JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
January 31, 2012
Jenny A. Durkin, US Attorney
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
Seatttle, WA 98101-1271
Posted at: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Seattle/us-attorney
Dear Ms. Durkin,
I am writing to point out violations of law which I believe are taking place on a continuing basis. I ask that you investigate these violations and take appropriate action.
My Uncle Hubert died of emphysema brought on by smoking. He wheezed to me before he died that when he was young his medical doctor smoked Camels and recommended them as good for Uncle Hubert’s health.
In the process of learning that tobacco was harmful, we learned that what our “trusted professionals” should not necessarily be trusted. We learned that what our “trusted professionals” say is safe and good for us, may in fact be dangerous and bad for us. We learned that we should quit relying uncritically on “trusted professionals” and should examine important issues for ourselves.
I write to you today because there is another harmful chemical which is being imposed on the public. I refer to the fluoridation materials which water districts add to tap water.
Around 200 million Americans receive fluoridated tap water. Around 92% of those receive industrial grade silicofluoride. Silicofluoride contains hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals and toxins known to be harmful to health. Around 8% are fluoridated using industrial grade sodium fluoride, which is only slightly less contaminated than silicofluoride.
It took 500 years for the world to acknowledge that tobacco was bad for health. I believe we are on the verge of making the same acknowledgement regarding the fluoride-lead-arsenic cocktail we add to our drinking water.
For more detail, I ask that you read “Who or What is the NSF?” See:
NSF is the trade group which certifies fluoridation materials to be safe. The article spells out the violations of law connected with fluoridation. I am sending you a hard copy of the article, but I recommend that you read it online, which will make it easy for you to follow hyperlinks to documents which back up my assertions. Also the online version is updated regularly as new information is obtained.
Since the end of the last Ice Age, farmers had been growing crops organically. However, in the 20th Century chemists developed super-phosphate fertilizer. They sold it as convenient and quick acting. Faster was better. Previous farmers had done nicely without it. Organic farmers today do nicely without it. Chemists created a market for an unnecessary product that gradually kills off microbial life in soils.
Fertilizer plants in Florida and Louisiana cooked rock phosphate in sulfuric acid, and the emissions of fluoride and other toxins polluted the air for miles around. In the 1970s and 1980s the EPA required the plants to capture the emissions with wet scrubbers installed in their smokestacks. The emissions contain silicofluoride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, other heavy metals, and other toxins. Instead of the toxins going into the air, they were diverted into the scrubber liquor.
But what was to be done with the scrubber liquor? It was illegal to dump it into rivers, lakes, or seas. Fertilizer companies, without approval from any federal or state agency, beginning around 1950, began selling the raw scrubber liquor to water districts, which then piped it into our drinking water at 1.0 ppm, with the level recently reduced to .7 ppm. Once this vice was in place, economic and political forces made it exceedingly difficult to dislodge. Some 200 million Americans drink such slightly polluted water.
Before silicofluoride was used to fluoridate, sodium fluoride was used, another industrial grade waste product – from aluminum plants instead of fertilizer plants. Silicofluoride was less expensive and more abundant than sodium fluoride.
All 49 producers or resellers of fluoridation materials in the United States issue Material Safety Document Sheets (MSDS) in which they disclaim all liability for any harm whatsoever which fluoridation materials might cause. However, before offering said fluoridation materials for sale, they apply for and obtain certification of their product.
The certifying “agency” is the National Sanitation Foundation, known as NSF or NSF International. NSF proudly refers to its NSF 60 certification as “the mark”. It is displayed on certificates of analysis. It is recognized as authoritative by EPA administrators, CDC administrators, states, state agencies, cities, and water districts. The EPA itself finances and approves the NSF 60 standard. It is recognized as authoritative in Canada and other countries the world over. Silicofluoride and sodium fluoride would not be saleable for drinking water fluoridation purposes without such certification.
On the NSF web site and in NSF documentation, NSF proclaims:
The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.
Sit down before reading the next paragraph:
NSF officials, including one speaking under oath in deposition, have admitted that NSF has has no toxicological studies (see pages 27 and 67) regarding the fluoridation materials which NSF certifies as “safe”, as I document in “Who or What is the NSF?” Again, please see www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.
