FLUORIDE CLASS ACTION

Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Palomar College
1140 W. Mission Rd.
San Marcos, CA 92069
April 22, 2011

Environmental Protection Agency
Health & Human Services
CWFcommentsd@cdc.gov
copy to FluorideScience@epa.gov

Dear Environmental Protection Agency,

Enclosed are additional necessary comments that supplement earlier submissions regarding fluosilicic acid injections into public drinking water. I have now examined additional published data regarding the nature of, and reactivity of, the fluoride ion at varying levels of acidity (Sauerheber, 2010, Chemical Analysis of Poisoning from a Fluoridated Water Supply, see attachment; Westendorf, J., “The Kinetics of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition and the Influence of Fluoride and Fluoride Complexes on the Permeability of Erythrocyte Membranes”, Dissertation to receive Ph.D. in Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, 1975; see www.fluoridealert.org).

 

As mentioned before, our San Diego water here ranks as one of the most contaminated in the nation (see news release below), and more of us citizens are learning NOT to consume municipal water any further.  Not only were several contaminants, namely manganese and trihalomethanes, above the EPA allowed limits here, the EPA must be made aware of the fact that several contaminants are near those limits, depending on which section of San Diego one examines. Importantly, lead levels range up to 9 ppb (San Diego Water Quality Report, 2010), and arsenic is always also present with lead and in one city actuallly reaches 10 ppb (Carlsbad Water Quality Report, 2010). It is of course time to halt the procedure of injecting fluosilicic acid into such contaminated water for the purpose of treating human tissue; citizens here quickly eliminate this source of water from dietary considerations, and fluoride water drug injections serve no purpose.

As discussed in previous submissions, the ion level in saliva after ingestion from water supplies is only 0.02 ppm (National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2003) , and even lower, 0.01 ppm, when ingested from water at 0.7 ppm now allowed by the U.S. Health and Human Services. This miniscule level of fluoride in saliva is useless in affecting teeth caries topically, compared to levels in toothpaste 150,000 times higher!  We are spending vast sums in this country for a procedure that does not work and is harmful as well. This was the incorrectly presumed premise for a State law in CA to fluoridate water in large cities. The state regulation is invalidated and must be recognized by the EPA as such, since ingested fluoride, as opposed to high level applied topical fluoride, has no effect on teeth (as was published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Aug. 17, 2001 that confirmed ingested fluoride, as opposed to applied topical fluoride, leads to abormal tooth fluorosis and does not decrease incidence of caries).  Not only are the CA and other State fluoride laws incorrect and invalid, the procedure also contradicts the original missions of both the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Water Pollution Control Act.

The MCL for lead allowed in water by the EPA is 10 ppb for lifetime consumption, but this value has meaning only if no other significant sources of lead exist for an individual lifetime. The same MCL is applied for arsenic, but again only as long as other arsenic sources are not significant. The real problem lies in the fact that in today’s society (see article below) more and more large city water supplies have become contaminated with both arsenic and lead at the same time. There are no EPA MCL guidelines for such a mixture, even though both these heavy metals bind irreversibly to protein in their toxic mechanism of action, while consumed lifetime at levels allowed when separate.  Therefore, it is necessary as a minimum to add the lead and arsenic prevailing levels together in any water district supply and use that sum to compare with the allowed MCL of 10 ppb, to help avoid adverse health effects during lifetime consumption. With this in mind, many cities in the U.S. including San Diego now exceed 10 ppb for total heavy metal levels in water. Most of the arsenic is assumed to come from herbicides and pesticides and have sadly accumulated in farm soil and now in water supplies because of long-term heavy use in the past. The U.S. also still imports massive amounts of arsenic products from China.  Arsenic is a Class A, Class I human certain carcinogen (as classed by the IARC and EPA) and lead is a probable human carcinogen (see Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). The incidence of lethal cancers in the U.S. is extremely large and acid fluorides have been reported to casue dissolution of lead from home pipe fittings in some cases to very high amounts (Masters and Coplan, www.fluoridealert.org). Many homes, after acid fluoride injections begin, test water supplies with excessive lead, even though the supplied water into the home is below 10 ppb. There is no longer any excuse for public water supplies to remain in any dietary allowance as long as water remains in this condition, particularly when fluorides are so plentiful in pastes, mouth rinses, foods and other sources that can be obtained and used voluntarily.

