McKinney Texas

Print Friendly

JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
4130 166th Place SW, Lynnwood, Washington  98037
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesDeal.com

April 4, 2013

McKinney City Council
222 N Tennessee Street
McKinney, TX 75069

Dear City Council, Although I live and work in Washington state, I am a member of Fluoride Action North Texas. I am the president of Fluoride Class Action, an association of attorneys and scientists who study fluoridation law and science and who advise consumer groups and municipalities on this topic. I spent two years in Texas long ago attending graduate school in Abilene, and I really like Texans.

Today I am writing on behalf of Fluoride Action North Texas regarding the fluorosilicic acid being added to McKinney water by North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD). According to Texas Rule §290.42(j) , all chemicals added to drinking water as part of the water treatment process, must “conform to” NSF Standard 60 requirements. The Texas Administrative Code on Environmental Quality of Public Drinking Water – Rule §290.42(j) states:

All chemicals and any additional or replacement process media used in treatment of water supplied by public water systems must conform to American National Standards Institute/National Sanitation Foundation (ANSI/NSF) Standard 60 for direct additives and ANSI/NSF Standard 61 for indirect additives. Conformance with these standards must be obtained by certification of the product by an organization accredited by ANSI.

Texas Rule §290.42(j)  is found at:

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=F&p_rloc=151711&p_tloc=44338&p_ploc=29679&pg=4&p_tac=&ti=30&pt=1&ch=290&rl=42

A copy of Texas Rule §290.42(j) is attached for your convenience. A Mosaic Certificate of Analysis is delivered with each tanker load of fluorosilicic acid. See a sample Mosaic Certificate of Analysis at this link:

http://washingtonsafewater.com/wp-content/uploads/Responses-to-Seattle-2008-FOIA-Certificates-of-analysis.pdf

Note that Texas Rule §290.42(j) requires that fluoridation materials “conform to” NSF 60. Bearing the NSF 60 mark on the Certificate of Analysis is not good enough. Although the Mosaic Certificate of Analysis bears the NSF 60 mark, Mosaic fluoridation materials do not “conform to” NSF 60, as I will explain below, and thus do not conform to Texas Rule §290.42(j). Excerpts containing relevant sections of the NSF Standard 60 document can be found at this link:

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-60-excerpts2.pdf.

The NSF Standard 60 document states the following:

This document has been reviewed by the Office of Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. … This Standard establishes minimum health effects requirements for the chemicals, the chemical contaminants, and the impurities that are directly added to drinking water from drinking water treatment chemicals. … This Standard contains health effects requirements for drinking water treatment chemicals that are directly added to water and are intended to be present in the finished water. …

The NSF 60 Standard requires a supplier such as Mosaic who wants to receive NSF 60 certification for its fluoridation materials, to provide substantial documentation proving the fluoridation materials to be safe. Fluoridation materials may not be sold in Texas and some 46 other states and nine Canadian provinces and territories unless they “conform to” the NSF 60 standard. See the list of states and provinces at this link:

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/nsf-survey-of-asdwa-members-use-of-nsf-standards-and-etv-reports-3-2010.pdf

I quote again from the NSF 60 Standard:

The manufacturer shall submit, at a minimum, the following information for each product:

a proposed maximum use level for the product which is consistent with the requirements of annex A [annex A is in the excerpts supplied;

complete formulation information, which includes the following:

the composition of the formulation (in percent or parts by weight for each chemical in the formulation);

the reaction mixture used to manufacture the chemical, if applicable;

chemical abstract number (CAS number), chemical name, and supplier for each chemical present in the formulation; and

a list of known or suspected impurities within the treatment chemical formulation,

and the maximum percent or parts by weight of each impurity.

a description or classification of the process in which the treatment chemical is manufactured, handled, and packaged;

selected spectra (e.g. UV/visible, infrared) shall be required for some additive products or their principle constituents; and

when available, a list of published and unpublished toxicological studies relevant to the treatment chemical and the chemicals and impurities present in· the treatment chemical.

