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

July 1, 2011

Governor Christine Gregoire
Office of the Governor
PO Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002

Dear Governor Gregoire,

As governor you have a special responsibility to protect the health of your fellow citizens.

Washington Action for Safe Water petitioned the Board of Health in April of 2011 to enact rulemaking requiring that water districts that fluoridated also give written notice that drinking fluoridated water could increase the risk of cancer. See: http://washingtonsafewater.com/wp-content/uploads/osmunson-10th-Petition-to-wa-bd-of-health-on-cancer-2-27-11.doc

The Board of Health rejected the proposed rule making. See: http://washingtonsafewater.com/wp-content/uploads/osmunson-BOH-Denial-of-petition-10-cancer-4-14-2011.pdf

Washington Action for Safe Water appealed this decision directly to you as governor. See: http://washingtonsafewater.com/wp-content/uploads/Appeal-to-Gov-10th-BOH-Cancer-5-10-11.pdf.

In your June 27, 2011, letter you rejected the appeal of Washington Action for Safe Water, authored by Dr. Bill Osmunson which would have required the Department of Health to enact a regulation which would require water districts to give notice to water consumers of the risk of cancer associated with drinking fluoridated water.

Your letter is posted at: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/gregoire-to-ossmunson-6-27-2011-demial-of-10th-rule-making-petition-on-fluoridation.pdf.

As president of Fluoride Class Action and vice-president of Washington Action for Safe Water, I ask you to reconsider.

I presume that your June 27 letter was written by the Board of Health on your behalf. It contains many factual and scientific errors, as I will point out below. That letter and at least one other letter I have received from the Board of Health indicate that its staff do not understand the science relating to fluoride.

Regrettably, the June 27 letter also indicates that you have not made a personal study of the science since I started writing to you on this subject in 2007. As I point out below, the science relating to fluoridation is not complex, and you could review it in a few weekends. I am sending you certain recommended reading.

I wrote you a letter in August of 2007 raising some of these issues. See: http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/gregoir-8-4-7.pdf. On your behalf Denise Clifford of the Department of Health responded with a letter which contained numerous factual and scientific errors. See: http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/from-clifford-8-20-7.pdf. I responded to Denise Clifford, pointing out her errors. See http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/gregoir-9-18-7.pdf. I had no further response from Denise Clifford.

I presume that the June 27 letter to Dr. Osmunson was likewise drafted by the Board of Health or the Department of Health. See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/gregoire-to-ossmunson-6-27-2011-demial-of-10th-rule-making-petition-on-fluoridation.pdf. Whoever wrote your appeal denial was in error on many points.

The Board of Health and the Department of Health are lacking in objectivity on the issue of fluoridation. I suggest that you inquire as to whether an individual can be hired to a high position in the Board of Health or the Department of Health who is not a “true believer” in the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. For this reason you should not rely on the Board of Health and the Department of Health and its staff for your sole legal and scientific advice regarding this issue.

Your June 27 letter referred to the proposal by HHS and EPA to adjust their recommended level of artificial fluoride to be added to drinking water from the current .8 ppm to 1.3 ppm range, based on climate and water consumption, to a flat .7 ppm for all water districts, regardless of differences in climates.

Your June 27 letter said that the Board of Health was going to follow the lead of HHS and EPA and match the recommended .7 ppm fluoridation level. For several reasons, however, Washington should not be following the lead of HHS and EPA on this issue.

The proposed rule on it face makes no sense. People in Wenatchee guzzle more fluoridated water than do people in Aberdeen. Fluoride concentrations should be lower in hot climates. A flat .7 ppm level does nothing to prevent excess dosing in hot climates where workers and athletes drink five to ten times the average quantity of water.

Neither HHS nor EPA has any authority to recommend adding artificial fluorides to drinking water. There is no federal law which authorizes any agency to require, regulate, or recommend artificial water fluoridation. The Safe Drinking Water Act specifically states at 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.

No agency should recommend or promote something that it cannot require, including fluoridation, because the recommendation becomes a fundamental link in a regimen that ultimately requires fluoridation on the state and water district level.