In addition to this, aluminum is injected into Los Angeles, San Diego (and other) U.S. city water supplies as a cheap procedure to eliminate clay particles. This leaves residual 0.05 ppm aluminum in the water. Normally only trace amounts of aluminum ion are assimilated from the gut, but in February, 2011 San Diego began injecting 0.7 ppm synthetic fluosilicic acid fluoride (under the new U.S. Health and Human Services allowed 0.7 ppm guideline). The problem is that aluminum fluoride complexes form in stomach acid that are assimilated significantly before being re-neutralized in the intestine distant from the Ampulla of Vater. Various aluminum complexes with fluoride are known to exist under acidic conditions that are assimilated far better than the trace amounts normally incorporated in the absence of fluoride, including  AlF3, AlF2^(+), and AlF^(+2) (Westendorf).  The 4th leading cause of death in San Diego today is Alzheimer’s disease, and it is commonly found that aluminum is bound to the abnormal brain proteins in victims of this condition.  Water fluoride injections into arsenic, lead and aluminum contaminated water must now be halted.

The EPA has been and will continue to be the National guardian of the U.S. environment.  When the EPA bans further fluosilicic acid injections, it will be behaving with the will of the majority of ciizens in the United States.  More often than not when people are allowed to vote, the injections are opposed.  In San Diego, citizens voted against the injections twice and passed a city ordinance Section 67 that forbids injecting fluoride compounds into our public water supplies. Because of pressure from CDC officials directed at the Metropolitan Water District, Los Angeles (well-documented in the Los Angeles Times and the North County Times, San Diego) and elsewhere, both MWD and San Diego Water began injecting acid fluoride into water in spite of the ordinance and duplicate elections.  This may be difficult for citizens to overcome, but it is not difficult for the U.S. EPA, and we ask for your help.  It is ironic that the Safe Drinking WaterAct prohibits any National reqauirement for any chemical injections into  public water supplies other than to sanitize the water, and yet Federal officials within the CDC continue to promote this discredited practice to local water districts (Connett, P., “The Case Against Fluoride”, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont, 2010).  The stated prime directive of the U.S. Federal Clean Water Act (Water Pollution Cohtrol Act), as originally conceived by President John F. Kennedy, is to maintain the normal chemistry of public U.S. waters (Section 101a).  How far we have slowly drifted from this mission is hard to fathom, but it is the EPA who is able, has the authority to, and we trust will bring us back.  Our water supplies can no longer be used as a vehicle with which to disseminate drugs, no matter the desires of any group or lobby with vested interests otherwise, who have used Federal officials as though they are assistants in this matter.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D., Chemistry

University of CA, San Diego

Currently Palomar College, San Marcos, CA
richsauerheb@hotmail.com 

By Douglas McIntyre

DailyFinance

From MSNBC.MSN.COM

Unknown to most Americans, a surprising number of U.S. cities have drinking water with unhealthy levels of chemicals and contaminants.
In fact, some organizations and state environmental agencies that collect and analyze water data say the level of chemicals in some Americans’ drinking water not only exceeds recommended health guideline but the pollutants even exceed the limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the national legal authority in these matters.
The website 24/7 Wall St examined the quality of water supplies in most major America cities, using data collected from multiple sources for five years (ending in 2009) by Environmental Working Group (EWG), based in Washington, D.C. The fact that the data covered a half-decade is important because it shows that the presence of certain chemicals is persistent.
Cities in Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Georgia provided insufficient data to be included in EWG’s database. Some other major cities outside of these states also failed to submit information, including Detroit, Salt Lake City and Washington, D.C.
Test results from EWG’s national database covered “a total of 316 contaminants in water supplied to 256 million Americans in 48,000 communities in 45 states.” According to the data, among the contaminants were 202 chemicals that aren’t subject to any government regulation or safety standards for drinking water.
Based on the EWG’s methodology, 24/7 Wall St. came up with its 10 worst cities list. These cities’ water quality rank is based on three metrics, in order of increasing importance:

• The percentage of chemicals found based on the number that were tested for.
• The total number of contaminants found.
• The most dangerous average level of a single pollutant.

