JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
June 6, 2012
PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL AND SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT
BY JAMES ROBERT DEAL
PERTAINING TO THE WISDOM OF ADDING FLUOROSILICIC ACID
CONTAINING PB, AS, HF, AND OTHER CONTAMINANTS
TO EVERETT DRINKING WATER
To:Ron Gipson, Everett City Council President Paul Roberts, Council Member Jeff Moore, Council Member Arlan Hatloe, Council Member Brenda Stonecipher, Council Member Shannon Affholter Ray Stephanson, Mayor Jim Iles, City Attorney Ramsey Rammerman, Assistant City Attorney Dr. Mark Goldblum, Snohomish Health District
To:Dr. Gary Goldbaum, Director
Shannon Affholter, Councilman, Everett
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilwoman, Edmonds
Dave Gossett, County Councilman
Linda Grafer, Councilwoman, Mukilteo
John Koster, County Councilman
Mark Lamb, Mayor, Bothell, Chair
Dave Somers, County Councilman, Chair
Dianne White, Mayor, Stanwood
Donna Wright, Councilwoman, Marysville
Stephanie Wright, County Councilwoman
Dear Civil Servants:
In my 15 minutes my goal is to give you a broad overview, following the points of this outline. I want to show you that the scientific and legal issues are not complex. A lay person, a non-scientist, or a non-lawyer can understand them.
It is very important that you raise your hand and interrupt me at any time. The only bad question is one not asked. I do not want to be talking about things you already know. I want to be answering your questions.
My outline contains links to expanded discussions of each important issue. To access the links go to www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/press-releases/deal-release-6-6-12. Look for the press release dated June 6, 2012.
I do not have a degree in science. So why should you believe me? Because I cite peer reviewed scholarly journal articles. Because I cite the admissions that the CDC and the EPA have made. Also, as an attorney I have to be able to explain my case to the jury. In being able to explain it, I first have to understand it. So I study. When I come to something I do not understand it, I look it up in the Britannica or call Dr. Sauerheber. I read the scholarly journals and I understand them. In my coming to understand the law and science of fluoridation, I have learned how to explain it.
THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. In making an important decision it is necessary to be both skeptical and open minded. The two are not mutually exclusive. One should be open minded but not be too trusting. One should be skeptical but not skeptical to the point of being close minded. You should be skeptical of what I say. You should be equally skeptical of what Dr. Goldbaum says. Thus far, you have been overly skeptical of what I have been saying and overly trusting of what Dr. Goldbaum has been saying. In making a decision it is important not to decide until you decide. You do not have to decide today or next month on a moratorium. Take your time. Don’t let anyone pressure you into making a premature decision.
DO NOT BE NAÏVE. TETRAETHYL LEAD – PROOF THAT PROFITEERS WILL LIE FOR MONEY. It was the same Robert Kehoe and the same Kettering Laboratories which promoted both tetraethyl lead and fluoridation. Captains of chemical industries will lie about a profitable product to make money even if it means poisoning their own children.
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT OUR 65 YEAR USE OF FLUORIDATION PROVES IT TO BE SAFE AND ACCEPTABLE. Humans have believed and done things for hundreds or thousands of years which we now regard as unfounded. Ancient societies believed women were inferior and had no rights, that children had no rights and could be exposed, that conquered people could be enslaved and bought and sold, that the earth was flat, that the sun, moon, and stars went around the earth, that tobacco was not harmful, that tetraethyl lead was the only way to eliminate knock and not harmful to health, that mercury amalgam fillings were safe. The fact that a belief is long standing des not it is true.
POLITICS. Two public votes were held on fluoridation, and the public voted twice for fluoridation. So I am sure that you are concerned about the public possibly reacting negatively to your instituting a moratorium. You are political people. Your instinct is to do what the majority wants and to act when there are a lot of people asking you to act. I am going to try to help you get the political support you need by holding town hall meetings on this subject. We hope you will attend.
PROCEDURE. I suggest that you follow an organized procedure in making your decision. There should be four roles in this procedure, just as if this issue were being decided in a court. 1) There should be expert witnesses from both sides testifying in writing and in person. I would call Dr. Richard Sauerheber up from San Diego and perhaps Dr. Paul Connett in from New York. Dr. Goldbaum can call in his expert witnesses. There should be a spokesman who summarizes the positions for both sides, perhaps but not necessarily an attorney. I would serve as spokesman for those who challenge fluoridation. Perhaps City Attorney Jim Isles or Dr. Goldblum – or the two of them working together – could serve as spokesman for those who favor fluoridation. Third, there would be a judge who would see to it that both sides receive equal opportunity to present their arguments. Perhaps Mayor Stephenson or Ron Gipson could serve as judge. Finally there would be a jury. The City Council would serve as jury.
