrition and diet in relation to preventive dentistry. NY J. Dentistry (1938) 8; 17-21.

[3] McBeath, E.C.; Zucker, T.F. Role of vitamin D in the control of dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition (1938) 15; 547-64.

[4] East, B. R. Nutrition and dental caries. American Journal of Public Health 1938. 28; 72-6.
[20] Mellanby, M. The role of nutrition as a factor in resistance to dental caries. British Dental Journal (1937), 62; 241-52.

[5] His Majesty’s Stationery Office, London. The influence of diet on caries in children’s teeth. Report of the Committee for the Investigation of Dental Disease (1936).

[6] McBeath, F.C. Vitamin D studies, 1933-1934. American Journal of Public Health (1934), 24 1028-30.

[7] Anderson, P. G.; Williams, C. H. M.; Halderson, H.; Summerfeldt, C.; Agnew, R. Influence of vitamin D in the prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association (1934) 21; 1349-66.

[8] Day, C. D.; Sedwick, H. J. Fat-soluble vitamins and dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition (1934) 8; 309.

[9] Agnew, M. C.; Agnew, R. G.; Tisdall, F. F. The production and prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association, JADA (1933) 20; 193-212.

[10] Bennett, N. G.; et al. The influence of diet on caries in children’s teeth. Special Report Series – Medical Research Council, UK (1931) No. 159, 19.

[11] Mellanby, M.; Pattison, C. L. The influence of a cereal-free diet rich in vitamin D and calcium on dental caries in children. British Medical Journal (1932) I 507-10.

12] Connett, P., et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, How Hazardous Waste Ended up in our Drinking Water and the Politics that Keep it There, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont, 2010.

Thanks,

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Robert Pocock of Dublin asks:

Are you aware of the FDA’s Medwatch programme designed to permit people to report adverse events of medical devices and drugs ?

Please see this PIP implant story …and the point in it that most women are not even aware of Medwatch !

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/12/30/breast-implant-scandal-shows-regulators-in-dark-on-risk/

While I realise that the FDA has not licensed fluorosilicic acid, nevertheless that does not invalidate the citizen’s right to report an adverse event eg if that citizen has got dental fluorosis.

Best wishes for 2012,

Robert Pocock

***

Report your negative drug reaction to fluoride here:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/medwatch-online.htm

***

From Dr. Richard Sauerheber:

I know people who have reported adverse fluoride reactions to the FDA through that program and nothing much is being done about them. For example one man in NY City was poisoned to near death by a dentist with an oral syringe full of a new form of fluorophosphate. It was squirted on a cavity to ‘kill’ the cavity but was all absorbed sublingually. His urine flow stopped altogether and he was unable to move for 3 days. His eyesight was nearly completely gone for several months. His urine total fluoride was an astronomical value that is usually lethal.  It has been a few years since the incident and he still has a lot of effects. His complaint to the FDA has not produced any warnings.

I think it was good he sent in the report and if someone were to eat a toothpaste tube and collapse these reports are necessary. But for chronic consumption of fluoridated water where there are no provable quick serious effects in most people I’m not sure if it would be worth sending in. For example, I know 3 people who lived in their youth in fluoridated cities and they all now are having bone surgeries, from elbow to hip to kneee replacements, but I doubt the FDA would get excited about it because it took 30 years for that to happen and they have a tendencyy then to blame it on coincidence or something else.

Someone like Audrey Adam’s son with autism though could be appropriate to report and those with genuine fluoride allergy where reactions happen every time and stop when fluoride water is stopped and they reappear when it is consumed again I think also should be sent in.

But keep in mind we already have two large textbooks worth of such cases described in detail by Waldbott and yet the FDA seems impervious to it all.

Richard

 

Health Impacts on Municipal Water: Fluoridation & Thyroid Disorder

Last year Health Canada released Fluoride in Drinking Water, a document for public inspection and comment, prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water.

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

January 31, 2012

 

Jenny A. Durkin, US Attorney
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
Seatttle, WA 98101-1271

Posted at: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Seattle/us-attorney

Dear Ms. Durkin,

 

I am writing to point out violations of law which I believe are taking place on a continuing basis. I ask that you investigate these violations and take appropriate action.

 

∞∞∞

My Uncle Hubert died of emphysema brought on by smoking. He wheezed to me before he died that when he was young his medical doctor smoked Camels and recommended them as good for Uncle Hubert’s health.

 

In the process of learning that tobacco was harmful, we learned that what our “trusted professionals” should not necessarily be trusted. We learned that what our “trusted professionals” say is safe and good for us, may in fact be dangerous and bad for us. We learned that we should quit relying uncritically on “trusted professionals” and should examine important issues for ourselves.

 

∞∞∞

 

I write to you today because there is another harmful chemical which is being imposed on the public. I refer to the fluoridation materials which water districts add to tap water.

 

Around 200 million Americans receive fluoridated tap water. Around 92% of those receive industrial grade silicofluoride. Silicofluoride contains hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals and toxins known to be harmful to health. Around 8% are fluoridated using industrial grade sodium fluoride, which is only slightly less contaminated than silicofluoride.

 

It took 500 years for the world to acknowledge that tobacco was bad for health. I believe we are on the verge of making the same acknowledgement regarding the fluoride-lead-arsenic cocktail we add to our drinking water.

 

 

For more detail, I ask that you read “Who or What is the NSF?” See:

 

www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

NSF is the trade group which certifies fluoridation materials to be safe. The article spells out the violations of law connected with fluoridation. I am sending you a hard copy of the article, but I recommend that you read it online, which will make it easy for you to follow hyperlinks to documents which back up my assertions. Also the online version is updated regularly as new information is obtained.

 

∞∞∞

Since the end of the last Ice Age, farmers had been growing crops organically[1]. However, in the 20^th Century chemists developed super-phosphate fertilizer. They sold it as convenient and quick acting. Faster was better. Previous farmers had done nicely without it. Organic farmers today do nicely without it. Chemists created a market for an unnecessary[2] product that gradually kills off microbial life in soils.

 

Fertilizer plants in Florida and Louisiana[3] cooked rock phosphate in sulfuric acid, and the emissions of fluoride and other toxins polluted the air for miles around. In the 1970s and 1980s the EPA required the plants to capture the emissions with wet scrubbers installed in their smokestacks. The emissions contain silicofluoride, hydrogen fluoride[4], lead, arsenic[5], other heavy metals[6], and other toxins. Instead of the toxins going into the air, they were diverted into the scrubber liquor.

 

But what was to be done with the scrubber liquor? It was illegal to dump it into rivers, lakes, or seas. Fertilizer companies, without approval from any federal or state agency, beginning around 1950, began selling the raw scrubber liquor to water districts, which then piped it into our drinking water at 1.0 ppm, with the level recently reduced to .7 ppm. Once this vice was in place, economic and political forces made it exceedingly difficult to dislodge. Some 200 million Americans drink such slightly polluted water.

 

Before silicofluoride was used to fluoridate, sodium fluoride was used, another industrial grade waste product – from aluminum plants instead of fertilizer plants. Silicofluoride was less expensive and more abundant than sodium fluoride.

 

All 49 producers or resellers[7] of fluoridation materials in the United States issue Material Safety Document Sheets (MSDS) in which they disclaim all liability for any harm whatsoever which fluoridation materials might cause. However, before offering said fluoridation materials for sale, they apply for and obtain certification of their product.

 

The certifying “agency” is the National Sanitation Foundation, known as NSF or NSF International. NSF proudly refers to its NSF 60 certification as “the mark[8]”. It is displayed on certificates of analysis[9]. It is recognized as authoritative by EPA administrators, CDC administrators, states, state agencies, cities, and water districts. The EPA itself finances and approves the NSF 60 standard[10]. It is recognized as authoritative in Canada and other countries the world over. Silicofluoride and sodium fluoride would not be saleable for drinking water fluoridation purposes without such certification.

 

On the NSF web site[11] and in NSF documentation[12], NSF proclaims:

 

The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.

 

Sit down before reading the next paragraph:

 

NSF officials, including one speaking under oath in deposition, have admitted that NSF has has no toxicological studies[13] (see pages 27 and 67) regarding the fluoridation materials which NSF certifies as “safe[14]”, as I document in “Who or What is the NSF?” Again, please see www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.

 

Note that the fertilizer companies which produce the scrubber liquor are on the NSF boards which establish the scrubber liquor standards.  This is a clear conflict of interest. Such conflicts are detrimental to scientific objectivity and make it likely for profits to trump health and safety.

 

Defenders of fluoridation minimize the effect of the lead-arsenic-silicofluoride scrubber liquor cocktail, saying that the amounts of heavy metals and other toxins are small. However, one should not flippantly dismiss even small amounts of such highly toxic substances without thoroughly studying them, including a study of how they can interact each other and their toxicity can be compounded.

 

Silicofluoride contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen[15]. It is impossible to identify[16] any level of a carcinogen which can safely be consumed, including arsenic[17]. California proposed public health goal for arsenic[18] in 2003 was 4 ppt. That is parts per trillion or .004 ppb or .000004 ppm.  California says:

 

… there is no evidence from methylation patterns [elemental arsenic converting into organic arsenic] that would support a threshold below which there would be no cancer risks. p. 128.

 

NSF admits that tap water fluoridated at 1 ppm fluoride may contain up to 1.66 ppb arsenic[19], that is 1,600 ppt, which is 377 times the 4 ppt California public health goal. It is irresponsible knowingly to add any arsenic[20] whatsoever to drinking water, although the California goal would imply it is acceptable to add up to 4 ppt.

 

The toxic waste silicofluoride used contains lead[21] and leaches lead from pipes[22]. Blood lead levels are around 70% higher[23] in fluoridated cities[24].

 

Some 47 states allow fluoridation to take place only if it is done using NSF 60 certified fluoridation materials. Washington is one of the 47 states. See WAC 246-290-220(3)[25].

 

The Washington Board of Health relies on the loud assurances of the NSF in making its decision to allow local-option fluoridation, to specify the fluoridation materials which may be used, and to set the allowable range of concentrations.

 

Likewise, local water districts rely on NSF certification to make their final decisions to fluoridate. Board and water districts believe in the truthfulness of the NSF 60 certification mark.

 

∞∞∞

If silicofluoride and sodium fluoride did prevent tooth decay and did not cause any collateral harm to anyone, then maybe this deception could be excused. Unfortunately, the industrial silicofluoride used by Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma and the sodium fluoride used elsewhere is harmful to fetuses and infants in the short term, and it is harmful to all of us in the long term. Public utility standards should be calibrated to be protective of all, but especially of the most vulnerable.

 

As noted above, the toxic waste silicofluoride used contains lead[26] and leaches lead from pipes[27]. Blood lead levels are around 70% higher[28] in fluoridated cities[29].

 

There is no debate over the harmful nature of silicofluoride and sodium fluoride. In fact, the supporters of fluoridation, including the CDC, admit that 41% of children age 12-15 suffer from dental fluorosis[30], that 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and that 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and up to 100% of enamel impacted). 8.6% + 3.6% = 12.2%.

 

It is a civil battery and a criminal assault to give 12.2% or more of our children noticeably disfigured teeth. The NRC says that most fluoride gets to children through drinking water and food made with drinking water[31]. The other major source is toothpaste, packing a wallop of fluoride at around 1,500 ppm to 2,400 ppm. Some fluoride gets absorbed through tissues and some is swallowed.

 

The difference between fluoridated tap water and fluoridated toothpaste is that it is easy to avoid the fluoride in toothpaste simply by not brushing with it, while it is difficult and expensive to avoid the fluoride in tap water and food made with tap water.

 

Expert witnesses on all sides of this issue will admit if called to testify that fluoridation is causing hundreds of thousands of kids to have “funky teeth”. The causal connection is admitted and proven. When you add to that the known harm coming from lead and arsenic, the case becomes even stronger.

 

The CDC minimizes the harm by saying it is “cosmetic only”. However, fluorosis is definitely not “cosmetic only” for the 8.6% and the 3.6% who have mild, moderate, and severe fluorosis. Their teeth are ugly[32], and children are ashamed of them. The emotional impact on adolescents is like that of severe acne. Children with fluorosis tend to smile with their lips closed to hide their teeth. And CDC passes over the lead and arsenic problem[33].

 

The tradeoff is an alleged slight reduction in tooth decay in return for fluorosis of an entire mouthful of teeth plus other harms. Caries a can be x-rayed, “drilled, filled and billed” for under $100 each. Dr. Bill Osmunson[34], cosmetic dentist and public health graduate explains that fluorotic teeth, on the other hand, are difficult and expensive to fix, and that the cost of dental veneers and replacements over a lifetime can exceed $100,000. He notes that drinking water fluoridation is good for the cosmic dentistry business. If teeth are fluorotic, then all bones and other calcium rich areas are fluorotic too, because fluoride aggressively seeks out and binds with calcium throughout the body.

 

To the CDC, the EPA, and other pro-fluoridation groups, the disfigurement of 41%, 8.6%, or 3.6% of our children to different degrees is an acceptable casualty rate, a reasonable price to be paid to achieve a dubious reduction in caries, which they admit to be at best only a 17% to 25% reduction. Other studies show no reduction at all or worsening[35].

 

In addition to fetuses and infants, other groups are especially sensitive, including hard laborers and those with diabetes (because they drink so much water), those with kidney disease[36], arthritics and the aged[37], and those with thyroid disease[38]. Further, around one percent of the population is “allergic”[39] or hypersensitive[40] to fluoride and must leave town or take extreme precautions to avoid it. The autistic are especially sensitive to fluoride.

 

In its own publication on its own website the CDC admits that any positive effect of fluoride is topical[41] and not systemic[42], yet the CDC and other pro-fluoridation groups persist in advising us that we should drink and eat fluoride. For those who insist on consuming fluoride, eating a little toothpaste would be far more economical.

 

∞∞∞

 

There is another clear violation of federal law. An FDA regulation at 21 CFR 310.545 prohibits the marketing and sale of any anti-caries drug which contains hydrogen fluoride unless the the seller has first filed an FDA new drug application[43] (NDA) and received FDA approval.

 

Silicofluoride is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride and other components. Hydrogen fluoride is the most immediately toxic component in silicofluoride. Because its charge is neutral (F^-H⁺), it can slip easily through the neutral, non-polar, fatty lipid layer of the stomach lining, and then into the blood stream and the brain. Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma all use silicofluoride which is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride is also referred to as “free acid”[44]. See the Simplot Certificate of Analysis[45] for Everett and the Mosaic Certificate of Analysis[46] for Seattle on the http://fluoride-class-action.com/foia page.

 

Said federal regulation includes a list of elements and compounds, including hydrogen fluoride. The regulation says of the chemicals on the list:

 

…based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses.

 

Then the regulation states:

 

Any OTC [over the counter] drug product … containing any active ingredient(s) as specified in … this section is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of … the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), for which an approved new drug application … is required for marketing.

 

The above hydrogen fluoride regulation is unenforced. Is it overlooked or just plain ignored? In the fluoridation arena you will find many uninforced, overlooked, and ignored laws. Fluoridation – initially with sodium fluoride – got started during World War II and the Cold War. The military, ALCOA, and other industries backed it. They latched onto a legend that natural fluoride in Texas and Colorado reduced decay, although the basis for the reduction was the high calcium levels, not the fluoride. These powerful groups generally got their way during that era. They rewarded universities for supporting fluoridation. The universities graduated physicians and dentists who became featured speaker “trusted professionals”, endorsers and defenders of fluoridation. Most of the “trusted professionals” we rely on are themselves deceived. Fluoridation began without prior approval by any federal or state agency. Since 1945 no agency has had the courage to stop it.

 

∞∞∞

I would identify the following as possible violations of civil law:

 

First, water districts are being swindled. They are being manipulated into spending scarce dollars on a product which is both ineffective for its stated purpose and harmful to users. NSF is not enforcing its own NSF 60 standards, as explained above.  Water districts are fluoridating using materials which do not meet standards set by state law – because NSF is not obtaining the safety studies which it says it is obtaining and which water districts believe are being obtained. This constitutes common law misrepresentation and fraud and thus is a consumer protection violation under 15 USC 45[47] and under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86[48].

 

Second, silicofluoride and sodium fluoride both contain and/or break down into hydrogen fluoride, and thus cannot be sold for anti-caries treatment without prior FDA approval. This is a violation of 21 CFR 310.545[49].

 

Third, Washington law allows fluoridation to take place only with NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials according to WAC 246-290-220(3)[50]. However NSF is not enforcing its own standards. Therefore there are no NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials. Fluoridation therefore should not proceed and should be enjoined.

 

I would identify the following as possible violations of criminal law:

 

First, because common law fraud is taking place and because said fraud is communicated through the mails, the mail fraud section under the RICO Act is being violated under 18 USC 341[51].

 

Second, because consumers of fluoridated water are suffering common law battery and criminal assault, and because profiteers are manipulating and working with others to implement and continue the assault and battery, the law against solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 USC 373[52] is being violated, especially with respect to fetuses and infants.

 

Maybe you can identify other violations.

 

I have detailed the facts which constitute violations of law in the attached document entitled “Who or What is the NSF?” which can also be read online at

 

www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

I ask that you listen to a presentation made to the Seattle City Attorney’s office on January 9. This will give you a quick summary of the issues. Follow this link:

 

http://fluoride-class-action.com/meeting-with-seattle-city-attorneys-1-9-2012.

 

I urge you to file for an immediate precautionary injunction to halt fluoridation in the state of Washington.

 

Note: I write for and represent only Fluoride Class Action.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

 

The latest revision of letter can be read online at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Seattle/us-attorney

 

 

---

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

January 10, 2012

 

Darby DuComb, Lawyer

Engel Lee, Lawyer

Seattle City Attorney’s Office

Sent by email only to: Darby.Ducomb@Seattle.Gov; Engel.Lee@Seattle.Gov

Read online at: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/the-fluoride-maze

 

Dear Darby & Engel,

 

I am writing to follow up on our meeting on January 9. Thank you for giving us over an hour of your time.

 

If you have questions, please email us or call us. Each of us knows different pieces of this complex puzzle.

 

Our contact information is:

 

Bill Osmunson, WASW president, cosmetic dentist, public health graduate, bill@teachingsmiles.com, 425-466-0100

Audrey Adams, WASW board member, mother of autistic and fluoride hyper-sensitive son, audrey55@comcast.net, 425-271-2229

Dr. David John MD, WASW board member, physician and science advisor, published author in numerous peer reviewed scientific journals, david.w.john@comcast.net

Scott Shock, P.E., civil engineer and constitutional liberty organizer, ssshock@comcast.net

Alli Larkin, WASW board member and water commissioner, alli@alark.net

Golda Starr, WASW board member, President of www.FluorideDetective.com; goldastarr@gmail.com (not at the Jan 9 meeting but available to advise) social worker, suffered near kidney failure drinking Everett water, had to move to Sultan, now drinks well water and has recovered most kidney function

Dr. Richard Sauerheber, PhD, richsauerheb@hotmail.com professor and science advisor, published author in numerous peer reviewed scientific journals.
See http://fluoride-class-action.com/ask-dr-sauerheber

 

James Robert Deal Lawyer Fluoride Class Action president James@Fluoride-Class-Action.com 425-771-1110

 

I too once thought that fluoridation was a great thing. People I respected said it was a great thing. They were trapped in the fluoride maze. I was trapped with them. We have all been trapped in that or other mazes, and it can be hard to find our way out. I tell the story of how it took us sixty years to escape from the tetraethyl lead maze. The exits are blocked with barriers such as endorsements by government agencies, or the doctors and dentists we know and trust.

 

See http://fluoride-class-action.com/speeches/tetraethyl-lead

 

Studying the subject of water contamination gives people a headache. It is hard to put the pieces together. It is hard to understand how something so harmful and illegal could have persisted for so long. You wonder if we are just imagining all these bad things about fluoridation. You wonder which side is telling the truth. If we are saying that the pro-fluoridation people are dupes and deceivers, you wonder whether we might instead be the dupes and deceivers.

 

The feeling is called cognitive dissonance. It is like listening to music written in an eastern scale our ears do not know. Critics of fluoridation just sound all wrong because they are saying something dramatically different from what you have heard all your life. This is why the Big Lie technique can be so effective. Ironically, the bigger the lie, the easier it is to maintain it and for longer periods of time.

 

As attorneys for the city, what is your place in this issue? What obligation do you have to study it? If your non-attorney political bosses tell you not to waste too much time in looking into it, will you object to such an instruction? Will you tell the politicians you work for that they ought to allow you to make a thorough study of it, to pay attention to this issue instead of pretending it does not exist? Would you advise them that they should put this issue should be on the agenda instead of ignoring it?

 

Who is qualified to make decisions about such things? Another city council we approached said this is a science question, that they are not scientists and cannot function as a science court, and therefore that they in some sense cannot make a decision on the subject, but must instead rely uncritically on a medical doctor they consult behind the scenes, who is an unquestioning and unstudied supporter of water fluoridation. Because you are lawyers and not scientists, are you incompetent to judge whether there is harm being caused by the lead, arsenic, and fluoride added to our water?

 

I say that the evidence is so overwhelming that anyone with an open mind can see it. The pro-fluoridation people have even admitted that harm is being done, that 41% of children 12 – 15 years old have dental fluorosis, with 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and 3.6% suffering from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and up to 100% of enamel impacted).

 

See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf

 

To the pro-fluoridation people, the disfigurement of 41%, 8.6%, or 3.6% of our children to different degrees is an acceptable casualty rate, a reasonable price to be paid to achieve a dubious reduction in caries, which they admit to be at best only an 18% to 25% reduction.

 

See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm

 

The pro-fluoridation people have even admitted the irrationality of fluoridation. Their own studies say that any positive effect of fluoride is topical and not systemic, yet they persist in advising that we should drink fluoride.

 

See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/caries-research-systemic-versus-topical-fluoride.pdf

 

Isn’t the flat-earth stupidity of fluoridation so obvious that city attorneys are qualified and therefore ethically obligated to advise Mayor and City Council that the only prudent thing to do is to declare an immediate moratorium on this strange custom?

 

Why do I say that an immediate moratorium be put in place? 1) Because there is already overwhelming evidence that harm is being done. 2) Because the burden of proof should be shifted to those who claim that fluoridation is safe and effective? 3) Because doing anything else is merely compounding past negligect of this issue. I have been sending notices to Seattle and Everett since 2008.

