Dear Fluoride Debunkers,

This is in Today’s NY Times. It’s about Blytheville Arkansas’s water. That’s just down the road from Promised Land, where where I fell to earth.

http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/ar/mississippi/ar0000365-blytheville-waterworks

Go here to the Environmental Working Group and sign up for their e-mails. They apparently broke this story.

Pretty amazing stuff. The truth is starting to boil over.

I talked with Matt Mosley, one of the administrators at the Blytheville Water Works. Matt says that they go through two 55-gallon drums of fluorosilicic acide each month and that after Hurricane Katrina the fluoride started coming from China. Blytheville has been fluoridated since the late 1960s, so I drank that water until I left there in 1965. Water there comes out of an aquifer that is 1,800 feet deep and which stretches from the Bootheel of Missouri down to Memphis. Whether the massive quantities of pesticides and other chemicals sprayed on crops can penetrate that deep is something I have no information on.

Let’s all make a special push to bring this issue into people’s consciousness.

If you really want to do something to fight fluoride, mail a Freedom of Information request like this one and send to your city or water works:

http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/arkansas-fluoride-freedom-of-information-request.htm

Organize!  Send these notices out. Send copies to the mayors and city council people. Send copies to the newspaper. Find an attorney who has a conscience and ask him to sign them. Hold press conferences. Find a respected person to serve as spokesman.

Follow up as soon as they respond and send out a Notice of Potential Liability like this one:

http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/notice-to-arkansas-of-liability-12-16-8.htm

Hold another press conference.

When your water district fails to send you an assay of raw scrubber liquor fresh from some Fluorida or Chinese phosphate fertilizer factory, send him a letter like this:

http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/reply-to-everetts-refusal-to-do-full-assay-of-raw-fluoride-scrubber-liquor-6-29-9.pdf

If we all push simultaneously, we can accomplish something. Don’t leave it up to others. Organize your group. I would love to fly in and do an organizational seminar and rally. I would help you write up all these documents so you can get started. If you can recruit a local lawyer, I will work with him.

Conive. Plot. Conspire. “Kick at the night until it bleeds daylight.”

DO SOMETHING!

Sincerely,

James Robert Deal , Attorney, Loan Officer
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036

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

www.JamesRobertDeal.com

www.DealMortgage.net

www.Mortgage-Modification-Attorney.com

www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com

www.WhatToServeAGoddess.com

How Mortgage Modification Works

Save Fuel – Reduce Traffic Congestion – Improve the Environment

A Comprehensive Approach To Transit, Transportation and Land Use

Seattle Buses are Overflowing: But there is a Solution
Put the Viaduct and I-5 Together In A Tunnel Under Downtown Seattle

Oppose Water Fluoridation – Write the Governor
Deal Threatens to Sue his Home State of Arkansas over Fluoridation

Seattle Water Not Safe or Healthy – Seattle P-I Article by JRD
Tobacco Science, DDT Science, Tetraethyl Lead Science, Asbestos Science, Fluoride Science,  All Fraudulent Sciences

Medical Doctor in Tennessee Legislature Calls for Halt in Water Fluoridation

Toxicologists Warns Against Water Fluoridation

Fluoride is Very Bad for Babies – Do Not Use Tap Water to Mix With Formula

The Connection Between Diet and the Environment – My Book
Earthlings -The Movie

Swine Flue Comes From Swine

30% Off On Quality Health Care

How the Body is Tricked into Eating Junk Food

Americans are Very Fat

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

Here’s what I could do for you for the time being today. Thanks for your work.  

                                   Feb. 21, 2010

Comments for the Port Angeles case on water fluoridation, 82225-5, Supreme Court, Washington State

Submitted from:

Dr. Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of CA, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037

Currently Palomar College, San Marcos, CA 92069

  First, on page 37 of the Pollick article, a sweeping bold claim is made that is false, that “there is no credible evidence that the [fluoride] chemicals are unsafe.”  This bias held by the author is easily refuted below with just one simple example.  Second, the court briefing points contained additional falsehoods, particularly regarding the claim that LD₅₀’s have no applicability to water fluoridation and that fluoride chemicals ingested and assimilated into the blood are not being used as drugs.

   On page 94 of the National Research Council Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006, note that in only 24 months consuming water with fluoride (Cumulative data from natural and artificially fluoridated water at these levels!!) at 1-4 ppm that fluoride incorporates irreversibly into bone at thousands of times that in the water. This is consistent with the fact that only 50% of assimilated fluoride is ever excreted. The NRC found that once fluoride incorporates into bone it is permanent. Bone fluoride cannot be removed or lowered even after transfer for 25 years to fresh water consumption. The fact that the accumulation is a linear dose response that is not saturable, even to levels above 12,000 ppm in bone (p. 95) and is not reversible demonstrates without doubt that this effect is pathologic, not physiologic. All mineral nutrients required to support physiologic processes always exhibit effects in dose response studies that are fully saturable and are reversible and cuvilinear.