Here’s how it works: HHS and EPA enact a ready-to-adopt recommended regulation, all of this effort spearheaded by the Drinking Water Office withing CDC, the loudest cheerleader for fluoridation. The states regard recommendations from HHS, EPA, and CDC as ready-to-adopt recommended regulations. The June 27 letter admits that Washington is going to adopt whatever rule which HHS, EPA, and CDC come up with. Like Washington, most states mirror their regulations to the ready-to-adopt recommended regulations from HHS, EPA, and CDC.

The fluoride recommendation made by HHS, EPA, and CDC becomes part of a defacto “national primary drinking water regulation”. Thus water district requirements that water be fluoridated are part of a “national primary drinking water regulation” and as such are illegal.

The objection can be made that a recommendation from HHS, EPA, and CDC is not a regulation because it is not a requirement. However, there can be a regulation which approves a practices and gives states and municipalities the permission to adopt the practice. Note that HHS has followed the proper administrative procedure for formal rule making by posting the proposed regulation and asking for comment. I believe a federal judge would conclude that this is a regulation, an optional regulation, but a regulation nevertheless.

The SDWA rule flows down to the states as enforcers of the SDWA, Section 300g–2 of the SDWA. It is also binding on local water districts, 40 CFR 142.3. Requiring fluoridation at any level is illegal under my reading of the SDWA.

I recommend you read some of the journal articles cited by HHS and EPA to justify its new .7 ppm artificial fluoridation level. I did. I summarize many of them in my responses to the HHS and EPA proposal.

Read my responses at:

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

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

You will find that the journal articles cited by HHS and EPA to support their new .7 ppm fluoridation level in fact do not support adding fluoride at .7 ppm or at any level whatsoever.

In your June 27 letter, it is pointed out that WAC 246-290-460 sets fluoridation standards for water districts that choose to fluoridate. The fluoridation standards are derived not from any federal or state agency but from a private trade group known as the National Sanitation Foundation. Note that WAC 246-290-220 requires the fluoridation materials meet NSF 60 standards. See my article entitled “What or Who Is The National Sanitation Foundation?”, at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham, in which I make it clear that the NSF is a sham regulatory agency.

NSF claims repeatedly on its web site that NSF 60 certification means that toxicological studies have been done on fluoridation materials. However, NSF leaders have admitted when put under oath that no such studies are obtained from suppliers and that no such studies are done by NSF. Because NSF 60 is not being followed, fluoridated water does not meet NSF 60 standards. WAC 246-290-220 is not being followed, and so fluoridation with the fluoridation materials being used is therefore illegal.

I pointed out much of this in my letter dated September 13, 2010. See: www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/Amicus-Letter-to-Governor-9-13-10-JRD.doc.

I urge you to inform yourself regarding the science of fluoridation. You do not need to be a chemistry major to understand it. Please read the new book by Dr. Paul Connett, The Case Against Fluoridation, a copy of which is enclosed. As mentioned above, I am also sending you hard copies of the reports I recently sent to HHS and EPA, referred to above.

It is difficult to question articles of faith. Fluoridation is an article of faith for most people. That is because most people do not understand the science involved. And therefore they rely on the opinion of those they respect. That is not sufficient in this case because large sums of money are changing hands in order to shape opinion. Those you respect have been duped by the chemical companies which produce the artificial fluoride toxic waste.

In the June 27 letter, there is this quotation taken from the CDC web site:

The weight of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence does not support an association between water fluoridation and any adverse health effect or systemic disorder, including an increased risk for cancer[1], Down syndrome[2], heart disease[3], osteoporosis and bone fracture[4], immune disorders[5], low intelligence[6], renal disorders[7], Alzheimer disease[8], or allergic reactions[9].