The NSF 60 standard requires that some 20 toxicological studies be done:

For each substance requiring a new or updated risk assessment, toxicity data to be considered shall include. but not be limited to, assays of genetic toxicity, acute toxicity (1 to 14 [day] exposure), short-term toxicity (14 to 28 [day] exposure), subchronic toxicity (90 [day] exposure), reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, chronic toxicity (including carcinogenicity), and human data (clinical, epidemiological, or occupational) when available. To more fully understand the toxic potential of the substance, supplemental studies shall be reviewed, including, but not limited to, mode or mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, sensitization, endocrine disruption, and other endpoints, as well as studies using routes of exposure other than ingestion. Structure activity relationships, physical and chemical properties, and any other chemical specific information relevant to the risk assessment shall also be reviewed.

Mosaic is required under the NSF 60 standard to prepare and provide all these documents to NSF in order to obtain the right to affix the NSF 60 “Mark” on its fluoridation Certificate of Analysis. Therefore, Mosaic must have them on hand. If Mosaic did not prepare them – perhaps because NSF waived the requirement – then Mosaic’s fluorosilicic acid does not “conform to” the NSF 60 standard and in turn does “conform to” Texas Rule §290.42(j) . Please review the 2012 NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals. It can be found at this link:

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF_Fact_Sheet_2012.pdf

The 2012 NSF Fact Sheet states the following:

The NSF Standard 60 was developed to establish minimum requirements for the control of potential adverse human health effects. NSF/ANSI 60 has been developed to establish minimum requirements for the control of potential adverse human health effects from products added to water for its treatment. … The standard requires a full formulation disclosure of each chemical ingredient in a product. The standard requires testing of the treatment chemical products, typically by dosing these in water at 10 times the maximum use level, so that trace levels of contaminants can be detected. An evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation of each NSF Certified product. NSF Certified products have the NSF Mark, the maximum use level, lot number or date code and production location on the product packaging or documentation shipped with the product. … The NSF standard requires that the treatment products added to drinking water, as well as any impurities in the products, are supported by toxicological evaluation.

However, the only toxicological data that has been supplied by Mosaic to NTMWD, is the abbreviated information contained within the 2012 NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals which says:

NSF has compiled data on the level of contaminants found in all fluoridation products that have applied for, or have been listed by, NSF. The statistical results in Table 1 (attached) include the test results for these products, as well as the annual monitoring tests from the period 2000 to 2006. This includes 245 separate samples analyzed during this time period.

Note that NSF is admitting that there is no testing of each batch, but only 245 tests done over a six year period which ended seven years ago. There are around 49 certified suppliers of fluoridation materials in the United States. See the list at this link:

http://www.nsf.org/certified/PwsChemicals/Listings.asp?CompanyName=&TradeName=&ChemicalName=Fluorosilicic+Acid&ProductFunction=Fluoridation&PlantState=&PlantCountry=UNITED+STATES&PlantRegion=

If only 245 tests were done over a six year period, and if each supplier delivered only 100 tanker loads of fluoridation materials annually, then out of 4,900 batches delivered by the 49 suppliers, only 5% of those batches were tested and presumably are being tested. Moreover, there is evidence which would hold up in a court of law that the suppliers of fluoridation materials are not doing the toxicological studies because NSF is waiving the requirement that they do them. NSF official, Stan Hazen, admitted under oath that toxicological studies were not done or available. See a transcript of a California deposition (page 67) in which Hazan said:

NSF failed to follow its own Standard 60 procedures, and because we had no tox data on the HFS, then that was — we discussed again how the tox — toxicology department fulfills the Standard 60 requirements by relying on the individual MCLs for the — for the different elements within HFSA.

The Stan Hazan deposition can be read by following this link:

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/appendix-e-stan-hazen-deposition1.pdf

There is more evidence that the suppliers are not providing the toxicological studies and that NSF is not requiring them. You can read the detailed proof at this link:

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

Therefore, North Texas Fluoride Action is strongly but respectfully requesting that the City of McKinney send a letter to the NTMWD demanding the following:

1)       that NTMWD in turn demand that Mosaic deliver to NTMWD and the City of McKinney the toxicological studies which it was required to submit to NSF;

2)       that NTMWD demand that Mosaic demonstrate that the fluoridation materials it supplies “conform to” the requirements of NSF 60 certification and therefore “conform to” the requirements of Texas law;

3)       that if Mosaic does not supply said toxicological studies within 30 days, that NTMWD stop adding fluoridation materials to the water which is piped to McKinney; and

4)       that until NTMWD stops supplying drinking water containing added fluoridation materials that NTMWD indemnify and hold harmless the City of McKinney and the residents thereof from any and all harms resulting to them.

