Archive for the ‘Washington Safe Water’ Category

Sarin And Other Fluorinated Chemicals

March 21st, 2013 No comments

Dear Editor-in-Chief, Kathleen Cordeiro and Editor, Kathie Ragsdale, I’d like to bring the following information to your attention.


Scientific American

Better Killing through Chemistry


It all started when James M. Tour, a well-known organic chemist at Rice University and sometime Scientific American author, began to ring the alarm bells about chemical terrorism. While serving on a U.S. Defense Department panel to study the possibility, Tour concluded that nothing stood in the way of someone trying to acquire the ingredients of a chemical weapon. In an essay last year in Chemical & Engineering News he argued for restricting the purchase of key chemicals. “They¿re too easily available,” Tour told me. “There are no checks and balances………”


Instead Tour got a big box the next day by overnight mail. By following one of the well-known recipes for sarin¿mixing dimethyl methylphosphonate, phosphorus trichloride, “sodium fluoride” and alcohol in the right amounts and sequence¿he could have made 280 grams of the stuff or a comparable amount of soman or GF. (That¿s more than 100 teaspoonfuls.) All this for $130.20 plus shipping and handling……..



Now please take notof the information in Section 11 – Toxicological Information which you’ll find on page 5 in the next link.


This is a Material Safety Data Sheet for Fluorosilicic Acid/”sillyacid” and you still say that water fluoridation is safe and effective, especially when there have never ever been any safety studies done throughout the world.



Now I’m sure that this information will get you interested in what you are promoting as “Safe and Effective.”



Nerve Agent Precursor: Sodium Fluoride



Sodium fluoride is used in the manufacture of G-type nerve agents in the same way as hydrogen fluoride. It is usually prepared by the reaction of sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate with hydrofluoric acid. Hydrofluoric is made on a large scale or can be made and sodium hydroxide and carbonate are also made on a large scale. For example, in 2002, European manufacture of sodium carbonate in 2002 was approximately 1.5 million tonnes and 5.6 million tonnes of sodium hydroxide was also manuafctured that year.



G-type nerve agents


CBRNE – Nerve Agents, G-series – Tabun, Sarin, Soman



The organophosphate nerve agents tabun (GA), sarin (GB), soman (GD), and cyclosarin (GF) are among the most toxic chemical warfare agents known.[1] Together they comprise the G-series nerve agents, thus named because German scientists first synthesized them, beginning with GA in 1936. GB was discovered next in 1938, followed by GD in 1944 and finally the more obscure GF in 1949. The only other known nerve agent, O-ethyl S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) methylphosphonothioate (VX), is discussed in a separate article of this journal (see CBRNE – Nerve Agents, V-series – Ve, Vg, Vm, Vx)………..

In 1994, the Japanese terrorist cult, Aum Shinrikyo, synthesized and then deployed GB against civilians at Matsumoto, Japan, killing 8 people.[6] The following year, the same terrorist group released GB again in the infamous Tokyo Subway sarin attack, killing 13 and sending 5500 persons to local hospitals.[7]




Ectoparasiticide use in contemporary Australian livestock production


Sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate had application against lice (Roberts 1952), with sodium fluorosilicate in combination with phenothiazine and flour applied as a dust (Seddon 1967a). Magnesium fluorosilicate in combination with rotenone and sulphur is still used today to treat sheep lice, itch mites and ked infestations.



Safe and Effective” I don’t think so, but it all sounds very nice and very comforting doesn’t it.


It is an excellent marketing “American apple pie slogan,” but I’m so sorry to say, that these are just 3 words which have absolutely no science behind them.


But they do have a lot of “GREENBACKS” behind them, don’t they!


The information here is just the tip of a massive iceberg and if you need more, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Yours sincerely and thank you for your time


Darryl Turner

Contribute to Fluoride Action Network

December 31st, 2012 No comments



From James Robert Deal Attorney – If you care about lead in your drinking water, and a lot of other unhealthy contaminants, contribute to Fluoride Actioin Network.


Go to,  and be generous.  And buy this book: The Case Against Fluoride.