The small Division of Oral Health within CDC has no research staff competent to come to any such conclusions. The Division of Oral Health is a group of scientifically uninformed, bought-and-paid-for, pro-fluoridation dentists assisted by a group of scientifically uninformed, bought-and-paid-for pro-fluoridation administrators, all of whom hold their positions because chemical companies donate to legislators and representatives on all levels. Chemical companies as well as toothpaste companies also donate heavily to dental colleges, which as part of the deal pressure dentists to pressure elected officials on all levels to propagate the fantasy that fluoridation is both good for fighting tooth decay and completely harmless to any organ or system in the body. The ADA “partners” with HHS to preserve fluoridation even if it harms Blacks and minorities disproportionally. http://fluoride-class-action.com/ada-and-hhs-conspire-to-squelch-fluoridegate.

The CDC statement above is a false statement. You should not rely on the CDC or HHS or EPA for any information regarding fluoridation.

The pro-fluoride dental lobby is well-funded and powerful. Any politician in Olympia will tell you that it is a fearsome thing to find disfavor with it.

Further, CDC has absolutely no legal right to endorse, recommend, or promote fluoridation. The CDC even has a “chief fluoridation engineer” who coaches water districts on fluoridation implementation. CDC should not even have a budget for such things.

The new rule which Dr. Osmunson and Washington Action for Safe Water proposed has a 10 ppb fluoride trigger. Notice must be sent along with water bills if fluoride of any kind exceeds that level. The significance of the 10 ppb trigger is that 10 ppb is the level of fluoride in mother’s milk. Even if a mother drinks fluoridated water, her mammary glands filter out almost all the fluoride, an indication that an infant needs no fluoride.

A baby is a human, just as a child is a human, just as an adult is a human. If a newborn human baby needs no fluoride, that should be the most probative evidence of all that no infant, no child, no adolescent, no teenager, no adult, no elderly person needs any fluoride supplementation.

Apply the law school method. Test the argument by taking it to its extreme. If the human needs fluoride, especially artificial fluorides, exactly when does it start needing fluoride? Look for the day in the life of a human, from infancy to old age when the 10 ppb fluoride level becomes insufficient and the level needs to be bumped up 100 times to 1,000 ppb. At what day in the life of an infant or baby’s or child’s or teenager’s or adult’s life does a human start needing fluoride at level greater than the level that God caused fluoride to be present in mother’s milk?

Note also that newborn babies excrete more fluoride than they consume. They are born containing too much fluoride because the placenta lacks the ability to block fluoride, and so embryos get overdosed with fluoride. This may be a factor in current high levels of spontaneous abortions. Exposure to lead causes an increase in spontaneous abortions. The silicofluorides used in Washington for fluoridation contain lead and dissolve lead out of pipes are known to cause spontaneous abortions.[10]

Blacks are much more sensitive to water fluoridation than the general population. The difference is substantial. Andrew Young, Bernice King, and Alveda King have come out against water fluoridation as a civil rights issue and are organizing black pastors in Georgia to politicize the issue.

Many blacks cannot afford to buy and carry home the many gallons of fluoride-free bottled water that a family needs. One group of blacks hit hardest is diabetics. Diabetics drink more water and therefore take in more fluoride, and diabetes is epidemic in the Black community. More blacks live in older housing, and older housing contains plumbing with up to 30% lead in pipes and fittings. Silicofluorides dissolve lead. Those with kidney disease die before their time if they drink fluoridated water. Kidney disease is a serious problem in the Black community. Fluoride also causes hip fractures and arthritis in older people, particularly in the Black community. It is a probable factor in Alzheimer’s disease. Fluoride interferes with thyroid functioning, which lowers metabolism and results in obesity, which may explain why it is so easy to gain weight and so hard to lose it.

The rulemaking proposal submitted by Dr. Osmunson and Washington Action for Safe Water dealt specifically with the link between fluoride, lead, arsenic, and cancer. So the proposal for wording of the new warning only covered cancer.