LETTER TO EVERETT CITY ATTORNEY. I have written a letter to City Attorney James Isles in which I criticize the advice which his office gave the City Council. Fluoridation with the materials you are using is flatly illegal. He should advise you not to use them and to institute a moratorium until this issue is fully resolved.
LETTER TO SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT. The Snohomish Health District never made the finding that fluoridation was safe. It only made a finding that it reduced tooth decay. Therefore Dr. Mark Goldbaum may be exceeding his mandate in advising the City Council that fluoridation is safe.
LETTER TO SIMPLOT. Everett buys a $16,000 tanker load of fluorosilicic acid every three weeks on average. Everett buys its fluorosilicic acid from Simplot out of Wyoming. Fluoride Class Action has challenged Simplot for selling a product it knows is unsafe and representing it – through its sporting of the NSF 60 mark of approval – to be safe. Fluoride Class Action has encouraged Everett to demand documentation from Simplot on the safety of the fluorosilicic acid delivered.
LETTER TO NSF. Simplot and other fluoride suppliers obtain NSF 60 certification, which certifies that fluoridation materials are safe and have been the subject of numerous toxicological studies. However, we know for sure that NSF is not requiring or conducting any such toxicological tests. Fluoride Class Action has put NSF on notice of potential liability, and the City Attorney should follow up and urge NSF to respond to charges made.
DIFFERENT FLUORIDES. Fluoridationists refer to “fluoride” and “fluoridation” without clarifying the different types of fluoride when it is relevant to do so. It is incorrect in most cases to talk generally about “fluoride” because they behave differently and we react differently to them. For example, naturally fluoridated water (e.g., the well in Lynnwood) contains calcium fluoride at .13 ppm. Fluoridationists say they are merely “adjusting” the level of naturally occurring fluoride, but they are instead adding an artifical fluoride which acts very unnaturally on our bodies. This is scientific sloppyness.
HYDROGEN FLUORIDE is the most immediately toxic ingredient within fluorosilicic acid. When any kind of fluoride gets to the stomach, which is very acidic, more hydrogen fluoride is formed, and hydrogen fluoride makes up half of the fluoride in the stomach. It easily penetrates the stomach wall, and the rest is chemistry.
THE HYPERSENSITIVE. Audrey Adams, board member for Washington Safe Water writes of her difficult times dealing with her fluoride hypersensitive son. Dr. Spittle has written extensively about the hypersensitive. Well designed double blind studies show a consistent 1.0% of the general population is fluoride hypersensitive. The hypersensitive should not be ignored.
FLUOROSIS. The CDC and the ADA admit that we are giving dental fluorosis to 40.7 percent of children age 12-15. Of the 40.7% affected, 8.6% of those suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some yellow and brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and 50-100% of enamel impacted). Thus, more than a quarter of fluorosis cases are ugly and difficult and costly to cover up.
INFANTS. The Mayo Clinic says: “Regularly mixing a baby’s formula with fluoridated tap water can provide enough fluoride to cause fluorosis — mild white streaks on the teeth or more severe pitting or staining of tooth enamel. Fluorosis can affect both baby teeth and permanent teeth.” Some poor mothers cannot obtain low-fluoride water at any reasonable cost.
FLUORIDE AND REDUCED IQ IN CHILDREN. Dr. Bill Osmunson has summarized the literature on how fluoride reduces IQ when administered to fetuses and infants.
BLACKS AND HISPANICS IMPACTED MORE. Fluorosilicic acid and other fluorides impact Blacks and Hispanics more severely. Alveda King and Andrew Young lead the effort to end Fluoride-Gate. LULAC – League of Latin American Citizens – regards fluoridation as a civil rights violation.
EMPHASIS ON FLUORIDATION DETRACTS FROM BETTER WAYS TO REDUCE TOOTH DECAY. Fluoridationists claim at best a to 30% reduction in tooth decay. There are better ways.
ANALYSIS BY DR. BILL OSMUNSON. Dr. Osmunson, cosmetic dentist and public health graduate, is an authority on fluoridation. Read his analysis of the position of the Snohomish Health District.