   At 1 ppm water fluoride, on average where blood levels are 0.21 ppm (p. 70) bone levels are several thousand ppm typically, with scatter in the data determined mainly by water hardness and calcium ion content.  After lifetime consumption by reasonable extrapolation from lifetime consumption data for 3-4 ppm water (10,000- 12,000 ppm in bone which often causes hospitalization for severe bone pain) 1 ppm water leads to about 4-5,000 ppm in bone.  The NRC concluded that levels above 3,000 ppm definitely weakens bone to a significant, readily detectable degree.  Yes, the error of measurement is larger than the smaller effect noted at 1 ppm for 2 years (2,000 ppm in bone), but any claim bone at this level is magically not weakened at all is erroneous. Indeed, this is why toxicology data at high accumulation levels are needed to help determine any significance of data at much lower incorporation levels (that of course continue to accumulate toward significant levels with continued consumption).  We have an epidemic of hip fractures in the elderly that are fatal during convelescence while waiting for bone to heal. Fluorotic bone is weakened and metabolically abnormal and I personally blame artificial fluorides as a chief cause of this rise in slow healing of fractures experienced in recent decades.

   The idea that the NRC report does not apply to ‘water fluoridation’ is an incredible sweeping claim, that in fact completely contradicts the claim also made, that fluosilicic acid after dilution is argued by fluoride promoters to mimic natural water fluoride. Which is it? This self-contradiction is simply bizarre, where fluosilicic acid after dilution duplicates natural fluoride (from calcium fluoride, not an acute toxic compound with an LD₅₀ of 3,500 ppm), and yet since some of the data in the NRC Report are from natural fluoride water, the entire data set (which includes also unnatural fluoridated water AS WELL) “does not apply”, because it is natural and fluoridation is suddenly now “not natural”. This is self-serving at best and is a blind hope that promoting the pro viewpoint is somehow just, which is merely promoting a vested interest, in my humble opinion.

    The idea that LD₅₀’s do not apply to ‘water fluoridation’ was disproved in 1994 in Hooper Bay, Alaska where 302 people in the half of the village where an overfeed occurred were sent to the clinic with severe chest pain and acute stomach pain. One victim did not survive a heart attack. In my review of the work it was firmly established that the fluoride blood level in the lethal victim had reached that which precipitates calcium from the blood to block the heart beat (see attached document submitted for publication).  Gessner in his review (“Acute Fluoride Poisoning form a Public Water System”, New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 330, 1994) was unable to decide whether the artificial fluoride killed and poisoned by decreasing blood calcium or rather another mechanism.  Of course everyone desires that such overfeeds will never happen again but sadly this is not the case (www.fluoridealert.org for an accumulating list of overfeeds in the U.S.). If overfeeds did not exist, then we could switch to using MCL’s rather than LD₅₀’s to describe only chronic toxicity. In such an ideal world where no one made dosing errors for this hazardous waste, then I might have agreed, that we then have the luxury to switch to using MCL’s as our concern for only chronic low level toxicity at that point, but I deal with the actual world, not the dream ideal one.

  The notion that artificial fluosilicic acid is injected to treat cavities and thus is “not a drug” has no pharmacological basis. First, please examine for example ‘the Bible of Pharmacology’, Goodman and Gilman’s “Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics” which contains a fluoridation section because indeed injecting any artificial material, no matter if found in a natural environment in some waters or not, for the purpose of elevating fluoride levels in human blood to affect any tissue is the definition of a drug. Second, the FDA has never approved of artificial fluoride ingestion and indeed also for the same reasons require warning labels on toothpastes to not swallow, or to use at all in any person under six. Third, FDA spokesmen routinely refer to water fluoridation as an “uncontrolled use of a drug” where dosage cannot be regulated because individuals require vastly different water consumption amounts depending on a plethora of normal physiologic differences and various abnormal health conditions, such as diabetes mellitus where consumption rates are often twice normal (NRC, 2006). Finally, please understand that there is no mechanism by which one can direct swallowed fluoride, that enters the bloodsream, to only attach to teeth rather than to incorporate into systemic tissues. All swallowed fluoride seeks calcium wherever it is enriched because fluoride is a calcium chelator. Calcium is the antidote to fluoride poisoning and minimizes assimilation when fluoride is injected into hard water. Indeed, artifcial fluorides when intentionally ingested are drugs and require listings of exact dosage instructions and known side effects of overconsumption, accidental or otherwise. If natural calicum fluoride had been used to ‘fluoridate’ drug Hooper Bay water supplies, then no one would have been killed or severely poisoned (LD50 = 3,500 ppm for natural calcium fluoride) because calcium fluoride already has its desired ingredient along with it and because only artificial fluorides without calcium are soluble to massive amounts in soft, calcium deficient water. The other well documented case of poisoning intermediate between ‘acute’ and ‘chronic’ are the Pagosa Springs horses raised by out of state ranchers on city fluoridated soft water. the horses were slowly slaughtered over a 9 year period before toxicologists arrived to determine it was the massive fluorosis that killed them. This could not have happened in hard water, or if calcium fluoride were used as a drug instead of fluosilicic acid in the soft water the city has (Krook and Justus, “Horses Poisoned from a Fluoridated Water Supply”, Fluoride, Jan, 2006. The distinction between acute LD50 and chronic MCL is irrelevant since the animals were killed, which do we call it when it happened to require 9 years to achieve but the effecte was terminal? Much more important is the fact that fluoride at 1 ppm in the ocean, with thousands of ppm calcium, is harmless to salmon, that are extremely sensitive and are narcotized in fresh calcium-free water by only 0.3 ppm artificial fluoride.  