Most communities which fluoridate do so using fluorosilicic acid, which is actually a mixture of a score of elements and compounds, and can add up to 1.1 ppb lead to drinking water. But it gets worse: the fluorosilicic acid breaks down into orthosilicic acid, which is one of the most potent lead solvents.


Lead has been measured at up to 63 ppb at random taps in Everett and up to 1,600 ppb in Seattle school drinking fountains.


It is fetuses and infants who are harmed most. Harvard published a review of studies which concludes that fluoridation in general reduces IQ significantly. It may be the lead and arsenic from the fluorosilicic acid which do the harm.


People ask me, well, James, you are a lawyer, so why don’t you just sue them? My first answer is that it should not be necessary to sue. Accurate scientific, medical, and legal information should be enough to convince city councils and water districts to stop this vice. Our elected representatives should have enough integrety and open mindedness to reconsider this slow poisoning of the population.


Unfortunately, elected officials in Snohomish County, the Everett City Council and the Snohomish Health District Board, are still trapped in the maze of scientific falsehoods propounded by the chemical and fertilizer companies which profit from selling this toxic waste to us, and which scientific falsehoods are passed on by Snohomish County’s chief medical officer, who too is trapped in the same maze.


And so when people ask me, well, James, you are a lawyer, so why don’t you just sue them? My second answer is that the lawsuit are coming.


Many cities and water districts have de-fluoridated, and many are fighting to de-fluoridate, as in the case of Austin and New York. Many are resisting efforts by fertilizer and chemical companies to force fluoridation on them, as in the case of Portland and Wichita. They can do this because they have access now to accurate, complete, and objective scientific information regarding fluoridation.


Fluoride Action Network is the premier place to go for information about fluoridation, including videos of experts on the subjet. When I need to find a fact or a journal article, I go to first.


Fluoride Action Network also offers credibility, bringing together research of scientists around the world. Its senior spokesman is Dr. Paul Connett, Ph.D., co-author of The Case Against Fluoride, who is widely regarded, even by his opponents. Paul speaks around the country and around the world, explaining why fluoridation is ineffectual and harmful.


So if you want to get the lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, thallium, hydrogen fluoride, fluoride ion, orthosilicic acid, and radionuclides out of your drinking water or keep them out, contribute to Fluoride Action Network.


Go to,  and be generous.  And buy this book: The Case Against Fluoride.


And if you are in Snohomish County, subscribe to these links to receive regular information about what you can do: ;;


More information:





James Robert Deal , Attorney
PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036
Telephone: 425-771-1110
Fax: 425-776-8081

WA Supreme Court Fluoridation Hearing – Jan 7

December 15th, 2012 No comments

Please attend the Wash State Court of Appeals – Monday, January 7  in Tacoma at 10:00am


Washington State Court of Appeals meets Monday, January 7  in Tacoma at 10: A.M.  Their decision on this Port Angeles / Forks case could stop fluoridation statewide if laws governing drug manufacture and distribution are applied. State and Federal drug laws plainly define any substance used to treat or prevent a disease as a drug. No one questions that tooth decay is a disease. Connecting the dots should be simple, but after over 60 years of greatly mistaken pro-fluoride propaganda it is going to take courage for justices to recognize that fluoridation is truly medication of people with an unapproved drug, not just a water utility additive.

Three appeals court justices are being asked to break new ground.  A decision in our favor will have state-wide effect, and will be cited nationally.  The lawyers will do the talking, but the sense of support from the  audience is also going to be critical.

Eloise Kailin

Court of Appeals – General Information website:

Court Location:  950 Broadway, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402


From website:
In June, 2011 Protect the Peninsula’s Future and Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (PPF/Citizens)  brought to the Superior Court  of Judge Verser their  lawsuit alleging that addition of fluoride compounds to public drinking water in Port Angeles and Forks constituted the dispensation of unapproved drugs.  The definition of a drug for both State and Federal statutes is “any substance used with intent to treat or prevent disease”. Tooth decay is considered a disease.  In Forks the substance is sodium fluoride and in Port Angeles it is fluorosilicic acid.  Both are industrial waste products;  neither is pharmaceutical grade.