 

If you see violations of civil law, do you have some obligation to point them out, and to whom? I refer to violations of the Washington law which requires that fluoridation be done only with NSF 60 fluoride. The fact that the NSF 60 standard is not being followed, so the NSF 60 standard is no standard at all. And therefore the fact that there are no approved fluoridation materials, and therefore that fluoridation is not legal – at least with the materials available.

 

See www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

Would you report such violations to the Seattle City Attorney? County Prosecutor? Attorney general? US Attorney? Who would be obligated to give notice that the law be followed and to a bring civil action if necessary to stop fluoridation?

 

There is another plain violation of civil law. 21 CFR 310.545 requires that any anti-caries drug which contains hydrogen fluoride be FDA certified before it can be used.

 

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/310/545.

 

Everett and Seattle silicofluoride contain hydrogen fluoride.

 

See the Simplot Certificate of Analysis on the http://fluoride-class-action.com/foia page.

 

The above federal regulation includes a list of the most dangerous of all chemicals in paragraph a and includes hydrogen fluoride as one of them and then says of such toxins:

 …based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses.

 

Hydrogen fluoride is so extremely toxic that express FDA pre-approval is required before it can be used to prevent tooth decay. Regarding HF this regulation says:

 

Any OTC drug product … containing any active ingredient(s) as specified in paragraph (a) of this section is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of section 210(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), for which an approved new drug application under section 505 of the Act and part 314 of this chapter is required for marketing.

 

 

Would you report such violations to the Seattle City Attorney? County Prosecutor? Attorney general? US Attorney? Who would be obligated to give notice that the law be followed and to bring a civil action if necessary to stop fluoridation?

 

The hydrogen fluoride regulation is unenforced, overlooked, or just plain ignored. If it were enforced it would result in a ban of water fluoridation with silicofluoride because silicofluoride is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride.

 

Let’s take this further. If you see violations of criminal law, do you have some obligation to point them out, and to whom? I refer to the waivers of all liability by the fluoride producers. The fact that the fluoride producers and resellers all obtain NSF 60 certification for their fluoride. The fact that the NSF standard requires that toxicological and health studies be done and makes loud and numerous assurance regarding the safety of fluoridation. The fact that such toxicological and health studies are in reality not being done. The fact that Seattle is tricked into spending probably around $600,000 per year on this ineffectual and harmful toxic waste drug, one which does not meet the required NSF 60 standards. The fact that fluoridation materials definitely cause quick harm to fetuses and babies and cause slow harm to the rest of us.

 

Again see www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

Would you report such violations to the Seattle City Attorney? County Prosecutor? Attorney general? US Attorney? Who would be obligated to prosecute such potential RICO Act violations?

 

Would you advise the Mayor and the City Council to switch sides in this unbalance fight where rich corporations pay congressmen to get “their people” appointed to federal regulatory agencies which in turn use their positions to support fluoridation and hire rich dental college presidents to hire rich unstudied dentists to propagandize this snake oil?

 

Seattle can go a long way towards immunizing itself from liability by moving quickly to protect its citizens by declaring an immediate moratorium on fluoridation, by taking the lead in bringing class action and mass toxic tort actions against the deceivers who poison people for profit.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

 

PS: Note that I am not on the Washington Action for Safe Water board and that I speak only for Fluoride Class Action.

 

(click here to go to press releases)

On Monday January 9, 2012, members of Fluoride Class Action, Washington Action for Safe Water, and Americans for liberty met with two attorneys on the staff of the Seattle City Attorney. They are Darby DuComb, chief of staff under Peter Holmes, and Engel Lee, counsel for Seattle Utilities.

Listen to an audio recording of our meeting with Seattle City Attorneys.

 

See video 1. Unfortunately, the opening minutes of the meeting are missing.

See video 2, Raw Footage

***

Read this follow up letter from Fluoride Class Action to the Seattle City Attorneys, January 10 2012

Read this letter sent by Fluoride Class Action to Jenny Durkin, US Attorney in Seattle.

Read Dr. Sauerheber’s reflections on the meeting:

I want to clarify that Brent Foster, in his you tube video, correctly, that the Oregon legislature did not ban fluoridation. What it did is refuse to pass a law requiring it. Local  water districts in Oregon can still vote to fluoridate, as Beaverton and Corvalis has done.

I liked Audreys’ statements about vitamin D in African Americans as a possible link to calcium deficiency, which in turn would lead to increased fluorosis and other harms, including lowered IQ in infants and brain damage and miscarriage in fetuses.

I liked Dr. John’s comment that the Teotia study, the largest in the world on water fluoride, which indeed proves that calcium deficiency causes caries– which fits in with Audrey’s statement – and of course the bogus idea that water fluoride decrease caries incidence.

***

The San Diego city lawyer argued that it will take a KPBS special to wake people up to actually get something done. I contacted KPBS here in San Diego where it originated and they are not interested in the topic in the slightest.  In fact, they refused to televise Dr. Connett when he came to give a seminar to the Graduate School of Public Health. The professor friend of mine who allowed Paul to speak was ridiculed by other faculty in her department.

The story of Harold Hodge is told in detail in The Fluoride Deception by Chris Bryson. It carefully documents many other nefarious activities Hodge was involved with, not just fluoridation.

Hodge was a shill for the atomic weapons industry, the nuclear power industry, the chemical industry, and all sorts of medical/pharmacological interests.

Famously, he was in charge of secretly injecting unwitting patients at the Rochester Hospital with uranium and plutonium, to investigate it’s effects and metabolism.  The patients were supposed to be terminal, which I guess allowed Hodge to feel he wasn’t doing them any harm since they’d be dead soon anyways.  But several lived for decades.  So much for the reliability of medical knowledge in making prognoses!

Hodge founded the American Society of Toxicology, which has long been captive to industry.  He was an advisor to a committee that President Eisenhauer established to investigate one of the county’s first pesticide in food scares.  In the 1950s residues of pesticides were found in cranberries and there was a public outcry.  The committee tried to figure out what to do with the problem, and Hodge basically advised to downplay the risk , which has been the continuing strategy to this very day.

Hodge worked for the CIA developing radio-labelled forms of LSD that CIA wanted to use to investigate what they hoped would be mind-control properties.

Hodge could be called the father of defending toxics use.

***

When I was in medical school at the University of Rochester, Harold Hodge was Professor of Toxicology and Pharmacology.

Hodge was famous and was respected because the Rockefeller’s, through their Foundation, had ensconced him in a very impressive large brand new $6,000,000 multi-storey wing of labs etc off the back of the med. school.  I think this was done to set him up as a world expert on water fluoridation and help push that scheme.

I guess he was the original $6,000,000 man ;-} .

Harold Hodge said at the outset of fluoridation that workers exposed to fluoride in the Manhattan Project had less cavities, and therefore that water fluoridation should be done to decrease cavities.  Hodge left out the fact that fluoride had damaged the teeth of the workers so severely that many of their teeth had fallen out, so of course they had less dental decay.

***

Submitted by:

Dr. David John, M.D.

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

January 31, 2012

 

Jenny A. Durkin, US Attorney
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
Seatttle, WA 98101-1271

Posted at: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Seattle/us-attorney

Dear Ms. Durkin,

 

I am writing to point out violations of law which I believe are taking place on a continuing basis. I ask that you investigate these violations and take appropriate action.

∞∞∞

 

My Uncle Hubert died of emphysema brought on by smoking. He wheezed to me before he died that when he was young his medical doctor smoked Camels and recommended them as good for Uncle Hubert’s health.

 

In the process of learning that tobacco was harmful, we learned that what our “trusted professionals” should not necessarily be trusted. We learned that what our “trusted professionals” say is safe and good for us, may in fact be dangerous and bad for us. We learned that we should quit relying uncritically on “trusted professionals” and should examine important issues for ourselves.

∞∞∞

 

I write to you today because there is another harmful chemical which is being imposed on the public. I refer to the fluoridation materials which water districts add to tap water.

 

Around 200 million Americans receive fluoridated tap water. Around 92% of those receive industrial grade silicofluoride. Silicofluoride contains hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals and toxins known to be harmful to health. Around 8% are fluoridated using industrial grade sodium fluoride, which is only slightly less contaminated than silicofluoride.

 

It took 500 years for the world to acknowledge that tobacco was bad for health. I believe we are on the verge of making the same acknowledgement regarding the fluoride-lead-arsenic cocktail we add to our drinking water.

 

 

For more detail, I ask that you read “Who or What is the NSF?” See:

 

www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

NSF is the trade group which certifies fluoridation materials to be safe. The article spells out the violations of law connected with fluoridation. I am sending you a hard copy of the article, but I recommend that you read it online, which will make it easy for you to follow hyperlinks to documents which back up my assertions. Also the online version is updated regularly as new information is obtained.

 

∞∞∞

Since the end of the last Ice Age, farmers had been growing crops organically[1]. However, in the 20^th Century chemists developed super-phosphate fertilizer. They sold it as convenient and quick acting. Faster was better. Previous farmers had done nicely without it. Organic farmers today do nicely without it. Chemists created a market for an unnecessary[2] product that gradually kills off microbial life in soils.

 

Fertilizer plants in Florida and Louisiana[3] cooked rock phosphate in sulfuric acid, and the emissions of fluoride and other toxins polluted the air for miles around. In the 1970s and 1980s the EPA required the plants to capture the emissions with wet scrubbers installed in their smokestacks. The emissions contain silicofluoride, hydrogen fluoride[4], lead, arsenic[5], other heavy metals[6], and other toxins. Instead of the toxins going into the air, they were diverted into the scrubber liquor.

 

But what was to be done with the scrubber liquor? It was illegal to dump it into rivers, lakes, or seas. Fertilizer companies, without approval from any federal or state agency, beginning around 1950, began selling the raw scrubber liquor to water districts, which then piped it into our drinking water at 1.0 ppm, with the level recently reduced to .7 ppm. Once this vice was in place, economic and political forces made it exceedingly difficult to dislodge. Some 200 million Americans drink such slightly polluted water.

 

Before silicofluoride was used to fluoridate, sodium fluoride was used, another industrial grade waste product – from aluminum plants instead of fertilizer plants. Silicofluoride was less expensive and more abundant than sodium fluoride.

 

All 49 producers or resellers[7] of fluoridation materials in the United States issue Material Safety Document Sheets (MSDS) in which they disclaim all liability for any harm whatsoever which fluoridation materials might cause. However, before offering said fluoridation materials for sale, they apply for and obtain certification of their product.

 

The certifying “agency” is the National Sanitation Foundation, known as NSF or NSF International. NSF proudly refers to its NSF 60 certification as “the mark[8]”. It is displayed on certificates of analysis[9]. It is recognized as authoritative by EPA administrators, CDC administrators, states, state agencies, cities, and water districts. The EPA itself finances and approves the NSF 60 standard[10]. It is recognized as authoritative in Canada and other countries the world over. Silicofluoride and sodium fluoride would not be saleable for drinking water fluoridation purposes without such certification.

 

On the NSF web site[11] and in NSF documentation[12], NSF proclaims:

 

The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.

 

Sit down before reading the next paragraph:

 

NSF officials, including one speaking under oath in deposition, have admitted that NSF has has no toxicological studies[13] (see pages 27 and 67) regarding the fluoridation materials which NSF certifies as “safe[14]”, as I document in “Who or What is the NSF?” Again, please see www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.

 

Note that the fertilizer companies which produce the scrubber liquor are on the NSF boards which establish the scrubber liquor standards.  This is a clear conflict of interest. Such conflicts are detrimental to scientific objectivity and make it likely for profits to trump health and safety.

 

Defenders of fluoridation minimize the effect of the lead-arsenic-silicofluoride scrubber liquor cocktail, saying that the amounts of heavy metals and other toxins are small. However, one should not flippantly dismiss even small amounts of such highly toxic substances without thoroughly studying them, including a study of how they can interact each other and their toxicity can be compounded.

 

Silicofluoride contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen[15]. It is impossible to identify[16] any level of a carcinogen which can safely be consumed, including arsenic[17]. California proposed public health goal for arsenic[18] in 2003 was 4 ppt. That is parts per trillion or .004 ppb or .000004 ppm.  California says:

 

“… there is no evidence from methylation patterns [elemental arsenic converting into organic arsenic] that would support a threshold below which there would be no cancer risks.” p. 128.

 

NSF admits that tap water fluoridated at 1 ppm fluoride may contain up to 1.66 ppb arsenic[19], that is 1,600 ppt, which is 377 times the 4 ppt California public health goal. It is irresponsible knowingly to add any arsenic[20] whatsoever to drinking water, although the California goal would imply it is acceptable to add up to 4 ppt.

 

The toxic waste silicofluoride used contains lead[21] and leaches lead from pipes[22]. Blood lead levels are around 70% higher[23] in fluoridated cities[24].

 

 

Some 47 states allow fluoridation to take place only if it is done using NSF 60 certified fluoridation materials. Washington is one of the 47 states. See WAC 246-290-220(3)[25].

 

The Washington Board of Health relies on the loud assurances of the NSF in making its decision to allow local-option fluoridation, to specify the fluoridation materials which may be used, and to set the allowable range of concentrations.

 

Likewise, local water districts rely on NSF certification to make their final decisions to fluoridate. Board and water districts believe in the truthfulness of the NSF 60 certification mark.

∞∞∞

If silicofluoride and sodium fluoride did prevent tooth decay and did not cause any collateral harm to anyone, then maybe this deception could be excused. Unfortunately, the industrial silicofluoride used by Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma and the sodium fluoride used elsewhere is harmful to fetuses and infants in the short term, and it is harmful to all of us in the long term. Public utility standards should be calibrated to be protective of all, but especially of the most vulnerable.

 

As noted above, the toxic waste silicofluoride used contains lead[26] and leaches lead from pipes[27]. Blood lead levels are around 70% higher[28] in fluoridated cities[29].

 

There is no debate over the harmful nature of silicofluoride and sodium fluoride. In fact, the supporters of fluoridation, including the CDC, admit that 41% of children age 12-15 suffer from dental fluorosis[30], that 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and that 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and up to 100% of enamel impacted). 8.6% + 3.6% = 12.2%.

 

It is a civil battery and a criminal assault to give 12.2% or more of our children noticeably disfigured teeth. The NRC says that most fluoride gets to children through drinking water and food made with drinking water[31]. The other major source is toothpaste, packing a wallop of fluoride at around 1,500 ppm to 2,400 ppm. Some fluoride gets absorbed through tissues and some is swallowed.

 

The difference between fluoridated tap water and fluoridated toothpaste is that it is easy to avoid the fluoride in toothpaste simply by not brushing with it, while it is difficult and expensive to avoid the fluoride in tap water and food made with tap water.

 

Expert witnesses on all sides of this issue will admit if called to testify that fluoridation is causing hundreds of thousands of kids to have “funky teeth”. The causal connection is admitted and proven. When you add to that the known harm coming from lead and arsenic, the case becomes even stronger.

 

The CDC minimizes the harm by saying it is “cosmetic only”. However, fluorosis is definitely not “cosmetic only” for the 8.6% and the 3.6% who have mild, moderate, and severe fluorosis. Their teeth are ugly[32], and children are ashamed of them. The emotional impact on adolescents is like that of severe acne. Children with fluorosis tend to smile with their lips closed to hide their teeth. And CDC passes over the lead and arsenic problem[33].

 

The tradeoff is an alleged slight reduction in tooth decay in return for fluorosis of an entire mouthful of teeth plus other harms. Caries a can be x-rayed, “drilled, filled and billed” for under $100 each. Dr. Bill Osmunson[34], cosmetic dentist and public health graduate explains that fluorotic teeth, on the other hand, are difficult and expensive to fix, and that the cost of dental veneers and replacements over a lifetime can exceed $100,000. He notes that drinking water fluoridation is good for the cosmic dentistry business. If teeth are fluorotic, then all bones and other calcium rich areas are fluorotic too, because fluoride aggressively seeks out and binds with calcium throughout the body.

 

To the CDC, the EPA, and other pro-fluoridation groups, the disfigurement of 41%, 8.6%, or 3.6% of our children to different degrees is an acceptable casualty rate, a reasonable price to be paid to achieve a dubious reduction in caries, which they admit to be at best only a 17% to 25% reduction. Other studies show no reduction at all or worsening[35].

 

In addition to fetuses and infants, other groups are especially sensitive, including hard laborers and those with diabetes (because they drink so much water), those with kidney disease[36], arthritics and the aged[37], and those with thyroid disease[38]. Further, around one percent of the population is “allergic”[39] or hypersensitive[40] to fluoride and must leave town or take extreme precautions to avoid it. The autistic are especially sensitive to fluoride.

 

In its own publication on its own website the CDC admits that any positive effect of fluoride is topical[41] and not systemic[42], yet the CDC and other pro-fluoridation groups persist in advising us that we should drink and eat fluoride. For those who insist on consuming fluoride, eating a little toothpaste would be far more economical.

 

∞∞∞

 

There is another clear violation of federal law. An FDA regulation at 21 CFR 310.545 prohibits the marketing and sale of any anti-caries drug which contains hydrogen fluoride unless the the seller has first filed an FDA new drug application[43] (NDA) and received FDA approval.

 

Silicofluoride is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride and other components. Hydrogen fluoride is the most immediately toxic component in silicofluoride. Because its charge is neutral (F^-H⁺), it can slip easily through the neutral, non-polar, fatty lipid layer of the stomach lining, and then into the blood stream and the brain. Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma all use silicofluoride which is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride is also referred to as “free acid”[44]. See the Simplot Certificate of Analysis[45] for Everett and the Mosaic Certificate of Analysis[46] for Seattle on the http://fluoride-class-action.com/foia page.

 

Said federal regulation includes a list of elements and compounds, including hydrogen fluoride. The regulation says of the chemicals on the list:

 

…based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses.

 

Then it states:

 

Any OTC [over the counter] drug product … containing any active ingredient(s) as specified in … this section is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of … the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), for which an approved new drug application … is required for marketing.

 

The above hydrogen fluoride regulation is unenforced. Is it overlooked or just plain ignored? In the fluoridation arena you will find many uninforced, overlooked, and ignored laws. Fluoridation – initially with sodium fluoride – got started during World War II and the Cold War. The military, ALCOA, and other industries backed it. They latched onto a legend that natural fluoride in Texas and Colorado reduced decay, although the basis for the reduction was the high calcium levels, not the fluoride. These powerful groups generally got their way during that era. They rewarded universities for supporting fluoridation. The universities graduated physicians and dentists who became featured speaker “trusted professionals”, endorsers and defenders of fluoridation. Most of the “trusted professionals” we rely on are themselves deceived. Fluoridation began without prior approval by any federal or state agency. Since 1945 no agency has had the courage to stop it.

 

∞∞∞

I would identify the following as possible violations of civil law:

 

First, water districts are being swindled. They are being manipulated into spending scarce dollars on a product which is both ineffective for its stated purpose and harmful to users. NSF is not enforcing its own NSF 60 standards, as explained above.  Water districts are fluoridating using materials which do not meet standards set by state law – because NSF is not obtaining the safety studies which it says it is obtaining and which water districts believe are being obtained. This constitutes common law misrepresentation and fraud and thus is a consumer protection violation under 15 USC 45[47] and under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86[48].

 

Second, silicofluoride and sodium fluoride both contain and/or break down into hydrogen fluoride, and thus cannot be sold for anti-caries treatment without prior FDA approval. This is a violation of 21 CFR 310.545[49].

 

Third, Washington law allows fluoridation to take place only with NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials according to WAC 246-290-220(3)[50]. However NSF is not enforcing its own standards. Therefore there are no NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials. Fluoridation therefore should not proceed and should be enjoined.

 

I would identify the following as possible violations of criminal law:

 

First, because common law fraud is taking place and because said fraud is communicated through the mails, the mail fraud section under the RICO Act is being violated under 18 USC 341[51].

 

Second, because consumers of fluoridated water are suffering common law battery and criminal assault, and because profiteers are manipulating and working with others to implement and continue the assault and battery, the law against solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 USC 373[52] is being violated, especially with respect to fetuses and infants.

 

Maybe you can identify other violations.

 

I have detailed the facts which constitute violations of law in the attached document entitled “Who or What is the NSF?” which can also be read online at

 

www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

I ask that you listen to a presentation made to the Seattle City Attorney’s office on January 9. This will give you a quick summary of the issues. Follow this link:

 

http://fluoride-class-action.com/meeting-with-seattle-city-attorneys-1-9-2012.

 

I urge you to file for an immediate precautionary injunction to halt fluoridation in the state of Washington.

 

Note: I write for and represent only Fluoride Class Action.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

 

The latest revision of letter can be read online at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Seattle/us-attorney

 

 

---

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.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of CA, San Diego
Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069

January 14, 2012

 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Reviewers,

This information is in support of the FDA petition 2007-P-0346.

I mailed the following letter to local city officials who recently were forced by State officials, at the request of Federal officials from the OHD of the CDC, to begin industrial fluosilicic acid injections into all San Diego city water supplies in spite of two city elections voting otherwise.

Dear San Diego City Council and Public Utilities Officials,

As you know, the intent of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act is to prohibit any requirement for the addition of substances into water other than to sanitize it.  You are now adding fluosilicic acid diluted hazardous waste into water to treat teeth, and you say CA State law forces you to do so in spite of wording in the SDWA.

Could you then at the very least honor the mission of that State law, to improve teeth, by considering getting at the root of the problem of cavity causation, for example by providing calcium nutrition and counseling for residents with any calcium deficiency and high dental caries incidence (see graph below) — instead of broadly treating everyone with synthetic industrial fluoride through public water? This way calcium can be provided to help build strong teeth where it is actually needed.

Fluoride has side effects including tooth fluorosis and bone weakening that calcium does not cause. After 30 years of detailed studies on four hundred thousand children [1] it was published that dental caries increase a massive 16 times higher in incidence in children with calcium-deficient diets, which occurs whether water contains appreciable fluoride or not. The authors concluded:

“The only practical and effective public health measure for the prevention and control of dental canes is the limitation of the fluoride content of drinking water to < 0.5 ppm, and adequate calcium nutrition (dietary calcium > 1 g/day).”

