Deal to Everett on Kidneys

Print Friendly

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

October 5, 2011

A QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/james-robert-deal-to-everett-
re-national-kidney-foundation-withdrawal-of-fluoride-endorsement.doc

 
Everett City Council
Mayor Ray Stephanson
3002 Wetmore Ave
Everett, WA 98201

Dear Everett City Council and Mayor Stephanson,

 

I write as president of www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com. My associate Golda Starr is president of www.FluorideDetective.com.

 

On July 20, 2011, we submitted notice to Everett that the silicofluoride it adds to drinking water (which flows to my house in Lynnwood) is the cheap, industrial grade, toxic-waste version of fluoride, that it contains lead and arsenic, and that it leaches lead from pipes.

 

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

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

 

We have made a prima facie case that fluoridation is ineffectual to reduce tooth decay and harmful to health in many ways. Nevertheless, you have not voted to put this matter on the agenda nor to hold hearings on it.

 

At the City Council meeting on September 21 respected Council Member Drew Nielson made his best attempt to poke holes in our case. Council Member Nielsen said that Golda and I had misstated the facts about the National Kidney Foundation. He said that we were wrong when we stated that the National Kidney Foundation had withdrawn its endorsement of drinking water fluoridation, because, he said, the National Kidney Foundation had never endorsed fluoridation in the first place. He said that because of our errors we had lost credibility with the City Council.

 

View the presentation I made on September 21 at this link: http://fluoridedetective.com/speak-up/speak-up-on-fluoridation-11/

 

View the Council Member Nielsen’s response here: www.vimeo.com/29899957.

 

The end of my presentation was cut off. Listen to the audio version at this link:

 

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/speeches-to-everett-council-9-21-2011-golda-james.mp3

 

In saying we were in error, Council Member Nielson relied on and quoted from the 2008 National Kidney Foundation position statements on fluoridation, which in turn quotes from the 1981 position statement.

 

Among other things, the 1981 position statement, as quoted in the 2008 document, states:

 

There is insufficient evidence at this time to recommend the use of fluoride-free drinking water for all patients with renal disease. …

 

The 1981 National Kidney Foundation position paper on fluoridation is outdated. The paper is withdrawn and will no longer be circulated….

 

Read the full version of the 2008 National Kidney Foundation paper here:

 

http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf.

 

Read the 1981 position paper here:

 

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/national-kidney-foundation-1981-position-statement-on-fluoridation.pdf

 

Relying on the 2008 and 1981 National Kidney Foundation papers, Council Member Nielsen concluded that the National Kidney Foundation had never endorsed fluoridation in the first place and therefore could not have withdrawn its endorsement.

 

Council Member Nielsen is correct in the sense that there is no proof in the 1981 or 2008 National Kidney Foundation statements that the National Kidney Foundation ever endorsed fluoridation or ever withdrew its endorsement. But there is proof elsewhere, and the proof is conclusive. The proof is found on the American Dental Association web site.

 

The current list of fluoridation endorsers is here:

 

http://www.ada.org/4051.aspx.

 

Note that the National Kidney Foundation is not currently on the endorser list. The question is whether the National Kidney Foundation was ever was on the fluoride endorser list.

 

Fortunately, there is an internet tool called the Way Back Machine. www.InternetArchive.org. You can see a snapshot of website pages on various dates in the past.

 

So if we go back to June of 2008, we see that the National Kidney Foundation was in fact on the ADA website list of fluoride endorsers.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20080607092909/http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/compendium.asp

 

However, beginning in July of 2008 the National Kidney Foundation disappeared from the endorsement list.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20080704155543/http://ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/compendium.asp

 

Council Member Nielsen said that because we were wrong on this point, we have lost credibility with the City Council. I hope that Council Member Nielsen will acknowledge that our credibility has been restored.

 

We have made a convincing case that there is valid concern about the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation. This issue should be put on the regular agenda. Hearings should be held. Until that happens, it is not our credibility which is in question but the credibility of Everett city government.

 

***

 

There is more that should be said about the National Kidney Foundation. It makes inconsistent and incorrect statements about fluoridation. I quote from the 2008 National Kidney Foundation statement. [My comments are in square brackets.]

 

The EPA does not regulate or promote the fluoridation of water.

 

[The EPA regulates and promotes water fluoridation indirectly through the National Sanitation Foundation, which the EPA turned into a sham regulatory agency that approved and authorized adding fluoride to drinking water. www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham. The EPA still finances the work of the National Sanitiation Foundation and its publication of the NSF 60 standard for fluoridation chemicals. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-60-excerpts2.pdf.]

 

[The 2006 NRC Report stated]: Another conclusion is important for individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), page 9, paragraph 1, “However, a potentially susceptible subpopulation comprises individuals with renal impairments who retain more fluoride than healthy people do.”

 

Note that reduction of the MCLG of 4 ppm would not affect the practice of fluoridation of water at approximately 1 ppm.

 

[This is incorrect. The 2006 NRC Report makes it clear that the MCLG of 4 ppm is a rule requiring REMOVAL of naturally occurring calcium fluoride when it exceeds that level, not an authorization add any amount of silicofluoride. Calcium fluoride is less harmful than silicofluoride. See: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=1.]

