Notice to Everett 7-20-11

PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington  98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081

July 20, 2011

Everett City Council
3002 Wetmore Ave
Everett, WA 98201
Hand Delivered

Sent by email to:

Dear City Council,

I am the president of Fluoride Class Action and the vice-president of Washington Action for Safe Water. I write today on behalf of Fluoride Class Action.

First, I want to thank you for your willingness to serve on the city council. Being responsible for a city is like being responsible for a family. Someone has to do it. It is hard work. Sometimes the people you are responsible for do not appreciate your work. You are successful people who could make more money doing other things. But you serve because you care for the city of Everett.

Second, I want you to recall the oath you took when you joined the City Council. You swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington. That includes all the statutes and cases which grow out of and explain the Constitution.

Third, the science on the water contamination issue is not hard to understand. In this letter I have summarized the legal and the scientific arguments. My job as an attorney is to make complex technical questions comprehensible to a jury. This is a complex question, and you are the jury. If you fail to make an attempt to study the relevant science, you are making a big mistake.

Fourth, I will mention previous notices that I have sent to the Mayor and to Everett Utilities.

Finally, I again give formal Notice of Potential Liability to the City of Everett. I will point out how the city can possibly lessen and avoid liability.


On April 26, 2008, I sent a Request for Documents to Everett Utilities. Everett Utilities responded in September. Everett sent me several CDs filled with documents, charts, and records. Also Everett Utilities replied by returning my Request for Documents and inserting Everett Utility’s responses where appropriate. The Request and the answers can be found here: See some excerpts here:



July 31, 2008

Everett Utilities
3200 Cedar Street
Everett WA 98201-4516
Attention: Tom Thetford

Dear Water Commissioners,

This letter constitutes a Request for Documents under the Public Records Act.  …


2.       Provide documents identifying the specific content of fluoridation materials which your agency adds to our drinking water, indicating which specific minerals, compounds, and trace elements are contained in the fluoridation materials.   …



2) Hydrofluosilicic Acid Bid Specification and Analysis of June 2007 delivery.  …


8.       Provide documents identifying the protocol for adding fluoridation materials to drinking water, including but not limited to mixing and dispensing fluoridation materials into drinking water and keeping the fluoridation materials uniformly mixed over time and distance. Provide documents discussing any instances where fluoride content has not been consistent throughout the water system.


8) See #6. HFS, soda ash, and liquid sodium hypochlorite are added into a weir box just prior to entry into the 5 million gallon clearwell. They are mixed as they tumble over the weir and are further dispersed through diffusion and flow patterns in the clearwell. As the rate of flow through the clearwell increases, more mixing energy is generated. Depending on plant production, the treated water takes from 20 minutes to two hours to traverse the clearwell. At the extremely low concentrations at which treatment chemicals are fed, they are completely dissolved.   …


15.     Provide documents identifying: the materials added to control acidity or pH levels of drinking water, the quantity of such materials added, the pH level sought by adding such materials, the pH level obtained throughout the water system as a result of adding such materials, the means by which the pH level is monitored, where the pH level is monitored, and how frequently the pH level is monitored.


15) Soda ash Purchase Orders are included on the disc. We target a pH of 7.4 to 8.0 leaving the plant. We are out of compliance with State requirements if our pH is below 7.4 for more than 5% of the daily averages. This minimum pH target was established during studies conducted by an engineering firm prior to implementation of the Copper-Lead Rule. Distribution pH’s run higher due to contact with transmission and distribution piping. …





James Robert Deal

Counselor at Law



On February 3, 2009, on behalf of Fluoride Class Action I sent the following letter to Tom Thetford, Chief of Everett Utilities, found online at



Law Office of

                                         JAMES ROBERT DEAL, P.S.

PO Box 2370, Lynnwood, Washington  98036

Telephone (425) 771-1110, fax (425) 776-8081





February 3, 2009


Tom Thetford

Everett Utilities

3200 Cedar Street

Everett WA 98201-4516


Sent by Certified Mail


Dear Mr. Thetford,


I am writing this letter to give you notice that the Water District and its commissioners as individuals are “potentially responsible parties” and may be the subject of legal actions by those harmed by ingesting fluoridation materials.


This notice is addressed to Everett Utilities, but it also applies to the City of Everett, and to all water districts which buy water from Everett Utilities. When I say “Water District” or “Potential Defendants,” I am referring to all of these.


You should preserve and not destroy evidence relating to this potential claim. To do otherwise could subject you to liability.


I am the organizer of Fluoride Class Action. You may read about Fluoride Class Action and our goals and methods at


The aim of Fluoride Class Action is to bring together the legal issues and work with class action, personal injury, and environmental law firms to help them put together class action cases against states, municipalities, federal agencies, and private companies. The aim is also to write letters like this to potential defendants to try to convince them not to fluoridate or to cease fluoridating their waters and thus avoid legal liability.


The aim is to do all this openly so that the water districts can minimize and perhaps avoid liability if they will only stop fluoridation. The sooner they stop it the better.


Digital Version of this Letter


For those who are reading a printed version of this letter and who would like to follow the Internet links in the letter, they can read a digital version of the letter by clicking on the following link:




There is substantial evidence that adding fluoridation materials to drinking water in the levels which the Potential Defendants are adding them has caused and will cause physical injury to the general population and especially serious physical injury to certain vulnerable populations.





The Potential Defendants are at serious risk of being held legally liable for money damages for having added and continuing to add fluoridation materials to drinking water.




The fact that this notice has been delivered to you will be introduced in a court of law when and if a class action lawsuit is initiated. Failure to inquire diligently into the issues raised in this letter would constitute negligence, recklessness, and battery.




Liability of the Potential Defendants will be lessened if they cease and desist immediately the fluoridation of drinking water.




The Potential Defendants would be acting irresponsibly and imprudently not to obtain the opinion of legal and scientific experts capable of confirming or denying the validity of the assertions made in this letter, including independent toxicologists not operating in fear for their careers working for government bureaucracies. The Potential Defendants should not rely solely on opinions coming directly or indirectly from industries which produce and sell fluoridation materials.


How Could We Have Been So Wrong For So Long?


You have heard all your lives that fluoridation prevents tooth decay, so it probably sounds dissonant to you to read anything negative about fluoride. Old studies from the 1950s and 1960s which at first appeared to support fluoridation have been shown to be flawed, poorly designed, incomplete, and even to disprove this very assertion. There is new and much more comprehensive science available on this subject.

You will probably be questioning why so many respected people have lauded water fluoridation. The CDC regards water fluoridation as one of the greatest events in health history.

Economics is the answer. During and after World War II, big industries had left over fluoride, which they had to dispose of. They figured out that they could sell it instead. Just like the tobacco industry, they hired doctors, dentists, lawyers, and public relations experts to peddle their product.

We have believed the fluoride salesmen, some of them dentists who have been misled, because they repeat their mantra so often and with such conviction. They believed their own propaganda and indoctrinated themselves. Then they indoctrinated us.

We humans retain some of our herd instinct. We tend to feel safe if we are with the majority. We feel timid when we are in the minority. See the section below on page 9 entitled “Why Do We Think of Fluoride as a Good Thing?” for more thoughts on this question. Note: scholarly dentists are dead set against fluoridation.