Judge Verser dismissed our lawsuit because of language in a 1954 decision of the Washington State  Supreme  Court mentioning that fluoridation was not medication.

PPF and Citizens appealed Judge Verser’s action, and asked  for direct review by the state Supreme Court.  Many months later the Supreme  Court refused direct review.  The case is now scheduled for a hearing  on Monday morning, January 7 at 10:AM  before the Court of Appeals, Division 2 in Tacoma.

PPF/Citizens is now joined by two allies who are petitioning the Appeals Court to be heard as Friends of the Court. The political action committee, Our Water Our Choice!  which sponsored the initiative, the Medical Independence Act, offers a local perspective to the court.  Washington Action for Safe Water,  represented by dentist Dr, Bill Osmunson offers a state wide perspective.

Across the nation the attitude towards water fluoridation is changing. An increasing number of cities are abandoning  the practice. A nationwide epidemic of dental fluorosis,  the hallmark of over-dosage with fluoride,  has been documented as affecting 41% of adolescents aged 12 to 15 .  There is great concern for increases in bone fractures in later life as fluoride bio-accumulates to high levels in the skeleton and makes bones brittle . These and many other concerns led to recommendations from the Department of Health and Human  Services  that levels of fluoride in water be lowered.  We assume it was politically impossible for them to stop the practice entirely,  given its emotional and financial promotion over the past 60 years.

At any rate we feel we now have a reasonable expectation for a fair decision to define fluoride products  added to drinking water as drugs which would then allow application of protective laws relating to drugs.   January 7 will be an important day. Please attend this hearing in Tacoma at the Court of Appeals if you can.

Poisoned Horses

December 1st, 2012 1 comment

Renton Hearing – 11-26-12

November 27th, 2012 1 comment


Renton City Council Meeting – 11-26-12

Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH, starts at 10:50 into the YouTube here:

Video:  Renton City Council Meeting, November 26, 2012, 7pm

Videos of all Renton Council meetings:

Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH, starts at 10:30 into the YouTube here:

On Monday, November 26, Renton City Council held a Committee of the Whole meeting on water fluoridation at the Renton City Hall, Council Chambers, 7th floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton 98057.   The meeting was open to the public, but public comment is not allowed until the regular Council meetings.

The meeting format was:

  • Lys Hornsby, Renton Utilities Systems Director, giving a brief history of F (5 min); starts at 1.20;
  • Mr. Richard Pedlar, Fluoridation Program Manager, Wash State DOH providing their official position on fluoridation of public water supplies (5 min); starts at 5.25;
  • Dr. Bill Osmunson presenting arguments against fluoridation (15 min); starts at 10.50;
  • Dr. Payton Gaunt, Pediatrician in Renton, supporting fluoridation (3 min); starts at 26.30;
  • Dr. Moffett Burgess, Chief Dental Officer, Seattle-King County Public Health presenting arguments for fluoridation (15 min); starts at 28.00;
  • Q & A period for Council members

I am very proud of Renton City Council members for having the open-mindedness to hold this meeting. These are good people who want to do the best for their citizens and they must ALWAYS be treated with the utmost respect. We are in the process of educating them and are extremely grateful that they have given us the opportunity to do so by inviting Dr. Osmunson to present to their council members. Please be 100% supportive in their quest to learn, even if many (perhaps most) of the council still believes that the BOH and CDC is telling them the truth, that fluoridation is supposedly safe. We need to be the sane and scientific half of the equation at all times.


Join our Washington Action for Safe Water Yahoo group and get all the information on defluoridation efforts around Washington. Send an email to this address:

Ali Larkin to WA Bd of Health

November 17th, 2012 No comments

Alli Larkin, Testimony

WABOH 11-14-12


At your last meeting it was announced that the Portland City Council had voted

5 to 0 to add fluoride to Portland’s water supply, even though three times prior to 1983 the people of Portland had voted NO to adding fluoride.  But do you know the rest of the story?


The morning after the vote the people were ready with feet on the ground.  They had 30 days to gather 20,000 signatures to put fluoride up to a vote of the people.

