From James Robert Deal, President, Fluoride Class Action
To the Herald, 6-26-12
I write in response to the 6-25-12 front page article entitled “Everett City Council wearies of anti-fluoride activists”.
We who are concerned about safe water, appreciate the Herald covering the fluoridation story and placing it on the front page. Toxic waste dumped into our drinking water is an important issue, and the Herald is doing the right thing by covering both sides.
Much of the article is correct, however, some is incomplete or incorrect. Errors come from the pro-fluoridationists Debra interviewed, including a certain dental hygienist, LeeAnn Cooper, who speaks for the Health District.
Said dental hygienist refers to “fluoride” when she should refer to “so-called fluoride”. This so-called fluoride contains lead and arsenic and leaches lead from pipes. High levels of lead occur at Everett taps.
This so-called fluoride is not naturally occurring calcium fluoride, which the pro-fluoridationists say they are “adjusting”. It is not even sodium fluoride, the type of fluoride originally used in 1945. Instead it is fluorosilicic acid, the cheaper version, the unfiltered and unrefined scrubber liquor from the smoke stacks of phosphate fertilizer plants.
Said hygienist said that the scrubber liquor is “shipped to manufacturers who purify it for use in drinking water so that it meets EPA standards”. This is wrong. Scrubber liquor is not purified in any way, nor is it shipped in any other than directly to Everett every three weeks at a cost of $16,000 per load.
Said dental hygienist refers to us as anti-fluoridationists, which is incorrect. We are opposed to adding so-called fluoride to drinking water. However, if people want to apply pharmaceutical grade fluoride topically to their teeth, based on the advice of a professional, or if they want to go to a doctor and obtain a prescription for fluoride pills, they are free to do so, in which case the fluoride would be pure pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride and not toxic waste fluorosilicic acid, and in which case dose could be controlled, based on the health and age of the individual, and in which case those who are most sensitive to this so-called fluoride can avoid it.
The article said that those opposed to so-called fluoridation were “asking the council to ignore Snohomish Health District experts who say scientific studies show fluoridated water is a safe, low-cost way to combat tooth decay as well as the will of Everett voters, who in 1993 voted 61 percent in favor of keeping the water fluoridated”.
It is true that the Snohomish Health District has endorsed fluoridation as effective in reducing tooth decay, but it never made a finding that fluoridation is safe for all. Therefore Dr. Mark Goldbaum is exceeding his mandate in advising the City Council that fluoridation is safe.
Regarding the will of the voters expressed in 1993, the voters were ill informed at the time. They were suckered into voting for so-called fluoridation through the influence of pro-fluoride dentists, who were taught to support fluoridation unquestioningly by their dental schools, which schools receive large sums from the chemical companies which sell this so-called fluoride. Dentists are waking up to the fact that they have been manipulated. Many still support topical application of fluorides but now oppose systemic consumption.
The science is now clear that fluoridation is neither safe nor effective nor legal, as I explained to the City Council on June 13. The 1993 referendum did not change the city charter, and so the Council has the power to override a city referendum by a simple majority vote and should do so.
On March 23, 2012, I hand delivered to the Snohomish Health District scientific and legal arguments regarding adding so-called fluoride to drinking water. The Health District did not respond.
On June 5 I sent a Request for Documents to the Snohomish Health District regarding its 1989 resolution which stated:
Recognizing that “fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay,” the Snohomish Health District’s Board of Health formally endorsed fluoridation by unanimous vote of Resolution Number 89-27 at its May 9, 1989 meeting.
I asked for a copy of the resolution and the minutes of the meeting. The Health District has not responded.
At the June 6 hearing Dr. Goldblum said fluoridation was safe, effective and legal but did not cite one single scientific article or reference work supporting these assertions.
At the June 6 hearing I presented an explanation of the scientific and legal issues, supported by citations to peer reviewed scientific journal articles, including those posted on CDC, EPA, and ADA web sites. Neither Dr. Goldbaum nor the Health District ever responded.
I shortened my summary of the scientific and legal issues and delivered it to the City Council on June 13, emphasizing that fluoridation with so-called fluoride is not safe, not effective, and not legal. The Council has not responded.
Every defense of so-called fluoridation by the Council and the Health District is nothing more than a recitation that various agencies and trade groups support so-called fluoridation. However, endorsements are not proof. Where is the science?
Adding so-called fluoride to drinking water is not a communist conspiracy. It is a phosphate fertilizer company conspiracy, carried out with the assistance of a sham regulatory agency known as NSF, a trade association which has fertilizer companies sitting on its board. Said fertilizer companies contribute heavily to medical and dental schools, and which manipulate the CDC and EPA to get their people into influential positions in those agencies. In turn, our Health District and City Council are deceived. They believe a myth and a fraud and have been sucked into joining a harmful cult where legal and scientific reasoning do not matter and those harmed are acceptable collateral damage.
The article mentioned Kathleen Grieci, a mother who has to haul home from the Coop at minimum 28 gallons per month of costly filtered water. People like Kathleen are organizing politically, and fluoridation will become an issue in upcoming Council elections. The Council should institute a moratorium NOW and do so with a 7-0 vote if politicization of this issue is to be avoided.
James Robert Deal, Attorney