Some Basics about Fluoride


Fluoride is the negatively charged ion of the element fluorine. It is not an “essential nutrient. … There is no known essential biochemical role for fluoride in any animal, including humans.” See the University of Kansas Letter from 15 MDs, PhDs, and DDSs, written to the National Academy of Sciences, dated October 15, 1997, in response to a report released by the NAS, Those experts said:


At the heart of the matter is whether fluorine, as fluoride (F), should be ranked with Ca, Mg, P, and vitamin D as an essential nutrient. In fact, there is no known essential biochemical role for fluoride in any animal, including humans. The formation of sound, decay-resistant and caries-free teeth as well as strong, sturdy bones, whether in animal or human populations, does not require fluoride, or at least not in more than minuscule, trace amounts. As acknowledged by sources cited in the report, even when a mother’s fluoride intake is elevated, her milk is extremely low in fluoride, but owing to prenatal accumulation, her baby excretes more fluoride than it ingests from her milk. This fact clearly indicates that any natural physiological need for fluoride, if indeed any exists, must be exceedingly small and certainly far below that being recommended in the report.


Adding fluoride to drinking water makes bone more brittle and porous, and modifies its chemical structure, molecule by molecule throughout the body. The effects are most serious in those with diets poor in calcium and magnesium. See the University of Kansas Letter cited above.


Fluoride Does Not Reduce Carries: Topical vs. Systemic


The ironic aspect of this issue is that water fluoridation does not even reduce tooth decay! Research shows there is no difference in decay rates between people who drink fluoridated water and those who drink unfluoridated water. See the University of Kansas Letter cited above.


When it comes to fluoride “topical” and “systemic” are two important words.


Fluoride protects teeth against decay only when it is added topically, as in the case of toothpaste or mouthwash. Drinking fluoride to prevent decay is as senseless as eating suntan lotion to prevent sunburn. Dr. William Douglass quotes from scholarly journals on this point:


Current evidence strongly suggests that fluorides work primarily by topical means through direct action on the teeth and dental plaque. Thus ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention. JJ Warren, SM Levy, Current and future role of fluoride in nutrition, Dental Clinics of North America, 2003, 47:225-43.


[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1999, 48: 933-940.


See for more references to scholarly journals regarding this subject.


Putting fluoride in drinking water is at best a waste of money. And as you will read below, it is much worse.


National Research Council Report of 2006


The National Research Council (NRC) functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. The EPA commissioned the NRC to do a peer reviewed report examining its fluoridation standards. The NRC released its very cautious and carefully worded report in 2006. See “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” At this web site the report may be read a page at a time or purchased. This report is referred to in this letter simply as the National Research Council or NRC 2006 Report.


The NRC found that there is substantial evidence of a causal connection between fluoridation materials and the following maladies: increased bone fractures, Stage 1 skeletal fluorosis (arthritic joint stiffness and pain), decreased thyroid function, impaired glucose tolerance (Type II diabetes), earlier sexual maturity, lowered IQ, and possibly osteosarcoma. Although the EPA commissioned the report, the EPA has done nothing to implement the report’s findings. In fact, it has been strangely and completely silent regarding the report.


In 1986 the EPA set 4 ppm as the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride. The MCLG is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. An MCLG is set to allow for a margin of safety. At the same time the EPA set the maximum contaminant level, MCL also at 4 ppm. MCL is the legal maximum or action level. In the case of fluoride EPA set the MCL and the MCLG at the same 4 ppm level. It then created a secondary maximum contaminant level goal, SMCLG, of 2 ppm for purposes only of preventing dental fluorosis. The EPA treated fluorosis as a cosmetic problem only.


The MCL takes into account practical limitations, such cost and feasibility of reducing concentrations below a certain level. MCLG is the goal to be obtained if it is feasible or financially possible. The MCL for lead is 15 ppb, but the MCLG is zero; the MCL for arsenic is 10 ppb (recently lowered from 50 ppb), but the MCLG is zero. The MCLG is zero in both cases because they are so toxic, because in the case of arsenic there is naturally occurring arsenic in many water systems, and because we are exposed to sources of lead and arsenic other than drinking water. Thus, we should eliminate as much as possible of them from drinking water. The same reasoning would hold for fluoride because it is so toxic and because children and those with kidney and thyroid disease are already getting too much fluoride from drinking water and other sources. Therefore, we should be adding zero fluoride to water.


See the various MCLs and MCLGs for various minerals and chemicals in water by going to the following web site:


See Robert J Carton’s “Review Of The 2006 United States National Research Council Report: Fluoride In Drinking Water” for a comprehensive summary of the findings of the NCR report and a clear explanation as to how MCLs and MCLGs work.


The NCR in its 2006 report avoided making declarations regarding what specific MCL or MCLG should be set for fluoride, and it also focused more on the MCLG than the MCL. It did not want to be seen as trying to set a legal limit but wanted to focus on a scientific limit. It asserted that it was examining naturally occurring levels of fluoride, not fluoride added to drinking water, but in the heart of the report it does discuss fluoride added to drinking water. It also made it clear that it had not looked at whether there was any difference in the effect of pure sodium fluoride or stannous fluoride and the silicofluorides and other trace levels of minerals and compounds being added to Water District water. The NCR tried to avoid politics and tried to avoid being critical of the EPA.


Nevertheless, the NRC in its report of 2006 made it clear that certain populations were clearly getting too much fluoride when all sources were considered. The NRC declared that the 4 ppm MCL and MCLG for fluoride should be lowered but did not specify what level it would consider safe. The practical impact of this finding is that there is now no recognized safe level of fluoride in drinking water.


Water District water is fluoridated to a level of 1 ppm, so even if the 4 ppm maximum is lowered, would there not still be room for safety? No, because fluoride is in everything made with fluoridated water. Fluoride is in bread, rice, pasta, cereal, candy, reconstituted orange juice, cola, beer, and dried eggs. There is even fluoride in meat (because farm animals are fed phosphate fertilizer which contains a heavy dose of fluoride). It is in virtually all our food. Sometimes it is even in our bottled water.


Again, even if the 4 ppm maximum is lowered, would there not still be room for safety? No, again the 4 ppm maximum leaves insufficient room for safety because children, athletes, and those who work outside in the summer consume more water. No, the 4 ppm maximum leaves insufficient room for safety because children and those with bad kidneys are more sensitive to fluoride. Because fluoride is on our grapes at levels up to 7 ppm, because the pesticides and fumigants synthetic cryolite and sulfuryl fluoride are applied to grapes, nuts, and other fruits and other vegetables.


In the battle to save the ozone layer it was found that methyl bromide, a commonly applied pesticide, was a potent greenhouse gas. Sulfuryl fluoride was hastily approved as a replacement. It is found in dried eggs at levels up to 1 part per thousand fluoride. That’s 1,000 parts per million! Fluoride is also in Prozac and other antidepressants and antibiotics. The fluoride industry is very creative in coming up with ways to off-load its toxic waste at a profit.


One ppm (part per million) is 1 milligram in a liter of water. A liter is approximately equal to a quart. Most white collar people drink around two liters or two quarts water or other liquids each day. Most lose around 1.5 quarts per day through urination, and the average person loses another .5 quarts through sweating, breathing, and defecation. So the average person who does not do work or play that causes a lot of sweating is probably taking in around two liters of water and other liquids per day and getting around 2 mg of fluoride per day just in his water and other liquids.


In cooked foods fluoride is more concentrated than 1 ppm because water is evaporated out, so we may be eating another 2 mg per day of fluoride in our food.