On the 29th day they turned in over 43,000 signatures. Way more than enough to get it on a ballot.


Then it became common knowledge that the five city council members had closed door meetings in July and August with lobbyists for those whose seek to fluoride the water.  It was not shown on the public record of the council members, but it was shown on the reporting record of the lobbyists.


Since 2010, 76 communities have rejected fluoride.  The people here in Washington State and in fluoridated areas around the world are waking up and

speaking out.  It is now even gaining the attention of the tooth paste manufactures who have began to offer “Fluoride-free. Safe if swallowed” products.


The time has come for you unzip your lips and have open debates on the scientific information now available.


Still having some time left I added


An interesting fact I just learned was that a 2011 Freedom of Information Act request asked for the names, titles, and job descriptions of all persons past and present inside the U.S. CDC that had input into CDC’s decision to support fluoridation.  The request turned up a disturbing fact:  CDC’s Oral Health Directors, acting alone within CDC for more than 35 years, had sole input and control in deciding to support fluoridation.


Thank you, any questions?   NONE!


November 13th, 2012 1 comment

Date: November 13, 2012

Physician: Dr. Mark Goldbaum, M.D., 3020 Rucker Avenue, Everett WA 98201

Patient: Every resident of Snohomish County who receives Everett Utility District water, including those who live in homes and apartment buildings and who attend schools with lead water pipes and lead service lines, including infants, pregnant mothers, those with kidney disease, those on kidney dialysis, those with thyroid disease, those with osteoporosis and brittle bones, those who are chemically sensitive, and those who are allergic to fluoride.

Drug: Water containing dilute fluorosilicic acid, hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, and orthosilicic acid – which leaches lead from pipes.

Expiration: No expiration. All may consume this prescription for the rest of their lives.

Quantity: No limit. Everyone can drink as much fluorosilicic water as he or she wishes,

Mark Goldbaum, M.D.

Osmunson’s Reply to Goldbaum 11-13-12

November 13th, 2012 No comments

Cosmetic Dentist, Bellevue and Portland
President, Washington Action for Safe Water

November 13, 2012

To the Snohomish Health District Board:


I am presenting this response to speech made by Dr. Mark Goldbaum on October 9, 2012, and to the Powerpoint slides which he presented as supporting evidence.


Click here to read the complete letter from Dr. Osmunson.



Washington Environmental Council

November 10th, 2012 1 comment



Access links at:  



LEAD ADDED TO DRINKING WATER. The type of fluoride utilized in Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma, fluorosilicic acid, contains lead and leaches lead from pipes and fittings. Lead permeates all cells in the body, reduces IQ, and causes kidney disease and high blood pressure.


FLUORIDE SWITCH. Fluoridation started in 1945 with sodium fluoride (from the aluminum and uranium industry), but the supply was soon insufficient. Fluorosilicic acid, (from the phosphate fertilizer industry) was substituted as it was much cheaper and more abundant. Studies by Coplan, Masters, Maas, and Sawan show that there is much more lead in tap water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid than with sodium fluoride. Why?


ORTHOSILICIC ACID, THE CULPRIT. Fluorosilicic acid when diluted breaks down into fluoride ion, hydrogen fluoride, and orthosilicic acid. Orthosilicic acid readily dissolves lead. Orthosilicic acid has an extremely low dissociation constant, meaning that it resists being neutralized even when alkalinizer such as soda ash (sodium carbonate) is added.


THERE ARE MANY FLUORIDES. Seattle, Everett,  and around 92% of cities that fluoridate, do so with the fluorosilicic acid or its salt, sodium silicofluoride, together referred to as silicofluorides (SiF). Around 8% use sodium fluoride (NaF). SiF and NaF are much more toxic than naturally occurring calcium fluoride (CaF). Fluoridationists claim to be “adjusting” the naturally occurring fluoride level, but instead are adding man-made industrial fluorides which do not occur naturally. CaF can be fairly pure. NaF is industrial grade but relatively pure; SiF is industrial grade toxic waste, highly contaminated with heavy metals. SiF contains and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride, one of the most poisonous and penetrating of all substances plus orthosilicic acid, which dissolves lead.