In addition, North Texas Fluoride Action is strongly requesting that the City of McKinney itself send the same demand to Mosaic. The City of McKinney is what we can a “captive” water district. Neither the McKinney City Council nor the voters of McKinney ever voted to add fluoridation materials to their drinking water. Study your contract with NTMWD. It is probably a contract for the delivery of “water” not for water plus a large amount of fluorosilicic acid, lead, and arsenic, plus smaller amounts of mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, thallium, selenium, and barium. See an analysis of the many contaminants in fluorosilicic acid by following this link:

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it

Therefore, the citizens of McKinney have a right to receive drinking water free of contaminants, and NTMWD should pay any extra cost to deliver such drinking water. Fluoridation materials are added as the final step in the water treatment process. NTMWD has numerous pipes extending out in all directions delivering water to numerous “captive” water districts. Therefore, the cost of providing water not containing fluoridation materials would not be prohibitively expensive. For a general overview of fluoridation materials, please read the following documents:

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/safewater

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/lead

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/docs

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/silicic-acid

In your study, please pay attention to the fact that the fluoridation materials contain lead and leach lead from pipes and fittings. Most homes and buildings built to current standards contain some lead in pipes and fittings. Brass pipes and fittings may contain up to 8% lead. McKinney homes and buildings built before 1978 contain a lot of lead, up to 30% lead. As bad as the fluoridation materials are, it may be that the lead which fluoridation materials contain and which the fluoridation materials leach from pipes is even more harmful. Some uninformed dentists claim that fluoridation is safe and effective, but no one claims that lead is safe and effective. Therefore, the case against fluoridation is easier to prove when the focus is on lead.

If the City Council would like, I can supply a sample demand letter which the City can submit to NTMWD. Just have your city attorney call me, and I will provide him with a draft which he or she can adapt to your specific situation. Your demand letter will have more impact if it is delivered under an attorney’s letterhead. I am available to address the Council as a group by telephone or talk with members individually. Feel free to call.

In closing I would simply add, study the facts, do not be satisfied with vague assurances, and listen to your conscience.

Respectfully submitted,

James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA Number 8103

  ***

MORE ABOUT MCKINNEY TEXAS:

http://townsquarebuzz.com/ams/51300/angies-insights-local-activist-pam-wenzels-warning-water-fluoridation-our-h/715/ams/51300

Angie’s Insights: Local Activist Pam Wenzel’s Warning of Water Fluoridation in our Homes is Compelling

AngieBado April 2, 2013 7:30 am

At a time when there is more news about the possible dangers of the fluoridation of city water supplies and more cities across the nation are considering legislation that would halt the adding of chemicals to water supplies, discussion about the fluoridation of our own city water supply is once again on the agenda for city council’s work session Tuesday afternoon.

According to the Facebook page Fluoride Action North Texas, McKinney residents are encouraged to attend the work session to show their support for ending the fluoridation of our water. In order to end this practice, all 13 cities that make up the North Texas Municipal Water District must agree.

Enter local activist and McKinney resident Pam Wenzel.  Business woman, mother of two and wife, Wenzel has taken on the enormous uphill battle of challenging the status quo. She believes that fluoridation of the city’s water supply is pumping toxins into our bodies and that must be stopped. Recently, I sat down with Wenzel to find out what is behind her strong belief that has spurred her to action. I am reminded of Erin Brockovich, and a million questions are on my mind. Is water fluoridation a similar situation where industry, the CDC and our government are in collusion to keep the public in the dark?

McKinney resident Pam Wenzel sits calmly across from me. Although sometimes portrayed as something of a psycho (her word, not mine) I don’t get that vibe at all. Legs crossed, her earnest brown eyes connect with me in what is an obvious effort to communicate her passion and knowledge on the subject of fluoridation of our water supply. Her voice resonates with passion about the topic, and she has a lot to say.