However, while we are on the subject of exactly how a new warning should be worded, I should say that the Department of Health, if it is not going to declare all fluoridation levels to be unsafe, should at least do full disclosure. I would suggest that the Department of Health consider the following proposed comprehensive disclosure, to be delivered along with every water bill, which would cover not only cancer risk but other risks related to fluoridation:

Artificial fluorides in the form of silicofluorides or sodium fluoride are added to your tap water at the level of .7 ppm. Infant formula should not be made up using water containing any artificial fluorides. If you have kidney disease or are on dialysis, you should not drink fluoridated water or eat food prepared with fluoridated water. If your fluoride is in the form of silicofluorides, be aware that it contains lead and arsenic. Be aware that silicofluorides dissolve the lead contained in brass and copper pipes and fittings and solder, and that lead can cause reduced IQ.

When you or your children drink tap water or eat foods made with tap water fluoridated with artificial fluorides, you are exposing yourselves to a greater risk for dental fluorosis, brittle bones, gastric pains, cancer, brain damage, premature puberty, reduced thyroid and pituitary and pineal gland production, kidney failure, and other negative health effects.

See http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/report-card-for-hhs and http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead.

Fluoride disclosures should also report the level of naturally occurring calcium fluoride. Naturally occurring fluoride is not a good thing to drink, but it is not nearly as toxic as the artificial fluorides, especially when calcium levels are very high, as is usually the case with ground water, and not the case with snow melt water.

The EPA currently requires that water districts send notice to water consumers when “fluoride” exceeds 2.0 ppm. When the Safe Drinking Water Act refers to “fluoride”, it is referring only to naturally occurring calcium fluoride. The 2.0 ppm trigger for notice regarding naturally occurring fluoride is way too high. It was set that high to make water fluoridation at 1.0 ppm look more acceptable.

The 2.0 ppm trigger regarding giving notice regarding naturally occurring calcium fluoride should be lowered to .2 ppm.

Returning to the artificial fluorides, bear in mind that the artificial fluorides, even in small concentrations, denature proteins and interrupt enzymes, and this can lead to all kinds of problems, including cancer.

It is also important to point out the synergistic effect of artificial fluorides with other elements and compounds. If perchance artificial fluorides in small quantities acting alone do not cause cancer, there is a higher likelihood that artificial fluorides in combination with other chemicals do. This is because the arsenic present in silicofluorides, used almost universally for fluoridation in Washington, certainly does. Inorganic arsenic is a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen.

Further, the lead, which is present in silicofluorides, plus the lead, which silicofluorides are known to leach out of brass and copper pipes, is confirmed to cause brain damage and lowered IQ. Lead, arsenic, and silicofluoride together might reinforce the carcinogenic effect.

Maybe it is not specifically or not solely the element fluoride that causes cancer, but it is true that the silicofluoride product commonly referred to as “fluoride” does contain lead and arsenic. Arsenic definitely causes cancer. See http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead.

You were a great attorney general. You stood up to the tobacco lobby. However, as governor, with more power and thus more responsibility, you have not stood up to the chemical industry. You continue to allow the chemical industry to manipulate the water districts into adding diluted toxic waste to our drinking water. Thus far you have failed to look at the other side of this important issue.

As governor you have the power to suspend fluoridation state wide as a matter of public health. You should summon up your courage and do so.

Also fluoridation is expensive, and city budgets are tight. Further, silicofluorides particularly cause equipment to wear out sooner.

There is one final reason why you should end water fluoridation: Your own personal health may be impaired if you move back to Seattle and start drink fluoridated water again. (Olympia water is not fluoridated.) Your arthritic symptoms will be worsened. Some day when you are aged, you may fall and break your brittle hip, or break your brittle hip and fall – which is what happens in some cases. You may develop Alzheimer’s disease. Your life span may be shortened. Your own children and grandchildren may suffer the same harms.

Before you end your term in office, please take this opportunity to do as governor what you did as attorney general: Study the science and fight for what’s right. Face-down the corporations profiting from the sale of this toxic waste and have the courage to protect the people.

To make it easy for you to follow the links in this letter, I have posted it online at: http://www.whattoserveagoddess.com/gregoire-7-1-2011

I am also enclosing a Notice of Potential Liability addressed to the State of Washington. See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/governor/gregoir-7-1-2011-notice-of-liability.

