JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
QUESTIONNAIRE TO CANDIDATES
REGARDING LEAD-ARSENIC-SILICOFLUORIDE CONTAMINATION
TO DRINKING WATER
I write on behalf of www.WashingtonSafeWater.com, www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com, www.FluorideDetective.com, Mothers of Fluoride Sensitive Children, Medical Doctors against Fluoridation, Dentists against Fluoridation, and Americans for Liberty.
We are writing to ask you to make a commitment to consider our issue open mindedly, to put it on your regular agenda, and to conduct hearings and listen to experts on all sides of the issue. We feel this is a reasonable request.
Seattle, Everett, and most of the larger cities in Washington fluoridate their water using silicofluoride – the cheap, industrial, toxic waste version of fluoride, which contains a significant amount of lead and arsenic and small amounts of many other heavy metals.
All the assertions I make in this Questionnaire are supported in the documents linked to below.
The human body is not good at excreting lead, arsenic, or silicofluoride. A healthy adult retains 50% of all fluoride consumed – in bones and other calcium rich organs and glands. Infants retain 80% and can only excrete 20% and so are much more vulnerable. Those with failing kidneys excrete fluoride poorly. Babies, diabetics, farm workers, physical laborers, and athletes drink much more water than most people and so have more fluoride buildup. Blacks, Latinos, and the poor in general are much more susceptible to the ravages of these toxins. Fluoride, lead, and arsenic poison some slowly and some quickly, but eventually it poisons everyone.
Silicofluoride leaches lead out of brass pipes and fittings, much more so than sodium fluoride – which was the form of fluoride originally used. New brass pipes and fittings contain around 8% lead and older pipes and fittings contain as much as 30% lead. In 2004 Seattle newspapers reported lead in drinking water in old school at up to 1,600 ppb, that is 1.6 ppm, a frightening level, higher than the fluoride level.
The problem has not been resolved. Seattle is spending large amounts of money replacing pipe in old schools, however, even if all the pipe in all the old schools were replaced, the problem will not be solved. High concentrations of lead can still be expected to occur in the drinking water in any old house, old apartment building, old office building, or old factory. When fluoridation stops, the lead level in water drops and the lead level in childrens’ blood drops.
Studies posted on the CDC web site admit that the way fluoride reduces tooth decay is through topical application, not by systemic consumption.
Studies posted on the CDC web site claim no more than a 17% to 25% reduction in tooth decay from drinking fluoride. Other credible studies show no reduction at all. Yes, tooth decay has dropped in the US, but it is illogical for the CDC to jump to the conclusion that fluoride caused the reduction. The rate of tooth decay has declined just as much or more in non-fluoridated Europe as it has here. The probable cause of the reduction in both areas is better nutrition and better oral hygiene (and arguably the topical use of fluoride), but definitely not the oral consumption of fluoride.
The big difference between the US and Europe is not decay rates but dental fluorosis rates. Dental fluorosis is at epidemic levels in the United States but not a problem in Europe. Studies posted on the CDC web site admit that drinking fluoride causes 41% of kids age 12-15 to have some form of fluorosis, 8.6% to have moderate fluorosis (brown spots), and 3.6% to have severe fluorosis (brown spots with pitting). Dental fluorosis is a sign that the entire body is getting too much fluoride.
Even if fluoridation reduces tooth decay 17% to 25%, is it a fair trade to fluoridate and give 41% of our children dental fluorosis?
Naïve pro-fluoride dentists still support fluoridation. They believe somehow that the fluoride we drink goes directly and only to the teeth. To the contrary, lead, fluoride, and arsenic affect organs and glands throughout the body, gradually sickening us, and shortening our lives.
Lead, arsenic, and silicofluoride in any amount are harmful to health in many ways. There is no safe amount of silicofluoride which may be taken internally. The effect is cumulative because the body stores away the fluoride it cannot excrete.
The groups I speak for are right and left, conservative and liberal. We are members of different parties. The thing we have in common is that we all believe in liberty. We all say that we have a right to water that is “just water”, water that is as free of additives as possible. We all want to be able to set the amount of the toxic waste silicofluoride drug which we consume. We cannot do that when silicofluoride is in our water and therefore in the food we cook, restaurant food, our bread, our cola, our coffee, our beer, and our showers.
Those who wish to swallow fluoride can buy Gerber Baby Water containing .8 ppm fluoride and drink that – all their lives if they want to. Or they can swallow some of their toothpaste. I would not advise doing either, but one who does so at least is not consuming added lead and arsenic.