Professionals and white collar workers might consume around 2 mg of fluoride per day in fluids drunk and another 2 mg per day in foods eaten, for a total of 4 mg per day. A blue collar worker, a roofer, a construction worker, a person who paves roads, an athlete, or a child who runs and plays may drink 4, 6, 8, or 10 liters of water or other liquids per day, and assuming 2 mg of fluoride in his food, such a person will be consuming 6, 8, 10, or 12 mg or more of fluoride. The EPA MCL maximum (and remember the NRC has recommended that it be reduced) is 4 ppm, which assuming a consumption of two liters of water per day, allows consumption of 8 mg of fluoride. This 8 mg level is the low end of typical fluoride consumption. Those who sweat a lot ingest a lot more.


The EPA MCLG, contaminant level goal for purposes of holding moderate dental fluorosis down to 12% of the juvenile population is 2 ppm, or 4 mg per day, assuming a consumption of only 2 liters of water per day. Because children are more active in play and sports, many more will greatly exceed the MCLG limit and will be subject to moderate and even severe dental fluorosis.


These calculations should include the extra fluoride in food cooked with fluoridated water, fluoride consumed in restaurant food, fluoride pesticides on food, and fluoride in meat. If fluoride is added to drinking water at any level of concentration, there is no margin of safety for children and those who sweat a lot. If fluoride is eliminated from drinking water, then there will be less fluoride in cooked foods, restaurant foods, and prepared foods, provided they are prepared locally.


The calculations turn out worse for those with kidney disease and diabetes. These people drink more water and so take in more fluoride. Further, those with kidney disease have a reduced ability to excrete fluoride, and so they are more sensitive to any amount of fluoride. Fluoride continues to build up in their bodies. Again for these populations there is no margin of safety if any fluoride is added to drinking water.


Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D., one of the authors of the NRC report of 2006, wrote a report entitled “Adverse Health Effects from Fluoride in Drinking Water,” an analysis of how much fluoride the people of Los Angeles were consuming in their drinking water. See this report at: Her report makes it clear that people consume a wide range of tap water and that some consume more than the 4 mg per liter equivalent of fluoride in their tap water and food made with tap water, and this is before adding in fluoride consumed through beverages, commercial and packaged foods, restaurant food, drugs, and pesticides. The overdose of fluoride was apparent in teens and adults and overwhelming for infants.


The NRC report of 2006 along with Thiessen’s report make it clear that one size does not fit all when it comes to fluoride consumption. Different populations can tolerate different levels of fluoride. Most important: The old 4 ppm MCL and MCLG level is now rejected, with no replacement. As I said previously, there is now no recognized safe level of fluoride intake for the general population and particularly for special populations.


I will repeat this for emphasis:


There is now

no recognized safe level of fluoride intake

for the general population

and particularly for special populations.


This means that the Potential Defendants will have no cover to hide behind when the class action lawsuits come. If the Water District were today passing a law to institute water fluoridation, that law would contain a “Whereas” clause, an explanation for the reason why the law is being passed. Will the Whereas clause say “and whereas the NRC has recommended that the current MCL of 4 ppm be lowered, and whereas we have no idea what lower level the EPA will set, we nevertheless have decided to require fluoridation anyway.” The Water District is painting a legal bull’s eye on itself.




Lead and Arsenic


NSF International admits in its NSF Fact Sheet of Fluoridation Chemicals that lead and arsenic are found at varying levels in fluoridation materials. It is referring to fluoridation materials of the type and source used by the Water District. NSF admits that as much as .6 ppb of lead and .6 ppb of arsenic are found in some samples.


NSF reported in 2000 that arsenic was found in some samples at up to 1.6 ppb. Levels of toxic contaminants can vary from year to year.


As I pointed out above, the MCL for lead is 15 ppb, but the MCLG is zero; the MCL for arsenic is 10 ppb, but the MCLG is zero. The Clinton administration wanted to lower the MCL for arsenic to 5 ppb but compromised on 10 ppb. The Bush administration fought to maintain the 50 ppb standard, one set back in 1942 before it was known that arsenic caused cancer, perhaps because coal burning releases arsenic, and Bush took large campaign contributions from coal companies.


The bottom line is this: It makes no sense knowingly to add lead and arsenic to water in any amount when there are other ways lead and arsenic can be entering our bodies, and it is perverse logic to do so now that it is clear that the fluoride containing the lead and arsenic does not prevent decay when consumed orally.


What Kind of Fluoride?


Early fluoridation was done with sodium fluoride, NaF. In toothpaste the form used is NaF or stannous fluoride. In 1950 the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed sodium silicofluoride Na2SiF6 as a cheaper alternative to sodium fluoride. The form of fluoridation materials used in 92% of water systems is the silicofluorides; in 8% it is sodium fluoride. Silicofluorides travel a different route in the body, which is clear because sodium fluoride is excreted primarily through feces, whereas silicofluorides are excreted primarily through urine, meaning that silicofluorides circulate in the blood to a greater extent. Another difference is that sodium fluoride is generally a pure, medical grade chemical, containing no other elements or compounds; on the other hand the silicofluorides contain a wide assortment of compounds and heavy metals and is highly contaminated.


Further, sodium fluoride dissociates completely, that is it breaks down completely into sodium and fluoride ions, the effects of which are more predictable and consistent. The silicofluorides, on the other hand, do not completely dissociate but may remain bound as molecular silicofluorides or transform into other fluorine compounds with other elements such as aluminum.


The silicofluorides are much more powerful acetyl cholinesterase inhibitors than is sodium fluoride.


It is almost always sodium fluoride that is used in conducting studies, but few studies have been done on the toxicology of the silicofluorides.


Why Do We Think of Fluoride as a Good Thing?


You may wonder why so many dentists and other professionals for so many years have supported fluoridation. They did so for the same reason almost everyone else has. They did not stay current with the scientific literature on the subject.

Also, they believed the propaganda put out by the uranium, phosphate fertilizer, and aluminum industries. These industries were important to “national security,” especially during World War II and the Cold War. These industries all had fluoride waste left over after they manufactured their products. The uranium industry used a lot of fluoride because it dissolves uranium into uranium hexafluoride. See “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” by Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, September, 1997,

In order to produce phosphorus that can be quickly absorbed by plants, raw phosphate ore must be processed. Phosphate ore contains many heavy metals and is around 4% fluoride. Sulfuric acid is added to the ore. Fluoride gasses are produced. In the past they were vented up the smokestack, and entire counties were poisoned by the fluoride fumes. Today the fumes must pass through a scrubber liquor, which captures most of the fluoride along with the heavy metals. What is left is put in tankers with no filtration or any further processing and shipped to the Water District. Common fluoride is the unprocessed slurry liquor left over after phosphate fertilizer or aluminum or uranium is produced. It is filth. Yes, it is diluted 240,000 times, but the filth is still there, just at lower concentrations.


The phosphate fertilizer industry is itself a pollution nightmare. In addition to producing millions of gallons of fluoride, it also yields millions of tons of useless left over “gypsum.” Gypsum is mostly silicon. This pretty white small gravel gypsum would be perfect for building roadbed foundations, but unfortunately it is radioactive. So it is dredged from fluoride cooling ponds and stacked in gigantic piles a hundred feet high that surround the ponds and extend over areas the size of cities. There it will remain for all eternity. Unfortunately, a sink hole opened up under a gypsum pile in Florida, and thousands of tons of the stuff fell into the Florida aquifer, permanently polluting the river of water that runs under the state.  For more scandalous information about the phosphate fertilizer industry, click here:


For a satellite’s eye view of the wreckage go to and do a search for “Purvis Still White Springs Florida.” Click on “satellite view”.


The fertilizer, aluminum, and uranium industries can no longer vent fluoride up the smokestack. They are prohibited from dumping their fluoride waste in lake, river, or ocean. So they dug holes and poured it in. Disposal costs were extremely high. So they invented a need for it. They were excellent salesmen.