She has done her homework. “This is something I have to do,” said Wenzel. “Believe me, I’d rather be out on the Dye Course chipping out of a bunker,” she says emphatically. This thing that Wenzel feels she “has to do” is educate people about the fluoridation of our water supply, which most of us take for granted. But a growing body of evidence appears to support the fact that the chemicals added to city water supplies are toxic. As part of a local grassroots campaign,

Wenzel spends her days researching information on the internet, writing letters to the various city council who make up the 13 member North Texas Water District Board, meeting with city and state leaders and  posting information on the Fluoride Action North Texas Facebook page. Her end goal – to end the practice of adding fluoride, in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid, to the water in North Texas.

How did she get started down this path? A few years ago, while on a weekend golf trip with her husband, Wenzel said she was struck by her husband’s attraction to the “spa water” in the hotel. She said neither typically drank much water at home. “He (Wenzel’s husband) kept drinking the flavored water that the hotel offered. He rarely drank water at home. I realized that this form of hydration was a healthier choice than drinking sugary drinks or sodas.”

Wenzel said that when she returned home from the trip, she spent time researching the benefits of water and came to the conclusion that most Americans are chronically dehydrated and that dehydration could be a major risk factor in many of the chronic illnesses that individuals deal with in today’s world. She said she felt that her own lack of healthy hydration contributed to her battle with breast cancer at the young age of 27.

Convinced of water’s health benefits, Wenzel began researching recipes for spa water and in 2010 launched her business and Spa Water Collection. She encourages people to make water the beverage of choice over sugary beverages or soda. Her  book, Spa Water  Book – A Guide to Creating World Class Spa Water, contains 22 recipes healthy fruit and herb infused water recipes.

Wenzel explained that she brought in her technical support person, Jens Broecher, from Germany to help prepare for the business launch party. Broecher also brought something Wenzel didn’t expect — life changing information that he would soon share. “On the first day of his arrival, he (Broecher) told me he could not drink our tap water because he was allergic to fluoride. He explained how the fluoride was so toxic that it was banned in Germany and many other countries. He explained how even showering in the fluoridated water would cause his head to ache,” Wenzel said. Further explaining that she “was embarrassed” by the fact that she didn’t know as much about our water as her guest, Wenzel said, “I began to research his claims about what he said fluoride really was and how the Nazis would use it for mind control of their POW’s.

I was very skeptical at first. Just as many may think I am crazy, I thought this of him at first, as well. After two years of researching and validating his claims, I began to understand the history and unbelievable chain of events in which fluoridation came to be.” The information she dug up was startling — shocking —unbelievable. According to Wenzel, the stuff we think of as harmless fluoride in our water supply is actually a toxic substance – hazardous waste that is scrubbed from the smokestacks of aluminum and phosphate fertilizer plants. This waste was originally pumped into the air, but upon finding that plants and animals in the area around the plants began to die due to fluoride poisoning, a system was put into place where wet scrubbers now harvest the residue, which is then collected and sent to cities and dumped into the water supply in the guise of water fluoridation.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports naturally occurring fluoride, but they handed off the responsibility of monitoring the water department to the National Sanitation Foundation, a private organization, Wenzel said. She added that fluoride is considered a drug, but there have been no random testing trials performed on fluoride to understand how it acts in the human body.

What’s worse, pharmaceutical grade fluoride is not used in our water supplies. The same by-product that the EPA will not allow to be dumped in lakes, rivers and oceans because it is considered toxic waste, is being dumped into our city water supplies.

Wenzel encouraged me to read some of the documentation which led her to take on this battle, including The Fluoride Deception, written by journalist Christopher Bryson, (May 2004). The book is based on nearly 10 years of research and concludes that the safety standards for fluoridation are based on fraudulent science. Bryson uncovered correspondence by scientists that point to the very fact that fluoride is poison and is indeed harmful. Bryson says that fluoride science, like asbestos science and tobacco science, “is a racket.”

Outspoken and relentless, Wenzel said, “I couldn’t continue on promoting drinking water for your health. It’s tough to drink six to eight glasses of water a day, especially when it has become counter-productive. I have a business to run, and I have a reputation for promoting ways to make your water taste better. I can’t continue to promote drinking water for health when it is full of toxins.”