Here’s that list, in descending order, with the city’s water utility in parenthesis:
10. Jacksonville, Fla. (JEA)
Located on the northeast coast of Florida, Jacksonville is the state’s largest city. According to EWG, 23 different toxic chemicals were found in Jacksonville’s water supply. The chemicals most frequently discovered in high volumes were trihalomethanes, which consist of four different cleaning byproducts — one of which is chloroform. Many trihalomethanes are believed to be carcinogenic. Over the five-year testing period, unsafe levels of trihalomethanes were detected during each of the 32 months of testing, and levels deemed illegal by the EPA were detected in 12 of those months. During at least one testing period, trihalomethane levels were measured at nearly twice the EPA legal limit. Chemicals like arsenic and lead were also detected at levels exceeding health guidelines.
9. San Diego (San Diego Water Department)
Located on the Pacific in Southern California, San Diego is the country’s eighth-largest city. According to California’s Department of Public Health, San Diego’s drinking water system contained eight chemicals exceeding health guidelines as well as two chemicals that exceeded the EPA’s legal limit. In total, 20 contaminants have been found. One of those in excess of the EPA limit was trihalomethanes. The other was manganese, a natural element that’s a byproduct of industrial manufacturing and can be poisonous to humans.
8. North Las Vegas (City of North Las Vegas Utilities Department)
North Las Vegas’s water supply mostly comes from groundwater and the Colorado River, and doesn’t contain chemicals exceeding legal limits. However, the water supply did contain 11 chemicals that exceeded health guidelines set by federal and state health agencies. The national average for chemicals found in cities’ water exceeding health guidelines is four. North Las Vegas had a total of 26 contaminants, compared with the national average of eight. The water contained an extremely high level of uranium, a radioactive element.
7. Omaha (Metropolitan Utilities District)
The land-locked city of Omaha gets its water from the Missouri and Platte Rivers, as well as from groundwater. Of the 148 chemicals tested for in Omaha, 42 were detected in some amount, 20 of which were above health guidelines, and four of those were detected in illegal amounts. These were atrazine, trihalomethanes, nitrate and nitrite, and manganese. Atrazine is an herbicide that has been shown to cause birth defects. Nitrate is found in fertilizer, and nitrite is used for curing meat. Manganese was detected at 40 times the legal limit during one month of testing.
6. Houston (City of Houston Public Works)
Houston is the fourth-largest U.S. city. It gets its water from sources such as the Trinity River, the San Jacinto Rivers and Lake Houston. Texas conducted 22,083 water quality tests between 2004 and 2007 on Houston’s water supply, and found 18 chemicals that exceeded federal and state health guidelines, compared to the national average of four. Three chemicals exceeded EPA legal health standards, against the national average of 0.5 chemicals. A total of 46 pollutants were detected, compared to the national average of eight. The city water has contained illegal levels of alpha particles, a form of radiation. Similarly, haloacetic acids, from various disinfection byproducts, have been detected.
5. Reno (Truckee Meadows Water Authority)
Reno gets most of its water from the Truckee River, which flows from Lake Tahoe. Of the 126 chemicals tested for in Reno over four years, 21 were discovered in the city’s water supply, eight of which were detected in levels above EPA health guidelines, and three of these occurred in illegal amounts. These were manganese, tetrachloroethylene and arsenic. Tetrachloroethylene is a fluid used for dry cleaning and as an industrial solvent, and is deemed a likely carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Arsenic is a byproduct of herbicides and pesticides, and is extremely poisonous to humans. During at least one month of testing, arsenic levels were detected at roughly two and a half times the legal limit.
4. Riverside County, Calif. (Eastern Municipal Water District)
Riverside county is a 7,200-square-mile area located north of San Diego, part of California’s “Inland Empire.” The county is primarily located in desert territory, and so the water utilities draw their supply from the Bay Delta, which is miles to the north. The water in Riverside County contained 13 chemicals that exceeded recommended health guidelines over the four tested years, and one that exceeded legal limits. In total, 22 chemicals were detected in the district’s water supply. The contaminant exceeding legal health standards was tetrachloroethylene.
3. Las Vegas (Las Vegas Valley Water District)
Located in the Mojave desert, Las Vegas gets its water from the Colorado River through miles-long intake pipes. While its water doesn’t exceed the legal limits for any single type of contaminant, Las Vegas’s water has a large range of pollutants. Of the 125 chemicals tested for over a five-year period, 30 were identified in some amount, and 12 were found in levels that exceeded EPA health guidelines. These chemicals included radium-226, radium-228, arsenic and lead. The two radium isotopes are commonly found around uranium deposits and are hazardous to human health, even in small quantities.
2. Riverside, Calif. (City of Riverside Public Utilities)
Riverside, with a population slightly greater than 300,000, gets most of its drinking supply from groundwater. Regulators in the city of Riverside, which has a different water-treatment facility than the rest of Riverside County, detected 15 chemicals that exceeded health guidelines and one that exceeded legal standards. In total, 30 chemicals were found. Since 2004, the water has almost consistently been riddled with alpha particle activity, traces of bromoform (a form of trihalomethane) and uranium, causing an unusually unhealthy water supply.
1. Pensacola, Fla. (Emerald Coast Water Utility)
Located on the Florida Panhandle along the Gulf of Mexico, Pensacola is Florida’s westernmost major city. Analysts say it has the worst water quality in the country. Of the 101 chemicals tested for over five years, 45 were discovered. Of them, 21 were discovered in unhealthy amounts. The worst of these were radium-228 and -228, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, alpha particles, benzine and lead. Pensacola’s water was also found to contain cyanide and chloroform. The combination of these chemicals makes Pensacola’s water supply America’s most unhealthy.
© 2011 AOL Inc. All rights reserved.