[1] S P S Teotia and M Teotia,  Dental Caries: A Disorder of High Fluoride and Low Dietary Calcium Interactions (30 Years of Personal Research), Fluoride 1994; 27(2): 59-66.

Caries Incidence % vs. Low or Normal Calcium and Low or 1 ppm Fluoride

The percentage of dental caries are graphed as a function of the presence of dietary calcium deficiency (blue bars), accompanied with either low fluoride (left) or approximately 1 ppm fluoride levels in drinking water (right), and normal dietary calcium (red bars) accompanied with either low fluoride (left) or 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water (right). The data are from Teotia and Teotia for a 30 year study of 400,000 children. Notice that the highest incidence of caries was found in children with a calcium deficient diet where water was approximately 1 ppm fluoride. The lowest caries incidence was found in children with low fluoride water while also having adequate dietary calcium.

The reason for these results are obvious. Calcium is the chief ingredient in normal teeth enamel, and normal crystalline hard enamel that resists cavities can only form in children in the absence of fluoride-induced enamel fluorosis. Fluoride is unable to counter increased caries incidence from calcium dietary deficiency, and in fact fluoride contributes to caries incidence in this case. Fluoride also causes tooth fluorosis in children, whether on calcium-deficient or normal calcium diets (not shown for brevity).

Doesn’t it make sense to use the best available mineral to help teeth? If you are planning to continue disseminating a substance to be taken internally to affect teeth, then shouldn’t it be a substance like calcium, that is a normal dietary component, has a daily dietary requirement, is a mineral nutrient and an essential body component required for teeth enamel formation, and its deficiency causes conditions favorable to formation of caries? Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has no daily dietary requirement, from the bloodstream can cause tooth fluorosis, and after ingestion produces only 0.02 ppm fluoride ion in saliva [2] unable to affect teeth topically.

[2] National Research Council Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, Washington, D.C., 2006.

Calcium supplementation corrects calcium deficiency, that causes inadequate enamel formation and conditions that lead to dental caries. Let’s treat the causes, insufficiently developed enamel and not brushing after eating sugary foods, rather than after-the-fact attempts to treat the symptom, cavities, with fluoride in drinking water where dosage cannot be controlled, and that is of no significant value as observed in large numbers of studies [3], where the absence of fluoride in drinking water does not itself cause dental caries. Caries are caused by acid secretions from S. mutans metabolizing sugars, where insufficient enamel covering teeth dentyne is the most readily breeched.

[3] Connett, P., et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, How Hazardous Waste Ended up in our Drinking Water and the Politics that Keep it There, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont, 2010.

Thank you again for your attention on this matter,

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.                [Enclosure on calcium deficiency and enamel hypoplasia]

http://www.identalhub.com/article_enamel-hypoplasia-370.aspx

Hypocalcaemia is a specific cause of tooth enamel hypoplasia. Recently evidence has suggested that the etiology of enamel hypoplasia is highly specific. Enamel hypoplasia is seen in children having disorders of calcium homeostasis. Low calcium level in serum is one of the major causes of enamel hypoplasia.

Enamel Hypoplasia and Caries.  Enamel hypoplasia is clinically significant not only because it is disfiguring and the restorative treatment costly, but because it may affect caries susceptibility. There was a strong correlation between hypoplasia in the teeth of British schoolchildren and caries susceptibility. Out of a collection of 1,500 extracted teeth, 74% of very hypoplastic teeth were carious, whereas 80% of the nonhypoplastic teeth were caries–free. Caries has also been associated with hypoplasia in many parts of the Third World. There is no information about the chemical composition of hypoplasia enamel so the exact reason for its greater proneness to caries is uncertain, but it is possible that its irregularity and pits may favor the development of more plaque compared with smooth well-formed enamel.

Enamel hypoplasia is due to many causes. It can be due to high fluoride level or due to some medicines or if the child becomes ill when the teeth which are affected by enamel hypoplasia are being formed. The treatment depends on degree of hypoplasia. Intially the composite restorations are done and if it is more (ie whole of enamel is hypoplastic) then veneers or crowns are indicated in later age when the teeth are fully formed.

 

S.C. Department of Transportation officials … they started pre-treating the major bridges about midnight Monday with 4,000 gallons of salt brine and calcium fluoride mix to keep the ice from sticking. They followed that with more than 125 tons of salt, according to Robert Clark, engineering administrator for the district that covers the Lowcountry.

Read the full article here.

***

Kentucky Transportation workers pre-treated many roads to help keep snow from sticking. …

“But we are prepared, we’ve got close to 20,000 tons of salt, 95,000 gallons of calcium fluoride, of course we can make brine at each county barn on site,” says Keirsten Jaggers from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.

Read the full article here.

***

From Richard Windsor

Dear James,

There is no way physically that calcium fluoride is useful as a de-icing agent. I’d guess, from my previous contact with the press, that it’s a reporters error, calling chloride, fluoride. You are closer to the action than me, ring up the reporter (or send her an email and ask her if she made a mistake.

The reason calcium chloride is used as a de-icer is that it is highly soluble and it has an exothermic reaction on dissolving. it gives off heat. So the increased osmolarity of the solution causes freezing point depression (the solution freezes at less than zero Celsius) and the exothermic reaction of the calcium chloride dissolving initiates a positive feedback loop, the more water formed, the more of the material dissolves and the more heat given off. A near perfect de-icer.

Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, is barely soluble, it has no exothermic reaction and has no more use than grit spread on an icy road to improve traction.

Richard Windsor

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry,
University of CA, San Diego Palomar College
1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069
January 14, 2012

Dear San Diego City Utilities and Officials,

As you know the intent of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act is to prohibit any requirement for the addition of substances into water other than to sanitize it.  You are now adding fluosilicic acid diluted hazardous waste into water to treat teeth, and you say CA State law forces you to do so in spite of wording in the SDWA. Could you then at the very least honor the mission of that State law, to improve teeth enamel, by considering getting at the root of the problem of cavity causation, for example providing calcium nutrition counseling where residents with any calcium deficiency and high dental caries incidence (see graph below), instead of broadly treating everyone with synthetic industrial fluoride through public water? This way calcium can be provided to help build strong teeth where it is actually needed. Fluoride has side effects like tooth fluorosis and bone weakening that calcium does not cause. After 30 years of detailed studies on four hundred thousand children [1] it was published that dental caries increase a massive 16 times higher in incidence in children with calcium-deficient diets, which occurs whether water contains appreciable fluoride or not. The authors concluded:
“The only practical and effective public health measure for the prevention and control of dental canes is the limitation of the fluoride content of drinking water to < 0.5 ppm, and adequate calcium nutrition (dietary calcium > 1 g/day).”

 

[1] S P S Teotia and M Teotia,  Dental Caries: A Disorder of High Fluoride and Low Dietary Calcium Interactions (30 Years of Personal Research), Fluoride 1994; 27(2): 59-66.

Caries Incidence % vs. Low or Normal Calcium and Low or 1 ppm Fluoride

                         

 

The percentage of dental caries graphed as a function of the presence of dietary calcium deficiency (blue) accompanied with either low fluoride or approximately 1 ppm fluoride levels in drinking water,  and normal dietary calcium (red) accompanied with either low fluoride or 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water. The data are from Teotia and Teotia for a 30 year study of 400,000 children. Notice that the highest incidence of caries was found in children with a calcium deficient diet where water was approximately 1 ppm fluoride. The lowest caries incidence was found in children with low fluoride and having adequate dietary calcium.

The reason for these results are obvious. Calcium is the chief ingredient in normal teeth enamel, and normal crystalline hard enamel that resists cavities can only form in children in the absence of fluoride-induced enamel fluorosis. Fluoride is unable to counter increased caries incidence from calcium dietary deficiency and in fact fluoride contributes to caries incidence in such cases. Fluoride also causes tooth fluorosis in children, whether on calcium-deficient or normal calcium diets (not shown for brevity).

 

Doesn’t it make sense to use the best available mineral to help teeth? If you are planning to continue disseminating a substance to be taken internally to affect teeth, then shouldn’t it be a substance like calcium, that is a normal dietary component, has a daily dietary requirement, is a mineral nutrient and an essential body component required for teeth enamel formation, and its deficiency causes caries? Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient, has no daily dietary requirement, from the bloodstream causes tooth fluorosis, and after ingestion produces only 0.02 ppm fluoride ion in saliva [2], unable to affect teeth topically.
Calcium supplementation corrects calcium deficiency that causes inadequate enamel formation and thus conditions that lead to dental caries. Let’s treat the cause, insufficient enamel, and not brushing after eating sugary foods. Let’s not broadly attempt to treat the symptom, cavities, with fluoride in drinking water where dosage cannot be controlled, where absence of fluoride does not cause cavities as demonstrated by these data.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

 

 

 

New Study on Fluoride Shows No Benefits and Major Safety Issues

Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 03 2012 | 13,687 views

 

 

By Dr. Mercola

Fluoride, a neurotoxin that has been linked to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development and brain damage, among many other serious health problems, is sometimes prescribed in supplement form to children ages 6 months to 16 years who live in areas that have non-fluoridated drinking water.

The rationale, which is heavily promoted by government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – or rather its Oral Health Division

Bodies like the American Dental Association (ADA), is that this toxic agent helps reduce cavities – and those children who are “unfortunate” enough NOT to have the poison forced upon them in their drinking water should get their daily dose elsewhere (i.e. in supplement form).

These recommendations now defy rational logic and common sense on two fronts:

1) even promoters of fluoridation now admit that fluoride’s predominant action is on the surface of the tooth and not from inside the body (CDC, 1999) and

2) there are more than 100 published studies illustrating fluoride’s harm to the brain, plus 25 published studies directly linking fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children! In other words, it doesn’t do much (if any) good to swallow fluoride and doing so could be doing significant harm.

Adding insult to injury, new research has further revealed that ingesting fluoride in supplement form does not reduce cavities in primary teeth – and may in fact cause harm.

Why You Need to Get Informed Before Allowing Your Child to Take Fluoride Supplements

A review of 11 studies involving more than 7,000 children showed that the effect of fluoride supplements on primary teeth could not be determined, with one study showing no cavity-reducing effect. Meanwhile, the study revealed the supplements have only dubious cavity-reducing effects on permanent teeth, and no difference was noted between fluoride supplements or topical fluoride for preventing cavities.

Researchers noted:

“In the review, no conclusion could be reached about the effectiveness of fluoride supplements in preventing tooth decay in young children (less than 6 years of age) with deciduous teeth. Moreover, insufficient evidence exists to show whether or not using fluoride supplements in young children (less than 6 years of age) could mottle teeth (fluorosis), an effect of chronic ingestion of excessive amounts of fluoride.”

Adding to the stark lack of supporting evidence, researchers pointed out that 10 out of the 11 trials they reviewed were at “unclear risk of bias,” and the 11th was at “high risk of bias” – leading researchers to conclude “therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements.”

This is not the first time a study has questioned the use of fluoride supplements. In 2008, researchers reviewed 20 reports from 12 trials and similarly concluded:

“There is weak and inconsistent evidence that the use of fluoride supplements prevents dental caries in primary teeth … Mild-to-moderate dental fluorosis is a significant side effect. The current recommendations for use of fluoride supplements during the first six years of life should be re-examined.”

What is so ludicrous about these findings is that fluorosis is associated with the irreversible discoloration of the teeth (yellow and brown spots)  – the very aesthetically unappealing symptoms that most people think and are told the fluoride is supposed to prevent! The CDC admitted in 2010 that 41% of American children between the ages of 12-15 had this irreversible staining of their teeth (CDC, 2010) and in 2005 revealed that minority children are disproportionately impacted by this condition (CDC, 2005, Table 23).

ADA Recommends Fluoride Supplements Despite Evidence of Serious Risks

The truth has always been that fluoride is a toxic agent that is biologically active in the human body where it accumulates in sensitive tissues over time, wreaks havoc with enzymes and produces a number of serious adverse health effects —including neurological and endocrine dysfunctions (NRC, 2006).

Nearly 10 years ago, Belgium banned the sale of all non-prescription fluoride supplements citing well-documented research indicating that ingested fluoride has “considerable potential” for physical and neurological harm, with little evidence of cavity prevention. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), meanwhile, has not found fluoride supplements to be safe or effective, according to the National Institute of Health, which lists a laundry list of fluoride’s effects, including:

Staining of teeth	Unusual increase in saliva	Weakness	Stomach pain and upset stomach	Vomiting
Diarrhea	Rash	Salty or soapy taste	Tremor	Seizures

 

Not to mention, it’s known that over time fluoride accumulates in many areas of your body, including areas of your brain that control and alter behavior, particularly your pineal gland, hippocampus and other limbic areas. One particularly striking animal study published in 1995 showed that fluoride ingestion had a profound influence on the animals’ brains and altered behavior. Pregnant rats given fluoride produced hyperactive offspring. And animals given fluoride after birth became apathetic, lethargic “couch potatoes.”

This study was particularly powerful because the effects were measured using objective computerized evaluations of behavior, to rule out subjective bias by the researchers observing the animals.

For the past 60 years, pregnant women have ingested fluoridated water and used fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula for their babies. If the adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure in animals are true for humans as well, we’d expect to see a striking change in human behavior at this point as well.

And we most definitely do!

One in ten children are now diagnosed with ADHD. While no US agency has funded or attempted to see if this condition has been caused by or exacerbated by fluoride the connection is biologically plausible and worrying. But the attitude of the American health authorities that continue to recklessly promote fluoridation is that the “absence of studies means the absence of harm.”

Aside from the animal studies that show that fluoride damages the brain, and the 25 studies indicating lowered IQ associated with modest to high exposure to fluoride, mild reduction of thyroid function in pregnant women has been shown to produce significant neurological problems in their offspring as well.

Outrageously, there is no mention of the risks or lack of efficacy on the American Dental Association’s Fluoride Supplements Web page, other than mild dental fluorosis. Instead they claim the fluoride supplements are “silently at work fighting decay. Safe, convenient, effective…”

Dental fluorosis is only caused by fluoride, and is typically due to ingesting too much during your developing years, from birth to about 8 years of age. Dental fluorosis is not a merely cosmetic problem, as it is usually an indication that the rest of your body has been exposed to too much fluoride as well.

You Can Opt Out of the Supplements, But it’s Much Harder to Get Fluoride Out of Your Drinking Water

The only positive side to fluoride in supplement form is that you can make a choice of whether or not to take it. In the case of the fluoride that’s added to the water supplies of nearly 75 percent of Americans, you have no choice. It’s there whether you like it or not.

China, in contrast, does NOT allow water fluoridation because it’s too toxic and causes damage, according to their studies. Instead, the waste product from their phosphate fertilizer industry is shipped to the United States, where we add it to our water supply!

This is a very important point: the fluoride added to your water is NOT even pharmaceutical grade.

It’s a toxic industrial waste product, which is also contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The story gets even more convoluted, as now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission show that the original motivation for promoting fluoride and water fluoridation in the United States was to protect the bomb- and aluminum industries other fluoride polluting industries from liability. In the early days some of the sodium fluoride used to fluoridate water supplies in the U.S. came from Alcoa.

A couple of years later, they switched to the even more hazardous waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid from the phosphate fertilizer industry. But none of the studies on fluoride actually used the far more toxic and contaminated hydrofluorosilicic acid that is added to the water supply. Rather, they use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, which while harmful, is not quite as bad as what’s being used for water fluoridation. So, the health hazards are likely FAR worse than any study has so far discerned.

Some proponents of fluoridation believe that the large dilution of these fluoridating chemicals that takes place when they are added at the public water works ameliorates concerns about the known contaminants. However, one of those contaminants is arsenic, which is a known human carcinogen. For the EPA there is no safe level for a human carcinogen. Inevitably, the addition of contaminated hexafluorosilicic acid to the water supply by definition must increase the cancer rate in the U.S. because of the arsenic it contains.

One can argue about how much this cancer risk is increased by, but there is no question that it will be increased. Why would any rational government do that to reduce – at best – a miniscule amount of tooth decay?

For people living in areas with fluoridated tap water, fluoride is a part of every glass of water, every bath and shower, and every meal cooked using that water.

This makes absolutely no sense considering the significant health risks of this toxin — and the data published online by the World Health Organization showing that 12-year-olds in countries that do not fluoridate their water have similar if not better tooth decay rates than countries that do.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

In summary it would seem most rational people would conclude you should avoid using fluoride for its “preventive” benefits. You can easily choose not to take fluoride supplements or buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you’re stuck with whatever your community puts in the water, and it’s very difficult to filter out of your water once it’s added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation.

Earlier this year I joined forces with Dr. Paul Connett to help put an END to water fluoridation in the U.S and Canada. The Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to do just that. Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get Calgary and the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow. I urge you to join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.

Contact Information for Canadian Communities:

• If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at diane.sprules@cogeco.ca.
• The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at aliss@nutrimom.ca.
• The point-of-contact for the Peel region in Ontario, Canada is Rob Brewer. You may email him at FluorideFreePeel@ymail.com. Also see Fluoride Free Peel’s Facebook page.

Contact Information for American Communities:

We’re also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:

• New York City, NY: The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 “prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply.”

A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S. If you live in the New York area I beg you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference.

The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com. Please contact her if you’re interested in helping with this effort.

• Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or fluoride.info@yahoo.com, or by regular mail or telephone:

Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The man has been shamelessly mocked, repeatedly lied about, and cruelly defamed for his legitimate scientific research into the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children. But Dr. Andrew Wakefield is now fighting back against those responsible for viciously denigrating his work and his character by filing a lawsuit against the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which published lies about him, and journalist Brian Deer, who authored many of those lies.

The lawsuit cites several articles and editorials published in BMJ that include “false and defamatory allegations” about Dr. Wakefield and his work. Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, an article written by journalist Brian Deer that was published in BMJ, and an accompanying editorial by Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of BMJ, are two of the defamatory writings named in the suit.

BMJ and Deer, not Dr. Wakefield, have spread lies and misinformation to the public

Contrary to what the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC), BMJ, Brian Deer, and the host of whoring media outlets continue to claim, Dr. Wakefield’s original study was a case series that made no actual claims about a definitive link between MMR and autism. And the observations, which do happen to suggest a link between MMR and autism regression, are not just unique to Dr. Wakefield’s research. Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Amar Dhillon together documented their own independent research that also points to a link between MMR vaccine and autism (http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html).

But it is facts like these that BMJ, Brian Deer, and the rest have conveniently ignored in their witch hunt to destroy the career and life of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who has hardly been given the chance to present his side of the story before the public. This is why many still falsely believe, for instance, that Dr. Wakefield fabricated his research data. This accusation was entirely made up by those that Dr. Wakefield is now suing — or that he is no longer a doctor just because the GMC banned him from practicing in the UK.

Such malicious slander against a man who dared to conduct honest science about a condition that afflicts more and more children every year is outrageous. But it is precisely because Dr. Wakefield’s science conflicts with the medical status quo that the full arsenal of hatred and vilification was drawn upon to destroy him. In reality, though, it is the false information written and spread by the likes of Brian Deer, and published by BMJ, that deserves such relentless scrutiny and punishment.

Be sure to watch this powerful interview between Dr. Wakefield and Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, that took place earlier this year:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186

“It is Deer, Godlee and BMJ who have provided misleading information regarding 12 children’s histories with the malicious purpose of injuring Dr. Wakefield by falsely making it appear that [he] altered, manipulated or misrepresented data for the 12 cases,” says the suit. “In fact, all of the facts and findings in the Lancet paper are supported by the documents for these 12 patients.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/05/andrew-wakefield-sues-bmj-mmr

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego)
Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069
Email: richsauerheb@hotmail.com   Phone: 760-744-2547
January 11, 2012

Dear Anthony Young, San Diego City Council, Mayor Sanders, and Attorney Dumanis,

As a concerned San Diego native I write again to help you understand your rights regarding the use of substances in water to treat citizens of the city. All Water Districts in the U.S. who treat people with industrial fluorides for any putative effect on teeth via the bloodstream after ingestion are responsible for measuring the fluoride level in the blood of citizens they decide to treat. The burden of quality control is on the utilites that administer the agent, not the consumer who is forced to ingest it.

The target blood level stated by the Oral Health Division dental officials within the CDC is 0.2 ppm fluoride [1], but neither the OHD dentists nor most city utilities understand that blood fluoride levels depend on water hardness. People consuming Seattle ultra-soft water (10 ppm calcium) have levels above 0.2 ppm in blood, and water chemists there add calcium chloride along with the fluoridation chemicals to help minimize assimilation [2].  In hard water Texas (safe 300 ppm calcium antidote), where the idea of ‘water fluoridation’ first began, the blood level is below 0.2 ppm.  San Diego water (labeled ‘soft’ by water districts) has a calcium to fluoride ratio of only about 60 mg calcium per 0.8 mg fluoride.  Animal studies show the blood level of fluoride was lowered 4 fold when calcium was administered along with sodium fluoride, compared to sodium fluoride alone.

Those who believe the false claim, that fluoride consumption is harmless long-term, regardless of all the published human and animal studies proving otherwise, do not explain how fluoride, that crosses the blood brain barrier [3] and accumulates in bone permanently [4], somehow magically avoids having any effect on systemic biologic functions. How does this happen? The answer of course is that fluoride indeed causes harm. Look at the 41% of 12-15 year olds in the U.S. having permanent abnormal tooth fluorosis that prevents a normal smile [4]. They are not smiling, and neither are the San Diego residents who know the truth – that industrial fluorides are all toxic calcium chelators [5]. San Diego voters have voted against fluoridation twice, but it is still being forced on them.

Unfortunately after 6 years of consuming aluminum fluoride treated municipal water, the former show elephants of the Wild Animal Park were finally euthanized at the San Diego Zoo this week [6]. One was unable to walk and the other had also deteriorated after both became mentally unstable and unable to follow tasks. These were once bright animals. They could easily follow directions and learn tricks. But the elephant shows had to be canceled a few years after the Park began accepting fluoridated municipal water in 2005. The Park was told in 2005 they would not receive the treated water, but the Park’s utility, the San Pasqual Water District, arranged for the city of Escondido to provide the water that is treated with aluminum and with industrial fluoride [7], thinking without evidence that the water would be healthy for elephants, not realizing their large body to brain volume ratio.