The Water Districts pays around $367 per ton or $1.47 per gallon for this fraudulent chemical. See this Seattle contract: Fluoride producers turned a waste product into a profit center.

Listen to what Christopher Bryson, author of “The Fluoride Deception,” has to say about the scientific hired liars who gave us tobacco science, DDT science, lead science, mercury science, asbestos science, and their daughter fluoride science, all of them fraudulent sciences. He refers to fluoride science as “a racket.” Click on:


Opposition to fluoridation has also been muted because fluoridation opponents, due to pressure from the pro-fluoridation lobby, have been denied research funding, driven from academic positions, and lampooned as kooks. Back in the 1950s the John Birch Society opposed fluoridation as a communist conspiracy. The Birchers were derided as paranoid conspiracy theorists, and scientific opponents were classed with the Birchers and thus marginalized. The Birchers were wrong: fluoride is not a communist conspiracy; it is a uranium, fertilizer, and aluminum industry conspiracy.


Babies and Children as Plaintiffs


Among the first groups to sue the Potential Defendants will be babies and children, represented by their guardians. Even the ultra-conservative American Dental Association, which otherwise sheepishly supports fluoridation, has warned mothers not to give young children any fluoride at all for at least the first 18 months. See: “Infants Should Not have Fluoridated Tap Water,” American Dental Association Press Release, November 13, 2006,  


Fluoride levels in mother’s milk are extremely low—even if she drinks fluoridated water. If infants need fluoride (or anyone really), then why do the mammary glands filter out almost all fluoride? Was Mother Nature trying to tell us that infants to not need fluoride?


[I]nfant formulas reconstituted with higher fluoride water can provide 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk, or cows milk. SM Levy, N Guha-Chowdhury, “Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation.” Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 1999,  59: 211-23.

[I]n an area where the fluoride concentration is one part per million the daily fluoride dose in the newborn infant will be about 800-1000 ug/day [micrograms per day, which is .8 to 1 milligrams per day] when a milk substitute is used, whereas the fluoride dose for breast-fed children in the same area will not exceed 10 ug/day. J Ekstrand, et al, “No evidence of transfer of fluoride from plasma to breast milk.” British Medical Journal, 1981, 283: p. 761-762.

For an extensive bibliography to the scientific literature on this subject go to:


It is when teeth are erupting and bones are forming that children are most vulnerable to mild, moderate, and severe fluorosis. Generally, fluorosis is more severe in children who consume insufficient calcium and magnesium and those who are generally malnourished.


This means a mother should either buy bottled water or buy a distiller for $500 and spend money on electricity to distill tap water. This also means that a mother cannot feed her children any of the food she cooks, that is, if she uses tap water to cook it. Nor can she feed her young children many of the foods she buys in the grocery store, because they too are made with fluoridated water.


The fluoridation of drinking water forces poor mothers to does their young children with fluoride. They have no affordable or practical alternative. Babies drink what they are given. Babies cannot defend themselves. Babies do not understand public service announcements. I have talked with many mothers who do not even know of this ADA warning, much less how to eliminate fluoride from her children’s diets. Has the Water District ever inserted notices in water bills that parents should not give their children tap water to drink? Fluoridating the water and not giving notice to parents of young children is negligence, recklessness, and even battery.


Would it not make sense to leave the fluoride out of the water and instead—if one really believe children and adults should drink fluoride—put it in toothpaste and mouthwash and clearly marked jugs of fluoridated milk or fluoridated orange juice?


Dental Fluorosis Plaintiffs


Teenagers and adults with mottled teeth will file suit. Dental fluorosis is first a cosmetic issue. At the 1 ppm level at which the state of Washington authorizes fluoride to be added, at least 2 mg of fluoride will be consumed, and at that low level, 12.5 percent or more of children will grow up with fluorosis of their teeth, light and dark spots serious enough to make them want to keep their mouths closed when they smile. To correct dental fluorosis they must spend $1,200 per tooth getting veneers applied. Around 20 teeth are visible, so that would cost $24,000. Veneers wear out, and around five replacements will be needed over the course of their lives. That adds up to $120,000. The frequency and severity of fluorosis is greater in poor children and those with a poor diet.


The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5%. M. McDonagh, et al., “A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation,” National Health Service Center for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 2000.


However, dental fluorosis is more than a cosmetic issue: Fluoride accumulates in teeth and bones and over the years causes bones to become harder, more porous, and more brittle. Teeth crack and break. Fluoride causes some teeth to become pitted, and decay is actually increased. What is happening to teeth is happening to bones throughout the body.


Any use of fluorides, whether systemic or topical, results in ingestion and absorption of fluoride into the blood circulation. The mineralization of teeth under formation may be affected so that dental fluorosis may occur. Dental fluorosis reflects an increasing porosity of the surface and subsurface enamel, causing the enamel to appear opaque. The clinical features represent a continuum of changes ranging from fine white opaque lines running across the tooth on all parts of the enamel to entirely chalky white teeth. In the latter cases, the enamel may be so porous (or hypomineralized) that the outer enamel breaks apart posteruptively and the exposed porous subsurface enamel becomes discolored. O. Fejerskov et al., “The Nature and Mechanisms of Dental Fluorosis in Man,” Journal of Dental Research, 1990, 69 (Special Issue) p. 692-700.


Go to to see photos of moderate to severe dental fluorosis.


Arthritic and Skeletal Fluorosis Plaintiffs


Another group of class action plaintiffs will be those with bone disease and arthritis.


“Skeletal fluorosis” is a condition associated with prolonged accumulation of fluoride resulting in fragile bones having low tensile strength. It affects the joints as well as the bones. It is not easily recognizable till advanced stage. In its early stages, its symptoms may resemble those of arthritis. In its most severe stages it becomes a crippling disability that has a major public health and socio-economic impact, affecting millions of people in various regions of Africa, China and India. S. Ayoob, AK Gupta, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects.” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 2006, 36:433–487.





Bone Cancer Plaintiffs


Another group of class action plaintiffs will be young boys with bone cancer. There is a causal connection between fluoridated drinking water and bone cancer in young boys. See the University of Kansas Letter cited above. See the NRC 2006 report, pages 304-339.


For a good summary of how fluoride is causally connected with bone cancer, see:


As acknowledged by the U.S. National Toxicology Program there is a “biological plausibility” of a link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma. The biological plausibility centers around three facts: 1) Bone is the principal site of fluoride accumulation, particularly during the growth spurts of childhood; 2) Fluoride is a mutagen when present at sufficient concentrations, and 3) Fluoride can artificially stimulate the proliferation of bone cells (osteoblasts).


In addition to its biological plausibility, there is now a substantive body of evidence indicating that fluoride can in fact induce osteosarcomas in both animals and humans.


Most notably, a recent national case control study conducted by scientists at Harvard University found a significant relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma among boys, particularly if exposed to fluoridated water between the ages of 6 and 8 (the mid-childhood growth spurt). (The Harvard study is: EB Bassin, D Wypij, RB Davis, MA Mittleman, “Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States),” Cancer Causes and Control, 2006, 17: 421-418;


See the June 6, 2005, letter of Environmental Working Group to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health,, which said:


The overall weight of the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that exposure to fluoride in tap water during the mid-childhood growth spurt between ages 5 and 10 increases the incidence of osteosarcoma in boys ages 10 through 19. Biologically, the link between fluoride in tap water and bone cancer in boys is highly plausible. Fifty percent of ingested fluoride is deposited in bones, and fluoride is a mitogen that stimulates bone growth in the growing ends of the bones where the osteosarcoma occurs. Fluoride is also a confirmed mutagenic agent in humans, which suggests that fluoride can cause genetic damage in bone cells where it is actively deposited, in this case precisely where the osteosarcoma arises.