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride

A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association finds once again that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.

Exposure to high levels of fluoride results in a condition known as fluorosis, in which tooth enamel becomes discolored. The condition can eventually lead to badly damaged teeth. The new study found that fluoride intake during a child’s first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is of a similar opinion. According to their website:

“Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing … enamel fluorosis.”

Click here to read more.

Bulletin: Ending the Betrayal of Trust

By Paul Connett, PHD

August 8, 2010

Even though the combined forces of the CDC (and other agencies of the mighty US Department of Health and Human Services- DHHS) and ADA have enormous political power and huge financial resources, as far as fluoridation promotion is concerned they are lumbering giants waiting to be toppled by some shrewd tactics from citizens. Why do I say that?

a) Because there is no scientific substance to their repeated mantra that fluoridation is “safe and effective.”

b) They have only been able to get away with this lack of scientific support for their assertions because they have been able to keep doctors, dentists, scientists, the media and the general public away from the literature. They can’t do that any more because the science is now readily available via the internet.

c) Moreover, many of the citizens’ concerns about fluoride’s dangers has now been validated by the National Research Council in their landmark 507-page report published in 2006.

d) In my opinion, no professional can read the NRC report and can honestly conclude that there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses now known to cause harm and the doses that some people will receive drinking uncontrolled quantities of fluoridated water along with fluoride from other sources (especially vulnerable subsections of the public).

e) Even the ADA and the CDC now admit that bottle fed babies should not be given fluoridated water (even though they are not taking vigorous steps to get this message to parents). If it is not safe for everyone then the practice should cease immediately.

f) The evidence of harm is too visible to be ignored. 32% of American children now have dental fluorosis. It is reckless to assume that if fluoride can damage the growing tooth cells in a baby’s body that it will not impact any other tissue. With risks clearly involved the notion that governments should force this on people without their informed consent is even more ridiculous.

g) More and more professionals are recognizing these facts and speaking out. These include the 11 unions that represent professionals at the US EPA; over 3000 professionals calling for an end to fluoridation and the 15 of these who have articulated their position in a widely-watched videotape, “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation.”

h) For those who have missed all these sources of information that undermine the promoters’ case, our book coming out in early October should put the final scientific nails into their coffin.

i) Hitherto, the two chains of command operated by the CDC and the ADA have been able to get doctors, dentists and public health officials to mouth their unscientific assertions with confidence.  However, there are signs that that confidence is evaporating as more and more dentists are waking up to the fact that they have been lied to do by the ADA both on the “safety” of mercury amalgams and the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.

