JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington  98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

COMMENT REGARDING FLUORIDATION RULEMAKING
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY

June 5, 2011

Dear Mr. McLaughlin,

I am responding to WSR 11-11-046 Pre-Proposal Statement of Inquiry relating to water fluoridation. See:  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/laws/wsr/2011/11/11-11-046.htm.

I am the president of Fluoride Class Action, www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com.

HHS and EPA recently asked for comment regarding fluoridation. I am sending you two letters which I recently sent to them in response. See www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/HHS. These letters show that fluoride does not prevent dental decay and in addition is harmful to teeth, bones, and many organs and systems of the human body. They show that the level of fluoride which may be added to drinking water should be zero.

I am enclosing hard copies of those letters. However, you may also read them online, which is advantageous because you will be able to follow the links to other documents.

Read the html version of my Report Card for HHS and EPA, updated May 19, 2011 by clicking here: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/report-card-for-hhs.

Or read the PDF version here: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/james-robert-deal-report-card-to-hhs-and-epa-5-19-11.pdf.

Read the html version of my Comment to HHS and EPA Regarding Lead, Arsenic, and Water Fluoridation, updated May 19, 2011, by clicking here: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead.

Or read the PDF version here by  clicking here: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/james-robert-deal-comments-to-hhs-and-epa-regarding-lead-and-water-fluoridation-5-19-11.pdf.

HHS is proposing to lower its recommended fluoridation level to .7 ppm, and the Washington State Board of Health is proposing to follow the lead of HHS and revise WAC 246-290-460 to mirror the HHS recommendation.

However, HHS has absolutely no jurisdiction over water fluoridation and no authority to recommend fluoride be added to water at any level. Further, many of the journal articles submitted by HHS and EPA to justify a new .7 ppm fluoride level, actually lead logically to the conclusion that no fluoride at all should be added.

The Board of Health should not be following the lead of HHS. If the Board insists on doing so, it can only mean that you have not looked at the scientific literature on the subject. You may not rely on the unproven endorsements of CDC (a division of HHS) that fluoridation is safe for all.

The SDWA specifically prohibits requiring the addition of any chemical to drinking water for medical purposes. See 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11)[3]:

No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”

Fluoride is added for “preventive health care purposes”. It is added for “purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”, such as removing other contaminants. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) defines a drug as an article

… intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animal. 21 U.S.C. 321 (g)(1)(B)

Fluoride mixed with water at any level meets federal definitions of the terms “drug” and “medication.” Fluoride is added for “preventive health care purposes”, and therefore fluoride is a drug.

HHS proposes to recommend fluoridation at .7 ppm. However, it cannot require fluoridation at any level. HHS should not recommend what it cannot require. The same is true of EPA.

The prohibition against requiring the addition of chemicals such as fluoride for medical purposes flows down to the states and to municipalities, as I explain in my letters.

Washington State Board of Health should not defer to HHS but should defer to the FDA. The Board of Health should pass a new rule which forbids municipalities from adding any amount of fluoride to drinking water unless and until the form of fluoride used and the concentration is approved by the FDA.

RCW 57.08.012 allows water districts to fluoridate drinking water, however, it does not say what type of fluoridation materials may be used nor at what level they may be used. Nor does it excuse municipalities from conforming to federal law which requires that all drugs be FDA approved. Fluoride travels in interstate commerce, and federal law trumps state law.

I make it clear in the letters attached that the silicofluorides used are much more harmful than sodium fluoride and that they contain lead and arsenic and leach lead out of pipes. Washington has failed to give the lead warnings, which federal law requires Washington to give.

NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY

The Washington State Board of Health and the State of Washington, by recommending and allowing water fluoridation with materials unapproved by the FDA, are exposing the Board of Health and the State of  Washington agency to liability. Class action attorneys are working up the lawsuits. Check with your insurance carrier to see if there is sufficient coverage for the massive damage verdicts which are coming.

Bear in mind that now that the Board of Health leadership have now been put on notice of their potential liability, continued fluoridation using current fluoridation chemicals and in the quantities used constitutes a bad faith action and may subject the the individual members of the Board of Health to personal liability for the harm caused. Check with your own personal insurance carrier to see if your umbrella policy covers you for slowly poisoning the public with the most potent electron negative of the elements.

Sincerely,