For a review of studies on the link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, see:




Kidney Disease Plaintiffs


Another group of class action plaintiffs will be those with kidney disease. These people have less ability to excrete fluoride, and they also need to drink more water than healthy people, and so fluoride builds up in their bones and organs, and they are more vulnerable to the ravages of excess fluoride.


The National Kidney Foundation issued a new position paper on April 15, 2008. In that position paper the NKF grudgingly announced that it was formally canceling its previous position paper in which it had endorsed water fluoridation. It announced that individuals with chronic kidney disease should be notified of the potential risk from exposure to fluorides. It pointed out some of the gaping holes in research concerning kidney impacts from fluorides.


The NKF’s statement was surprising given the fact that it’s major funding source is the Centers for Disease Control, the federal government’s biggest cheerleader for water fluoridation.


Fluoridated water is acknowledged to be potentially harmful to patients on dialysis machines. The NKF’s position paper lists cases where dialysis patients died or were fluoride-poisoned when filtration systems on the machines allowed fluoride into the bodies of the patients. This is because, as noted previously, those with kidney disease have limited ability to excrete fluoride.

The NRC’s 2006 report stated that kidney patients are a “susceptible subpopulation” that is vulnerable to the effects of fluoride.


Again, by fluoridating drinking water, the Potential Defendants are begging to be named in a class action lawsuit.


Thyroid Disease Plaintiffs


Another group that will sue is those with thyroid problems either caused by or exacerbated by fluoridation.


Fluoride was administered for many decades to treat hyperthyroidism, excessive thyroid hormone. Since 1927 fluoride was used to treat Basedow’s disease, a form of hyperthyroidism caused by excessive iodine consumption. Fluoride is antagonistic to iodine and reduces its effect. Read about the history of iodine, fluoride, and the thyroid at:


It was sodium fluoride that was long used to treat hyperthyroidism, and the amounts used, 2-10 mg per day, are similar to the amount of fluoride one consumes by drinking tap water and eating food made with tap water.


Just as fluoride inhibits iodine effect in those with hyperthyroidism, it also can inhibit iodine effect in normal people and lead to a hypothyroid condition. Synthroid, prescribed to counter hypothyroid condition, is one of the most frequently prescribed of drugs. It is commonly taken with Prozac, aka Fluoxetine.


Symptoms of hypothyroidism include: “fatigue, depression, weight gain, hair loss, muscle pains, increased levels of “bad” cholesterol (LDL), and heart disease.” For links to the scientific literature on fluoride and thyroid disease, see:


Goiter involves swelling of the thyroid gland, and is known to be caused by iodine deficiency. Even when iodine is adequate, goiter results when too much fluoride is consumed.


In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate. NRC 2006 Report, page 218.


For a man of 70 kilogram, that is 154 pounds, that range would be 3.5 to 9.1 mg per day for one with adequate iodine consumption and .7 to 2.1 mg per day, for one with inadequate iodine consumption, either of which is within the range of fluoride commonly consumed.


Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH [thyroid stimulating hormone] concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations; similar effects on T4 and T3 are reported in experimental animals. NRC 2006 Report, page 218.


In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone. NRC 2006 Report, page 223.




Pineal Gland Disease Plaintiffs


Another group of class action plaintiffs will be those with diseases related to the pineal gland. That gland performs various functions but is best known for production of melatonin, which induces sleep. Melatonin production drops in adolescence as puberty sets in. It has been shown conclusively in gerbils that fluoride consumption reduces melatonin production and induces early onset of puberty. Jennifer Anne Luke, “The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland,” 1997, dissertation University of Surrey,


The NRC made these remarks regarding Luke’s dissertation:


The single animal study of pineal function indicates that fluoride exposure results in altered melatonin production and altered timing of sexual maturity. Whether fluoride affects pineal function in humans remains to be demonstrated. The two studies of menarcheal age in humans show the possibility of earlier menarche in some individuals exposed to fluoride, but no definitive statement can be made. Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease. NRC 2006 Report, pages 264.


Fluoride affects the pineal gland in animals. There is no reason to believe that it will not affect the pineal gland in humans. If it does affect the pineal gland, the harms caused could be serious. Prudence is called for. To fluoridate drinking water is the opposite of prudence and would expose the Potential Defendants to liability.

Diabetes Plaintiffs


Another group of class action plaintiffs will be those with diabetes.


The conclusion from the available studies is that sufficient fluoride exposure appears to bring about increases in blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals and to increase the severity of some types of diabetes. In general, impaired glucose metabolism appears to be associated with serum or plasma fluoride concentrations of about 0.1 mg/L or greater in both animals and humans. In addition, diabetic individuals will often have higher than normal water intake, and consequently, will have higher than normal fluoride intake for a given concentration of fluoride in drinking water. An estimated 16-20 million people in the U.S. have diabetes mellitus; therefore, any role of fluoride exposure in the development of impaired glucose metabolism or diabetes is potentially significant. NRC 2006 Report, page  260.




Gradual and Cumulative


Fluorosis of the bones is gradual and cumulative. Around 50% of fluoride taken by adults and 70% taken in by children is retained in bones. A person who ingests 10 mg of fluoride per day will ingest 3.65 grams per year and 255 grams over the course of 70 years, retaining half of that or around 128 grams or 4.5 ounces or a quarter of a pound.


Hip fractures among the elderly are increased by fluoride consumption. Some old folks fall down and break their hips. Others break their hips and fall down. See the University of Kansas Letter cited above.


The body mistakes fluoride, lead, and uranium for calcium and absorbs them into bone.


All these effects are cumulative and set in gradually. Our health is eroded; for some life may be shortened.


Industrial Grade Fluoridation


Most people do not grasp the scale of the fluoride added to our water. It is shipped in huge tanker cars that carry 45,000 pounds of the stuff. Some ends up in our teeth, bones, and organs. It is waste disposal through disbursement.


The fluoride added is not medical grade sodium fluoride. It is a mixture of scores of elements and chemicals. Most of the fluoride that goes into our water is the waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry.


Federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, admitted that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America’s drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion. (Fox, 1999; Hazan, 2000; Plaisier, 2000; Thurnau, 2000.)


I will repeat that statement for emphasis:


the industrial grade waste products

used to fluoridate over 90%

of America’s drinking water supplies

(fluorosilicate compounds)

have never been subjected to toxicological testing

nor received FDA approval for human ingestion.





Lead Levels in Fluoridated Water in Schools


There is possibly the most minute amount of lead in ground water from wells, and there is some lead in fluoridation materials. However, by some process an enormous amount of lead appears in school water fountains. Seattle newspaper reporters expressed puzzlement as to how this could be. Where was the lead coming from? The solution is simple enough: Lead plumbing and lead solder for use in plumbing were not outlawed until 1986. Fluoride easily dissolves old lead pipes and lead solder. The EPA’s maximum level for lead is 15 ppb, but lead is showing up in old Seattle schools at levels of up to 1,600 ppb.


Lead is highly toxic. The Potential Defendants should be very wary about their school children ingesting lead as a result of its water fluoridation policies. Lead is so toxic that the amount of lead that is added to drinking water should be zero. Likewise, the amount of silicofluoride acids that are added to drinking water and dissolve lead should be zero. To add any amount of lead or lead dissolving materials to drinking water is negligence on the part of the Potential Defendants.