j) So how can citizens further exploit these weaknesses and topple the huge web of deception that water fluoridation has become? First, it helps to know their game plan. We have seen this played out again and again in towns across the country. Whenever, fluoridation is proposed or threatened, the ADA arranges through its state dental association and thence to the local dental society to besiege council chambers with their white-coated army of dentists. This is coupled with a few choreographed letters to local papers signed by local dentists and doctors (but usually written by PR firms). The Florida Dental Association has recently made this strategy clearly visible.

k) The promoters’ strategy only has a chance of working if they can get local dentists and doctors playing along and as we have indicated above more and more are smelling a rat. Not being on top of the literature cuts both ways: on the one hand dentists and doctors can be easily misled by the ADA and often become easy puppets. In the past their confident assurances have been believed and they have won the day.  On the other hand, today, now that more and more citizens are on top of that literature, dentists and doctors are finding that they have been set up for some real professional embarrassment when the mistakes and half-truths are pointed out – in public.

l) Some people find this all very hard to believe. Why would the CDC and the ADA continue to push this practice if they knew a) it wasn’t working and b) it might be causing harm? What could possibly be more important than the public’s health (let alone the public’s purse). The answer lies in two words: credibility and liability.

The CDC fears that if they have been found to be wrong on fluoridation that they will suffer a huge credibility hit. Public health requires the public’s trust. If the public loses its trust in the CDC’s claims on fluoridation, what about its trust in vaccinations and other public health measures?

For the ADA it is probably the fear of both losing professional credibility (think of those 120,000 annual dues from their members) and liability that drives them forward. The ADA has its name on every fluoridated dental product sold in the US. These sales are worth millions. In addition, the legal costs of defending against class action lawsuits would bankrupt them. They simply cannot admit to any harm. Thus they have to deny the scientific significance or relevance of every health study that finds harm, including the whole of the  NRC (2006) report, which they did on the very day it was published (March 22, 2006).

m) Assuming that the ADA can still find dentists to come to public meetings and mouth the party line, or the CDC can get public health officials to do likewise, how can citizens defeat this 60-year strategy today? The answers are very simple:

1) First of all citizens must make it clear that ethics must come before science in this matter. No government – no matter how well-meaning– has the right to force any citizen to take a medicine. The right to informed consent to medicine is enshrined in modern medicine and is well articulated by the AMA. Citizens should wear this sign around their necks to public meetings on this issue: “I do NOT give my CONSENT!”

2) Citizens and councilors have to make it very clear that dentists have no professional expertise to make statements on any tissue in the body other than teeth. The dental lobby has controlled this debate for far too long. Dentists should be pulled up short the fist time the word “safe” comes out of their mouths. They have no expertise to make that statement. “Sir, I trust your judgment when it comes to my teeth, but not when it comes to my bones or my children’s brains. What qualifications allow you to speak on other tissues in my body and the harm that fluoride may cause them.”

3) Should they claim otherwise, then further questions should elicit what primary scientific literature they have read that supports their claims of safety and effectiveness. When it becomes clear that they cannot cite many – or any – primary studies to support their claims, but rather resort to CDC statements or ADA and other agency endorsements or self-serving government reviews, then this must be called what this represents: hearsay evidence.

Citizens’ questioning might go along these lines:

Question 1: “ Sir, (or madam) can you cite a single peer-reviewed published study that has used a randomized clinical trial to establish ingested fluoride’s ability to reduce tooth decay?”

They can’t do this – they simply don’t exist

Question 2: “Sir, what primary scientific studies have convinced you that fluoridation poses no dangers to human health other than dental fluorosis?”

 

The chances are high that they won’t be able to do this and instead cite endorsements or reviews from government-sponsored bodies like the NHMRC (2007) in Australia. Ask these follow-up questions:

Question 3:“Sir, in this report you have cited, can you tell me what primary studies it contains that you feel best establishes the safety of fluoridation? Have you read these studies?”

If they cannot answer these questions then the follow up question could be:

Question 4: “Sir, is it not true that you haven’t read the primary literature yourself and that what you are telling us is based on what you have been told? Isn’t that tantamount to hearsay evidence?”

4) If the brave dentist or doctor continues to insist he has qualifications to speak on these matters, then ask him or her whether they have read the NRC (2006) report.