TOXIC WASTE. The fluorosilicic acid used is the unfiltered and unprocessed scrubber liquor from the smoke stacks of phosphate fertilizer plants in Florida, Mexico, and China. It contains trace amounts of nearly every element on the periodic table. It is not pharmaceutical grade. SiF has never been approved by the FDA, EPA, or any other federal or state agency for consumption in tap water. Pharmaceutical grade fluorides have been approved for topical use, as in toothpaste, but the fluoride is to be spat out. If it is swallowed, one is to call poison control.


TOOTH DECAY. Fluoride is added allegedly to reduce caries, however, documents posted on the CDC website claim only an 18-25% reduction in caries, meaning it is 75-82% ineffective. Tooth decay has dropped just as much in non-fluoridated continental Europe as in fluoridated United States, so fluoridation cannot be the causal factor. Tooth decay correlates with poverty, bad diet, lack of dental care, and not with the percentage of the population fluoridated.


BLACKS, HISPANICS, AND THE POOR in general are more sensitive to lead, arsenic, and fluoride than the general population due to poor nutrition. Alveda King, Bernice King, and Andrew Young lead the Fluoride-Gate movement. They see  fluoridation as a new civil rights issue because it hits minorities hardest.


TOPICAL VS. SYSTEMIC. Documents posted on the CDC website admit that the effect of fluoride on teeth is topical and not systemic, but strangely, CDC still endorses drinking fluoride.


FLUOROSIS. The CDC admits that 41% of children 12 – 15 years old have dental fluorosis. 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and 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). Even mild fluorosis can be ugly. Fluorosis should not be forced on people just so tooth decay can allegedly be reduced and then only slightly, if at all. The way to cut tooth decay is to quit eating and drinking sugary junk foods, eat more vegetables, brush and floss, supplement vitamin D, apply topical antibiotics, and provide basic dental care. Fluoridation is a magic bullet that misfires.


PERVASIVE. If we add fluoride to tap water, then fluoride is in everything made from tap water – cola, beer, coffee, soup, bread, cereal, restaurant food, and fruit juices reconstituted with tap water.


LEAD IN SCHOOL DRINKING WATER. In 2004 Seattle papers reported lead at up to 1,600 ppb  in drinking water in old Seattle schools, far above the 15 ppm EPA action level and the 0 ppm goal. New brass pipes and faucets contain around 8% lead and older pipes contain as much as 30% lead. Most old schools, homes, apartment buildings, hospitals, office buildings, and factories contain pipes with high lead content, which SiF will leach out. When water districts stop fluoridating, lead levels in water and in blood drop, as happened in Tacoma in 1992. Seattle commissioned reports on the subject, but all ignored the possibility that SiF was the cause. Seattle began replacing pipes in schools at great cost, ignoring the fact that terminating fluoridation would reduce lead leaching and do so at no cost. Moreover, even if replacing pipes in schools would solve the problem in schools, it would not solve the problem in old homes, apartment buildings, hospitals, office buildings, old factories.


MONEY, BLINDSPOTS. The PR manipulators who sold us fluoride are the same ones who sold us tetraethyl lead. Chemical, pharmaceutical, fertilizer, and toothpaste companies donate to dental and medical colleges, which indoctrinate dentists and physicians to endorse fluoridation. We trust government agencies and those with MD and DDS after their names. The ADA tells dentists that they need not try to understand the science behind fluoridation. They need only accept the mystery and spread the gospel of fluoridation. Dentists and researchers who question it have been maligned, fired, and have had their careers ruined.


CDC, EPA. The Oral Health Division, one small branch within the CDC, run by fluoridationist dentists, pushes fluoridation. Likewise, the non-scientists at EPA endorse fluoridation. Endorsements prove nothing, but the most significant non-endorsement is that of the EPA scientists’ union, which opposes fluoridation. Neither CDC nor EPA has authority to approve, promote, or finance fluoridation. The Safe Drinking Water Act says “No … regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”. Fluoridation, it is clear that fluoridation is one of the greatest frauds of the 20th Century.