Note that the fertilizer companies which produce the scrubber liquor are on the NSF boards which establish the scrubber liquor standards. This is a clear conflict of interest. Such conflicts are detrimental to scientific objectivity and make it likely for profits to trump health and safety.
Defenders of fluoridation minimize the effect of the lead-arsenic-silicofluoride scrubber liquor cocktail, saying that the amounts of heavy metals and other toxins are small. However, one should not flippantly dismiss even small amounts of such highly toxic substances without thoroughly studying them, including a study of how they can interact each other and their toxicity can be compounded.
Silicofluoride contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen. It is impossible to identify any level of a carcinogen which can safely be consumed, including arsenic. California proposed public health goal for arsenic in 2003 was 4 ppt. That is parts per trillion or .004 ppb or .000004 ppm. California says:
… there is no evidence from methylation patterns [elemental arsenic converting into organic arsenic] that would support a threshold below which there would be no cancer risks. p. 128.
NSF admits that tap water fluoridated at 1 ppm fluoride may contain up to 1.66 ppb arsenic, that is 1,600 ppt, which is 377 times the 4 ppt California public health goal. It is irresponsible knowingly to add any arsenic whatsoever to drinking water, although the California goal would imply it is acceptable to add up to 4 ppt.
The toxic waste silicofluoride used contains lead and leaches lead from pipes. Blood lead levels are around 70% higher in fluoridated cities.
Some 47 states allow fluoridation to take place only if it is done using NSF 60 certified fluoridation materials. Washington is one of the 47 states. See WAC 246-290-220(3).
The Washington Board of Health relies on the loud assurances of the NSF in making its decision to allow local-option fluoridation, to specify the fluoridation materials which may be used, and to set the allowable range of concentrations.
Likewise, local water districts rely on NSF certification to make their final decisions to fluoridate. Board and water districts believe in the truthfulness of the NSF 60 certification mark.
If silicofluoride and sodium fluoride did prevent tooth decay and did not cause any collateral harm to anyone, then maybe this deception could be excused. Unfortunately, the industrial silicofluoride used by Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma and the sodium fluoride used elsewhere is harmful to fetuses and infants in the short term, and it is harmful to all of us in the long term. Public utility standards should be calibrated to be protective of all, but especially of the most vulnerable.
As noted above, the toxic waste silicofluoride used contains lead and leaches lead from pipes. Blood lead levels are around 70% higher in fluoridated cities.
There is no debate over the harmful nature of silicofluoride and sodium fluoride. In fact, the supporters of fluoridation, including the CDC, admit that 41% of children age 12-15 suffer from dental fluorosis, that 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and that 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and up to 100% of enamel impacted). 8.6% + 3.6% = 12.2%.
It is a civil battery and a criminal assault to give 12.2% or more of our children noticeably disfigured teeth. The NRC says that most fluoride gets to children through drinking water and food made with drinking water. The other major source is toothpaste, packing a wallop of fluoride at around 1,500 ppm to 2,400 ppm. Some fluoride gets absorbed through tissues and some is swallowed.
The difference between fluoridated tap water and fluoridated toothpaste is that it is easy to avoid the fluoride in toothpaste simply by not brushing with it, while it is difficult and expensive to avoid the fluoride in tap water and food made with tap water.
Expert witnesses on all sides of this issue will admit if called to testify that fluoridation is causing hundreds of thousands of kids to have “funky teeth”. The causal connection is admitted and proven. When you add to that the known harm coming from lead and arsenic, the case becomes even stronger.
The CDC minimizes the harm by saying it is “cosmetic only”. However, fluorosis is definitely not “cosmetic only” for the 8.6% and the 3.6% who have mild, moderate, and severe fluorosis. Their teeth are ugly, and children are ashamed of them. The emotional impact on adolescents is like that of severe acne. Children with fluorosis tend to smile with their lips closed to hide their teeth. And CDC passes over the lead and arsenic problem.