Sincerely,

 

James Robert Deal
President, www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com
Vice-President, www.WashingtonSafewater.com

 

 

 



[1] The 2006 NRC Report at 336 states: “Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed … . [O]steosarcoma is of particular concern as a potential effect of fluoride because of (1) fluoride deposition in bone, (2) the mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells, (3) animal results described above, and (4) pre-1993 publication of some positive, as well as negative, epidemiologic reports on associations of fluoride exposure with osteosarcoma risk.” Silicofluorides frequently contain inorganic arsenic. http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-fact-sheet-on-fluoride-2008.pdf. Inorganic arsenic is a known Class A, Type 1, human carcinogen. See:  http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=3.

[2] The 2006 NRC Report cites with approval Takahashi, K. 1998. Fluoride-linked Down syndrome births and their estimated occurrence due to water fluoridation. Fluoride 31(2):61-73, http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/31261-73.htm.

[3] Fluorides cause and exacerbate hypothyroidism.  The 2006 NRC Report at 234-235 states: “[S]everal lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function. … Suggested mechanisms of action for the results reported to date include decreased production of thyroid hormone, effects on thyroid hormone transport in blood, and effects on peripheral conversion of T4 to T3 or on normal deiodination processes”. The 2006 NRC Report at 198 states: “Subclinical hypothyroidism is considered a strong risk factor for later development of overt hypothyroidism … . Biondi et al. … associate subclinical thyroid dysfunction (either hypo- or hyperthyroidism) with changes in cardiac function and corresponding increased risks of heart disease”.

[4] The 2006 NRC Report at 7 states: “Overall, there was consensus among the committee that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures”.

[5] The 2006 NRC Report at 295 states:  “Fluoride … has a number of effects on immune cells, including polymorphonuclear leukocytes, lymphocytes, and neutrophils. Fluoride interferes with adherence to substrate in vitro. … Fluoride also augments the inflammatory response to irritants”.

[6] The 2006 NRC Report at 205 – 206 states: “Several studies from China have reported the effects of fluoride in drinking water on cognitive capacities. … The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure. … IQ measurements using the Chinese Combined Raven’s Test … showed significantly lower mean IQ scores among

children in the high-fluoride area … than in children in the low-fluoride area …”.

[7] The 2006 NRC Report at 280 and 292 states: “Human kidneys, nevertheless, have to concentrate fluoride as much as 50-fold from plasma to urine. Portions of the renal system may therefore be at higher risk of fluoride toxicity than most soft tissues”. “[P]atients with impaired renal function, or on hemodialysis, tend to accumulate fluoride much more quickly than normal. Patients with renal osteodystrophy can have higher fluoride concentrations in their serum”.

[8] The NRC Report at 210-211 states: “Fluoride produces additional effects on the [acetylcholine] systems of the brain by its interference with acetylcholinesterase. … Because of the great affinity between fluorine and aluminum, it is possible that the greatest impairments of structure and function come about through the actions of charged and uncharged [aluminum fluoride] complexes. … [T]here was considerable interest in the possibility that elemental aluminum was a major contributing factor to the development of dementia of the Alzheimer’s variety… . In addition to a depletion of acetylcholinesterase, fluoride produces alterations in phospholipid metabolism and/or reductions in the biological energy available for normal brain functions …”.

[9] The 2006 NRC Report stated at 293-294: [T]here were several reports of skin irritation … . These patients might be sensitive to the effects of silicofluorides and not the fluoride ion itself. Machalinski … reported that the four different human leukemic cell lines were more susceptible to the effects of sodium hexafluorosilicate … than to [sodium fluoride]. … Butler … showed that fluoride can be an adjuvant, causing an increase in the production of antibodies to an antigen …”.

[10] Hertz-Picciotto, The evidence that lead increases the risk for spontaneous abortion. Am J Ind Med. 2000 Sep;38(3):300-9, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10940968.