Assays, Heavy Metals, and Radionuclides


Assays of fluoridation materials are almost always done after and not before fluoridation materials have been diluted in water. This is a serious error.         An assay done on raw scrubber liquor fluoridation materials right out of the tanker truck can do a much more accurate job of identifying and quantifying the many elements and chemicals in fluoridation materials.


This is because various reasonably priced tests are sensitive only down to certain concentration levels, so a test done on raw fluoridation materials will reveal trace minerals and chemicals with much greater accuracy than one done on fluoridation materials after they are diluted in drinking water. Fluoride goes from 24% of the brew down to 1 ppm, a dilution factor of 240,000. Not to do assays on the raw fluoridation materials is negligence; it is like closing your eyes to the many toxic elements and materials which become undetectable after dilution—except with extremely expensive tests.


Assays done generally do not test for elements or compounds with a concentration lower than a certain detection level, often 1 ppb. If there is less than 1 ppb of an element or compound present, it is as if it were not there at all. If water is diluted enough, all contaminants disappear.


I have posted several Seattle water assays on my web site for your review:


For example, these assays say “0.13 u” in reference to cadmium on a scale of micrograms per liter or ppb. The “0.13 u” notation means cadmium is not present at the .13 microgram level, although it might be present at the .12 microgram level. Note the many elements which are marked “u.” The fact that they are tested for indicates they are a concern.


Although they are present at levels below the detection levels which have been set, it is clear from scientific studies that fluoridation materials contain trace amounts of the following elements: aluminum, arsenic, antimony, asbestos, cadmium, lead, mercury, barium, beryllium, and thallium.


Moreover, fluoridation materials also contain trace amounts of radium, radon, polonium, and uranium, elements which are “hot.” I mean “hot” in the sense that they are radioactive. Yes, radioactive.


Mines in Florida and Louisiana that produce phosphate fertilizer have also produced uranium, and they will produce uranium again when uranium prices rise. Meanwhile trace amounts of uranium and the elements it decays into are being added as fertilizers and pesticides to our grains, fruits, and vegetables, and as fluoridation materials to our water. While the levels of radionuclides is low, they are there in our drinking water, continuously emitting alpha and beta rays. Uranium and radium decay into radioactive lead, radioactive bismuth, and radioactive polonium.


I quote from an article by George C. Glasser, entitled “Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection,” Earth Island Journal Online,


While the uranium and radium in fluorosilicic acid are known carcinogens, two decay products of uranium are even more carcinogenic: radon-222 and polonium-210. …


EPA Office of Drinking Water official Joseph A. Cotruvo and Public Health Service fluoridation engineer Thomas Reeves have acknowledged the presence of radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid.


Radon-222 is not an immediate threat because it stops emitting alpha radiation and decays into lead-214 in 3.86 days. Lead-214 appears to be harmless but it eventually decays into bismuth-214 and then into polonium-214. Unless someone knew to look for specific isotopes, no one would know that a transmutation into the polonium isotope had occurred.


Polonium-210, a decay product of bismuth-210, has a half-life of 138 days and gives off intense alpha radiation as it decays into regular lead and becomes stable. Any polonium-210 that might be present in the phosphate concentrate could pose a significant health threat. A very small amount of polonium-210 can be very dangerous, giving off 5,000 times more alpha radiation than the same amount of radium. As little as 0.03 microcuries (6.8 trillionths of a gram) of polonium-210 can be carcinogenic to humans.


The lead isotope behaves like calcium in the body. It may be stored in the bones for years before turning into polonium-210 and triggering a carcinogenic release of alpha radiation.


Drinking water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid contains radon at every sequence of its decay to polonium. The fresher the pollution concentrate, the more polonium it will contain.


As long as the amount of contaminants added to the drinking water (including radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid) do not exceed the limits set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has no regulatory problem with the use of any contaminated products for drinking water treatment.


Fluoridation industry representatives will pass a Geiger counter over the fluoridated water and show few or no clicks and thus announce that there is no problem with radionuclides. However, radiation increases and decreases as isotopes decay into other isotopes. Polonium is 250,000 times more poisonous than cyanide, and one microgram can be fatal to an 80 kg man. (“Polonium,”


Back during the days of the tobacco wars, tobacco opponents had a hard time proving which single component of tobacco smoke was causing cancer. Nevertheless, cancer and other diseases were being caused, so it was determined that it was not necessary to prove which chemical or which combination of chemicals caused which harm. Fluoride defenders argue that the trace levels of any heavy metal are so low that they are not a concern. However, no research has addressed the possible synergistic effect of so many known toxic materials acting together. Not to look into the synergistic effect is negligence on the part of the Potential Defendants.


The presence of trace amounts of heavy metals is a serious issue which should be given due consideration. Not to do so would be negligence on the part of the Potential Defendants.


As an aside, it may now be known which ingredient in tobacco smoke is the most carcinogenic. Glasser explains that phosphate fertilizer contains not only fluoride but all the toxic metals which appear in water fluoridation materials, including polonium-210. Polonium-210 in microscopic amounts becomes part of the colloidal dispersion of smoke and settles in the nooks and crannies of the lung’s alveoli, where after some time they decay into lead and in the process release a burst of highly carcinogenic alpha rays.




NSF International and Standard 60


NSF International is responsible to maintain and update Standard 60, which covers drinking water additives, including fluoridation materials. NSF International is a private, non-profit organization composed of water districts, public health groups, and the industries which produce water treatment chemicals and equipment. The EPA terminated its regulation of water additives, including fluoride, and assisted NSF in establishing “voluntary product standards.”


According to Tudor Davies, Director of the Office of Science and Technology of the US EPA, “In the United States, there are no Federal safety standards which are applicable to drinking water additives, including those intended for use in fluoridating water.” This means there is no governmental organization which directly regulates fluoride. There is only NSF International, which is a trade organization with about as much credibility as the Tobacco Institute.


The 2008 Standard 60 fact sheet dealing with fluoridation materials can be viewed at


Standard 60, Section 3.2.1 requires that when a fertilizer manufacturer such as Cargill begins selling its fluoridation materials and requests Standard 60 approval, that the manufacturer must submit toxicological studies regarding the fluoridation materials. In its fact sheet, NSF mentions toxicological studies and says they are obtained.


However, Stan Hazen, NSF International’s Director for the Center for Public Health Education, admitted in deposition on March 10, 2004, that it has does not in fact receive toxicological studies on fluoridation materials. It nevertheless allows Cargill and other sellers of fluoridation materials to stamp their product as NSF approved. See


In testimony before Congress in 2004, Stan Hazan, then NSF General Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, admitted that “… NSF failed to

follow its own Standard 60 procedures….”


Blake Stark is the person at NSF International now in charge of fielding questions regarding Standard 60. His contact information is: 734-769-5480, See I sent Blake Stark an e-mail on July 11, 2008, asking him: “Your Fact Sheet on water fluoridation mentions toxicological studies. Where would I find these?” His response was: “As indicated in the fluoride fact sheet, NSF Standard 60 references the US EPA MCL for fluoride. You may be able to obtain toxicology studies from the US EPA or through their website.” Thank you, -Blake Stark, NSF.” The obvious implication is that NSF does not obtain any toxicological studies.


The latest Standard 60 fluoride update is dated February, 2008. It does not take into account or even mention the National Research Council 2006 report. It is therefore outdated and cannot be relied on.


NSF International disclaims all liability, saying: “NSF International is not a government agency, and may have no duty of care to consumers…. NSF, in performing its functions in accordance with its objectives, does not assume or undertake to discharge any responsibility of the manufacturer or any other party.”