Show elephants consume copious amounts of water because of their daily activity level, over 60 gallons daily, and do not have kidneys designed to remove aluminum fluoride at an intake rate that high. They developed mental aberrations that are known to occur in laboratory animals given aluminum fluoride water at such levels for long time periods [3, 4], including inability to walk from motor brain degeneration. The problem is that aluminum and fluoride together in the acidic stomach form complexes that are assimilated into the bloodstream, causing aluminum accumulation in the brain [4].  Aluminum in water which does not also contain industrial fluoride is not assimilated.

The elephants were transferred from the Wild Animal Park to the San Diego Zoo in January of 2010, and there they were also given fluoridated water to drink. The elephants’ mental deficiencies continued to decline. The were even unable to wander around freely in the enclosure. They were standing vegetables. They were recently euthanized.  Zoo veterinarians have no explanation for what happened to our elephants. They have not been trained in fluoride toxicology, yet they are reluctant to consider aluminum carried by silicofluoride as the toxin that dumbed down their charges.

It is necessary for city officials to request blood testing of citizens in San Diego that are under your care to verify that the target fluoride blood level is maintained with this new radical water district treatment.  Remember that the CA law, that requests ‘fluoridation,’ does not mention the fluoride source of choice nor does it provide protocols for our local water, having only 60 ppm calcium, to achieve a desired blood level of 0.2 ppm fluoride. The CA Dept. of Health merely suggests what the OHD suggests, to use synthetic industrial hazardous waste fluosilicic acid diluted to ’1 ppm’ free fluoride, making no mention of adjustments for water calcium or aluminum content!  It must be emphasized again that both the CDC and the CA Dept. of Health, in detailed letters to me, made it perfectly clear that the city itself bears all responsibility and all liability for the injections designed to treat citizens in San Diego; and monitoring the health effects of animals by either agency is out of the question.

Is it time to halt these injections? Of course it is. The FDA has never approved ingestion of fluoride because it is not a mineral nutrient and in water is an uncontrolled use of a non FDA-approved drug. When added intentionally into water, the FDA decreed fluoride is an unapproved drug. When accidentally or naturally found in water, both the FDA  and EPA rule fluoride is a contaminant. We expect the FDA to ban the intentional injection of fluorides, or to bar the OHD from requesting the injections, soon. But nevertheles in the meantime, cities bear all liability for the injection of fluoride into citizens through public water supplies and because of that fact alone have full legal authority to halt the injections.

We have data from the 50 U.S. states that rank disease incidence as a function of percent of water districts that fluoridate. The data indicate yet again that water fluoridation does not influence teeth decay, but has significant associations with increased tooth fluorosis, mental retardation, cancer and cardiovascular deaths. There was no correlation of increased incidence of Alzheimer’s disease with fluoridation, but cities were not separated between those that treat water also with aluminum from those that do not.

Please let me be clear.  It is possible that the elephants from the Wild Animal Park that were mentally degraded and euthanized at the Zoo this week may have presented with some form of dementia independent of aluminum and fluoride in their water. However, there is little doubt that the massive amounts of aluminum and fluoride, ingested together that causes uptake into brain, hastened their complete demise.  The abnormal tau proteins synthesized in brain in human dementia for unknown reasons have very high affinity for aluminum. Many Alzheimer’s victims have aluminum in large concentrations in brain at time of death.

Nevertheless, the Alzheimer’s Association currently does not know the cause of the high incidence of Alzheimer’s in the U.S. or why San Diego leads the nation in this category of death per capita.  It is no longer assumed by this organization that aluminum is the causative agent. San Diego Water facilities indeed do not inject their own aluminum but report levels on water quality reports.  Metroplitan Water, Los Angeles has injected aluminum as a clarifying agent long before fluoride injections were begun that enhance aluminum assimilation. However, the city of San Diego and Escondido are fully culpable for contributing to the demise of these prize animals by providing no option other than water treated with fluoride that also contained aluminum. There is little doubt that aluminum uptake in brain enhanced the mental condition the animals suffered. Aluminum taken up into the brain where it does not belong cannot hide to exert zero effects on structure and function.  Numerous studies by Varner and coworkers over the last many decades (see Connett, Fluoride and the Brain, Chapter 15, The Case Against Fluoride, 2010) prove fluoride plus aluminm forms complexes that are asslmilated into brain that causes microscopically observed brain degeneration durign long term chronic consumption. The question is why is this seemingly not even more dramatic in the human population that what seems to exist, but remember the human brain is of very high capacity (200 billion cells per brain). Further, lack of effect is merely an impression, not a fact, since Alzheimer’s now is the 6th leading cause of death in the U.S. (North County Times Jan 12, 2012) and in San Diego County is now astoundingly 3rd!!

It is time to halt the inane practice of injecting industrial synthetic fluoride compounds into human drinknig water in an attempt to find a child’s cavity, when nonfluoridated Europe has experienced the same rate of decline in caries incidence that the U.S. has seen during this water ingested fluoride program. Understand again that CA AB733 was based on a false assumption, that swallowed fluoride was assumed to decrease caries, when biochemical measurements prove it cannot–it is present from swallowing in the saliva at only 0.02 ppm, unable to affect teeth topically though CA dental officials with vested interests attempt to ignore this.  And again, no protocols are provided in CA AB733; it merelyy asserts basically to go forth and fluoridate, without details of any kind, as though it were some sort of higher proclamation, when in it is a corrupt order that violates the Safe Drinking Water Act (prohibits any Federal requirement for drugs, foods, or any chemicals added otehr than to sanitize water), and the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (requiring FDA approval for any substance used as a putative treatment in humans) and the Water Pollution Control Act (section 101a). No State law can supercede Federal laws covering public waterways that are Federal property. The Colorado River originates as far North as Wyoming, and the CA aqueduct water originates as far away as creek drainage in Southern Oregon. The Oregon State legislature barred any state requirement for fluoride in Oregon waterways, to protect salmon from the gross mental narcotic effect fluoride is known to exert that causes salmon run collapse.

As a medical research scientist and native San Diegan, I request that you order the Public Utilties Director, San Diego to stop titrating this illegal, unapproved, useless, harmful industrial substance lacking calcium into the water supply that is ingested by the innocent animals and people who reside here in our otherwise fair city.  My brother was offered the position of head computer systems operator by the San Diego Padres.  However, due to concerns over water fluoride (my brother has tooth fluorosis) he has chosen to remain employed at Stanford University and to remain in his home in Morgan Hill.  Morgan Hill is listed as a ‘fluoridated city’ but this is false. The water district chemists there stopped ordering drums of fluosilicic acid hazardous waste decades ago and refuse to inject synthetic fluorides into innocent people that, as a toxic calcium chelator, accumulates into bone permanently lifetime. Many people can remain rational about this, and I think you can do so also.

If you would like additional information to help protect citizens of San Diego from this industrial chemical taken internally, or references or letters from the CDC, FDA, CA DPH or other items, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

References:
[1] Personal communication and e-mail from Donald Nelson, while chief fluoridation officer, CA Department of Health, Sacramento, CA.
[2] Online statements of chemists at the Seattle Water District.
[3] Varner, Brain Research, 1986; Mullenix, Journal of Neurology and Teratology, 1995; Reddy, Journal of Medical and Allied
Sciences, 2011; most data reviewed in [4].
[4] Connett, P.et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, 2010.
[5] Yiamouyiannis, J., Fluoride, the Aging Factor,1986.
[6] Perry, T., Zoo Euthanizes Zoo Elephants, North County Times, reprinted from Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2012.
[7] Freedom of Information Act request answered by the Escondido Public Works Department, 2010.

Continuing, we have data from the 50 U.S. states that rank disease incidence as a function of percent of water districts that fluoridate. The data indicate yet again that water fluoridation does not influence teeth decay, but has significant associations with increased tooth fluorosis, mental retardation, cancer and cardiovascular deaths [1]. There was no correlation of increased incidence of Alzheimer’s disease with fluoridation, but cities were not separated between those that treat water also with aluminum from those that do not.

Please let me be clear.  It is possible that the elephants from the Wild Animal Park that were mentally degraded and euthanized at the Zoo this week may have presented with some form of dementia independent of aluminum and fluoride in their water. However, there is little doubt that the massive amounts of aluminum and fluoride, ingested together that causes uptake into brain, hastened their complete demise.  The abnormal tau proteins synthesized in brain in human dementia for unknown reasons have very high affinity for aluminum. Many Alzheimer’s victims have aluminum in large concentrations in brain at time of death.

The Alzheimer’s Association is currently confused and does not know the cause of the high incidence of Alzheimer’s in the U.S. or why San Diego leads the nation in this category of death per capita.  It is no longer assumed by this organization that aluminum is the causative agent. San Diego Water facilities indeed do not inject their own aluminum but report levels on water quality reports.  Metroplitan Water, Los Angeles has injected aluminum as a clarifying agent long before fluoride injections were begun that enhance aluminum assimilation, and this water is imported to North San Diego County. However, the city of San Diego and Escondido are fully culpable for contributing to the demise of these prize animals by providing no option other than water treated with fluoride that also contained aluminum. There is little doubt that aluminum uptake in brain enhanced the mental condition the animals suffered. Aluminum taken up into the brain where it does not belong cannot hide to exert zero effects on structure and function.  Numerous studies by Varner and coworkers over the last many decades [2] prove fluoride plus aluminum forms AlF3 complexes that are asslmilated into brain that cause microscopically observed brain degeneration during long term chronic consumption. The question is why is this seemingly not more dramatic in the human population than what seems to exist, but remember the human brain is of very high capacity (200 billion cells per brain). Further, lack of effect is merely an impression, not a fact, since Alzheimer’s now is the 6th leading cause of death in the U.S. [3] and in San Diego County is now astoundingly 3rd [4]!!  The time to death after Alzheimer’s first appears is relatively quick in many cases and there remains no cure.

It is time to halt the inane practice of injecting industrial synthetic fluoride compounds into human drinking water in an attempt to find a child’s cavity, when nonfluoridated Europe has experienced the same rate of decline in caries incidence that the U.S. has seen during this water ingested fluoride program [5]. Understand again that CA AB733 was based on a false assumption, that swallowed fluoride was assumed to decrease caries, when biochemical measurements prove it cannot–it is present from swallowing in the saliva at only 0.02 ppm [6], unable to affect teeth topically though CA dental officials with vested interests attempt to ignore this [7].  And again, no protocols are provided in CA AB733; it merelyy asserts basically to ‘go forth and fluoridate’, without details of any kind, as though it were some sort of higher proclamation, when it is a corrupt order that violates the Safe Drinking Water Act (which prohibits any Federal requirement for drugs, supplements, or any chemicals added other than to sanitize water), the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (requires FDA approval for any substance used as a putative treatment in humans) and the Water Pollution Control Act (section 101a). No State law can be legally binding that attempts to supercede these and other Federal laws covering public waterways that are Federal property. The Colorado River originates as far North as Western Wyoming (WindRiver Mountain Range), and CA aqueduct water originates as far North as creek drainage in Southern Oregon. The Oregon State legislature barred any State requirement for fluoride in Oregon waterways, to protect salmon from the known gross mental narcotic effect fluoride exerts that causes salmon run collapse.

As a medical research scientist and native San Diegan, I request that you order the Public Utilties Director, San Diego to stop titrating this illegal, unapproved, useless, harmful industrial substance lacking calcium into the water supply that is ingested by the innocent animals and people who reside here in our otherwise fair city.  My brother was offered the position of head computer systems operator by the San Diego Padres.  However, due to concerns over water fluoride (my brother has slight tooth fluorosis from a one-time Luride dose) he has chosen to remain in his home in Morgan Hill, CA. Morgan Hill is listed as a ‘fluoridated city’ but this is false. The water district chemists there stopped ordering drums of fluosilicic acid hazardous waste decades ago and refuse to inject synthetic fluorides into innocent people that, as a toxic calcium chelator, accumulates into bone permanently lifetime. Many people can remain rational about this, and I think you can also.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

References:
[1] Dr. Osmunson, presenter, International Fluoride Conference, Toronto,Canada, 2008
[2] Varner, Brain Research,1986 reviewed at www.fluoridealert.org and in
[3] North County Times, Jan 12, 2012
[4] Signon San Diego, 2010.
[5] Connett, et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2010.
[6] National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, a Scientifc Review of EPA’s Standards, Washington, D.C., 2006.
[7] personal communication with Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, co-athor of reference [6].

 

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS

Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry

University of Toronto

Toronto, Ontario, M5G-1G6

E-mail: hardy.limeback@utoronto.ca

 

April, 2000

 

To whom it may concern:

Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water

Since April of 1999, I have publicly decried the addition of fluoride, especially hydrofluosilicic acid, to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. The following summarize my reasons.

New evidence for lack of effectiveness of fluoridation in modern times.

1. Modern studies (published in the 1980′s 1990′s) show dental decay rates are so low in North America that the effects of water fluoridation cannot be measured.

2. The major reasons for the general decline of tooth decay worldwide, both in non-fluoridated and fluoridated areas, is … improved diets, and overall improved general and dental health.

3. There is now a better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental decay. What little benefit fluoridated water may still provide is derived primarily through topical means (after the teeth erupt and come in contact with fluorides in the oral cavity).

 

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS

Head, Preventive Dentistry

 

There’s more to this statement here if you’d care to read all of the whole fascinating information provided, but that’s the crux of the matter.

 

Here are the references found in Dr. Limeback’s statement. These are not reviews, or opinions, but actual hard evidence, primary research, they call it. He took the time to read them all.

References:

Water fluoridation less effective in the late 1980′s and the 1990′s.

Water fluoridation cessation studies:

Attwood D, Blinkhorn AS. Dental health in school children 5 years after water fluoridation ceased in south-west. Scotland. Dent J. 1991 Feb;41(1):43-8.

Kobayashi S, Kawasaki K, Takagi O, Nakamura M, Fujii N, Shinzato M, Maki Y, Takaesu Y. Caries experience in subjects 18-22 years of age after 13 years’ discontinued water fluoridation in Okinawa. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1992 Apr;20(2):81-3.

Kalsbeek H, Kwant GW, Groeneveld A, Dirks OB, van Eck AA, Theuns HM. Caries experience of 15-year-old children in The Netherlands after discontinuation of water fluoridation. Caries Res. 1993;27(3):201-5.

Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. Caries frequency in permanent teeth before and after discontinuation of water fluoridation in Kuopio, Finland. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998 Aug;26(4):256-62.

Kunzel W, Fischer T. Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Res. 2000 Jan-Feb;34(1):20-5.

Burt BA, Keels MA, Heller KE. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. J Dent Res. 2000 Feb;79(2):761-9.

 

Comparison of fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities

Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:723-7; discussion 820-3.

Ismail AI, Shoveller J, Langille D, MacInnis WA, McNally M. Should the drinking water of Truro, Nova Scotia, be fluoridated? Water fluoridation in the 1990s. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1993 Jun;21(3):118-25.

Jackson RD, Kelly SA, Katz BP, Hull JR, Stookey GK. Dental fluorosis and caries prevalence in children residing in communities with different levels of fluoride in the water. J Public Health Dent. 1995 Spring;55(2):79-84.

Slade GD, Davies MJ, Spencer AJ, Stewart JF. Associations between exposure to fluoridated drinking water and dental caries experience among children in two Australian states. J Public Health Dent. 1995 Fall;55(4):218-28.

Kumar JV, Swango PA, Lininger LL, Leske GS, Green EL, Haley VB. Changes in dental fluorosis and dental caries in Newburgh and Kingston, New York. Am J Public Health. 1998 Dec;88(12):1866-70.

Angelillo IF, Torre I, Nobile CG, Villari P. Caries and fluorosis prevalence in communities with different concentrations of fluoride in the water. Caries Res. 1999;33(2):114-22.

 

Decline of caries is not all due to fluoride

Bratthall D, Hansel Petersson G, Sundberg H. (1996) Reasons for the caries decline. What do the experts believe? Euro J Oral Sci 104:416-422

de Liefde B. The decline of caries in New Zealand over the past 40 years. N Z Dent J. 1998 Sep;94(417):109-13.

Birkeland JM, Haugejorden O, Ramm Von Der Fehr F. Some factors associated with the caries decline among norwegian children and adolescents: age-specific and cohort analyses. Caries Res. 2000 Mar-Apr;34(2):109-16.

Krasse B. From the art of filling teeth to the science of dental caries prevention: a personal review. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(5 Spec No):271-7.

 

Dental fluorosis is now an epidemic

Leverett D. Prevalence of dental fluorosis in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities—a preliminary investigation. J Public Health Dent. 1986 Fall;46(4):184-7.

Pendrys DG, Stamm JW. Relationship of total fluoride intake to beneficial effects and enamel fluorosis. J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:529-38; discussion 556-7.

Szpunar SM, Burt BA. Evaluation of appropriate use of dietary fluoride supplements in the US. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1992 Jun;20(3):148-54.

Riordan PJ. Perceptions of dental fluorosis. J Dent Res. 1993 Sep;72(9):1268-74.

Clark DC. Appropriate use of fluorides in the 1990′s. J Can Dent Assoc. 1993 Mar;59(3):272-9.

Clark DC. Trends in prevalence of dental fluorosis in North America. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994 Jun;22(3):148-52.

Lalumandier JA, Rozier RG. The prevalence and risk factors of fluorosis among patients in a pediatric dental practice. Pediatr Dent. 1995 Jan-Feb;17(1):19-25.

Pendrys DG, Katz RV, Morse DE. Risk factors for enamel fluorosis in a nonfluoridated population. Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Apr 15;143(8):808-15.

Limeback H, Ismail A, Banting D, DenBesten P, Featherstone J, Riordan PJ. Canadian Consensus Conference on the appropriate use of fluoride supplements for the prevention of dental caries in children. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998 Oct;64(9):636-9.

Kumar JV, Swango PA. Fluoride exposure and dental fluorosis in Newburgh and Kingston, New York: policy implications. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999 Jun;27(3):171-80.

Rozier RG. The prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis in North American children. J Public Health Dent. 1999 Fall;59(4):239-46.

 

Fluoride ingestion delays tooth eruption and may simply delay tooth decay

Human studies:

Kunzel VW. [Cross-sectional comparison of the median eruption time for permanent teeth in children from fluoride poor and optimally fluoridated areas]. Stomatol DDR. 1976 May;5:310-21.

Virtanen JI, Bloigu RS, Larmas MA. Timing of eruption of permanent teeth: standard Finnish patient documents. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994 Oct;22(5 Pt 1):286-8.

Campagna L, Tsamtsouris A, Kavadia K. Fluoridated drinking water and maturation of permanent teeth at age 12. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1995 Spring;19(3):225-8.

Nadler GL: Earlier dental maturation: fact or fiction? Angle Orthod 1998 Dec;68(6):535-8

Animal studies:

Krook L, Maylin GA, Lillie JH, Wallace RS. Dental fluorosis in cattle. Cornell Vet. 1983 Oct;73(4):340-62.

Smith CE, Nanci A, Denbesten PK. Effects of chronic fluoride exposure on morphometric parameters defining the stages of amelogenesis and ameloblast modulation in rat incisors. Anat Rec. 1993 Oct;237(2):243-58.

 

The anti-caries benefit from swallowed fluoride is miniscule compared to the post-eruptive topical effects.

Heifetz SB, Proskin HM. Serendipitous results of a pilot study: precaution indicated. J Clin Dent. 1995;6(1):117-9.

Burt, B.A. (1994). Letter. Fluoride, 27, 180-181.

Carlos, J.P. (1983). Comments on Fluoride. J.Pedodontics. Winter, 135-136.

Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. Rational use of fluorides in caries prevention. A concept based on possible cariostatic mechanisms Acta Odontol Scand.1981;39(4):241-9.

Levine, R.S., (1976). The action of fluoride in caries prevention: a review of current concepts. Brit. Dent. J. 140, 9-14.

Martens LC, Verbeeck RM. [Mechanism of action of fluorides in local/topical application]. Rev Belge Med Dent. 1998;53(1):295-308.

Featherstone JD. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;27(1):31-40.

Limeback H. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;27(1):62-71.

 

Fluoridated water is associated with an increase risk for bone fracture

Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Miles TP, Brody JA, Stiers W, Rimm AA. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture. US white women aged 65 years and older. JAMA. 1990 Jul 25;264(4):500-2.

Sowers MF, Clark MK, Jannausch ML, Wallace RB. A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with fluoride exposure. Am J Epidemiol. 1991 Apr 1;133(7):649-60.

Cooper C, Wickham CA, Barker DJ, Jacobsen SJ. Water fluoridation and hip fracture. JAMA. 1991 Jul 24-31;266(4):513-4.

Danielson C, Lyon JL, Egger M, Goodenough GK. Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. JAMA. 1992 Aug 12;268(6):746-8.

Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Cooper C, Lockwood SA. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older. A national ecologic study. Ann Epidemiol. 1992 Sep;2(5):617-26

Jacqmin-Gadda H, Commenges D, Dartigues JF. Fluorine concentration in drinking water and fractures in the elderly. JAMA. 1995 Mar 8;273(10):775-6.

Hillier S, Inskip H, Coggon D, Cooper C. (1996) Water fluoridation and osteoporotic fracture. Community Dent Health Suppl 2:63-8

Karagas MR, Baron JA, Barrett JA, Jacobsen SJ. Patterns of fracture among the United States elderly: geographic and fluoride effects. Ann Epidemiol. 1996 May;6(3):209-16.

Papadimitropoulos EA, Coyte PC, Josse RG, Greenwood CE. Current and projected rates of hip fracture in Canada. CMAJ. 1997 Nov 15;157(10):1357-63.

Feskanich D, Owusu W, Hunter DJ, Willett W, Ascherio A, Spiegelman D, Morris S, Spate VL, Colditz G. Use of toenail fluoride levels as an indicator for the risk of hip and forearm fractures in women. Epidemiology. 1998 Jul;9(4):412-6.

Allolio B, Lehmann R. Drinking water fluoridation and Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 1999;107(1):12-20.

Kurttio P, Gustavsson N, Vartiainen T, Pekkanen J. Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: a cohort analysis in Finland. Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Oct 15;150(8):817-24.

Hillier S, Cooper C, Kellingray S, Russell G, Hughes H, Coggon D. Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case-control study. Lancet. 2000 Jan 22;355(9200):265-9.