 If they answer no, they don’t look as if they are on top of the issue. If they answer yes then ask them “Is it in your professional judgment that there is an adequate margin of safety between the does that cause harm as documented in this report sufficient to protect everyone in society – including vulnerable subsets of the population -drinking uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and getting fluoride from other sources?” Some might brazen this out and say yes, but I don’t think they will be very convincing, especially if you ask them what kind of margin of safety they think would be needed for this purpose. Normally, a margin of safety of 10 is needed between the lowest level that cause harm and the highest dose that people will receive. This margin of safety is needed to take into account the full range of sensitivity that any human population will have to a toxic substance. Such a margin of safety if applied would eliminate fluoridation based on several adverse health effects identified in the NRC report (arthritic symptoms, bone fractures, moderate and severe dental fluorosis, lowered IQ and lowered thyroid function).

5) Personally, I have no joy in the prospect of embarrassing professional people in public on this matter and I hope that it doesn’t come to that. Hopefully, we can warn them ahead of time that if they go along with the CDC/ADA game plan then they are going to look foolish in the public’s eyes when their many mistakes and half truths are pointed out. If they ignore these warnings and go ahead and risk this professional embarrassment, then so be it. Their embarrassment is a small price to pay in order to end the pain and worry that this reckless and unnecessary practice is causing.

I wish I had known all this 14 years ago when the phalanx of local dentists and doctors used their professional standing in our community to assure people at a public meeting that fluoridation was “safe and effective.”  It was only after the meeting was over that I discovered that one of the doctors present was not on top of the literature and even refused to take three scientific articles I asked him to read after the meeting. He said, “I don’t have time to read those.” When I said that that was not very responsible, he said “I don’t have time to read up on every issue that crosses my desk.” To which I replied, ‘I quite understand that, but you shouldn’t let people believe that you have studied this issue and that fluoridation in your professional judgment is safe.”

In my view the promotion of this practice by the CDC and the ADA is a betrayal of trust. First, it betrays the trust of the busy professional who cannot keep up with the Bulletin: Ending the literature. Second, it is a betrayal of the public trust when these same professionals tell the public that fluoridation is safe, based only what they have been told by others and not their own review or research of the literature.

This betrayal must come to an end and we are going to need a well-informed army of citizens to do it.  We start by eliminating the testimony of those who haven’t read the literature, and then we move on to the middle men, those like the dental directors of state health departments, whose job it is to promote fluoridation. Unlike your local doctors and dentists this goes beyond mere embarrassment. Because they are paid by the taxpayer they are obliged to demonstrate due diligence. They cannot do this. We simply have to demonstrate that.

Paul Connett

There were nine amici curiae (Latin plural for “friends of the court”) in the Port Angeles case who filed a 30-page brief. I served as their attorney. It’s primary aim was to force the Court to look at the science on the subject of fluoridation. The links:

The IAOMT Amicus Brief

IAOMT Brief Appendix A, Interests of the Nine Amici Curiae

IAOMT Amicus Brief, Appendix B, Bruce Spittle, M.D., Fluoride Fatigue

IAOMT Amicus Brief, Appendix C, McQuillan on Initiatives

IAOMT Amicus Brief, Appendix D

IAOMT Amicus Brief, Appendix E, Stan Hazen Deposition

The City of Port Angeles and the Dental Foundation filed their Motion to Strike the IAOMT Amicus Brief.

The IAOMT Amici filed their Response of IAOMT Amici to Port Angeles’ Motion to Strike IAOMT Brief. The Supreme Court accepted both the brief and the defense of the brief.

Other fluoridation supporters filed their Fluoride Supporters’ Answer to IAOMT Amicus Brief. Attached to it was an article by Howard F. Pollick, Water Fluoridation and the Environment, Current Perspectives in the US. These documents were riddled with legal and scientific errors.

The IAOMT Amici cannot reply to the Fluoride Supporters’ Answer without permission from the Court. So the IAOMT Amici are asking to be allowed to reply to that answer.

Click here to read the letter of the IAOMT Amici to the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court said it had heard enough and declined our offer to reply to the fluoride supporters’ brief.