The tradeoff is an alleged slight reduction in tooth decay in return for fluorosis of an entire mouthful of teeth plus other harms. Caries a can be x-rayed, “drilled, filled and billed” for under $100 each. Dr. Bill Osmunson, cosmetic dentist and public health graduate explains that fluorotic teeth, on the other hand, are difficult and expensive to fix, and that the cost of dental veneers and replacements over a lifetime can exceed $100,000. He notes that drinking water fluoridation is good for the cosmic dentistry business. If teeth are fluorotic, then all bones and other calcium rich areas are fluorotic too, because fluoride aggressively seeks out and binds with calcium throughout the body.
To the CDC, the EPA, and other pro-fluoridation groups, the disfigurement of 41%, 8.6%, or 3.6% of our children to different degrees is an acceptable casualty rate, a reasonable price to be paid to achieve a dubious reduction in caries, which they admit to be at best only a 17% to 25% reduction. Other studies show no reduction at all or worsening.
In addition to fetuses and infants, other groups are especially sensitive, including hard laborers and those with diabetes (because they drink so much water), those with kidney disease, arthritics and the aged, and those with thyroid disease. Further, around one percent of the population is “allergic” or hypersensitive to fluoride and must leave town or take extreme precautions to avoid it. The autistic are especially sensitive to fluoride.
In its own publication on its own website the CDC admits that any positive effect of fluoride is topical and not systemic, yet the CDC and other pro-fluoridation groups persist in advising us that we should drink and eat fluoride. For those who insist on consuming fluoride, eating a little toothpaste would be far more economical.
There is another clear violation of federal law. An FDA regulation at 21 CFR 310.545 prohibits the marketing and sale of any anti-caries drug which contains hydrogen fluoride unless the the seller has first filed an FDA new drug application (NDA) and received FDA approval.
Silicofluoride is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride and other components. Hydrogen fluoride is the most immediately toxic component in silicofluoride. Because its charge is neutral (F–H+), it can slip easily through the neutral, non-polar, fatty lipid layer of the stomach lining, and then into the blood stream and the brain. Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma all use silicofluoride which is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride is also referred to as “free acid”. See the Simplot Certificate of Analysis for Everett and the Mosaic Certificate of Analysis for Seattle on the https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/foia page.
Said federal regulation includes a list of elements and compounds, including hydrogen fluoride. The regulation says of the chemicals on the list:
…based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses.
Then the regulation states:
Any OTC [over the counter] drug product … containing any active ingredient(s) as specified in … this section is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of … the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), for which an approved new drug application … is required for marketing.
The above hydrogen fluoride regulation is unenforced. Is it overlooked or just plain ignored? In the fluoridation arena you will find many uninforced, overlooked, and ignored laws. Fluoridation – initially with sodium fluoride – got started during World War II and the Cold War. The military, ALCOA, and other industries backed it. They latched onto a legend that natural fluoride in Texas and Colorado reduced decay, although the basis for the reduction was the high calcium levels, not the fluoride. These powerful groups generally got their way during that era. They rewarded universities for supporting fluoridation. The universities graduated physicians and dentists who became featured speaker “trusted professionals”, endorsers and defenders of fluoridation. Most of the “trusted professionals” we rely on are themselves deceived. Fluoridation began without prior approval by any federal or state agency. Since 1945 no agency has had the courage to stop it.
I would identify the following as possible violations of civil law:
First, water districts are being swindled. They are being manipulated into spending scarce dollars on a product which is both ineffective for its stated purpose and harmful to users. NSF is not enforcing its own NSF 60 standards, as explained above. Water districts are fluoridating using materials which do not meet standards set by state law – because NSF is not obtaining the safety studies which it says it is obtaining and which water districts believe are being obtained. This constitutes common law misrepresentation and fraud and thus is a consumer protection violation under 15 USC 45 and under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.
Second, silicofluoride and sodium fluoride both contain and/or break down into hydrogen fluoride, and thus cannot be sold for anti-caries treatment without prior FDA approval. This is a violation of 21 CFR 310.545.
Third, Washington law allows fluoridation to take place only with NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials according to WAC 246-290-220(3). However NSF is not enforcing its own standards. Therefore there are no NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials. Fluoridation therefore should not proceed and should be enjoined.