 

Fluorosilicates, lead, arsenic, radium and other harmful contaminants in our fluoridated water are toxic

Denzinger HF, Konig HJ, and Kruger GE 1979 No. 103 sept/Oct issue of ‘Phosphorus and Potassium’

Lyman GH, Lyman CG, Johnson W. Association of leukemia with radium groundwater contamination. JAMA. 1985 Aug 2;254(5):621-6.

Finkelstein MM. Radium in drinking water and the risk of death from bone cancer among Ontario youths. CMAJ. 1994 Sep 1;151(5):565-71.

Moss ME, Kanarek MS, Anderson HA, Hanrahan LP, Remington PL. Osteosarcoma, seasonality, and environmental factors in Wisconsin, 1979-1989. Arch Environ Health. 1995 May-Jun;50(3):235-41.

Maki-Paakkanen J, Kurttio P, Paldy A, Pekkanen J. Association between the clastogenic effect in peripheral lymphocytes and human exposure to arsenic through drinking water. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1998;32(4):301-13.

Masters RD, Coplan M. Water treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity. Intern J of Environ Studies 1999 56:435-449

Moss ME, Lanphear BP, Auinger P. Association of dental caries and blood lead levels. JAMA. 1999 Jun 23-30;281(24):2294-8.

Kurttio P, Pukkala E, Kahelin H, Auvinen A, Pekkanen J. Arsenic concentrations in well water and risk of bladder and kidney cancer in Finland. Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Sep;107(9):705-10.

Finkelstein MM. Silica, silicosis, and lung cancer: a risk assessment. Am J Ind Med. 2000 Jul;38(1):8-18.

Saffiotti U, Ahmed N. Neoplastic transformation by quartz in the BALB/3T3/A31-1-1 cell line and the effects of associated minerals. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen. 1995 15(6):339-56.

 

Studies reporting a link between fluoride and cancer

- some show a trend for increased risk of bone cancer in young males

Zeiger E, Shelby MD, Witt KL. Genetic toxicity of fluoride. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1993;21(4):309-18.

Cohn, P.D. (1992). “An Epidemiologic Report on Drinking Water and Fluoridation”. New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, NJ.

Bucher JR, Hejtmancik MR, Toft JD 2d, Persing RL, Eustis SL, Haseman JK. Results and conclusions of the National Toxicology Program’s rodent carcinogenicity studies with sodium fluoride. Int J Cancer. 1991 Jul 9;48(5):733-7.

Hoover RN “Fluoridation of Drinking Water and Subsequent Cancer Incidence and Mortality” In Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. US Public Health Service, pp E1-E51.

Tohyama E. Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan. J Epidemiol. 1996 Dec;6(4):184-91.

Lee JR. Fluoridation and Bone Cancer. Fluoride 1993;26(2):79-82.

Yiamouyiannis JA. Fluoridation and cancer: The biology and epidemiology of bone and oral cancer related to fluoridation. Fluoride 1993;26(2):83-96.

Galanti MR, Sparen P, Karlsson A, Grimelius L, Ekbom A. Is residence in areas of endemic goiter a risk factor for thyroid cancer? Int J Cancer. 1995 May 29;61(5):615-21.

Grandjean P, Olsen JH, Jensen OM, Juel K. Cancer incidence and mortality in workers exposed to fluoride. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992 Dec 16;84(24):1903-9.

Tsutsui T, Ide K, Maizumi H. Induction of unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human oral keratinocytes by sodium fluoride. Mutat Res. 1984 May;140(1):43-8

Aardema MJ, Gibson DP, LeBoeuf RA. Sodium fluoride-induced chromosome aberrations in different stages of the cell cycle: a proposed mechanism. Mutat Res. 1989 Jun;223(2):191-203.

Scott D, Roberts SA. Extrapolation from in vitro tests to human risk: experience with sodium fluoride clastogenicity. Mutat Res. 1987 Sep;189(1):47-58

 

Publications arguing against the link between fluoride and cancer. Why?

-failure to recognize in most cases that hydrofluosilicic acid (and its radium and arsenic contaminants), not pure sodium fluoride, was used to fluoridate water

-the increase in risk from 1 ppm fluoridated water for all cancers is low, for osteosarcomas, it is extremely low, but it should still be detectable with sufficient sample sizes

Chilvers C. Cancer mortality and fluoridation of water supplies in 35 USA cities. Int J Epidemiol 1983;12(4):397-404.

Shupe JL, Bruner RH, Seymour JL, Alden CL. The pathology of chronic bovine fluorosis: a review. Toxicol Pathol. 1992;20(2):274-85; discussion 285-8.

Freni SC, Gaylor DW. International trends in the incidence of bone cancer are not related to drinking water fluoridation. Cancer 1992;70(3):611-618.

Clemmesen J. Alleged association between artificial fluoridation of water supplies and cancer: review. Bull. WHO 1983;61(5):871-883.

Cook-Mozaffari P, Doll R. Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer Mortality 2. Mortality Trends After Fluoridation. J Epidemiol Community Health 1981;35(4):233-238.

Doll R, Kinlen L. Fluoridation of water and cancer mortality in the U.S.A. Lancet 1977;1(Jun):1300-1302.

Griffith GW. Fluoridation and Cancer Mortality in Anglesey Wales Uk. J Epidemiol Community Health 1985;39(3):224-226.

Kinlen L, Doll R. Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer Mortality 3. a Reexamination of Mortality in Cities in the Usa. J Epidemiol Community Health 1981;35(4):239-244.

Hoover RN, McKay FW, Fraumeni JFJ. Fluoridated drinking water and the occurrence of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1976;57(4):757-768.

Walker AR, Cleaton-Jones PE, Richardson BD. Fluoridation and Cancer. S Afr Med J 1981;60(23):878-879.

Thomson WM. Dental health: water fluoridation, hip fracture, osteosarcoma–recent evidence. N. Z. Pharm. 1997;17(Nov):40-42.

Jackson RD, Kelly SA, Noblitt TW, Zhang W, Wilson ME, Dunipace AJ, Li Y,

Katz BP, Brizendine EJ, Stookey GK. Lack of effect of long-term fluoride ingestion on blood chemistry and frequency of sister chromatid exchange in human lymphocytes. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1997;29(3):265-71.

 

Fluoride is neurotoxic

Hu YH, Wu SS. Fluoride in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with fluorosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988 Dec;51(12):1591-3.

Holland, R.I. Fluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 1979 3:701-705

Jope RS. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. J. Neurochem. 1988 51:1731-1736.

Kay AR, Miles R, Wong RKS. Intracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. J. Neurosci. 1986 6: 2915-2920.

Varner JA, Jensen KF Isaacson RL. Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1997 825: 152-166.

Mullenix PJ, Denbesten PK, Schunior A, Kernan WJ. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995 Mar-Apr;17(2):169-77.

Varner JA, Jensen KF, Horvath W, Isaacson RL. Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Res. 1998 Feb 16;784(1-2):284-98.

Varner JA, Horvath WJ, Huie CW, Naslund HR, Isaacson RL. Chronic aluminum fluoride administration. I. Behavioral observations. Behav Neural Biol. 1994 May;61(3):233-41.

Zhao LB, Liang GH, Zhang DN, Wu XR. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 1996 29:190-192.

Li, XS, Zhi JL, RO. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 1995 28(4):189-192.

Luke JA. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. CariesResearch 1994 28:204.

Bahavior not affected by fluoride?

Morgan L, Allred E, Tavares M, Bellinger D, Needleman H. Investigation of the possible associations between fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and childhood behavior problems. Pediatr Dent. 1998 Jul-Aug;20(4):244-52

 

Fluoride affects reproduction

Dominguez L, Diaz A, Fornes MW, Mayorga LS. Reagents that activate GTP-binding proteins trigger the acrosome reaction in human spermatozoa. Int J Androl. 1995 Aug;18(4):203-7.

Hoffman DJ, Pattee OH, Wiemeyer SN. Effects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Toxicol. Lett. 1985 26: 19-24.

Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Ameliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes.Vet. 1988 78 75-91.

Narayana MV, Chinoy NJ Reversible effects of sodium fluoride ingestion on spermatozoa of the rat Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1994 Nov-Dec;39(6):337-46

Messer HH, Armstrong WD, Singer L. Fertility impairment in mice on a low fluoride intake. Science. 1972 Sep 8;177(52):893-4

Haesungcharern A, Chulavatnatol M. Inhibitors of adenylate cyclase from ejaculated human spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil. 1978 May;53(1):59-61

Susheela AK, Jethanandani P. Circulating testosterone levels in skeletal fluorosis patients. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1996;34(2):183-9.

Kumar A, Susheela AK. Effects of chronic fluoride toxicity on the morphology of ductus epididymis and the maturation of spermatozoa of rabbit. Int J Exp Pathol. 1995 Feb;76(1):1-11.

Nicol CJ, Zielenski J, Tsui LC, Wells PG. An embryoprotective role for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase in developmental oxidative stress and chemical teratogenesis. FASEB J. 2000 Jan;14(1):111-27.

 

No fluoride effect on reproduction

Merkley JW, Sexton TJ Reproductive performance of White Leghorns provided fluoride Poult Sci 1982 Jan;61(1):52-6

Fluoride can affect thyroid hormones and, therefore, many other organs

Susa M. “Heterotrimeric G proteins as fluoride targets in bone (Review). Int J Mol Med 3(2):115-126 (1999)

Caverzasio J, Palmer G, Suzuki A, Bonjour JP. Mechanism of the mitogenic effect of fluoride on osteoblast-like cells: evidences for a G protein-dependent tyrosine phosphorylation process. J Bone Miner Res. 1997 Dec;12(12):1975-83.

Susa M, Standke GJ, Jeschke M, Rohner D. Fluoroaluminate induces pertussis toxin-sensitive protein phosphorylation: differences in MC3T3-E1 osteoblastic and NIH3T3 fibroblastic cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1997 Jun 27;235(3):680-4.

Galletti PM, Joyet G – “Effect of fluoride on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism” J Clin Endocrinol 18:1102-1110 (1958)

Gedalia I, Brand N. The relationship of fluoride and iodine in drinking water in the occurrence of goiter. Arch Int Pharmacodyn 1963;142:312-5.

Gorlitzer von Mundy. Einfluss von Fluor und Jod auf den Stoffwechsel, insbesondere auf die Schilddrüss. Münch Med Wochenschrift 105:234-247 (1963)

Litzka G – “Die experimentellen Grundlagen der Behandlung des M. Basedow und der Hyperthyreose mittels Fluortyrosin” Dtsch Med Wochenschr 63:1037-1040 (1937)

Gordonoff T. – Fluor und die Schilddrüse, Toxikology des Fluors Basel/Stuttgart, pp.111-123 (1964)

May W. Antagonismus zwischen Jod und Fluor im Organismus. Klin Wochenschr 14:790-792 (1935)

May W. Behandlung der Hypothyreosen einschließlich des schweren genuinenMorbus Basedow mit Fluor” Klin Wochenschr 16:562-564 (1937)

Haddow JE, Palomaki GE, Allan WC, et al. -”Maternal thyroid deficiency during pregnancy and subsequent neuropsychological development of the child.” N Engl J Med 341:549-55 (1999)]

Eckerlin, R.H.,Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986). Milk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed.

Balabolkin MI, Mikhailets ND, Lobovskaia RN, Chernousova NV. [The interrelationship of the thyroid and immune statuses of workers with long-term fluorine exposure]. Ter Arkh. 1995;67(1):41-2.

Krishnamachari KA Skeletal fluorosis in humans: a review of recent progress in the understanding of the disease. Prog Food Nutr Sci 1986;10(3-4):279-314

Tezelman S, Shaver JK, Grossman RF, Liang W, Siperstein AE, Duh QY, Clark OH. Desensitization of adenylate cyclase in Chinese hamster ovary cells transfected with human thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor. Endocrinology. 1994 Mar;134(3):1561-9.

 

Fluoride enters the placenta and may cause birth defects

Malhotra A, Tewari A, Chawla HS, Gauba K, Dhall K. Placental transfer of fluoride in pregnant women consuming optimum fluoride in drinking water. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 1993 Mar;11(1):1-3

Armstrong WD, Singer L, Makowski EL. Placental transfer of fluoride and calcium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1970 Jun 1;107(3):432-4.

Erickson JD. Fluoridation and Down Syndrome. J Dental Res 58a 1979;228.

Erickson JD. Down Syndrome, Water Fluoridation, and Maternal Age. Teratology 1980;21(177-180).

Gupta SK, Gupta RC, Seth AK, Chaturvedi CS. Increased incidence of spina bifida occulta in fluorosis prone areas. Acta Paediatr Jpn. 1995 Aug;37(4):503-6.

 

Fluoride may affect the immune system

Loftenius A, Andersson B, Butler J, Ekstrand J. Fluoride augments the mitogenic and antigenic response of human blood lymphocytes in vitro. Caries Res. 1999;33(2):148-55.

Gutierrez J, Liebana J, Ruiz M, Castillo A, Gomez JL. Action of sodium fluoride on phagocytosis by systemic polymorphonuclear leucocytes. J Dent. 1994 Oct;22(5):279-82.

Sutton PR. Is the ingestion of fluoride an immunosuppressive practice? Med Hypotheses. 1991 May;35(1):1-3.

Spittle B. Allergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Fluoride 1993 26: 267-273.

Gabler WL, Mugrditchian M, Creamer HR, Bullock WW. Effect of fluoride on movement of concanavalin A-acceptor molecules of human neutrophils. Inflammation. 1989 Jun;13(3):317-28.

Gabler WL, Creamer HR, Bullock WW. Fluoride activation of neutrophils: similarities to formylmethionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine. Inflammation. 1989 Feb;13(1):47-58.

Gabler WL, Hunter N. Inhibition of human neutrophil phagocytosis and intracellular killing of yeast cells by fluoride. Arch Oral Biol. 1987;32(5):363-6

Gomez-Ubric JL, Liebana J, Gutierrez J, Castillo A. In vitro immune modulation of polymorphonuclear leukocyte adhesiveness by sodium fluoride. Eur J Clin Invest. 1992 Oct;22(10):659-61

Lewis A, Wilson CW. Fluoride hypersensitivity in mains tap water demonstrated by skin potential changes in guinea-pigs. Med Hypotheses. 1985 Apr;16(4):397-402

Hirano S, Ando M, Kanno S. Inflammatory responses of rat alveolar macrophages following exposure to fluoride. Arch Toxicol. 1999 Aug;73(6):310-5.

O’Shea JJ, Urdahl KB, Luong HT, Chused TM, Samelson LE, Klausner RD. Aluminum fluoride induces phosphatidylinositol turnover, elevation of cytoplasmic free calcium, and phosphorylation of the T cell antigen receptor in murine T cells. J Immunol. 1987 Nov 15;139(10):3463-9

Gutierrez J, Liebana J, Ruiz M, Castillo A, Gomez JL. Action of sodium fluoride on phagocytosis by systemic polymorphonuclear leucocytes. J Dent. 1994 Oct;22(5):279-82.

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

January 10, 2012

 

Darby DuComb, Lawyer
Engel Lee, Lawyer
Seattle City Attorney’s Office

Sent by email only to: Darby.Ducomb@Seattle.Gov; Engel.Lee@Seattle.Gov

Read online at: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/the-fluoride-maze

 

Dear Darby & Engel,

 

I am writing to follow up on our meeting on January 9. Thank you for giving us over an hour of your time.

 

If you have questions, please email us or call us. Each of us knows different pieces of this complex puzzle.

 

Our contact information is:

 

Bill Osmunson, WASW president, cosmetic dentist, public health graduate …

Audrey Adams, WASW board member, mother of autistic and fluoride hyper-sensitive son …

Dr. David John MD, WASW board member, physician and science advisor …

Scott Shock, P.E., civil engineer and constitutional liberty organizer …

Alli Larkin, WASW board member and water commissioner …

Golda Starr, WASW board member, President of www.FluorideDetective.com … (not at the Jan 9 meeting but available to advise) social worker, suffered near kidney failure drinking Everett water, had to move to Sultan, now drinks well water and has recovered most kidney function

Dr. Richard Sauerheber, PhD … professor and science advisor, published author in numerous peer reviewed scientific journals.

See http://fluoride-class-action.com/ask-dr-sauerheber

James Robert Deal Lawyer Fluoride Class Action president James@Fluoride-Class-Action.com 425-771-1110

I too once thought that fluoridation was a great thing. People I respected said it was a great thing. They were trapped in the fluoride maze. I was trapped with them. We have all been trapped in that or other mazes, and it can be hard to find our way out. I tell the story of how it took us sixty years to escape from the tetraethyl lead maze. The exits are blocked with barriers such as endorsements by government agencies, or the doctors and dentists we know and trust.

 

See http://fluoride-class-action.com/speeches/tetraethyl-lead

Studying the subject of water contamination gives people a headache. It is hard to put the pieces together. It is hard to understand how something so harmful and illegal could have persisted for so long. You wonder if we are just imagining all these bad things about fluoridation. You wonder which side is telling the truth. If we are saying that the pro-fluoridation people are dupes and deceivers, you wonder whether we might instead be the dupes and deceivers.

 

The feeling is called cognitive dissonance. It is like listening to music written in an eastern scale our ears do not know. Critics of fluoridation just sound all wrong because they are saying something dramatically different from what you have heard all your life. This is why the Big Lie technique can be so effective. Ironically, the bigger the lie, the easier it is to maintain it and for longer periods of time.

 

As attorneys for the city, what is your place in this issue? What obligation do you have to study it? If your non-attorney political bosses tell you not to waste too much time in looking into it, will you object to such an instruction? Will you tell the politicians you work for that they ought to allow you to make a thorough study of it, to pay attention to this issue instead of pretending it does not exist? Would you advise them that they should put this issue should be on the agenda instead of ignoring it?

 

Who is qualified to make decisions about such things? Another city council we approached said this is a science question, that they are not scientists and cannot function as a science court, and therefore that they in some sense cannot make a decision on the subject, but must instead rely uncritically on a medical doctor they consult behind the scenes, who is an unquestioning and unstudied supporter of water fluoridation. Because you are lawyers and not scientists, are you incompetent to judge whether there is harm being caused by the lead, arsenic, and fluoride added to our water?

 

I say that the evidence is so overwhelming that anyone with an open mind can see it. The pro-fluoridation people have even admitted that harm is being done, that 41% of children 12 – 15 years old have dental fluorosis, with 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and 3.6% suffering from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and up to 100% of enamel impacted).

 

See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf

 

To the pro-fluoridation people, the disfigurement of 41%, 8.6%, or 3.6% of our children to different degrees is an acceptable casualty rate, a reasonable price to be paid to achieve a dubious reduction in caries, which they admit to be at best only an 18% to 25% reduction.

 

See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm

 

The pro-fluoridation people have even admitted the irrationality of fluoridation. Their own studies say that any positive effect of fluoride is topical and not systemic, yet they persist in advising that we should drink fluoride.

 

See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/caries-research-systemic-versus-topical-fluoride.pdf

 

Isn’t the flat-earth stupidity of fluoridation so obvious that city attorneys are qualified and therefore ethically obligated to advise Mayor and City Council that the only prudent thing to do is to declare an immediate moratorium on this strange custom?

 

Why do I say that an immediate moratorium be put in place? 1) Because there is already overwhelming evidence that harm is being done. 2) Because the burden of proof should be shifted to those who claim that fluoridation is safe and effective? 3) Because doing anything else is merely compounding past negligect of this issue. I have been sending notices to Seattle and Everett since 2008.

 

If you see violations of civil law, do you have some obligation to point them out, and to whom? I refer to violations of the Washington law which requires that fluoridation be done only with NSF 60 fluoride. The fact that the NSF 60 standard is not being followed, so the NSF 60 standard is no standard at all. And therefore the fact that there are no approved fluoridation materials, and therefore that fluoridation is not legal – at least with the materials available.

 

See www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

Would you report such violations to the Seattle City Attorney? County Prosecutor? Attorney general? US Attorney? Who would be obligated to give notice that the law be followed and to a bring civil action if necessary to stop fluoridation?

 

There is another plain violation of civil law. 21 CFR 310.545 requires that any anti-caries drug which contains hydrogen fluoride be FDA certified before it can be used.

 

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/310/545.

 

Everett and Seattle silicofluoride contain hydrogen fluoride.

 

See the Simplot Certificate of Analysis on the http://fluoride-class-action.com/foia page.

 

Hydrogen fluoride is so extremely toxic that express FDA pre-approval is required before it can be used to prevent tooth decay. The above federal regulation includes a list of the most dangerous of all chemicals and includes hydrogen fluoride as one of them and then then says of such toxins:

 

“…based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses”.

 

Would you report such violations to the Seattle City Attorney? County Prosecutor? Attorney general? US Attorney? Who would be obligated to give notice that the law be followed and to bring a civil action if necessary to stop fluoridation?

 

The hydrogen fluoride regulation is unenforced, overlooked, or just plain ignored. If it were enforced it would result in a ban of water fluoridation with silicofluoride because silicofluoride is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride.

 

Let’s take this further. If you see violations of criminal law, do you have some obligation to point them out, and to whom? I refer to the waivers of all liability by the fluoride producers. The fact that the fluoride producers and resellers all obtain NSF 60 certification for their fluoride. The fact that the NSF standard requires that toxicological and health studies be done and makes loud and numerous assurance regarding the safety of fluoridation. The fact that such toxicological and health studies are in reality not being done. The fact that Seattle is tricked into spending probably around $600,000 per year on this ineffectual and harmful toxic waste drug, one which does not meet the required NSF 60 standards. The fact that fluoridation materials definitely cause quick harm to fetuses and babies and cause slow harm to the rest of us.

 

Again see www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

Would you report such violations to the Seattle City Attorney? County Prosecutor? Attorney general? US Attorney? Who would be obligated to prosecute such potential RICO Act violations?

 

Would you advise the Mayor and the City Council to switch sides in this unbalance fight where rich corporations pay congressmen to get “their people” appointed to federal regulatory agencies which in turn use their positions to support fluoridation and hire rich dental college presidents to hire rich unstudied dentists to propagandize this snake oil?