Chemical Analysis of Poisoning from Fluoridated Public Water
Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Abstract. The mechanism by which fluoride from unnatural sources exerts adverse effects in man and animals is examined. Low level artificial fluoridation of municipal water can cause well known alterations in teeth and bone structure with incorporation of fluoride into a wide array of tissues and increased hip fracture tendency, depending on years of exposure and water hardness. High accidental levels cause acute lethal poisoning and are responsible for fluoride listings on poisons registries and for their major industrial use as rodenticides, insecticides or pediculicides. Solubility calculations indicate that blood fluoride concentrations required to decrease calcium below normal physiological levels compare to those present in the tissues of poisoned victims and to those causing decreased beat rates in isolated heart cells in culture. The effects of calcium ion and pH over broad ranges on the free fluoride ion concentration were determined. Acute lethal poisoning with heart attack, and also many of the chronic ‘low’ level effects of fluoride, are mediated by calcium binding by fluoride ion. At a pH typical of gastric juice, approximately 50% of fluoride is protonated as hydrofluoric acid HF, with 50% remaining the free fluoride ion. The significance of these observations is discussed in terms of potential hazards, both short and long term, associated with consumption of artificially fluoridated waters of varying calcium content.

Read the full article here:
http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/sauerheber-chemical-analysis-of-poisoning-from-fluoridated-public-water.pdf

James Deal,

   I thought you also would like to have the attached graph that indicates the uselessness of ‘water fluoridation’ in its stated objective. The data are from 39 Washington State Counties, according to percentage of people in each county that has fluoridated water (blue curve). Also on the graph (red curve) are the percentage of decayed or filled tooth surfaces in 3rd grade residents of those Counties. Decay remains quite comparable in all Counties in spite of the absence or presence of wide variations in water fluoridation %. This is in agreement with the findings of Dr. Osmundson in Oregon in his all-50-states study in the U.S., also pubnlished in this book on page 68.
 
  The graph was from a book rcently donated to me from a friend. The reference is:
 
Bruce Spittle, Fluoride Fatigue (Revised 3rd printing), Paua Press, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2008,  p.69. 

http://www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf
 
  Dr. Spittel is the recipient of the John Malcolm Memorial Prize in Physiology and Biochemistry. The text mainly summarizes much recent data on fluoride poisoning in man and animals from several biochemical research scientists.

Read Richard Sauheber’s article at:
http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/sauerheber-chemical-analysis-of-poisoning-from-fluoridated-public-water.pdf

Read Dr. Bruce Spittle’s book here.

Double-blind clinical studies and numerous case studies demonstrate that from one to five percent of the population, are hypersensitive to fluoride to varying degrees, and these people can experience incapacitating symptoms that can drive them to move away from cities with fluoridated water.

Dr. Bruce Spittle, M.D., Fluoride Poisoning: Is fluoride in your drinking water—and from other sources—making you sick? 2008, ISBN 978-0-473-12991-0, which can be downloaded from http://www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf.

The Washington Supreme Court stated in 1954 that if city water is fluoridated, it will be necessary for residents “to use it for domestic purposes including drinking, because there is no other practical source of supply.” Kaul v Chehalis, 45 Wn.2d 616, 277 P.2d 352 (1954) at 618. Some people cannot afford a distiller or a whole house filter. Some are not strong enough to haul water jugs home. Some do not own a vehicle. Some cannot afford to buy water.

http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/appendix-b-bruce-spittle-fluoride-fatigue.pdf

The Port Angeles fluoridation case was heard by the Washington Supreme court on February 23, 2010.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011171932_apwascowmountvernon.html?syndication=rss

Click here to watch the hearing on public television.

I WANT TO WRITE A RESPONSE TO THIS INACURATE PRO-FOUORIDE BRIEF. I NEED YOUR HELP

http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/answer-to-brief-of-nine-amici-from-dental-serv-found-of-wa-and-dental-ass-water-and-fluoride-sci-committee.pdf

It is riddled with errors, and I need to point them out.

Please help me pick it apart. I have some good stuff about kidney disease and lead. I need something about how bad arsenic, any arsenic, is bad.

It is best to find authoiries in the 2006 NRC Report, because its credibility is very high. Or any article by one of the Twelve who wrote the 2006 NRC Report. Instant credibility, and that means judicial notice. The Court can take judicial notice of clear scientific principles at any point, even on appeal. 