I would identify the following as possible violations of criminal law:
First, because common law fraud is taking place and because said fraud is communicated through the mails, the mail fraud section under the RICO Act is being violated under 18 USC 341.
Second, because consumers of fluoridated water are suffering common law battery and criminal assault, and because profiteers are manipulating and working with others to implement and continue the assault and battery, the law against solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 USC 373 is being violated, especially with respect to fetuses and infants.
Maybe you can identify other violations.
I have detailed the facts which constitute violations of law in the attached document entitled “Who or What is the NSF?” which can also be read online at
I ask that you listen to a presentation made to the Seattle City Attorney’s office on January 9. This will give you a quick summary of the issues. Follow this link:
I urge you to file for an immediate precautionary injunction to halt fluoridation in the state of Washington.
Note: I write for and represent only Fluoride Class Action.
James Robert Deal, Attorney WSBA Number 8103
The latest revision of letter can be read online at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Seattle/us-attorney
 https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/appendix-e-stan-hazen-deposition1.pdf pages 27 and 67
 https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/appendix-b-bruce-spittle-fluoride-fatigue2.pdf, p. 12 ff.
 https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/AWWA-2008-Standard-For-Fluorosilicic-Acid-ansi-awwa-b703a-08-addendum-to-ansi-awwa-b703-06-standard-for-fluorosilicic-acid.pdf, see 4.3.2, p. 15.
How can I help? I don’t have much $$$ to donate but I have a law degree and would love to help any good attorneys/lawyers with their anti water fluoridation lawsuits. I can help out with the law and paper works. I have had some practical legal experience against water-fluoridation when I was living in Australia.
Just simply rely on common law first – Tort. For example, if it is reasonably forseeable that a product/good/service (e.g. msg, aspartame, artificial food additives, nasty chemicals, WATER FLUORIDATION) will cause injuries/damages/side effects to any indviduals or groups of people in the society – then the product/good/service (e.g. water fluoridation) MUST be ceased or banned. Failing to do so will render the product/good/service provider liable for tort.
The case can be very simple and straight forward. At the end of the day, all we have to do is to prove to the court that given all the current scientific evidences/researches/reports; it is now reasonably forseeable that long term exposure and consumption of fluoridated water (e.g. drinking, bathing, farming, feeding bottled milk to babies) will cause calcification of one’s pineal gland, osteosarcoma, bone cancer, mutating one’s enzyme, lowering IQs of young children, repressing one’s immune system + depleting minerals, vitamins and nutritions in one’s body etc. Simply put, water fluoridation is a long term subtle-bio accumulative poison and carcinogenic.
And we just need flood the courts with all the evidences of water fluoridation danger and redunancy. And most importantly, we need very good scientists or expert witnesses to tesify of fluoride dangers in court for us. I am sure good souls like Professor Paul Connett and Phyllis Mullenix and many others (e.g. all those medical and science professionals who appeared on the DVD “Professional Prespectives on Water Fluoridation) will be more than happy to testify for us in court.
After submitting everything in court, we just have to pray hard that the judge or judge(s) are not corrupted or “controlled” by the sh**ty NWO…but if we are unsuccesful…we still have another chance. We can try to appeal or simply just apply for a ‘judicial review’ [e.g. reviewing the decision of the judge or judges under the ground of ‘unreasonableness’ – Wednesbury Test. That the judge or judges had made a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable judge or judges would make – e.g. water fluoridation is dangerous.The current sciences/evidences have establish of its potential harms and dangers. Yet the judge or judges still rule in its favour!]
*Sigh…Alas…but due to some unforseen personal and financial constraints, I am no longer in Australia and have been prevented from doing what I am passionate about (and best can) against water fluoridation (and all the nasty chemicals/food additives)…but you people still can. I mean, you are a lawyer! God bless you.
[P.S. For your information, I believe God has indirectly enlightened me that the most simple thing in life is also the most powerful. The common law of Tort ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ principle (reasonable forseeability/res ipsa loquitar) is actually VERY powerful, simple and straightforward. I think we can even use it to ban MSG, aspartame and many other nasty chemicals. I mean any good valiant lawyer can do it]
(Let me know what you think. We can correspond via my private email if your prefer)