Regarding Washington law, the irony is complete when you learn that Washington regulations, WAC 246-290-220(3), require that “any treatment chemicals with the exception of commercially retailed hypochlorite compounds such as Clorex, Purex, etc., added to water intended for potable use must comply with ANSI/NSF Standard 60.” Washington required the Water District to follow Standard 60, which requires toxicological studies, but NSF waives the requirement that toxicological studies be done by Cargill or by the NSF. The Water District is relying on a faulty and fraudulent standard.


The NSF International approval seal on the tanker loads of fluoridation materials the Potential Defendants add to drinking water is lacking in credibility and cannot be relied on.


NSF approval is not a defense. The NSC has undermined the EPA 4 ppm standard, and so it too is not a defense. That leaves the Potential Defendants with no liability shield. And now we know that fluoride prevents tooth decay only when applied topically, not ingested. In a risk-benefit analysis, the benefit is zero, and so the risk divided by benefit yields a risk/benefit level that is infinitely bad.


The Potential Defendants therefore must terminate water fluoridation immediately. This should be done even before legal and scientific experts are hired to review my allegations. The fluoride should be turned off as a precautionary measure, and only turned back on if somehow my allegations are proved wrong. To do otherwise is negligence, recklessness, and failure to show due regard for the welfare of those who drink Water District water.








The fluoridation of our water is an assault on our bones, teeth, nerves, thyroid, pineal gland, and much more. Hundreds of recent scientific studies make it undeniable that fluoridating drinking water at current levels is harmful to health.


The scientific information is now freely available on the Internet. Water districts, cities, counties, and the state of Arkansas all have employees who should be reading and studying these issues.


You are on notice that fluoridation is causing harm. You can be sued as a municipal corporation. Individual water commissioners may be named as defendants when lawsuits are filed.


Up to this point your level of liability has been negligence. You have failed to keep up with the new scientific literature on fluoride. However, from this point on, your level of liability could rise from negligence to recklessness and to indifference to public health. Therefore, I am putting you on notice that it is your duty to study this issue and consult with experts on this subject.


I suggest that you form a legal-scientific taskforce to confirm or deny the truth of the allegations I am making here and advise you as to your exposure to liability.


I strongly suggest that you also send this letter to your insurance carrier, specifically asking your carrier whether the Potential Defendants will be covered in case of suit, what the limits of coverage would be, and what part of the defense costs and damages awarded against the Potential Defendants would be paid by your carrier.


This is a threat to file a class action lawsuit. I would assume that your insurance policy requires you to report all threats of lawsuits. For you not to notify your insurance company that there is a potential claim against you might undermine your claim against the insurance company for defense and indemnity.


The fact that a majority of dentists or public health professionals or politicians believe that drinking water fluoridation is a safe does not prove it is safe and is no defense in a court of law. The majority is often wrong: The majority in the past has believed absurd things, for example, that slavery was the natural order of things, that women were inferior and should not own property or vote, and that the earth was flat. Until the 1960s the vast majority of geologists thought the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift was laughable.


Water fluoridation will pass into history as just another discredited idea. The question for you to ponder is whether the Water District will be sued in the process.



Everett’s Response to Request for Documents


On July 31, 2008, I submitted Requests for Documents under the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56.080. I received answers in September. I am enclosing a copy of the Requests and the answers received.  You may review the Requests and Answers online at http://dealmortgage/net/fluoride-class-action/request-to-everett-for-public-records-re-fluoridation-and-answers.doc. *(bad link) ****


One important Request was No. 10:


Provide documents which show the presence of all elements and compounds in raw fluoridation materials, that is assays made of raw fluoridation materials as they come out of the tanker, before they are added to drinking water and are diluted.


Note: I am not asking just for results of tests done on the water after fluoridation materials are added, but also tests or assays done on the fluoridation materials themselves before they are added to the water. An assay done on raw fluoridation materials right out of the tanker truck can do a much more accurate job of identifying and quantifying the many elements and chemicals in fluoridation materials. Various reasonably priced tests are sensitive only down to certain concentration levels, so a test done on raw fluoridation materials will reveal trace minerals and chemicals with much greater accuracy than one done on fluoridation materials after they are diluted in drinking water.


The Water District’s answer was:


Cascade Columbia or LCI are the primary sources for this information. Analysis of a June 2007 delivery was made to trouble shoot a crystallization problem that was occurring in the HFS metering pump. This has been included on the CD-ROM.


This is an important Request. The Answer makes it clear that Everett does not generally do its own testing of the raw fluoridation materials before they are diluted 240,000 times. Other elements and chemicals are also diluted 240,000 times. They are diluted to the point where their concentration is below common detection levels. They are made to disappear. But they do not disappear. They are still there, although at a level that allows the Water District to pretend they are not there.


For the Water District not to do its own testing of the raw scrubber liquor on a regular basis is outright negligence.


The problem is compounded by the fact that NSF International, which writes and allegedly enforces monitors ANSI/NSF Standard 60 and which water districts around the country rely on so heavily, does not itself assay raw fluoridation materials. I sent an e-mail to Blake Stark, the person at NSF International now in charge of fielding questions regarding Standard 60. His contact information is mentioned above.


I asked Mr. Stark “for an assay done of typical fluoridation chemicals BEFORE DILUTION.” His response was:


All analysis that has been conducted by NSF on fluoridation chemicals has been done using the specific preparation methods referenced in NSF/ANSI Standard 60, which involve dilutions.


So not even NSF does assays on the raw scrubber liquor.


I believe that the Water District should know just how much aluminum, arsenic, antimony, asbestos, cadmium, lead, mercury, barium, beryllium, radium, radon, polonium, uranium, thallium are contained in the raw scrubber liquor.  These elements are present in the diluted water we drink down into the parts per billion, but they could have properties together that they do not have individually and potentiate the actions of each other. Not to know exactly what is in the fluoridation materials by running an assay of fluoridation materials before dilution is negligence on the part of the Water District.


Method to be Followed


Utilizing the Freedom of Information request, I am prodding the Water District to become educated about this important issue. Once you understand the science, the law, and the ethics of this issue, I am confident, you will make the right decision. The fluoride backers have big money on their side, but we have the science on our side. The end of water fluoridation is inevitable.


I will be delivering copies of this letter to the mayor, the city attorney, and the media.





James Robert Deal

Counselor at Law





HHS and EPA have proposed lowering recommended fluoridation levels to .7 ppm. They have requested comment. On May 19, 2011, Fluoride Class Action sent this Report Card to HHS and EPA on Fluoridation:


On the same day Fluoride Class Action sent this notice regarding lead and arsenic:





On June 9, 2011, Fluoride Class Action sent this letter to Mayor Ray Stephanson:




June 9, 2011


Ray Stephanson, Mayor
City of Everett

2930 Wetmore Ave. Ste. 10-A
Everett, WA 98201


Dear Mr. Stephanson,


I live in Lynnwood but I visit Everett frequently. I like your teams, your new arena, your Coop, and your newspaper. My other connection is that I have to drink Everett water, which is what I am writing about.


I am sending you two letters about drinking water which I recently sent to Health & Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. See These letters demonstrate that Everett has great potential liability for its adding silicofluorides to Everett drinking water.


The silicofluorides you are adding to drinking water, used to fluoridate the water drunk by around 92% of Americans who drink fluoridated water, are more toxic than sodium fluoride, used to fluoridate the remaining 8%. Silicofluorides and sodium fluoride are more toxic than naturally occurring calcium fluoride, which was used in some communities when fluoridation first began and which is still available. Of the three fluorides, calcium fluoride is the most pure; sodium fluoride is industrial grade but fairly pure; silicofluorides are industrial grade toxic waste.