All the groups in the coalition support the termination of fluoridation with all types of fluoride, but especially with silicofluoride – because silicofluoride contains lead and arsenic and leaches lead from pipes.
Some of our members are even pro-fluoride, in the sense that they believe that fluoride applied topically may help to prevent tooth decay, although they have come to the conclusion that taking it internally is ineffectual and unhealthy.
Supporting a moratorium NOW is the responsible thing to do. Everett has been fluoridating since 1989 and Seattle since 1969. When fluoridation was instituted, elected officials and the public did not understand the pros and cons. Alcoa and the Public Health Service rammed fluoridation through, using pro-fluoride dentists as their front men, and without approval of the type and concentration of fluoride used by the FDA or by any other federal or state agency.
The damn burst in 2006 when the National Research Council, the top research agency in the United States, released its report on fluoridation. Highly credible new evidence flooded out. The 2006 NRC Report on Fluoridation contains a wealth of information about the many ways that fluoride harms our health.
We are asking for a one-year moratorium, but even a six-month or three-month moratorium would de-politicize the issue and allow for a more open discussion of the issues.
We oppose holding a referendum on this issue. Our Supreme Court recently voted 5 to 4 that fluoridation was a mere procedural matter like chlorination and as such that the people did not have the right to demand a vote on such an issue in a referendum. The opinion was riddled with legal error, as attorney Gerald Steel made clear in his motion for reconsideration. (Which I will post soon right here.) The minority opinion on the other hand is well written.
If there is a referendum, pro-fluoride dental groups will flood the campaign with money and bombard the airwaves with ads. There will be a lot of pressure on candidates.
There should not be a referendum because this is a constitutional issue. The majority does not have the right to decide by majority vote to force the minority to drink dilute toxic waste.
Note that if Everett or Seattle placed a moratorium on fluoridation, that would not mean that fluoridation equipment would be dismantled. It would just means that the fluoride valve would be turned off for some period of time. No fluoridation supporter is going to claim that turning off the fluoride temporarily will ruin children’s teeth. Besides, we ought to turn the fluoride off for a few months at least so we can do before and after tests on lead levels in blood and lead levels in older buildings that have older pipe.
Favoring a moratorium is the balanced position. It will defuse fluoridation as a political issue and allow for open discussion.
You are a candidate for public office, and because you are we have the right to ask what you think about this issue and how you intend to deal with it. So we asking you the questions listed below.
Foremost, we ask that you be open minded. When I visited the state capitol, legislators literally ran away when they found we were talking about fluoridation. Probably they are afraid of the pro-fluoride dentists, who are well organized and well financed. Oddly, many elected people ignore our letters and presentations and pretend we do not exist.
We ask you not to accept campaign donations from pro-fluoridation groups. There is a high likelihood that this money comes indirectly from silicofluoride producers and is “dirty money”.
And we ask you to spend a few hours following the links above and reading the documents posted.
Please answer Yes or No to the questions below. You do not have to answer all questions. Please send your response to James@JamesRobertDeal.com. We will post your answers on our web sites. We believe that if you indicate you will consider the issue fairly that this will help you to be elected or reelected. You will certainly have our help.
Yes or No:
________ I am open minded on the subject. I am willing to spend at least three hours reading the above documents, more if I find the articles credible and interesting.
________ I have decided to vote in favor of a putting this issue on the agenda, holding hearings, and listening open mindedly to experts from both sides.
________ I have studied the evidence, and I am satisfied that fluoridation may be ineffectual in reducing tooth decay and may be harmful to health.
________ I have looked at the evidence well enough that I have decided to vote in favor of an immediate one-year moratorium on fluoridation.
________ I pledge not to accept any campaign donations from any pro-fluoridation group during this campaign.
________ Take me off your mailing list. I am not willing to read anything you suggest I read on this subject. The CDC says fluoridation is safe and effective, and that is good enough for me. I intend to support continued fluoridation.
For representatives of agencies which have no direct control over adding fluoride to drinking water:
________ The city or district I represent does not control the adding of fluoride to our water. However, I am in favor of putting this issue on the agenda, holding hearings, and listening open mindedly to experts from both sides. If I decide that fluoridation is unhealthy or ineffectual, I intend to petition the water district which supplies our water to provide us with water which has no fluoride added.
Sincerely,James Robert Deal, Attorney WSBA Number 8103 President, www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com Vice-President, www.WashingtonSafeWater.com Member, www.FluorideDetective.com