 

Seattle can go a long way towards immunizing itself from liability by moving quickly to protect its citizens by declaring an immediate moratorium on fluoridation, by taking the lead in bringing class action and mass toxic tort actions against the deceivers who poison people for profit.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

 

PS: Note that I am not on the Washington Action for Safe Water board and that I speak only for Fluoride Class Action.

 

 

 

Montana Supreme Court upholds election spending limits

Now the Montana Supreme Court has issued a forceful rebuff of that decision.

In a new opinion drawing on Montana’s coal and copper mining history, the court upheld the state’s century-old corporate contribution limits, concluding that “the corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The decision, handed down last week, applies only to state elections in Montana. But if it is appealed as expected, the case could provide the long-awaited vehicle critics have sought for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue decided in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

In a 5-2 opinion, the Montana court’s majority concluded that the state’s long history of well-funded natural resource extractors, small population and historically inexpensive political campaigns allow it to demonstrate compelling government interest in regulating corporate financial muscle. Even one of the justices who dissented — saying that the U.S. Supreme Court left no room for states to exempt themselves — argued forcefully against the broad corporate latitude encompassed in the Citizens United decision.

“Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government,” Justice James C. Nelson wrote in his reluctant dissent.

“Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons,” he wrote.

The Montana case centered on a constitutional challenge by American Tradition Partnership, which has funneled large amounts of money to battle environmental regulations seen as undermining jobs and economic development. American Tradition Partnership, known as Western Tradition Partnership when the case was filed, was joined as plaintiffs by the Montana Shooting Sports Assn. and Champion Painting Inc., a small paint and drywall firm whose owner is politically active in Montana.

“Crush Gang-Green and their Anti-Business Allies!” American Tradition Partnership says on its website. In a fundraising appeal cited by the court, the group boasts of the anonymity it offers corporate donors.

“As you know, Montana has very strict limits on contributions to candidates, but there is no limit to how much you can give to this program,” the appeal states. “No politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped make this program possible.”

Montana’s attorney general, Steve Bullock, a Democratic candidate for governor who personally argued the case, said the potential effects of unlimited corporate spending was disproportionately large in a sparsely populated state like Montana.

“It doesn’t take a heck of a lot of money to wind up influencing a state election where our average legislator ends up winning, I think, on $17,000,” he said in an interview. “Montana has a long history of corporate influence in elections, and ultimately the citizens are saying, no, that’s not how we want to run our elections.”

John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People, a national group pushing for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, called the Montana decision an “enormously significant ruling.”

“Even if the [U.S.] Supreme Court lets [the Montana decision] stand, it would effectively open the door for every other state in the union to implement bans on corporate money in elections or to let stand their existing laws that have banned corporate money in state elections,” he said.

Donald Ferguson, director of American Tradition Partnership, said that no decision had been made on whether to appeal, but that the U.S. high court had clearly provided for business owners to exercise their constitutional rights in the election process.

“The current state law says that if you own a business and you would like to use the resources of the business to speak out about how you see the law, you essentially have to ask prior permission from the state,” Ferguson said.

“Under the current regime, the state regulatory agencies and the newspapers basically have a monopoly on information. We’re simply trying to put more free speech in motion,” he said.

kim.murphy@latimes.com

Fluoride Issues Update #11 from Golda Starr on Vimeo.

Summary: This is the story of how an obscure trade association, formed in 1944 to make standards for restaurant sanitation chemicals, grew to the point where today it has agency-like authority to approve fluoridation materials and other chemicals as safe to drink[1].

 

I refer to the National Sanitation Foundation, more commonly known as “NSF”. The EPA delegated authority to NSF[2] to approve fluoridation materials[3] and other additives to drinking water. NSF says on its website:

 

In 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) replaced its own drinking water additives program with NSF/ANSI Standards 60 and 61, which set public health standards for all chemicals used to treat water and products coming into contact with drinking water[4] ….

 

Starting in 1985 the EPA sent its experts to NSF to help them get up and running as a fluoridation approving agency. From the beginning EPA gave NSF money. EPA still gives NSF money[5] to support NSF’s fluoride approval program.

Click here to read more.

THE CORPORATION BLOG

LA City Council Votes Unanimously Against Corporate Personhood

Sandy Haksi, December 13, 2011

On December 6, 2011, Los Angeles became the first major US city to say that constitutional rights should be for actual flesh-and-blood human beings only, and not for the legally created fictions of corporate persons. Check out this inspiring footage from the vote!

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

 January 8, 2012

 

National Freedom of Information Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2822T)
Washington, DC 20460
Telephone: 202-566-1667

 

Sent by fax to: 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.

 

Please provide the following information to me:

 

1.      Any and all documents which EPA sent to NSF or ANSI or its members or representatives since the EPA was founded, including contracts, agreements, comments, evaluations, instructions, and guidelines.

 

2.      Any and all documents which EPA received from the NSF or ANSI or their members or representatives since the EPA was founded, including contracts, agreements, comments, evaluations, instructions, and guidelines.

 

3.      Any and all documents received from any person or agency, including federal, state, or municipal governments, regarding, mentioning, or concerning the NSF or ANSI since the EPA was founded.

 

4.      Any and all documents sent to any person or agency, including federal, state, or municipal governments, regarding or mentioning or concerning the NSF or ANSI since the EPA was founded.

 

5.      Any and all documents received from to any person or agency, including federal, state, or municipal government agencies, regarding or mentioning or concerning NSF or ANSI since the EPA was founded.

 

6.      Any and all documents pertaining to, mentioning, detailing, or listing monies requested by or paid to or for the account of NSF or ANSI since the EPA was founded.

 

Definitions: When I refer to “documents”, I am referring to documents, reports, letters, memos, e-mails, or other writings or photographs or diagrams or audio recordings, or memos made of telephone or other conversations, whether in the possession of your staff, your experts, or the experts you hire. When I refer to “documents”, I am referring also to documents which are available or accessible to you from other persons, sub-contractors, governments, government agencies, municipalities, private agencies, other jurisdictions, or laboratories. The term “documents” includes any web sites or documents on web sites which you created including their URL, including documents on web site backups. “NSF” is a reference to the National Sanitation Foundation. “ANSI” is a reference to the American National Standards Institute.

 

I am the President of a non-profit group which focuses on drinking water quality. Therefore, I ask that copy fees be waived.

 

Where ever possible, send documents to me on CD or DVD and not in paper format. As soon as you ascertain the cost of producing the above materials, please contact me so that I can approve the production cost.

 

Please acknowledge receipt by fax to 425-776-8081 or by email to James@JamesRobertDeal.com.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

 

 

Sincerely,

 

James Robert Deal , Attorney
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036

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

By Dr. Mercola

Fluoride, a neurotoxin that has been linked to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development and brain damage, among many other serious health problems, is sometimes prescribed in supplement form to children ages 6 months to 16 years who live in areas that have non-fluoridated drinking water.

The rationale, which is heavily promoted by government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – or rather its Oral Health Division

Bodies like the American Dental Association (ADA), is that this toxic agent helps reduce cavities – and those children who are “unfortunate” enough NOT to have the poison forced upon them in their drinking water should get their daily dose elsewhere (i.e. in supplement form).

These recommendations now defy rational logic and common sense on two fronts:

1) even promoters of fluoridation now admit that fluoride’s predominant action is on the surface of the tooth and not from inside the body (CDC, 1999) and

2) there are more than 100 published studiesillustrating fluoride’s harm to the brain, plus 25 published studies directly linking fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children! In other words, it doesn’t do much (if any) good to swallow fluoride and doing so could be doing significant harm.

Adding insult to injury, new research has further revealed that ingesting fluoride in supplement form does not reduce cavities in primary teeth – and may in fact cause harm.

Click here to read the full article.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA)

Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos,CA 92069

Email: richsauerheb@hotmail.com   Phone: 760-744-2547
January 3, 2012

 

Dear U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
I here raise a formal complaint against the Carlsbad Water District, San Diego County for its use of water with high arsenic levels, and for not reporting this clearly. A value of 120 ppb arsenic detected was listed on their water quality report 2011 with an average of 1.9 ppb. As you know, the EPA allowed MCL for arsenic since Jan., 2011 has been 10 – 50 ppb. The CA State MCL is 10 ppb and the State Public Health Goal is zero. A small amount of arsenic is diluted into water from added fluosilicic acid crude preparations that use the excuse of fighting cavities with the fluoride contained in it. Again, the arsenic PHG is zero.

Further, it is a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act for any State to be less restrictive than its clause that prohibits any National requirement for any substance added into water other than to sanitize the water. This makes it illegal to add arsenic, fluoride, or any substance other than to kill bacteria, into water and yet the practice of adding both has now spread even here to Southern CA recently against the voting will of the public.

These were the typed data in the Carlsbad Water Quality Report, 2011. Arsenic: CA MCL 10 ppb; PHG .004; Sample 1.9 ppb;  Range ND – 120 ppb.

I was told by an employee of CWD that the 120 number was not a reading, but an ‘allowed range’. But again the Fed and State allowed ranges do not include a number as high as 120 ppb. I told him that, and he said he wasn’t sure and that I need to talk with the suprvisor who is not available. The 120 number was printed in the report in the column in which measurements were reported, not in the column which lists the allowed MCL’s, as shown above.

If you could look into this we would appreciate it here in Carlsbad. We have had a terrible history with elementary school children perishing with cancers of various types and we are aware of the problem with schoolhouses being built on farms (as here) where arsenic pesticides had been used and that allowed arsenic emissions are detected from the Calrsbad emission stacks from a utility. The last thing Carlsbad children need is an extra dose of arsenic from their local water supply and yet that is what they are getting, from fluosilicic acid diluted waste and obviously additional unknown sources responsible for these readings. Carlsbad should be placed on a moratorium for the adidtion of crude hazardous diluted fluosilicic acid waste, out of sheer courtesy to the parents of these children as well as for the safety of the children themselves. I’ve had enough of fluosilicic acid waste that actually adds, for every 30 tons of added materials, 10 tons of sodium in fresh water where it does not belong, 10 tons of fluoride unwanted by the citizens, and 10 tons of silicic acid, all labeled as ‘water fluoridation.’ When does drugging the people of a city end, and who has the right to alter the bone density of citizens with fluoride that we now know crosses the blood brain barrier and injects arsenic when we are trying to remove it under our specific problematic circumstances here?

Thank you for your attention,

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

 

WHAT OR WHO IS THE NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION?
www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham

by James Robert Deal, President, Fluoride Class Action

January 3, 2011

 This is the story of how an obscure trade association, formed in 1944 to make standards for restaurant sanitation chemicals, grew to the point where today it has agency-like authority to approve fluoridation materials and other chemicals as safe to drink.

I refer to the National Sanitation Foundation, more commonly known as “NSF”. The EPA delegated authority to NSF[1] to approve fluoridation materials[2] and other additives to drinking water. NSF says on its website:

In 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) replaced its own drinking water additives program with NSF/ANSI Standards 60 and 61, which set public health standards for all chemicals used to treat water and products coming into contact with drinking water[3] ….

EPA sent in its experts to help NSF get up and running as a fluoridation approving agency. From the beginning EPA gave NSF money.  EPA still gives NSF money[4].

The EPA had no authority to approve fluoridation nor to assign authority to NSF to approve fluoridation. Today the EPA has no authority to fund or encourage NSF to approve adding a drug – in this case a toxic one – to drinking water, but it continues to do so. EPA still reviews and approves NSF standards regarding fluoridation materials[5].

Sodium and Total Dissolved Solids Increase in MWD Water After Fluoridation

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. University of CA, San Diego; currently Palomar College, San Marcos

Lines are computed moving averages and increase progressively after 2007 when industrial sodium fluorosilicate injections began to treat tooth decay. Every ton of industrial waste fluosilicic acid requires 1/2 ton of sodium from sodium hydroxide Drano to maintain pH at 8.1 (two H⁺ ions from H₂SiF₆ requires two sodium ions).

Sodium at 116 ppm decreases crop yields and affects vegetable and fruit quality. Avocado production in Southern California is already down due to current sodium levels (North County Times, 2010). Sodium is released into the Colorado River by scores of industries lining the river. The EPA salt abatement program limits releases to one ton daily per site, but an exception has been made for Shell Oil at 2,000 tons salt daily at one facility.

Metropolitan Water District Los Angeles entered the industrial salt injection problem in 2007, with 0.1 tons daily sodium added at Lake Skinner alone, to neutralize fluosilicic acid to attempt to treat tooth decay that instead causes fluorosis. The EPA secondary standard for TDS (500 ppm) is exceeded but is not enforced–plants can tolerate natural TDS from 800-1000 ppm. No EPA standards have been developed by EPA for sodium since fresh water has historically been low in sodium. Sodium in blood is 3,000 ppm but is 0-10 ppm in pristine fresh drinking water. Vallecitos Water District raises no objections or questions to MWD on the injections and has ignored public testimony since 2006 opposing the ingestion of the non-FDA-approved fluoride water drug.

 

Water Fluoridation and Crime in America

Jay Seaveya
Manchester, NH, USA

SUMMARY: A four-part study explores possible connections between water
fluoridation and crime in America. Part A, Media-reported crime database and
fluoridation, presents an observational database of violent crimes, mostly multiple
shootings, and finds an unusually high percentage of them associated with water
fluoridation, suggesting the existence of a “fluoride-related” category of crime. A
low-end threshold for the toxic effects of fluoridation of 0.3 ppm is identified, and
the term “fluoridated” is defined here as having a fluoride level of 0.3 ppm or higher.
In Part B, Online crime database and fluoridation, a published database of year 2000
crime data for 327 US cities over 75,000 population, representing 80 million
Americans, was expanded to include fluoridation data for these cities. Water
fluoridation was consistently associated with high crime rates at all population
levels. Part C, Book crime database and fluoridation, examines year 2000 crime
statistics for six major crimes in the same 327 cities according to their fluoridation
status. Cities having natural fluoridation, or which use silicofluorides or sodium
fluoride, are shown to have substantially higher crime levels than nonfluoridated
cities. Part D, Lead related crime, quantifies the amount of crime historically
associated with lead intoxication, thus identifying a remainder which may be
associated with fluorides. This study presents a data-backed hypothesis about one
possible cause of crime; it is not a definitive statement about crime causality.

Click here to read full article.

See also:

Chemicals and Crime: A Truly Toxic Event

When there is fluoride in river water at low levels, salmon swim the other way.

See these journal articles:

Salmon – repelled by fluoridation at only .25 ppm, Columbia River, Washington, Frasier River, Kamloops, British Columbia, summary of peer reviewed journal articles.

Salmon – Foulkes & Anderson, Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada, Fluoride, Vol 27, No 4, 220-226 (1994.)

The Fluoridation sham article has been revised and updated.

See http://fluoride-class-action.com/sham

I have questions about the economics of fluoridation.  http://fluoride-class-action.com/the-economics-of-fluoridation

 

If fluoridation stopped tomorrow, what would industry do with all the NaF and SiF it now sells to water district?

Is there another use for it? Is the price less for those other uses?

What would be the financial impact to the vendors?

What is the real economic effect of selling NaF and SiF as fluoridation materials?

Fluoridation materials represent what percentage of the chemical companies’ revenues and profits? What is the price the producers and resellers sell their souls for?

Has someone written on this subject?

***

Read this:

NSF tests fluoridation materials only rarely. On April 24, 2000, NSF responded to the State of Florida Department of Public Health[1] stated:

We have compiled test results for fluoride containing products that we bave tested and certified since 1992 (to 2000, an eight year period).There are 77 facilities that either produce or repackage fluoride containing treatment chemicals. . . These products (Hydrofluosilicic and Fluosilicic acid, Sodium Fluoride, and Sodium Silicofluoride) have been tested more than 100 times in our laboratories.

[1] http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/nsf-hazan-letter-to-mendez-april-4-2000-nsf-fact-sheet-fluoride-2000-corrected-version1.pdf

Complete this paragraph:

Let’s do a little math, as Dr. Bill Osmunson suggests in his article on batch testing[1]. Assuming generously that the “more than 100 times” is 200 tests done over an eight year period, there would be an average of only 25 tests per year done nationwide. Given that there are 77 facilities, there would be an average of .32 tests per year done at each facility, or around one test every three years at each facility. Assuming that each of the 77 facilities ships 200 batch tanker loads per year, the likelihood of any one batch being tested would be .32/200 = .00162 = .162%. Thus the likelihood that any tanker load arriving at Seattle or Everett is tested is the inverse of .162%, that is around one in every 617.

Around 180,000 residents of the US drink fluoridated water. The cost of fluoridation materials is $_______ per ton for fluorosilicic acid.

The approximate amount of fluorosilicic acid required to fluoridate water per million people per year is ________ gallons or tons.

The amount spent yearly to purchase fluoridation materials is around $_____________.

(Sources needed, please.)

***

From Aliss:

Hi James,

The research I’ve done indicates that the silicofluorides can be stored indefinitely in huge gypsum stacks. These can be seen on the satellite maps. They don’t have to be turned into bricks and isolated (not like nuclear waste). But selling the stuff for fluoridation does seem to subsidize factory farming practices and cheap toxic food. However, no one gets overtly rich from this, really. Not farmers anyway. Cargill, and ADM and Dean Foods etc. – they get rich from controlling the food supply, and making some profit off the HFSA is one way they can undercut the price of sustainably grown food and control various futures and commodities prices.

I don’t think separating the silica is such a problem – they just add water and the stuff dissociates when it gets to a certain dilution and pH. If water fluoridation ended I honestly think there would be an economic stimulus to find a better way of handling the silicon tetrafluoride gas that is formed from the processing of the raw phosphate ore. But most of Florida’s easy phosphate mining is finished – the deposits are depleted – and there is mounting pressure to produce fertilizers without draining the porous limestone (causes sinkholes and is drying up the Everglades) or the use of natural gas, and that will certainly change the manufacturing process. There is also the inescapable fact that the so called “green revolution” using NPK chemical fertilizers has destroyed topsoil all over the planet on a massive scale, produced resistant weeds and pests, and agricultural yields have plummeted steadily. Supposedly it takes about five years to rehab the organic matter in the topsoil of an acre of chemically fertilized land. The world’s hungry can’t wait for that.

I have been part of a citizen movement to force the Canadian government to develop a national sustainable food production policy that includes preservation and improvement of agricultural lands and watershed protection. These asshole politicians seem to think we will always be able to buy food from the US so what’s the problem with not maintaining our own food production resources.

Aliss

***

From Bill:

Pesticides, teflon, medications, polish, lubricants, nuclear refinement, etc.

But they would have  too much left over.

Bill

From Aliss:

Here is what passes for credible authoritative information, spelling mistakes and all, from the highly educated Director of Strategic Support for Toronto Public Health. This is what our highly paid councillors accept from their highly paid staff advisors about the ethics, safety and full costs of water fluoridation, without question, without due diligence, and without asking for substantiation; and this is what those of us with fluoride poisoning and/or fluoride-damaged children are supposed to accept:

***

From the City of Toronto:

The City of Toronto has added fluoride to its water supply since 1963 as a means of supporting improved dental health. Fluoride is a naturally occuring element that has been proven to help prevent cavities and dental decay. Some parts of Ontario have high nartually occuring fluoride, higher than that in Toronto drinking water.

The practice of adding fluoride to water had been examined scientifically at the national, provincial and international levels, it is for these reasons that the medical officer of health for the city supports fluoridation alongside the Chief medical officer for the province and the Ontario Medical Association. At the levels set by Health Canada, the addition of fluoride to water is a safe, cost effective and equitable approach to the promotion of oral health. The question of fluoride in torontos drinking water was considered earlier this year by the board of health, after over four hours of deputations, the board unanimously reaffirmed its strong support for the benefits of fluoridation.

Phil Jackson

Director, Strategic Support

Toronto Public Health

***

If Phil Jackson wrote the truth, it might go something like this:

Dear Councillor,

I am supposed to give you the provincially directed response firmly promoting and defending fluoridation so that you are off the hook in responding to your constituents who are upset about council’s ongoing failure to stop fluoridation. I am supposed to help you forget that the Ontario Fluoridation Act gives YOU as an elected member of council, not me or the provincial health dept. or the Board of Health, the legal authority to stop fluoridation no matter what propaganda we provide. I am supposed to continue the deception with layers of interconnected half-truths that confuse you into thinking they are plausible and that your constituents have it all wrong. But I just can’t do it anymore.

The City of Toronto has added industrial hazardous waste hydrofluorosilicic acid with its inherent contaminants of arsenic, lead, aluminum, cadmium and radioactive uranium decay products to its water supply since 1963. The much smaller city council at the time was the victim of “bait and switch” deception, believing it was purified sodium fluoride they would get when it was actually a very toxic corrosive pollutant from the phosphate industries in Florida. Council was told the purpose was to prevent tooth decay like iodine in salt prevents goiter, but it was really to get rid of the pollution scrubber waste by putting it into the Great Lakes via municipal waste water and hide the fact that fluoride was also being emitted in vast quantities of air pollution by almost every modern industry.

Fluoride is a naturally occurring element like arsenic, lead and aluminum, and about as bad for us when swallowed or inhaled in small amounts daily. That’s why these other toxins are strictly limited to hundreds or even thousands of times lower levels in water, food and air pollution. I am supposed to say that fluoride is a beneficial element, a nutrient, or a trace mineral; and that natural fluoride prevents tooth decay somehow. But none of that has scientific evidence. Natural calcium fluoride is not used commercially in toothpaste or water fluoridation so there is no evidence it helps teeth either. I am NOT supposed to clarify that what is added to our water is not natural but toxic industrial waste with heavy metals.

But fluoride is toxic even at low exposure, a ubiquitous and cumulative contaminant greatly increased in our water, air and food supply as a direct result of global industrialization – not a nutrient, never, no how, no way. There is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. There is fluoride poisoning of Toronto children from water fluoridation that has given us ten times more fluoride in every swallow than Nature provides, but I am supposed to tell you that there is no scientific evidence of it even though it’s obvious in nearly every teenager born and raised here including your own children. Tooth decay has nothing to do with the amount of fluoride in drinking water – natural or not. It has to do with nutrition during pregnancy and with the amount of processed carbohydrate foods in the diet when your teeth are being formed. I am supposed to make you believe that adding industrial toxic waste fluoride and heavy metals in our water will improve dental health that is being undermined by crappy, cheap cavity-causing foods. If you do believe it I guess I am a genius, or you are really not on the ball. I am not supposed to mention that in fact, the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act regulates fluoride as a contaminant and forbids the addition of those other things found in hydrofluorosilicic acid. But I am supposed to tell you the half-truth that Toronto fluoridated water with increased contaminants meets all provincial regulations for quality. I am sick of this. And I am getting angry that you put up with the load of crap I feed you.

