JAMES ROBERT DEAL, P.S.
Telephone (425) 771-1110, fax (425) 776-8081
NOTICE TO PRESERVE AND NOT DESTROY EVIDENCE
Senators and Representatives
Sent by e-mail to the following addresses:
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
House Members of Committee on Public Health; Welfare and Labor:
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; FredAllen99@comcast.net; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Dear Senators and Representatives,
I grew up in
So I was especially disappointed to learn that
I am part of an organization called Fluoride Class Action. You may read about Fluoride Class Action at http://fluorideclassaction.wordpress.com and http://www.dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/fluoride-class-action.htm.
I am writing to warn you that the fluoride class action cases are coming. Attorneys are right now planning just how to configure these cases. By making fluoridation mandatory, the state of
Part of my work with Fluoride Class Action is to coordinate efforts by various major class action law firms to put together these cases and get them ready for filing. The other part of my work is to write letters like this to cities, counties, and states to try to convince them not to fluoridate their waters and thus avoid legal liability.
Therefore, I am putting you on notice.
This letter shall serve as formal notice that the state of
You should preserve and not destroy evidence relating to this potential claim. To do otherwise could subject you to liability.
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 at:
There is substantial evidence that adding fluoridation materials to drinking water in the levels which the Potential Defendants are or will be adding them has caused and will cause physical injury to the general population and especially serious physical injury to certain vulnerable populations. I will outline the scientific studies which back up this assertion.
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.
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.
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
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
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. http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/chart.htm. See the
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. http://form.douglassreport.com/reports/fluoride_report.pdf.
See http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html#refs 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 regarding its fluoridation standards. The NRC released its report in 2006. See “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571. 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: http://agsource.crinet.com/page291/nationaldrinkingwaterregulations.
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. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/carton-2006.pdf
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.
The NRC report of 2006 said 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 fluoride). It is in virtually all our food. Sometimes it is even in our bottled water.
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. fluoride is on our grapes at levels up to 7 ppm, because the pesticides and fumigants synthetic cryolite and sulfonyl fluoride are applied to grapes, nuts, and other fruits and other vegetables. Sulfonyl fluoride was hastily approved as a replacement pesticide for methyl bromide because methyl bromide is a potent greenhouse gas. Dried eggs can be 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 EPA 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 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.
The calculations are even worse for those with kidney disease and diabetes. These people drink more water and so take in more fluoride. Further, those with kidney disease lack the ability to excrete fluoride well, and so they are more sensitive to any amount of fluoride. It 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: http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/kathleen-thiessen-adverse-health-effects-from-fluoride-in-drinking-water.pdf. 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. Who is going to write the “Whereas” clauses for this new mandatory fluoridation law? Will he 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.” Do you not see that you are painting a legal bull’s eye on the state flag?
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 and that as much as .6 ppb of lead and .6 ppb of arsenic are found in some samples. http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
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
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 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. http://www.fluoridealert.org/APHA-silicofluorides.htm.
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.
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 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 stacked in gigantic piles a hundred feet high that 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
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 categorized 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, http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp.
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: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/infant/#breastfed.
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.
Why are the Potential Defendants proposing to require water to be fluoridated when that water should not be given to babies? 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
Would it not make sense to leave the fluoride out of the water and instead—if you 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,”
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 http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/fluorosis/moderate-severe.html 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,
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
For a good summary of how fluoride is causally connected with bone cancer, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/osteosarcoma.html:
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
See the June 6, 2005, letter of Environmental Working Group to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health, http://www.ewg.org/node/21001, 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. http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf. 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 requiring fluoridation, 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 fluoridation 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: http://poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/thyroid_history.html.
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.
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: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/thyroid/
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,
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 221-222.
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 mandate water fluoridation for all is the opposite of prudence and would expose the Potential Defendants to liability.
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
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
The body mistakes fluoride and also lead and uranium as being 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 dozens and possibly hundreds 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
I will repeat that statement for emphasis:
the industrial grade waste products
used to fluoridate over 90%
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 there appears an enormous amount of lead in school water fountains.
Lead is highly toxic. The Potential Defendants should be very wary about ther 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
For example, these assays say “0.13 u” in reference to cadmium on a scale of micrograms or ppb per liter. 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.
I quote from an article by George C. Glasser, entitled “Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection,” Earth Island Journal Online, http://DealMortgage.net\fluoride-class-action\george-glasser-fluoride-and-the-phosphate-connection.htm; http://www.earthislandprojects.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_phosphates.html.
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,” www.En.Wikipedia.com.)
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 in the 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.” http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/epa-says-no-agency-regulates-fluoride.pdf.
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. http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/epa-says-no-agency-regulates-fluoride.pdf.
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 http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/stan-hazan-nsf-international-deposition-no-toxic-studies-delivered-by-fluoride-suppliers.pdf.
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….” http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files%5CSDWA%20Responsibilities%20&%20Liabilities.pdf.
Blake Stark is the person at NSF International now in charge of fielding questions regarding Standard 60. His contact information is: 734-769-5480, Stark@NSF.org. See www.nsf.org. 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.” http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files%5CSDWA%20Responsibilities%20&%20Liabilities.pdf.
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.”
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 does not even prevent decay when taken orally. In a risk-benefit analysis, the benefit is zero, and so the risk divided by benefit yields a risk/benefit level that is infinitely low.
The Potential Defendants therefore must not only not enact any law mandating fluoridation but must also 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
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
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 suggest you submit this letter to Attorney General Dustin McDaniel for his opinion.
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 state of
Request for Documents
Along with this letter I am delivering to you requests for documents as authorized under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, codified at Ark. Stat. 25-19. That Freedom of Information request is directed to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, as the agency which probably has jurisdiction over water fluoridation standards and requirements. See: http://dealmortgage.net/fluoride-class-action/arkansas-fluoride-freedom-of-information-request.htm.
There are serious questions this letter and my Freedom of Information Request will raise, questions which the state and its agencies have not yet addressed. You have an obligation to address these questions or commission experts to write reports to address them. Not to do so would be negligence on your part, a failure to do due diligence, and a failure to make the inquiry a prudent person should make. Once you have prepared these reports, I am asking that you forward them to me. Regard this request for records as continuing in effect.
Method to be Followed
Utilizing the Freedom of Information request, I will prod you 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.
James Robert Deal
Counselor at Law