ARSENIC. SiF also contains up to 1.6 ppb arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen. For arsenic the MCL is 10 ppb and the MCLG is zero. A zero MCLG for lead and arsenic means that there is no level of lead or arsenic which can safely be added to drinking water.


SiF AND NaF are mutagens, poisons, and probable carcinogens. As little as seven grams of SiF or NaF, the weight of seven paper clips, can kill an adult. It would take a half pound of naturally occurring CaF to do the same. The fluoride we drink is of course not immediately fatal. However, healthy adult kidneys only excrete half of the fluoride we consume, while the body retains the other half. Fluoride seeks out calcium and is retained in bones and other calcium rich areas of the body. Once in our bones, fluoride cannot be removed.


KIDNEYS AND BONES. Fluoride builds up in kidneys and prevents them from functioning normally and may hasten death. Those on dialysis who quit consuming fluoride may recover and some may be able to quit dialysis. After a lifetime of drinking fluoridated water, bone can be up to 12,000 ppm fluoride, depending on water hardness and diet, making bones brittle. Fractured pelvises are twice as common in fluoridated areas. Fluoride of all kinds affects bones, joints, and tendons and exacerbates arthritis.


ALUMINUM UPTAKE – ALZHEIMER’S. Water treatment plants add aluminum to precipitate dirt. The fluoride ion binds with the aluminum, and aluminum fluoride passes the blood-brain barrier, delivering aluminum into the brain, which is believed to cause or worsen Alzheimer’s disease.


OTHER SYMPTOMS. Fluoride interrupts and inhibits enzymatic action. It denatures proteins. SiF is an anticholinesterase inhibitor. It damages brain tissue and reduces IQ while the fetus is still in the womb. It attacks the thyroid, pituitary, pineal, and other glands. Fluoride incorporates into atherosclerotic plaque in coronary arteries and the aorta in patients with cardiovascular disease. Around 1% of the population is so hypersensitized to fluoridated water that they have to relocate.


BABIES are highly sensitive to fluoride, lead, arsenic because their cells are still dividing and because babies drink four times as  much fluids per body weight as do adults. Their kidneys are not mature and excrete only 20% of fluoride consumed. CDC, ADA, AMA, and the surgeon general have advised that if formula is mixed using fluoridated water fluorosis will result. The poor are unable afford to buy fluoride-free water or filter it out. Only an expensive reverse osmosis filter, ionizer, or distiller can remove the tiny fluoride ion.


FETUSES – IQ REDUCTION. Fetuses too are sensitive to fluoride. Fluoride and lead penetrate the placental barrier and lower IQ. The FDA banned prenatal supplements containing fluoride.


ATHLETES, HARD LABORERS, DIABETICS, and those with kidney disease are highly vulnerable because they drink up to ten times as much water as typical people. Fluoride is a drug, but the dose cannot be controlled.


IN WESTERN WASHINGTON, we are especially susceptible to the slow but certain ravages of fluoride because our snow melt water is exceptionally soft and contains little calcium, which would bind with and tie up fluoride to some extent.


THE NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION – NSF – is a chemical company trade association, funded by EPA to certify fluoride as safe and to approve its use. Some 47 states require that only NSF 60 fluoride be used, including Washington. WAC 246-290-220(3), says: “any treatment chemicals … added to water intended for potable use must comply with ANSI/NSF Standard 60. The NSF web site and the NSF Standard for Drinking Water Additives, say: “Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and … to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. …” However, NSF official Stan Hazan admitted under oath in deposition that toxicological studies are not being done. (See Hazen deposition, pages 22, 67). Thus fluoridation materials do not “comply” with NSF 60 and fluoridation with them is illegal.


SCRUBBER LIQUOR. Cities buy SiF by the tanker truck load. Everett pours 250 gallons per day, day after day into its water, spending $300,000 per year. Fluorosilicic acid corrodes equipment and shortens its useful life. Hazmat suits must be worn to handle it. When the liquid is spilled on concrete, it burns a hole through it, as it will do to steel and glass. When fluoride is added to water, extra sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate – Draino® or soda ash – must be added to reduce acidity.