DR. OSMUNSON ONCE SUPPORTED FLUORIDATION. However, after studying the scholarly literature, he found his way out of the fluoride maze.
TACTICS. Fluoridationists employ numerous tactics which are not fact based. Fluoridationists list the many agencies and associations which endorse fluoridation, although endorsements are not proof. Fluoridationists ridicule those who question fluoridation, accusing them of siding with the John Birch Society and being paranoid about communism. They make constant references to fluoride-phobic Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove
MEDIA MANIPULATION. Fluoridationists continue to pressure PubMed not to index the journal Fluoride, saying it is not credible. However, the authors of the 2006 NRC report on fluoridation thought it was credible; they referred to it around 50 times.
KIDNEYS, EXCRETION, AND THE CUMULATIVE BUILDUP OF FLUORIDE. The human body has difficulty excreting fluoride, lead, arsenic, and the other contaminants contained in industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. Health adult kidneys can excrete around 50%; the rest goes into bones, pineal, and other calcium rich areas of the body. The kidneys of infants are even less efficient at excreting fluoride, and so harm to them is even greater. Because fluoride, lead, and arsenic accumulate, there is no safe consumption of these toxins.
ADVICE ON PROTECTING YOURSELF AND THOSE YOU LOVE. Especially for pregnant mothers and infants it is important to reduce fluoride exposure as much as possible. For the rest of us it is important too. This is how you do it.
LEAD IN SEATTLE SCHOOLS. In 2004 lead was found in first draw drinking water from drinking fountains in Seattle schools at 1,600 ppb, a phenomenally high level. There is no reason to doubt that lead levels can be this high can be found in first draw water in older Everett schools, homes, apartments, businesses, and commercial buildings. Lead has been found in tap water in Everett homes at 63 ppb, far too high a level.
FLUORIDE EFFECT ON BONE. According to Michael Powell, D.O., Sacramanto Rheumatologist/Internist, even a very low concentration of fluoride kills osteoblasts in bone.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPAL. The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
FLUORIDATIONISTS HAVE A STEEP HILL TO CLIMB. The pro-fluoridationist position is inherently more difficult to prove. Fluoridationists have to prove that fluoridation is effective, but they only claim fluoridation reduces decay by 10 to 30 percent. They have lost the debate already. Fluoridationists also have to prove that fluoridation is not harmful to any population group, including fetuses, infants, diabetics, and those with kidney, thyroid, and heart disease. They have already admitted that 41% of children have fluorosis and that around 12% of children have ugly fluorosis. Again, they have lost the debate already.
THE MANY FLUORIDES. Calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid (used by Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma), sodium fluorosilicate (the solid form of fluorosilicic acid), hydrogen fluoride, and aluminum fluoride are all different compounds and behave differently. When fluoridationists write about “fluoride”, they are engaging in sloppy science.
128 STUDIES WHICH SUPPORT FLUORIDATION. Many of the studies cited by the World Health Organization as supporting fluoridation are not scientific studies, are not peer reviewed, do not support fluoridation, are on different subjects, and even do not exist.
MORATORIUM. When you do decide to act, I recommend you vote for a moratorium instead of final termination. I say that because I know it is easier and safer politically for you to vote for a moratorium than for final termination. Dr. Goldbaum stated in his April 5 article in the Herald: “The benefits of fluoridation are not impacted by short-term interruptions in service”. In response to a moratorium, the public will perceive the City Council as doing the responsible thing and as protecting public safety.
A moratorium is a good middle path to follow. In other difficult issues, you have chosen to vote for a moratorium. Why do I suggest a moratorium? Because I know it is easier for me to convince you to vote for a moratorium than for final termination. Because it removes the time pressure from you. It also helps the City show that it is acting responsibly and should greatly reduce any exposure to liability which the City might have. And I am confident that once you implement a moratorium, you will ultimately decide, in your own good time, to turn off the fluoridation permanently.
There is another good reason for implementing a moratorium. It would make it possible to study the concentration of lead in water coming from taps both with and without fluoridation. The city could verify for itself whether or not the scientists are correct who say that when fluoridation stops lead levels drop.
CLEAN DRINKING WATER. The most basic of all health measures – for example when foreign aid workers go to work – is to provide clean drinking water. Water can carry diseases. Water if clean is healing. People need pure, simple water – without industrial grade toxic waste added.
James Robert Deal, Attorney