Nature keeps fluoride buried below soil level, bound to minerals and out of surface fresh water. Some parts of Ontario have high levels of fluoride in their well water, and they suffer health problems from this. The public health officers in those towns are supposed to tell mothers to use bottled distilled water for mixing baby formula because the fluoride level in their tap water is really harmful. The truth is that babies in Toronto should also not have any extra fluoride at all and both Health Canada and the Canadian Dental Association have said this. I am supposed to make you think that a higher level of natural fluoride is harmless so toxic waste fluoride at low level must be even safer. It’s so dishonest that I hate myself.

I am supposed to tell you that Health Canada sets the fluoride level based on ample proof of safety and dental benefit but that’s not true in law or science. Environment Canada regulates the fluoridation chemical as a horrible pollutant that is not supposed to get into water or air or food supply. I am supposed to say that water fluoridation is internationally endorsed and has been scientifically evaluated and continues to be studied. Well, it was not and isn’t. I just about crapped my pants back in 2009 when one of your constituents filed a Freedom of Information request and we had to admit this in writing. The Medical Officer of Health is required to endorse and promote fluoridation by the provincial health bosses no matter what the science says, and no matter how many parents of fluoride poisoned children object, and since it’s his career he does what he’s told. He directs the Board of Health to continue fluoridation and you assume he has legal authority to order you to maintain fluoridation. He does not. I am supposed to help maintain your false assumption.

The worst lie of all is telling you that we carefully considered all the evidence last April 4, 2011 at the Board of Health meeting. We did not. We played dirty politics instead, getting the provincial authorities to come down and make long deputations with false and erroneous statements we knew you would not have the courage to challenge. When citizens made their deputations to you some councillors sniggered rudely, talked among themselves or just left the room. We encourage this even though it goes against what our elders tried to teach us about good manners. Then we got the Board to pass a motion to allow the Chair and the Medical Officer of Health to use discretion on whether to even read the evidence and submissions given by citizens. Subsequently, they did use discretion to ignore everything from concerned citizens.

I know you as a councillor are supposed to take my advice without challenging my expertise. But come on! If I tell you that a tail is a leg, and you have a thousand citizens who own cats telling you in no uncertain terms that there are no five legged cats, do you really think I’m a credible authority on cats? I am not elected and am not accountable to Toronto citizens. You are. Aren’t you just a little ashamed that you’re not doing one blessed thing to protect municipal democracy from being hijacked by our propaganda on fluoridation? Doesn’t any part of your soul want the truth to come out, and the truth to be reflected in the policies you vote on?

Phil Jackson

Director, Strategic Support

Toronto Public Health

12-18-11

 

Like a Library of Congress

 

To Nikki and others:

 

One thing I like about Fluoride Poisoning is that you are like a Library of Congress.

 

When I am looking for certain facts, all I have to do is put out a request to Fluoride Poisoning for librarian services.

 

I was asking about the history of the EPA. I said:

 

I would like to delve into the history of the Environmental Defense Fund suit against the EPA back in 1986 –which the EPA union joined as a plaintiff.

 

Links would be appreciated. Is there a book that covers it?

 

And voila the answer falls into my inbox.

 

http://www.nteu280.org/history.htm

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

Thanks to Nikki Kuhns, who is some nice person from somewhere, who has helped me before and whose identity I should know. But I don’t. Sorry, Nikki.

 

Sincerely,

 

James
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

 

From: N Kuhns
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 6:29 PM
To: James Robert Deal; fluoridepoisoning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: need info on EPA Union suit against EPA

 

James:

see –

http://www.nteu280.org/history.htm

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

 
Nikki

Anybody remember the name Erin Brokovich?
      Residents were told chromium was good for them…

 

WHEN is TOXIC WASTE good enough to drink 

    When they call it FLUORIDATION !

__________________

 

Subject: need info on EPA Union suit against EPA
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:29 -0800
From: JamesRobertDeal@jamesdeal.com
To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com

I would like to delve into the history of the Environmental Defense Fund suit against the EPA back in 1986 –which the EPA union joined as a plaintiff.

 

Links would be appreciated. Is there a book that covers it?

 

Sincerely,

 

James

James@JamesRobertDeal.com

This comes from Aliss of Toronto:

If Public Health promoted smoking like they promote water fluoridation, here’s the letter we’d get back from our mayors and councillors:

Thank you for your email about our smoking policy.

I continue to consult regularly with the City’s Medical Officer of Health about this issue.  Presently, the medical advice is to continue with smoking. The Board of Health voted recently to continue its support for smoking.  We continue to monitor evidence supplied to us by the tobacco companies on the benefits of smoking.

Health Canada and the provincial health ministers agree that smoking is safe and beneficial, and is the most cost-effective and equitable way to reduce oxygen uptake from the lungs, especially in pregnant women, children, seniors and the poor. Second-hand smoke benefits non-smokers of all ages. That is why cities all across North America promote smoking.

Tobacco is a plant found growing naturally and is used by First Nations people. It is from a family that includes foods like spaghetti sauce. Smoking provides nicotine, tar, and trace mineral nutrients such as cadmium, lead and arsenic in optimal amounts.

Burning tobacco, like burning coal, also provides nutritious fluoride which hardens the arteries as well as the teeth. The industrial tobacco by-product used in municipal smoking must meet rigorous standards of purity and safety. The nutrients are regulated by provincial standards and are lower than levels from harmless volcanic emissions.

There is no credible scientific evidence that smoking is harmful when done at optimal levels. However, children under six should be supervised and taught not to inhale, as mild cosmetic brain damage may result.”

Here’s the actual email auto-response we are getting from our Mayor in Toronto no matter what is in the content of our letters, including Christmas greetings:

Thank you for your email about fluoride in Toronto’s drinking water.
I continue to consult regularly with the City’s Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David McKeown about this issue.  Presently, the medical advice is to continue with fluoridation and the Toronto Board of Health voted last April to continue fluoridation of the City’s water.  Fluoridation of water is the most cost-effective and equitable way to prevent dental decay for all residents, and that’s why cities across Canada and the United States continue to promote water fluoridation.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral and is found in rocks, soil and water. The amount of fluoride added to drinking water is regulated by provincial standards. At the current level, Toronto’s drinking water contains a lower level of fluoride than naturally occurring levels in some parts of Ontario.

 

 

Water fluoridation at ordinary EPA allowed levels worsens arthritis, including crippling arthritis. See:

Critique of EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for Fluoride

Michael Connett, Ellen Connett, Paul Connett, Chris Neurath
Fluoride Action Network (FAN)
December 16, 2005

 

CHEMICAL NATION OR ORGANIC NATION?

 

Fluoridation is an important health and environmental issue, but it is only one part of a much bigger picture. Fluoridation is but one aspect of our reckless contamination of our bodies and the environment with any and every conceivable chemical for the sake of enriching for-profit corporations.

 

Organic is not our national policy. Chemical is our policy. If a plant or animal can be grown or raised without chemicals, it does not receive any tax break or subsidy. It does not even receive any government encouragement. But if some chemical company finds some small cost savings that can be achieved with the use of a its chemical, then we allow the chemical to be produced and used. Chemical foods are a little cheaper; cheaper is considered better. The long term, hidden costs of using the chemical on our bodies and the environment are ignored. Industry must be allowed to make profits, and if they claim they can make a profit producing an unnecessary and harmful chemical, it is our policy to allow the unnecessary and harmful chemical to be produced and used, as long as the adverse effects are not to obvious, as long as the chemical can be buried or disbursed when its use is complete, and as long as users have not yet proved that the chemical is harmful. Our regulatory agencies bend over backward to allow the sale and use of these chemicals. Our Environmental Protection Agency is a Chemical Permitting Agency.

 

Our policy is that the solution to pollution is dilution. The way to dispose of toxic fluoride scrubber liquor is to dilute it into our drinking water. We have lost our way.

 

The solution to pollution should be not to produce the pollution in the first place.

 

It should be our goal as a nation to be as organic, as non-toxic, as non-chemical, as non-coal, as non-petroleum, as non-gas, as non-fracking, as non-nuclear, as recyclable, and as humane to animals as we can possibly be. If we set this as our goal, we would be healthier and probably healthier. There would even be financial advantages: Our health care costs would drop. Our products would be of higher quality and would sell around the world and for a better price.

 

The best way to deal with garbage and trash is to recycle as much as possible and throw away as little as possible. To do that we should collect a deposit at the time a product is sold – whether it is a food or beverage container, a motor vehicle, or a computer – which will pay the cost of recycling it when its useful life is over.

 

What I read in the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act is consistent with such organic, non-chemical, and non-toxic goals. We should strive to discharge as close to zero toxic waste as possible into water and air. Any chemical or agricultural task which can be accomplished without the use of toxic chemicals should be done without them – even if it costs more to do so. It is counter-productive to produce toxic chemicals just so chemical companies can make profits. Instead chemical companies should learn how to make their profits without producing toxic chemicals.

 

Congress states our national environmental purpose in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, commonly known as the Clean Water Act. It is:

 

to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters…. [I]t is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985. [I]t is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited….

 

Allowing water fluoridation necessitates dumping contaminants into navigable waters. Under the Clean Water Act the term “navigable” is very broad. Water downstream from fluoridated cities contains significant amounts of fluoride. Fish swim the other way.

 

The Safe Drinking Water Act issues the same call. 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.”

 

I read these same organic and non-toxic values in § 300g–1 of the SDWA:

 

The Administrator … shall take into consideration … the effect of such contaminants upon … infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, or other subpopulations … identifiable as being at greater risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to contaminants in drinking water than the general population.

 

The EPA is to look after the most vulnerable. Instead, it looks after the profits of chemical companies.

 

I read these values in the definitions of Maximum Contaminant Level, and Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. The MCLG is the

 

level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety.

 

The MCL specifies

 

a maximum contaminant level for such contaminant which is as close to the maximum contaminant level goal as is feasible.

 

Most critics of fluoridation focus on the MCL of 4 ppm. But it is not just the MCL that is too high; the MCLG is too high too. The EPA set the MCLG ridiculously high so that the MCL could be set ridiculously high.

 

All the plants and animals we raise can be raised organically, without chemicals like super-phosphate fertilizer. We not only over-fertilize our corn, cotton, soy, and wheat with super-phosphate fertilizer, we actually feed it to our farm animals! Plants and animals can be grown cleaner, healthier, and more nutritiously if they are raised without chemicals. Workers can be healthier working in organic agriculture.

 

The spoliation of sections of land in Florida and Louisiana to make super-phosphate fertilizer – which produces in turn most of the SiF used as fluoridation materials – is unnecessary. In most parts of the United States there is sufficient phosphate already in the soil; it is only necessary to adjust soil pH to release it.

 

Tax breaks for growing soy and corn that will be fed to food animals should end. It should be our goal to raise all food animals cleanly and organically on small farms, and to raise and kill them humanely. The price of meat would be higher and we should eat less of it. It should be a condiment instead of the main course. Large industrial farms – ugly slums of filth, disease, and suffering – should be shut down. I hope more of us will go so far as to quit using animals for food altogether. With our population at 7.0 billion and headed for 9.0 billion, we should eat a green diet that is as low as possible on the food chain.

 

GMOs should be banned. GMOs are alien species. Their existence may do us harm. In the case of the bees – which pollinate the crops we rely on – they are already doing harm. Chimeras pollute the gene pool. GMO pollen is spread everywhere by birds, insects, and the wind. Organic strains are being polluted. The only advantage of GMOs is that they create monopoly profit for certain corporations.

 

We should get all our energy from sun, wind, wave, tide, and geothermal. There is more than enough energy from such sources to supply all our needs. We can make all the electricity and hydrogen we need without coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear plants.

 

We should shut down all our nuclear plants. Uranium is filthy to mine. There are uranium tailings that run down the Colorado River and are in the drinking water of the Southwest. When the inevitable earthquake, hurricane, tornado, or coronal mass ejection comes, or when the inevitable human error occurs, a resulting loss in control can lead to a catastrophe.

 

There is only financial loss in the nuclear endeavor after the reactor shuts down.  The cost of storing guarding nuclear waste for 100,000 years is far more than the value of the electricity which nuclear plants produce during their 40 year lives. And nuclear power is a stepping stone to nuclear weapons.

 

The chemical, fertilizer, agribusiness, nuclear industries would laugh at such goals and they would resist them. They believe that they will be unable to make as much profit producing a clean product. They are wrong: There is plenty of money to be made organically.

 

Corporations have limited liability. Most corporations care little about anything except maximizing profits, although there are some exceptions. Profits must grow, or new management will be brought in. In the case of industries that sell fluoride, management must poison its own children, or new management will be found which will.

 

The flaw in corporate structure is that the corporate veil which shields the shareholder from any financial responsibility – in excess of the amount invested—also shields the shareholder from any moral responsibility. The typical shareholder fails to demand high ethical standards of the corporation, in part because it might lessen profits.

 

Corporations are non-personal beings. They are super-beings. They have eternal life. The power of corporations needs to be curtailed. Executives and large shareholders should have personal liability for violations of law.

 

Humans can be counted on to some extent to have a conscience, which will in many cases govern excesses. However, corporations have no conscience.

 

Just as we broke free of royalty, we should break free of the giant corporations. The fluoride problem is just one part of a larger chemical, fertilizer, agribusiness, nuclear problem. Ending fluoridation is only one aspect of a democratization which must take place.

 

The fluoride problem grew out of the uranium and nuclear industry during World War II when rules could be broken in the name of national defense. The rule breaking never stopped.

 

The fluoride problem grew out of the chemical, agricultural, fertilizer industry – which resists finding a cleaner way to earn profits.

 

Big chemical companies make political contributions to candidates and in this way buy seats on the boards of EPA, CDC, FDA, and other agencies. The agencies created to protect people instead protect the profits of the big corporations. A constitutional amendment is needed to limit contributions and finance campaigns publicly.

 

I have traveled far afield from the fluoridation issue, but I have done so only because the fluoridation issue is so intertwined with the other issues mentioned. All the agencies need to start doing good and honest science – on all the issues that touch on our health and well being.

 

These are lofty standards. The money fixated would mock them as unrealistic. Nevertheless, we should strive to attain them. We should respect life in all ways possible. If we do we will be wealthier, not just in money but also in the peace and beauty which would surround us.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

President, http://Fluoride-Class-Action.com

Miloslav Nosal, M.Sc., Ph.D.

Professor of Biostatistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

The University of Calgary

 

I have been involved in a research study assessing transdermal absorption of fluoride from fluoridated water. The current results indicate that skin absorption fromthe bathing water is quite significant. This shows that people who want to avoid fluoride in drinking water by buying bottled water containing no significant concentration of fluoride cannot avoid fluoride unless they stop washing and bathing themselves.

This research is being finalized for a publication in a peer refereed scientific journal.

***

Dear Professor,

 

www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com would welcome any more you can offer on this subject pre-publication. Maybe you could send us a summary or a first draft.

 

***

 

Question: It would seem to me that a person who has to bathe in fluoridated water would be better off bathing instead of showing because he would inhale less fluoride and chlorine in water droplets.

 

Is there any calcium or magnesium lotion which one could apply after showering which would supply the fluoride the positive ions if seeks.

 

I have been trying magnesium oil from Ancient Minerals after doing a quick bath in one inch of water. It stings. I am not sure it is safe or helpful.

 

PREVENTING CAVITIES IN WAYS OTHER THAN USING FLUORIDE

12-6-11

More and more people are coming to the conclusion that we should not be drinking and eating fluoride.

Some still believe that applying fluoride topically is the best way to prevent tooth decay. I disagree. I say we should avoid all fluoride.

We are not doing anything to instruct people about the other things they could be doing for their teeth. To get them to stop fluoridating and using fluoridated toothpaste, we ought to tell them what else they could do for their teeth that would be better than fluoride.

So I asked what we should be telling them:

Don’t eat sugar, bread, pasta, candy, cake, sugary cereals

Brush after meals with non-fluoridated toothpaste

Use tiny tooth brushes for cleaning between teeth

Take calcium and magnesium supplements?

Eat less animal products – which acidifies blood and sucks calcium out of bones?

Chewing xylitol gum?

Antibacterial therapy—such as treatment with chlorhexidine gluconate rinse, mentioned by Featherstone

http://washingtonsafewater.com/wp-content/uploads/science-and-practice-of-caries-prevention-john-featherstone-JADA-july-2000.pdf

But let’s not join any fad such as Atkinson or Weston Price. Weston has his critics:

http://www.whattoserveagoddess.com/weston-price-foundation

http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/fuhrman_dietary_myths.htm

Weston was right on several points. About processed foods – white flour, phosphate rising powders, cereal, sugar, jam, corn syrup, vegetable oils and canned milk. About eating grains. We did not evolve to eat unsprouted grains.

And he was half way right about raw milk. It is better than commercial milk. But it is still for calves. There is calcium in the milk but it is calcium phosphate. We do not need more phosphate. Cow milk has no magnesium, no potassium, no iron, and no essential fatty acids. It is a totally different composition than mother’s milk. Nature leaves those things out of cow’s milk because they are found in the grass which calves start eating shortly after birth. And milk has too much protein. Too much protein is just as much a problem as too little. Most get far too much protein.

Raw milk is better than commercial milk, and people should have the right to produce and buy and sell it. But in this era of tenacious microbes, I suggest you boil it first, as do the Indians. Better yet, avoid it too. It uses up your caloric allotment and gives you none of the nutrients you need along with too much protein.

When it comes to a meat centered diet, there is a problem with returning to an originalist Weston Price diet: The food is not available. You will not find lean, healthy organic meat in any significant quantity at a price that most people can afford. The bad money drives out the good, and the cheap meat drives out the expensive. Even hunted meat can be polluted because wild animals can go everywhere and eat grains treated with pesticide. Wild animals can be infected with the wasting “mad cow” diseases. Hunted meat is very expensive when you factor in the cost of guns, licenses, travel, and clothing. Weston says to eat organs, but we know that the body stores things it cannot excrete in the organs.

The meat that the aborigines of Borneo ate with Weston is not available today.

Commercial animals are fed phosphate fertilizer, and so their meat contains more FLUORIDE. Commercial chickens are fed ARSENIC.

Fish has DHA and vitamin D. Unfortunately we treat the oceans both as our grocery store and our sewer. We have polluted our salmon and tuna with mercury and our filter feeders with PCBs.

We have over populated the planet and we no longer have the right to eat “high on the hog”.

Weston was right on another point: If you want to eat meat, eat insects, as low on the food chain as possible.

Any grains should be sprouted to get rid of the phitates in the hulls. That’s the problem with bread made from flour.

The key to healthy teeth is eating a lot of fruits, nuts, and vegetables, rich in minerals, and avoiding processed foods, including as you said white flour, phosphate rising powders, cereal, sugar, jam, corn syrup, vegetable oils and canned milk.

And if you have to eat meat, it should be an occasional condiment not the main course three times a day. We eat a lot more meat now than we did before refrigeration. A large part of the diet of Australian aborigines and African bushmen is vegetables.

Too much meat and milk and eggs acidifies blood and requires that calcium be pulled out of bones. Blood pH cannot vary much.

Plant a garden and grow your own

http://www.whattoserveagoddess.com/wp-content/uploads/red-leaf-lettuce1.jpg

http://www.whattoserveagoddess.com/chapter-18/

During the winter or if you live in an apartment, sprout lentils, mung, spelt, wheat, beans.

The problems with an all vegetable diet are:

No DHA, which some cannot manufacture out of flax if they are sickly.

No B-12, which must be supplemented with nutritional yeast.

No vitamin D, and there is not enough sun in Seattle. Take D-2 supplements and take twice as much.

If you want to go Weston, raise chickens in your backyard and eat their eggs and the roosters. And eat that aphid encrusted kale in the Spring. That’s the closest you can come in an environmentally responsible way.

I have been a strict vegan for 30 years. Note that I am not dead yet, as Weston would imply I should be.

However, I do not expect others to be so extreme. I do the vegan thing for religious and environmental reasons.

But I have figured out that the world is not going to switch to veganism any time soon.

Veganism is not the solution for everyone. Nor is the Weston Price diet.

***

I renew another question:

Is it possible that the explanation for the drop in tooth decay generally is that occasionally children and adults are administered rounds of antibiotics to fight colds? Would general antibiotics also kills tooth decay germs such as mutans streptococci and lactobacilli?

Does the drop in tooth decay correlate inversely with the rise in use of antibiotics?

Sincerely,

James Robert Deal , Attorney
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

***

My original question:

12-5-11

Questions to ponder:

People will ask, well if fluoride is not good for teeth, what is good for teeth?

Not eating sugar, bread, pasta, and what else?

Is the sugar in fruit bad for teeth?

Using floss?

Calcium and magnesium supplements?

Tiny tooth brushes for cleaning between teeth

Flossing

Brushing after eating with non-fluoridated toothpaste

Eating more vegetables – rich in calcium

Eating less animal products which acidifies blood and sucks calcium out of bones?

Chewing xylitol gum?

Antibiotic mouthwash (referred to by Featherstone)?

Hypothesis: Is it possible that the explanation for the drop in tooth decay generally is that occasionally children and adults are administered rounds of antibiotics to fight a cold? Which also kills tooth decay germs?

Does the drop in tooth decay mirror the rise of antibiotics?

Sincerely,

James Robert Deal , Attorney
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

From Aliss:

Hi James,

Dr. Weston A. Price was a dentist and root canal specialist in Cleveland in the 1930s and wondered many of the same things. Like many of his time and today, he thought vegetarian diet with lots of fibre from whole grains was the healthiest diet for humans. He really wanted this to be proven. But more than a dentist, he was one of those lateral thinkers with a truly scientific mind. Dentistry as a profession was changing from extractions towards prevention, hygiene, and preserving decayed teeth with fillings, root canals and crowns. He was concerned about the increase in numbers of child patients with worse decay than ever. In fact his own child died from infection after a root canal on a decayed tooth. This devastated him of course. It made him rethink whether dentistry should be focused on saving teeth with technofixes. He thought rotten teeth might be caused by the civilized diet – especially white flour, phosphate rising powders, cereal, sugar, jam, corn syrup, vegetable oils and canned milk. Note that many of these processed foods are quite high in fluoride. Phosphate baking powders in particular supply both aluminum and fluoride.

