JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
4130 166th Place SW, Lynnwood, Washington 98037
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
November 11, 2013
Clarksburg Water Board
Attention: Richard Welch, General Manager
1001 S. Chestnut St.
Clarksburg, WV 26301
Dear Water Board,
I look forward to addressing you by telephone on Tuesday, November 12.
In advance of our meeting tomorrow I am sending you this letter to point out that fluoridation is illegal under West Virginia law.
To make it easy to follow links, this letter is posted at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Clarksburg.
The West Virginia Code of State Regulations provides:
6.8. Fluoridation — Sodium fluoride, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluosilicic acid shall conform to the applicable AWWA standards and shall conform to ANSI/NSF Standard 60. http://www.waterhelp.org/wv/basics/resources/64CSR77.pdf
West Virginia water districts are allowed to fluoridate with hydrofluorosilicic acid, also known as fluorosilicic acid, or with sodium fluoride or sodium silicofluorides, provided that they “conform” to ANSI/NSF Standard 60. The fluorosilicic acid you use does not “conform”, as I will point out below.
There are 49 producers or resellers of fluoridation materials in the United States. They all issue material safety document sheets (MSDS) in which they disclaim all liability for any harm whatsoever which fluoridation materials might cause. However, before offering said fluoridation materials for sale, they apply for and obtain certification which warrants that their product is safe. All water districts rely on this certification in making their decision to use their chose fluoridation materials to fluoridate their water.
The certifying “agency” is the National Sanitation Foundation, known as NSF or NSF International. During the 1980s the EPA offloaded responsibility for certifying fluoridation materials to NSF, which is a mere trade association. Suppliers of fluoridation materials can sit on the NSF board which certifies fluoridation materials to be safe.
NSF proudly refers to its NSF 60 certification as “the mark”. It is displayed on certificates of analysis delivered with each load of fluoridation materials. It is recognized as authoritative by EPA administrators, CDC administrators, states, state agencies, cities, and water districts. The EPA itself finances and approves the NSF 60 standard. It is recognized as authoritative in most other countries. Fluorosilicic acid and other fluoridation materials would not be saleable for drinking water fluoridation purposes without such certification.
Some 47 states and nine Canadian provinces, including West Virginia, by law recognize the NSF Standard 60 stamp of approval as authoritative. These states and provinces allow fluoridation only with fluoridation materials which “conform” to or “comply” with NSF 60 standards, as does my state, Washington.
The states and provinces may regard NSF 60 so highly because the EPA says in the foreword of the NSF 60 handbook that it “approve[s the NSF 60 standard] for publication”, provides “partial funding … for the development and implementation of NSF Standard 60”, and because there was “participation of US EPA representatives in the standards development or implementation activities”. Read excerpts from NSF Standard 60 here.
NSF Standard 60 and the NSF web site state repeatedly that toxicological and health studies are required, as I will detail below. The NSF 60 handbook says without equivocation that toxicological studies will be done, as does the 2012 NSF Fact Sheet on fluoridation and the 2008 NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals, from which I quote:
The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology 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 …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.
Note in the above quotation that NSF admits that product suppliers sit on the NSF board.
Thus, NSF repeatedly refers to “health” and insists that there are “toxicological evaluation[s]” to avoid “adverse human health effects”. NSF repeatedly refers to having toxicologists on staff and having its own toxicological department.
NSF has this to say about the “NSF Mark” on its web site:
The next time you are shopping for a food or water-related product that may potentially affect the health of you or your family, look to see if the NSF Mark is on the product. This Mark is your assurance that the product has been tested by one of the most respected independent certification companies in existence today, NSF International.
The NSF 60 handbook is known officially as NSF/ANSI 60 – 2009 Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects. This book costs $325. In it the NSF makes the following representations:
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. …
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 and the accompanying text are intended for voluntary use by certifying organizations, utilities, regulatory agencies, and/or manufacturers as a basis of providing assurances that adequate health protection exists for covered products. …
NSF was the lead organization in the Consortium responsible for developing this Standard. NSF conducts research; tests and evaluates equipment, products, and services for compliance with standards and criteria; and grants and controls the use of NSF registered Marks. …
The NSF Listing Mark is widely recognized as a sign that the product or service to which it relates complies with the applicable NSF Standard(s). …
The scope of the research program embraces all aspects of water supply operation, from … water quality issues … to health effects ….
This annex defines the toxicological review and evaluation procedures for the evaluation of substances imparted to drinking water through contact with drinking water system components. It is intended to establish the human health risk, if any, of the substances imparted to drinking water under the anticipated use conditions of the product. …
If a published and peer reviewed quantitative risk assessment is not currently available for the substance, the Total Allowable Concentration (TAC) and SPAC shall be derived after review of the available toxicology data for the substance. …
When the data requirements for quantitative risk assessment are satisfied …, a quantitative risk assessment shall be performed. …
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 …, short term toxicity …, subchronic toxicity …, 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. …
A weight-of-evidence approach shall be employed in evaluating the results of the available toxicity data. This approach shall include considering the likelihood of hazard to human health and the conditions under which such hazard may be expressed. …
Toxicity testing requirements for the quantitative risk assessment procedure are defined in annex A, table A2. A minimum data set consisting of gene mutation assay, a chromosomal aberration assay, and a subchronic toxicity study shall be required for the performance of a quantitative risk assessment. …
[T]he SPAC shall be calculated as 10% of the promulgated regulatory value. …
The legal problem with the fluoridation materials you are using to fluoridate is that the toxicological studies referred to above are not being done. NSF representatives have admitted that NSF does not obtain toxicological studies from the fertilizer companies which supply the fluoridation materials nor does NSF do its own toxicological studies – despite the fact that NSF has its own toxicologists on staff and runs its own toxicological department.
NSF official Stan Hazan, speaking under oath in deposition, admitted in 2000 that NSF has no toxicological studies (see page 67) regarding fluoridation materials, although NSF certifies them to be “safe”. 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 toxicological studies which NSF assures us are being done would be big studies and would have to be conducted by universities and major research institutions. If they had been done, they would have been published in research journals, and they would have been released to prove the safety of fluoridation materials. The fact that such toxicological studies have not been publicized is proof they do not exist.
You may test whether your supplier of fluoridation materials has done these studies or has access to studies done by NSF by asking your supplier for them. Numerous water districts have done so and have received no response.
Because neither NSF nor your supplier of fluoridation materials has done the toxicological studies which the NSF handbook claims must be done, the fluoridation materials you are using do not “conform” to or “comply” with NSF 60, and as such are illegal to use for fluoridation.
In addition to the fact that fluoridation with the fluoridation materials you are using is illegal, there are other reasons why the practice should be stopped, that is, that it is ineffective, harmful to health, and a waste of scarce tax dollars. I will address those topics tomorrow.
I hope that this letter helps you to make the right decision.
James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA Number 8103