 

The major benefit of water and dental products containing fluoride is the prevention of dental caries in people of all ages.

 

Mechanisms through which fluoride provides this benefit include a systemic effect due to the replacement of hydroxyl ions in hydroxapatite by fluoride ions during tooth development in children during enamel formation, a topical effect to remineralize teeth after bacterial demineralization, and a topical effect to inhibit bacterial acid release.

 

Dental or enamel fluorosis is a hypomineralization of the enamel surfact of the tooth that develops in children 8 years old and younger exposed to excess fluoride levels from any source during critical periods of tooth development.

 

[Articles on the CDC website reject this theory. See: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm; http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/caries-research-systemic-versus-topical-fluoride.pdf; ]

 

This [dental fluorosis] affects the appearance of the teeth. Milder forms are primarily cosmetic, but may have effects on self-esteem. Severe forms include pitting of the enamel.

 

[This is a serious problem, affecting 41% of adolescents with some level of fluorosis, 8.6% with moderate fluorosis, and 3.6% with severe fluorosis. See: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf.
See: http://jada.ada.org/content/133/2/157.full.]

 

Fluoride may interact with aluminum to worsen osteomalacia.

 

[This is a serious problem. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/bone/fluorosis/dialysis.html.]

 

Patients with an estimated GFR less than approximately 25 ml/min/1.73m2 retain more fluoride than healthy individuals based on older studies that used creatinine clearance to assess kidney function. Fluoride blood levels are approximately 4-fold higher or about 4 umol/L in patients with CKD stages 4 and 5.

 

[Those with kidney disease retain more fluoride and therefore should consume as little fluoride as possible.]

 

Although several position statements recommend monitoring intake in the potentially susceptible CKD population, the absence of fluoride concentrations on food and beverage labels and lack of data about fluoride intake from dental products and other sources makes this difficult to implement.

 

[This is all the more reason why those with kidney disease should consume as little fluoride as possible.]

 

Individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure by providing information on the National Kidney Foundation website including a link to the report in brief of the NRC and the Kidney Health Australia position paper.

 

[The National Kidney Foundation posted its 2008 withdrawal of its 1981 position statement on fluoridation on its web site, but it posted no link to it. See:  http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf. It is hidden away and difficult to find unless you know the exact wording of it and can do a search for it. There is nothing in the 2008 withdrawal of the 1981 position paper or anywhere else on the www.kidney.org web site where the National Kidney Foundation notifies those with kidney disease of the risk of drinking fluoridated water.]

 

The risk is likely greatest in areas with naturally high water flouride levels.

 

The National Kidney Foundation has no position on the optimal fluoridation of water. The oral health of people with CKD is of [sic] certainly of interest to the National Kidney Foundation, but balancing the overall benefits and risks of fluoride exposure is the primary concern.

 

Why does the National Kidney Foundation take such contradictory, wishy-washy statements regarding fluoridation? Why does the National Kidney Foundation state that “individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure by providing information on the National Kidney Foundation website” and then not do it? Why does the National Kidney Foundation not come out and openly oppose water fluoridation? Because the CDC supports fluoridation, and the CDC funnels money to the National Kidney Foundation. See these links:

 

http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/newsitemarchive.cfm?id=342

 

http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/newsitemArchive.cfm?id=310

 

http://www.kidney.org/news/pubpol/pdf/CDC_CKD_MayFactSheet2009.pdf

 

The National Kidney Foundation is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds it. Thus its statements on fluoridation are illogical and inconsistent. Instead of taking a position against water fluoridation, the National Kidney Foundation cops out and takes no position at all.

 

Council Member Nielsen also said that we asking the City Council to function as a science court, something it is not qualified to do. But the Council does not have to do any science. It only has to rely on what the CDC and the American Dental Association have about fluoridation:

 

That fluoridation only reduces tooth decay by 18% – if there is any reduction at all.

 

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

 

That in return for this small reduction – if any – that 41% of teenagers have fluorosis, that 8.6% have moderate fluorosis and 3.6% have severe fluorosis.

 

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

 

Rely on the CDC admission that “… fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.”

 

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

 

Rely on their statement that baby formula should not be mixed using fluoridated water.

 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hhs-all-infant-formulas-contain-fluoride-avoid-mixing-with-fluoridated-water-117760088.html; http://jada.ada.org/content/140/10/1228.full.pdf+html.

 

Rely on what the CDC says about fluoridation – except for their conclusion that you should drink it.

 

***

 

The fact is that the City Council is the legislative body for the city of Everett and the Everett Water District and that the buck stops with the City Council. The City Council is the only authority that can take fluoride out of our water.

 

Currently the City Council is taking a head-in-the-sand approach, failing to put this issue on the agenda, failing to hold hearings on this issue, failing to consult with real scientists. These irresponsible behaviors call into question the credibility of the Everett City Council.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

 

One thought on “Deal to Everett on Kidneys

  1. Pingback: Lead, Arsenic, Hydrogen Fluoride, Silicofluoride in Drinking Water » Letter to Chad about Kidneys

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

fifteen − 14 =