So on his yearly vacations, he decided to search the world for so called primitive cultures not exposed to these foods and examine their diet and health. He took meticulous notes, sent food samples back to his lab for analysis of nutrients, did dental exams, and took thousands of photos. His tome is called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration and is available from the Price Pottenger Foundation of California. It has been reprinted numerous times. He was first enamoured of fluoride due to the propaganda of the time, and then disillusioned when his scientific data certainly did not match any of the claims.

Price was surprised to learn that diets rich in animal fats and proteins, especially organ meats such as liver, and animal source minerals especially bone and gelatine broths, sea food and milk products, with the lowest intake of agricultural grains and legumes produced the healthiest peoples with the best teeth and bones, from the Arctic to the southern Kalahari. No vegans. None of these people cleaned their teeth but they had beautiful, white, strong enamel and 32 teeth in perfect alignment in broad jaws. Except for the Swiss village where some of the kids had green slime on their teeth but no cavities or gum disease (must have been chlorophyll producing probiotic strains!) Healthy cultures that included grains and legumes had elaborate methods of soaking, fermentation and phytate removal before eating, and these foods were cooked with meat, bones, lard or fish or served with eggs or insect larvae rich in fats. Cultures that depended mostly on grains had poor dental health, smaller stature and weak bones. But wherever a settlement had been exposed to modern processed foods that displaced the local traditional foods, there was an immediate decline in the physical health and appearance of the children born after that time, with malformed faces, decayed teeth, rickets and TB. It was quite dramatic.

One of the few fluoridation studies that controlled for some nutrition variables was done right here in the Toronto area by Dick Ito who is now one of the most aggressive pro-fluoridation public health politicians (not elected and not accountable to us, of course). It showed that the most significant factor in childhood dental decay in Brampton (fluoridated) vs. Caledon (not) was whether the kid was taking a daily multi vitamin-mineral supplement. Ito’s conclusion says fluoridation benefit was not evident at all but dental fluorosis was higher in Brampton. Duh. Ito pretends not to hear you when you question him about this previous research. I am sure he would remove his name from the study if he could, given his political stature now, but it’s on PubMed.

Aliss

Lithium has a calming effect. Allegedly the suicide rate is lower in areas where the water is higher in naturally occurring lithium. (Citation needed)

Dr. Richard Sauerheber points out that there is the direct way to add lithium to drinking water and the indirect way.

Obviously the direct way to add it is just to add it. The other way is a process called “toilet-to-tap”. Toilet-to-tap is the cockeyed idea of taking sewer water and cleaning it up, employing reverse osmosis as the final step.

Dr. Sauerheber points out that there is just one problem with this: The lithium atom is smaller than the water molecule. You could have reverse osmosis that let water through, but then lithium ions would also go through. One could not have reverse osmosis that let the water through but did not let the lithium through. Lithium is smaller and simply follows the water through the pore.

Holes big enough to let water molecules through would also let lithium atoms through.

Dr. Sauerheber says that San Diego has the equipment already in place to do toilet-to-tap filtration.

There is significant lithium in sewer water and storm drain water. Batteries and brake linkings are two sources. Toilet-to-tap water will be rich in lithium, a back door way to add lithium to drinking water.

***

I have read that there were a few cities which did add lithium to their water. The experiment was brief. There were side effects. I am looking for that reference. If you can find it, send it.

***

The Medical Mafia continues to plot mass medication via water supplies – is lithium next?

Sunday, November 27, 2011 by: PF Louis

(NaturalNews) Mass medication is getting discussed more among medical experts who insist they know what is best for all of us. With water fluoridation comes the threat of adding lithium and statin drugs to our water supplies. These mass medication efforts have been seriously discussed among top medical professionals for the past few years.

Big Pharma’s only recipe for health

Big Pharma, the AMA, and medical boards throughout the world consider prescription drugs as the only viable solution for human health and disease prevention. Never mind nutrition. There’s no money in that for them, and they don’t know much if anything about nutrition anyway. So instead of removing toxins from food and water, they want to add toxic pharmaceuticals for public health.

These experts claim “not to worry,” the amounts are insignificant. This viewpoint ignores the cumulative effect from daily consumption of liquids using water in addition to water alone: Tea, sodas, coffee, soups, and boiled foods.

Boiling only gets rid of some pathogenic bacteria and parasites. It does doesn’t eliminate fluoride or other drugs used to mass medicate populations.

Also consider bathing, showering, and even the water used to spray produce displayed in stores to keep those veggies fresh. Prescribing pharmaceutical drugs at high doses for specific reasons often involves side effects. Daily dosing healthy people exposes them to those side effects over the long term also.

Pushing for lithium and statins in water supplies

According to a UK Daily Mailb report, “Lithium has been heralded by some experts as the next potential fluoride, after scientists found suicide rates were lower in areas where the drinking water had higher concentrations of the element.”

Lithium is used for bipolar patients. It’s supposed to focus on the manic-depressives and stabilize mood swings. Lithium works by altering the brain’s normal production of serotonin and norepinephrine, an adrenal hormone and neurotransmitter.

If the “medical experts” have their way placing lithium into our water supply, many would be under the influence of a mind altering drug. The side effects range from itchy skin to hallucinations and seizures. Read more here in another Natural News article (http://www.naturalnews.com/032669_l…).

Quite a few MDs in key positions have offered another mass medication idea via water supplies, statin drugs. Statins are promoted as heart health drugs because they supposedly reduce cholesterol levels.

Cholesterol as a threat to heart health has been exposed as a hoax by many health experts willing to speak out against the medical paradigm of disease for profit.

Statin drugs were essentially created as something that could be sold to healthy people, even without high cholesterol, as long as the bogus cholesterol scare holds up. Mike Adams covers this well here (http://www.naturalnews.com/024783.html).

A study published in the Cochrane Library reviewed 14 statin drug trials that involved 34,000 patients. The researchers discovered previously undisclosed side effects of depression, mood swings, and memory loss. Other known statin side effects include cataracts, muscle damage, liver dysfunction, and acute kidney failure.

Several conscientious MDs warn that statins could cause more harm than good and should not be prescribed unless there is imminent danger of a heart attack or stroke.

The combination of fluoridation plus these drugs would be devastating for most over the long term. The phrase “trust no one” applies to medical institutions and government health agencies. We need to treat our own water while lobbying locally to stop fluoridation and resist other mass medication efforts.

Read more.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034250_Medical_Mafia_lithium.html#ixzz1eymAXaHo

***

British Journal of Psychiatry

Lithium in drinking water and suicide mortality

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/198/5/346.abstract?sid=5c846465-07fb-45c7-954f-0372383dcbb8

Israeli Water Engineer Speaks Out on Water Fluoridation

Green Prophet Interview

If your tap gushes water laced with fluoride, you’re taking a powerful drug with every sip.

Imagine a stranger pressing you to drink a clear liquid with no special odor, color, or taste. “Just drink, it’s good for you,” he insists. What would you do? Refuse it, probably. And if the stranger were to become overbearing, you’d want to bat it away.  At least, you’d want to know what’s in that water and what it might do to you. But do you know what’s in your own tap water?

One of the things in your water is fluoride. It’s supposed to be good for your teeth. In the US, Israel, and other countries in the Middle East the law requires that fluoride be added to the water supply. So it must be OK – go ahead and drink. Considering the scarcity of water in the Middle East, just be grateful. You might hesitate, though, if you knew that the comforting fluoride in your glass of water is used as rat poison. In this story I interview someone who has worked for a national water carrier. What she says might shock you.

It’s no secret where fluorides come from. They are the direct, unprocessed wastes of fertilizer, nuclear, aluminum, steel, and pesticide industries. Once hailed as a cheap way to rescue the population from tooth decay, it is proven to be a powerful toxin that causes, and aggravates, a long roster of ills.

According to studies provided by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), cancer, arthritis, thyroid dysfunction, and neurological disorders are related to fluoride intake. Brittle bones. Calcification of the pineal gland.

We interviewed Prof. Loty Zilberman, occupational health and toxicology consultant and former water engineer for Mekorot, the Israel water company, to learn more.

GP: How toxic is fluoride?

Prof. Zilberman: It’s so corrosive that storage facilities have bunkers built around them for safety. Workers must wear full body protection.

Fluorides draw copper out of plumbing pipes, so our water contains copper. Boys and young men are at special risk of  asthma and neurological dysfunction, leading to violent behavior, from excess copper absorption. The synergy of fluorides with other waste products in our water produces a most powerful toxin that increases risk of Alzheimer’s and and osteosarcoma  (a type of cancer), again, especially in boys. Fluorides neutralize iodine, so that thyroid patients taking iodine medication suffer.

Excessive fluoride causes fluorosis – white streaks on children’s teeth. So what is it doing to the rest of their bones? Children are most at risk from the toxic effects of fluoride, absorbing three times as much as adults do. Bottle-fed babies inevitably drink fluoride in their formula.

We see the effects of excess fluoride in the rocketing levels of cancer and arthritis in today’s children and young adults.

GP: And this rat-poison business…? What’s that all about?

Prof. Zilberman: Fluoride, being a protoplasmic toxin, is used as rat poison.

GP: Quite a little shop of horrors! What are safe levels of fluoride in water?

Prof. Zilberman: In Israel, no studies have been conducted to determine safe levels. In the US, fluoridation laws were passed before any studies were done.

GP: Is fluoride in all water?

Prof. Zilberman: Any water that comes out of a tap in Israel has fluoride. We’re talking about the water used for agriculture and  food and drink industries. The water with which you wash laundry, shower, and brush your teeth. You absorb the fluoride in water through the skin, so that every time you wash your hands, you get another tiny dose of it.

GP: Can’t we just boil it out of our drinking water? What about filtering it?

Prof. Zilberman: Boiling water only concentrates the fluorides in it. Popular household filters don’t affect it. The only way to eliminate fluoride from water is by reverse osmosis,  a costly setup. So people without financial means have no choice but to keep absorbing fluorides.

Medicine should not be given out indiscriminately to an entire population. Fluoride is a medicine that dentists should prescribe when necessary, and monitor just as any other doctor monitors a patient taking a prescription drug.

GP: Why do fluorides get dumped into our water, anyway? And why do our governments still sing the “It’s Good For You” song?

Prof. Zilberman: I can answer only for Israel. It’s cheaper than burying it. It can cost thousands of shekels per cubic meter to remove waste. The Koor factory in Acre, for example, may have 15 cubic meters of waste daily.

Industries have a financial interest in maintaining fluoridation. The government apparently still holds by the outdated idea that it prevents dental cavities. Perhaps there’s also the fear that, as happened in the US, once the toxic effects of fluoride are understood, people will start suing industries for damages.

GP: Thank you, Professor Zilberman!

11-25-11

Happy Thanksgiving to All:

I like Wikipedia. I use it daily. I just donated $10 to Wikipedia. I also criticized Wikipedia:

I am the president of www.fluoride-class-action.com and the vice-president of www.washingtonsafewater.com.

I am an attorney:
www.mortgage-modification-attorney.com.

And I am a published author: www.whattoserveagoddess.com.

I use Wikipedia daily.

My only criticism is that your page on “fluoridation” is one-sided and at times grossly inaccurate.

Example:
“Although water fluoridation can cause dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of developing teeth, most of this is mild and usually not considered to be of aesthetic or public-health concern. There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects.

Both statements are false. See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/occupy-seattle-flier-10-21-11

There is a Fluoridation Controversy page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy. It is equally lacking in objectivity.

When our scientific experts post anything critical of fluoridation, their comments are immediately deleted. On this subject Wikipedia is clearly lacking in objectivity. On this subject the site is clearly controlled by the chemical company profiteers who sell fluoride and their misinformed dental and medical supporters.

James@JamesRobertDeal.com

Send your feedback to Wikipedia. We should demand that Wikipedia be more objective.

Go here to give feedback: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback

James

SINGAPORE
AND DRINKING WATER FLUORIDATION

Singapore started fluoridating its water in 1956, at a time when Singapore was making the decision to make a great economic leap forward and become prosperous. Water fluoridation was viewed as modern and good for all.

Singapore has succeeded fabulously in becoming a place where all live well. However, it residents are not rich in dental health. Children there have a significant level of dental fluorosis. In 1996

the community fluorosis index was at 1.96; 9.2% of children had severe fluorosis and 26.2% had moderate fluorosis.

There are more and more dentists today who are taking the position that they favor fluoride applied topically – as in toothpaste – but oppose putting it in drinking water.

When fluoride is in drinking water there is no way to control the dose. Certain sub-populations are especially sensitive, fetuses, infants, diabetics, and those with kidney disease.

Read more.

Hydrogen Fluoride Calculations

A 23% fluosilicic acid solution, because of the chemistry of aqueous fluorides, typically contains around 1.5 % HF (as assayed by Lucier Chemicals for Metropolitan Water, Los Angeles).

This is 23 grams of H2SiF6 and 1.5 grams of HF per 100 grams of solution, which is 18 grams of fluoride from H2SiF6 and  1.5 grams of fluoride from HF.

Thus, 8% of all fluoride present in the solution is HF.

The Code of Federal Regulations specifically and explicitly prohibits the marketing, interstate transport, or ingestion of any anti-caries agent that contains HF without a new drug application – NDA.

Fluosilicic acid hazardous waste preparations are currently diluted into nearly 70% of all U.S. water supplies without FDA approval and without a prescription. A 1.0 ppm fluoridation level produces 0.21 ppm anionic fluorine in human blood, and such action requires an FDA ban, or an approved NDA.

***
Here also is the calculated HF concentration that would be present in the stomach if one were thirsty and filled up from drinking 1 ppm fluoride water. That is:

HF  produces H⁺ and F^- as a weak acid with dissociation constant Ka = 7.2 x 10^-4 (CRC Handbook for Chemistry and Physics)

So 7.2 x 10^-4 = [H⁺][F^-]/[HF] where [F^-], after combining with stomach acid H⁺, = 5.2 x 10^-5M – X (1 ppm in molarity units minus the unknown molarity X for HF)

Rearranging, 7.2 x 10^-4X = [10^-3][5.2 x 10^-5 - X]  and 0.00172X = 5.26 x 10^-8

Solving,  X = 3 x 10^-5 M HF in stomach acid, which is 0.6 ppm HF.

This agrees with experimental observations with a fluoride ion specific electrode at pH 3, where 1 ppm fluoride water is detected as only approximately 0.5 ppm. This level of HF is a significant concentration of this uncharged tissue-penetrating corrosive in contact with stomach mucosal tissue.

I will be calling this to the attention of the FDA.

I calculated the concentration of HF that would be present in a solution that is buffered to pH 7 with 1 ppm total fluoride and it is about 0.14 ppb of this corrosive substance HF. This would be unimpressive to those promoting fluoride to be concerned about, but nevertheless it is the most corrosive substance known and is the active ingredient in industrial uses on glass, ceramics, computer chips, etc. when conditions are not buffered. In plain water without buffering, the HF is higher.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego)
Palomar College, San Marcos, CA
richsauerheb@hotmail.com  Phone: 760-744-1150 xt 2448

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA)
Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd.
San Marcos, CA 92069

November 21, 2001

 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Reviewers,

This brief letter provides additional information, not forwarded earlier, in support of FDA petition 2007P-0346.

The FDA has been indirectly involved in water fluoridation for many years, by virtue of its regulation of the prescription fluoride drug Luride, and requirements regarding its labeling.

The FDA analyzed water fluoride conditions thoroughly with regards to use of the prescription drug Luride, and included their findings in labeling and dosage instructions required for this prescription drug. The Physician’s Desk Reference, America’s first and only compendium of official FDA-approved prescription drug labeling, lists Luride (sodium fluoride) as a still-legal prescription drug. The specific dosage instructions, carefully analyzed, approved and required by the FDA, include the following statement:

Fluoride oral supplements are contra-indicated when drinking water is above 0.7 ppm fluoride. (Physician’s Desk Reference, p. 838, 48^th edition, Medical Economics Data Production Company, Montvale, NJ, 1994).

In spite of recommendations issued January, 2011 from the U.S. Health and Human Services not to exceed 0.7 ppm, San Diego city water is mostly treated to 0.8 ppm fluoride and Los Angeles public water is titrated to 1.0 ppm of the free fluoride ion. Water districts which inject synthetic fluoride compounds for human ingestion are in violation of FDA regulations, by either

1)       dispensing a non-FDA approved drug (fluosilicic acid), or

2)       in some cities dispensing an FDA-approved prescription drug (sodium fluoride) without a prescription, and

3)       by not providing necessary FDA dosage information to consumers (i.e. as listed in the PDR above). FDA existing dosage instructions are being ignored.

Fluosilicic acid is not an FDA approved drug by either prescription or over the counter and is not listed in the PDR. Its dispensation for oral ingestion is a violation of the FD&C Act that requires, that any substance used as a drug to treat disease requires a new drug application and FDA approval.

We are asking for a ban on fluosilicic acid in public water supplies. However, even before the FDA issues such a ban it should issue an advisory statement such as the following:

The FDA advises those who which to consume fluoride orally to visit their physicians, consult with them regarding the proper dosage, the duration of dosage, and the appropriateness of consuming it in the form of Luride, a drug which the FDA has approved, although only with a physician’s prescription.

Likewise, the FDA should issue the following advisory to water districts which fluoridate drinking water:

Water districts which fluoridate should advise physicians not to prescribe Luride to those who live within the boundaries of their water district.

If you require the CFR regulations again that specifically apply to the violations listed above, I will be most happy to forward them.

Sincerely,

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

 

From www.Drugs.com

What is Luride?

Fluoride is a substance that strengthens tooth enamel. This helps to prevent dental cavities.

Luride  is used as a medication to prevent tooth decay in people that have a low level of fluoride in their drinking water. Luride is also used to prevent tooth decay in people who undergo radiation of the head and/or neck, which may cause dryness of the mouth and an increased incidence of tooth decay.

Luride may also be used for other purposes not listed in this medication guide.

What is the most important information I should know about Luride?

You should not use Luride if the level of fluoride in your drinking water is greater than 0.7 parts per million (ppm).

Before using Luride, tell your dentist and doctor if you are on a low salt or a salt free diet. You may not be able to use Luride, or you may need special tests while you are using it.

Do not take Luride with milk, other dairy products, or calcium supplements. Calcium can make it harder for your body to absorb fluoride.

Avoid using antacids without your doctor’s advice. Use only the specific type of antacid your doctor recommends. Many antacids contain calcium, which can interfere with fluoride absorption.

What should I discuss with my healthcare provider before taking Luride?

You should not use Luride if the level of fluoride in your drinking water is greater than 0.7 parts per million (ppm).

Before using Luride, tell your dentist and doctor if you are on a low salt or a salt free diet. You may not be able to use Luride, or you may need special tests while you are using it.

Talk to your doctor and dentist before taking Luride  if you are pregnant or could become pregnant during treatment. Talk to your doctor and dentist before taking Luride if you are breast-feeding. The American Dental Association’s Council on Dental Therapeutics recommends the use of Luride by children up to 13 years of age; the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends fluoride supplementation by children until the age of 16 years of age. Do not give a 1-mg tablet to a child younger than 3 years old, or when your drinking water fluoride content is equal to or greater than 0.3 ppm.

How should I take Luride?

Use this medication exactly as directed on the label, or as prescribed by your doctor. Do not use it in larger amounts or for longer than recommended.

Take this medicine with a full glass of water. Do not take Luride with milk or other dairy products. Calcium can make it harder for your body to absorb fluoride.

Suck on the Luride lozenge until it dissolves completely in your mouth. Do not chew the lozenge or swallow it whole.

The chewable forms of Luride  can be chewed, swallowed, dissolved in the mouth, added to drinking water or fruit juice, or added to water for use in infant formula or other food.

The Luride drops can be taken by mouth undiluted, or mixed with fluid or food.

If you mix Luride with food or water, drink or eat this mixture right away. Do not save it for later use.

It is important to take Luride regularly to get the most benefit.

Store Luride at room temperature away from moistureand heat.

What happens if I miss a dose?

Take the missed dose as soon as you remember. If it is almost time for your next dose, wait until then to take the medicine and skip the missed dose. Do not take extra medicine to make up the missed dose.

What happens if I overdose?

Seek emergency medical attention if you think you have used too much of this medicine.

Overdose symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, diarrhea, drooling, numbness or tingling, loss of feeling anywhere in your body, muscle stiffness, or seizure (convulsions).

What should I avoid while taking Luride?

Do not take fluoride with milk, other dairy products, or calcium supplements. Calcium can make it harder for your body to absorb fluoride.

Avoid using antacids without your doctor’s advice. Use only the specific type of antacid your doctor recommends. Many antacids contain calcium, which can interfere with fluoride absorption.

Luride (fluoride) side effects

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat. Call your doctor if you have any of the following side effects:

• discolored teeth;
• weakened tooth enamel; or
• any changes in the appearance of your teeth.

Less serious side effects may include:

• stomach upset;
• headache; or
• weakness.

This is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur. Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects. You may report side effects to FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088.

Side Effects of Luride – for the Consumer

Luride Chewable Tablets

All medicines may cause side effects, but many people have no, or minor, side effects. When used in small doses, no COMMON side effects have been reported with Luride Chewable Tablets. Seek medical attention right away if any of these SEVERE side effects occur when using Luride Chewable Tablets:

Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue).

This is not a complete list of all side effects that may occur. If you have questions about side effects, contact your health care provider. Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects. To report side effects to the appropriate agency, please read the Guide to Reporting Problems to FDA.

Luride Drops

All medicines may cause side effects, but many people have no, or minor, side effects. When used in small doses, no COMMON side effects have been reported with Luride Drops. Seek medical attention right away if any of these SEVERE side effects occur when using Luride Drops:

Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue).

This is not a complete list of all side effects that may occur. If you have questions about side effects, contact your health care provider. Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects. To report side effects to the appropriate agency, please read the Guide to Reporting Problems to FDA.