What does it feel like to be labeled one of “those people?” It boils down to people’s lack of understanding, Wenzel explained.  “It doesn’t matter what you support, there are going to be those people who try to embarrass those who have something to stand up for, and that’s just the way of the world. ” I don’t sell water, I sell a book that is recipes on how to make our water taste better,” Wenzel said. “My efforts to end fluoridation of our water could actually hurt my business, but it’s a matter of doing what’s right. All the profit from my books went to the Avon Army of Women and their efforts to get members for breast cancer research.”

The information that Wenzel and other members of the grassroots organization to end fluoridation have uncovered makes one wonder why the government continues to support the concept. The FDA has never approved fluoride for the use of reducing tooth decay and they don’t monitor fluoride in the water supply. Sharing information from The Case Against Fluoride, by Paul Connett, James Beck, Spedding Micklem, Wenzel cites these points:

1. Fluoridation is poor medical practice because it violates the right to consent. It also is delivered in such a way, though water, that dosage cannot be controlled. How do we determine what dose would be effective? People drink different amounts of water on any given day.

2. Fluoride is now known to work more effectively when topically applied (toothpaste, etc.) The evidence that fluoride, when ingested, decreases tooth decay, is weak.

3. Fluoridation uses dangerous chemicals — silicon fluorides obtained from the phosphate fertilizer industry — which are not naturally occurring fluoride compounds or the pharmaceutical-grade substances used in dental products. They are derived from wet-scrubbing systems, contain other contaminants, and are officially characterized as hazardous waste by the U.S. EPA.

4. When the fluoride program began decades ago, there was little evidence for its long-term safety in humans. Little study has been done over the years to monitor the long-term effects on our health. Most European countries do not fluoridate their water supplies.

5. There is some evidence to support the fact that fluoridation of water lowers the I.Q. of children.

6. Fluoridation has been shown to have an adverse effect on the thyroid gland and accumulates in the human pineal gland.

7. The accumulation of fluoride in bones from lifelong exposure to fluoride from fluoridated water and other sources has been shown in studies to increase the risk of hip fractures in the elderly, especially those who have impaired kidney function.

8. Studies have shown that fluoridation increases the risk of developing bone cancer. “Fluoridation is unethical,” Wenzel said. “No government has the right to medicate the public – to force it on people.  This practice deprives us of our right to informed medical consent.”

Is the EPA somehow complicit in the water program that we have today? Have they, and other government organizations ignored data on the critical toxicity of fluoridation? Wenzel thinks so. “The EPA is trying to avoid getting in the way of the Dept. of Human Health and the political heat that would come down on them,” Wenzel said. She also feels that powerful industry pushed the EPA to cover up critical information about the possible negative side effects of water fluoridation.

Admitting that this practice is dangerous to human health could open up a huge can of worms, allowing law suits from individuals who have had cancer over the years. “I’m not doing anything until I’m finished focusing on this,” Wenzel said, reminding me of the message, “The argument isn’t that we don’t want fluoride. It’s that we don’t want additional, toxic waste dumped into our water supply.”

The next steps for Wenzel and the others who support this cause are to continue to speak at area city council meetings, write letters to local council members and state leaders and continue to educate the public with their message. Wenzel shared with me that she recently had breakfast with Congressman Ralph Hall to discuss the issue. She said the Congressman understands the issue and is in favor of a congressional hearing on the topic of water fluoridation. He urged her to share this video with city and state leaders, including Senator Ken Paxton (R-McKinney).

Challenging the status quo is scary. It becomes an inconvenient truth to overturn decades of thought and practices. But many cities are looking at the subject through a new lens. I have to admit, although I was very skeptical when Wenzel and others spoke at the regular city council meeting in early March, after all the reading I’ve done, I think there is definitely something to the group’s argument.

What do you think? Photo from Pam Wenzel’s Facebook page, of Pam with some of her healthy spa water creations.

More reading: Daniel Stockin on Fluoridegate Ralph Nader on fluoridation:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5HN4Rkxx78 Fluoride Free Water Affidavit from Dr. A.K. Susheela American Health Studies Fluoride Action Network Project

Leave a Reply

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

three × two =