The Washington Dental Service Foundation (WDSF), Washington State Dental Association (WSDA), and Water Fluoridation Science Committee (WFSC) filed an answer to the IAOMT Brief. It includes page after page of scientific arguments, issues, and scientific documents not presented to the Trial Court, including fluoridation endorsements from numerous agencies, and a lengthy article entitled “Water Fluoridation and the Environment,” by Howard F. Pollick. If the opposition is bringing forward scientific information, then the Nine Amici should be allowed to do so as well.

I must add that the above Answer written by WDSF, WSDA, and WFSC is riddled with illogical and unscientific statements regarding lead and kidney disease. 

Regarding lead:

To illustrate: The Brief acknowledges that almost half of tanker loads of scrubber liquor contain a little arsenic and a little lead. They say there is already some arsenic and some lead in the water coming from other sources, so it is acceptable to add a little more. Fluoride dissolves pretty much everything, including lead. New pipes, fittings, and solders contain lead, and old ones contain up to 30% lead. Lead solder for use in plumbing was not outlawed until 1986, so this might explain why lead continues to show up in water fountains in old Seattle schools, at levels up to 1,600 ppb, 80 times the EPA MCL of 20 ppb. See Appendix D attached, “Lead-Tainted Water in Seattle Schools Stuns Parents,” Or click on http://www.seattlepi.com/health/180495_leadwater02.html.

I am looking for the article that says that lead levels are generally higher in children who drink fluoridated water.

Regarding kidney disease this is what I would say:

Even a healthy kidney can only excrete 50% of fluoride consumed, so it accumulates in us all and in the kidney. A weakened kidney stores fluoride it cannot excrete, furthering the downward death spiral. 2006 NRC Report page 140.

See summary of scientific literature done by Carol Clinch, “Fluoride and Kidneys,”which cites to page 140 of the 2006 NCR Report.
http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/carol-clinch-2009-fluoride-and-kidneys.pdf

Carol Clinch, “Fluoride and Kidneys,” cites to page 140 of the 2006 NCR Report, which says:

In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased. It has been known for many years that people with renal insufficiency have elevated plasma fluoride concentrations compared with normal healthy persons and are at a higher risk of developing skeletal fluorosis.” National Research Council. (2006).Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p140.

Carol, why don’t you write a draft brief on this subject?

I have been told that lead levels are higher in the systems of kids that drink fluoridated water. II would like to present an amicus brief on that subject.

See the Clinch article:

http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/carol-clinch-2009-fluoride-and-kidneys.pdf

Read the poor response to the IAOMT Brief here:

http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/answer-to-brief-of-nine-amici-by-city-of-port-angeles.pdf

Almost every sentence of this document is wrong or misleading or based on incorrect assumptions. That’s why I want to write a new brief reviewing the quality of the writing in that brief.

Read my IAOMT Brief here. All the Appendices are here too:

http://www.box.net/shared/iedafn1jr7

Read the City’s motion to strike the IAOMT Brief here:

http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/citys-motion-to-strike-citizens-briefs-1-29-10.pdf

Read my defense of the IAOMT Brief here:

http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/response-of-nine-amici-to-motion-to-strike-iaomt-brief-2-19-10-final.pdf

So write your own draft brief. It does not have to be long. It is best if it covers just one subject. Or just send me articles with paragraphs that introduce them. That constitutes a brief. It is never to late to introduce scientific arguments into a legal-scientific case. Why? because science is a form of law. It falls within the category of “natural law.” It is analagous to a dictionary. It is never too late for a judge to look up a word in the dictionary, or a concept in the encyclopedia, or to take judicial notice of convincing science.

The weekend is here, so spend it writing!

The writer of the poor brief says on page 5 that at the low levels of concentration, fluoride is a water additive, not a drug. I need to rebut that.

I am also looking for an attorney who can sign the man briefs that are starting to come in. The Supreme Court has a sort of quota on how many briefs one attorney can write.

So use my format on previous briefs and put your content into it.

Come on guys, the Supreme Court hearing is on Tuesday the 23rd. I would like to hand deliver a stack of new amicus briefs. Actually, I think that we can submit briefs after the hearing.

This is the final reply of the Nine Amici to the City’s motion to strike it. Use it as your template. Send me an e-mail, and I will send it to you in word so you can edit it easier.