  Please consult www.lulu.com for the free pdf download entitled “Toxicity of Water Fluoridated Artificially” for the petition to the FDA to ban this practice for our country. 

  This is only a partial list of problems with the testimony submitted in this Port Angeles, WA fluoridation case. I also have examined the detailed studies of Phyllis Mullenix and found they are exceptional and are unbiased, performed with computer controlled movie cameras that determined animals at blood levels of fluoride comparable to humans in 1 ppm fluoridated cities exhibit alterations in mental behavior with confusion under stress in hundreds of studies that correlate with incorporation of fluoride into the brain medulla oblongata. There is zero doubt that assimilated fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier. The issue is how long can one incorporate it with only minor unrecognized effects (i.e. in extracellular brian components) before eventually exhibiting adverse effects that are demonstrably significant in humans. The numerous foreign journal artricles (about 18 in number) recently translated into English that demonstrate decreased IQ in children raised on only 2-3 ppm water are now available at www.fluoridealert.org.

Sincerely,
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. Chemistry

Attachment naturefluoridearticle.doc: “Chemical Analysis of Poisoning from Fluoridated Public Water”—contains data indicating the pH dependence of formation of hydrofluoric acid HF from artificial fluoride and data indicating the activity vs. the concentration of the fluoride ion in water as a function of calcium concentration as well as a detailed chemical analysis of the mechanism by which blood fluoride from an overfeed disaster killed and poisoned in Alaska. This article has thus far received comments by the editors of Nature who felt it of insufficient priority to publish at this time. I plan to shorten the manauscript and submit it to a general toxicology journal. 

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

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

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

Fluoride plays perhaps more mischief with the kidneys than with any other organ.

See this excellent summary of the literature by Carol Clinch.

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

However, lead is still allowed in all of these provided notice is given.

See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/epa-1988-lead-solder-ban-except-with-disclosure.pdf.

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.

Tuesday, February 17, Noon

Please read the final version of my defense against having our brief stuck.  

Click hear to read the February 5, 2010, IAOMT brief, including all Appendices such as D-1 through D-103.

Click here to read Appendices A, B, C, and D.

Please send me journal articles about the harms. I need articles about how fluoride accumulates, about how it affects the kidney especially when it is failing and initiatives a death spiral, about penetration of the brain barrier, placental barrier, and mammary barrier. Quantities of fluoride consummed by diabetics and sweaty athletes, sweaty workers, and sweaty soldiers. 

Send me these articles ASAP. Please write an introduction to the article and briefly summarize it. In the introduction say what you believe about fluoridation and how it might be affecting the health of your family. The title for your introduction is: “Amicus Brief.” 

That’s right. Write your own “Amicus Brief.” I will give you the wording on this web page within 24 hours. The Court WILL look at this, and it WILL go into the record.

We should use this case as a rallying point for our movement. We have momentum, and we should build it into more momentum.

All across the country we should be sending Freedom of Information Act requests for documents. Click here for a sample.

We should follow it up with an explanation of what the water district is doing wrong and a Notice of Potential liability and Not to Destroy Documents.

Remember, we can win this thing, and the time is NOW!! (I rarely use exclamation points. I’m trying to stir you to action. STIR!!

Yes, they have all the money. But we have all the good ideas.

Start writing and sending me those Amicus Briefs.

And here is another alternative: There are now Nine Amici on the IAOMT Brief. Feel free to join the IAOMT brief. Pretty soon it will be the Fifty Amici. Send a description of your interest in the issue. If you are part of a group, talk about the group’s interest in the issue. You can form an on-the-spot group. This is a good time to be forming de-fluoridation groups.

I also need attorneys who are willing to sign briefs. The Supreme Court is not likely to allow me to submit more briefs under my own name.

Just send me the briefs, and I will connect the briefs up with the lawyers, who may want to revise the briefs with their own insights.

The hearing is February 23 up in Skagit County, so hurry up!

Remember, we can win this thing, and the time is NOW!! (I rarely use exclamation points. I’m trying to stir you to action. STIR!!

Yes, they have all the money. But we have all the good ideas.

Start writing and sending me those Amicus Briefs.

Just send me the briefs, and I will connect the briefs up with the lawyers, who may want to revise the briefs with their own insights.