Silicofluorides are highly acidic and readily dissolve lead – more readily than do sodium fluoride or calcium fluoride. Lead at up to 1,600 ppb has been found in drinking water in Seattle schools, which far exceeds the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 20 ppb. Lead permeates all cells in the body and reduces IQ. The silicofluorides also contain arsenic, a known and confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen. For both lead and arsenic the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) is zero, meaning that there is no level of lead or arsenic which can safely be added to drinking water.


Silicofluorides are classified as poisons. As little as seven grams, the weight of seven paper clips, can kill a 70 kg adult. The one milligram of silicofluoride per liter which Everett adds to drinking water is of course not immediately fatal, however, the body retains roughly half of all fluoride consumed, and the effect is cumulative. Fluoride seeks out calcium, and is retained in calcium rich areas of the body. By the time we are in our 40s, our bones can be around 5,000 ppm fluoride, and as a result we might feel stiff, less flexible, and lethargic. In our 60s, bone and other tissues can be up to 10,000 ppm fluoride, depending on water hardness and one’s diet. One who drinks fluoridated water all his life will be less healthy as he ages and may have a shorter life span.


Silicofluorides affect bones, joints, and tendons and exacerbate arthritic symptoms. Silicofluorides are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and enzyme inhibitors. They denature proteins. They slowly but surely attack the thyroid, pituitary, and pineal glands. Fluorides build up in the kidneys and prevent them from functioning normally and hasten death by kidney failure.


Fluorides bind with aluminum and facilitate aluminum uptake from the stomach, allowing aluminum to pass the blood-brain barrier, which is believed to contribute to Alzheimer’s disease.


There are many more organs and systems in the body which are affected by fluoride, lead, and arsenic. Please read the two letters enclosed for more information.


Babies are most sensitive because they drink so much fluids. CDC, ADA, AMA, the surgeon general, and many other agencies and organizations have advised that formula not be mixed using fluoridated water. Athletes, hard laborers, and those with diabetes and kidney disease are also highly vulnerable because they drink so much more water than typical people.


In Everett and in all of Western Washington, we are especially susceptible to the slow but certain ravages of fluoride because our water is exceptionally soft. Our snow melt water contains little calcium to bind with and tie up fluoride.


New tanker trucks of fluoride arrive regularly at Spada Lake. The fluoride utilized is the unfiltered and unprocessed scrubber liquor from the smoke stacks of phosphate fertilizer plants in Florida, Louisiana, Mexico, or China. The fluoride contains trace amounts of nearly every element on the periodic table. It is not pharmaceutical grade. It has never been approved by the FDA, EPA, or any other federal or state agency. It is only approved by the National Sanitation Foundation, which I show convincingly in my two letters, is a sham.


One small Office of Drinking Water within the CDC strongly recommends fluoridation, but the CDC has no authority whatsoever to approve or disapprove fluoridation. The CDC, EPA, and the surgeon general all endorse fluoridation. The CDC claims fluoridation is one of the ten most important health achievements of the 20th Century. However, endorsements do not prove anything. One must look at the science, and following release of the 2006 National Research Council Report on Fluoridation, it is clear that fluoridation is instead one of the ten biggest frauds of the 20th Century.


The Everett water fluoridation program is expensive, and the fluoridation materials corrode water equipment and shorten their useful life. Hazmat suits must be worn to handle silicofluorides, and when it is spilled on concrete, it burns a hole through it. In this era of declining tax revenues and budget cuts it is hard to justify adding dilute toxic waste to drinking water. Further, for every ton of silicofluoride added to water, one must add a half ton of sodium hydroxide. That’s right, we are adding Draino® to our drinking water.


Fluoride is not a mere additive such as chlorine. Chlorine kills bacteria. Chlorine evaporates out of water overnight if left in an open pitcher. Fluoride is intended as medication and delivered without consent.


Therefore, I am putting you on notice that the City of Everett and its water department face potential liability in connection with the lead, arsenic, fluoride, and other contaminants which the utility department adds to drinking water as part of its fluoridation program. The coming lawsuits could be costly to the City, so please act accordingly.


It is important that the City of Everett consult with its insurance carrier to confirm that it will be covered when the class action and mass toxic tort actions come. Suits over the fluoride, lead, and arsenic added to drinking water will be a growth industry for personal injury and class action lawyers. See:


The City of Everett can reduce its liability by ceasing water fluoridation, and the sooner it does so the better. As mayor you could end fluoridation tomorrow by executive order, and you should do so.


If you and the Public Utility Department fail to review the scientific evidence on fluoridation, such as the documents referenced in my two letters, as well as the letter I sent you in 2008, this will constitute reckless indifference to the harms you are causing to the people of Everett and will increase the City’s liability.


Read a web version of the two letters I wrote to HHS and EPA, including links to scientific research articles, at:


Read the general overview at


Read the special letter regarding lead and arsenic at:


I hope you will grant me the opportunity to meet with you and discuss this matter. I would like to bring along with me Dr. Bill Osmunson, dentist, public health professional, and president of Washington Safe Water. See We are only trying to help the City do the right thing and avoid being sued.





James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103



Copy sent to:


Dave Davis, director

Public Works Department
Utility Services
3101 Cedar Street
Everett WA 98201


Copy sent by email to:

Bob Bolerjack,

Carol MacPherson,

Bruce Wirth, KSER,



I have not received an answer from the Mayor, nor an acknowledgment of receipt.



On July 9, 2011, Fluoride Class Action presented the following Notice of Liability to Governor Gregoire:



Fluoride Class Action has not previously warned the City Council of potential liability. I am doing so formally in this letter:




The Council should consult with the city attorney and with Everett’s insurance carrier to determine whether and to what extent the City has insurance coverage for damages suits for water contamination.


Whether Everett should add lead, arsenic, fluoride, and other heavy metals to drinking water, will be an issue in the Everett City Council campaign. Candidates will have to take a position on it. “Oh but it is only a low concentration of lead, arsenic, and fluoride being added” is not going to be a sufficient excuse, because the body has difficulty excreting these poisons and they accumulate over the years.


In this letter I am giving formal notice to the Everett City Council that Everett may be subject to liability for money damages from people harmed.


Council members should be very careful about accepting large donations from pro-fluoridation dental groups, toothpaste companies, chemical companies, sugar companies, and other powerful groups which profit from the sale of these chemicals..


By continuing to fluoridate our drinking water, particularly after your receipt of the information in this letter, you are exposing the Water District to liability. Ceasing fluoridation will lessen and perhaps eliminate liability. Everett will have a cross-claim against the National Sanitation Foundation for fraudulently certifying silicofluoride fluoridation materials as NSF 60 approved” because NSF has not been requiring the fluoride manufacturers to provide toxicological studies and has not been performing the toxicological studies itself. Likewise, Everett will have a cross-claim against the fluoride vendors such as Cargill and Lucier. Cargill and Lucier applied for the NFS 60 stamp of approval and had good reason to know that the toxicological studies repeatedly mentioned on the NSF web site we not being done.


Finally, I want to make it clear that I am not threatening the city of Everett. I am WARNING the city of Everett that the fluoride class action cases are coming. Attorneys are right now planning and preparing these cases. Yes, I am helping them plan and prepare, but I hope the water districts will de-fluoridate before the lawsuits are filed.


To make it easier to follow links, I have posted this letter online at:





James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103