NO INFORMED CONSENT. Fluorosilicic acid is not a mere additive such as chlorine, which is there to kill microbes. Fluorosilicic acid meets the FDA and Washington definition of a drug. Although it is an unapproved drug and in reality a poison, its administration is medical treatment. Informed consent before treatment is a fundamental principle of law. Administering it without prior consent is a violation of ethics and freedom of choice. Forcing us all to take a toxic waste drug such as fluoride violates our right to control our own bodies. It should not be our duty to remove the toxic waste. Water departments should stop adding it. Those who want to consume fluoride can swallow a little toothpaste or get a Luride prescription.


NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY have been served on Seattle and Everett. Water districts could be exposed to liability. Insurance might not cover them. If the FDC chooses to assert its jurisdiction over this area, there could be individual criminal liability.


CAPTIVE WATER DISTRICTS, those which buy fluoridated water from Seattle and Everett never voted on fluoridation. They should demand non-fluoridated water and that they be held harmless from liability.


LEGAL FRONT. fluoridation lawsuits which have been filed in federal courts in California, Maryland, and in the Washington courts. Three safe water groups presented their case to the Seattle City Attorney’s office on January 9, 2012. Fluoride Class Action has written to Jenny Durkin, US Attorney in Seattle, asking her to bring appropriate action to stop these violations of law.


MORE READING: Letters to HHS and EPA, 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation, The Case Against Fluoridation by Dr. Paul Connett, 2006 National Research Council Report on Fluoride.


James Robert Deal, Attorney,
President of Fluoride Class Action
Member of Washington Action for Safe Water and webmaster 425-771-1110

Pharmacist Speaks to Snohomish Health District

September 18th, 2012 1 comment

Sharon Dressler
Everett Washington
September 11, 2012

Hi, My name is Sharon Dresler and I reside in Everett WA 98208. I have lived in the Lynnwood, Everett area for more than 25 years. Recently I became aware of the source of the fluoride being added to our water supply. I was astonished and outraged knowing that the average person has no idea what is being given to them without their knowledge.

I was trained as a pharmacist and have previously worked as such, but let my license expire as I stayed home to raise my family. I had heard all my life about the benefits of adding fluoride to water and as a topical to prevent dental cavities. I was also taught that in pharmacy school. However we studied and talked about sodium fluoride, not about some other product being added to our water. For babies and children to supplement with fluoride a prescription must be written and based on the fluoride in the communities water supply it is adjusted so there are not toxic effects. The higher the fluoride in the water supply the less is needed for the infant or young child by prescription. Conversely the lower the fluoride in the water supply the more supplementation is given. But this was assumed to be sodium fluoride not some waste product that is more toxic to our health. I made an assumption through school and working as a pharmacist that the less toxic sodium fluoride was being added to water supplies. This is the substance we studied. The toxicity of various forms of fluoride was not addressed and I had no reason to believe that something else was being used instead in our water supply.

How do you feel when you realize you’ve either been lied to, or duped into believing something that isn’t true because not all the information was given to you. I feel angry. I feel shocked that we would add a waste product to our water supply, instead of what I had studied in school.

At this point in time we can not opt out of receiving fluoridated water as individuals. We must let them know we are against what they are doing to us. To now read the studies that say dental cavity rates are reduced EVEN where there is non-fluoridated water, and that toxicity signs are present (fluorosis of teeth, hypothyroid problems, lower IQ in the young, and other health issues to state a few) I take back my support of fluoride being used. At least in toothpaste or prescriptions you are limiting the availability and making your own choice but do not take this choice away from the people. Eventually all of us are affected by the fluoride but some people are extra sensitive and show toxic signs in various ways as I stated earlier. Please follow up and read some of the materials and links being supplied to you today.

As for using non-FDA approved fluoride to fluoridate our water who will take responsibility for the toxicity. We assume, obviously wrongly that the toxicity studies have been done. We assume our Health district will take care of us. Is this wrong also? Everyone seems willing to pass the buck to take responsibility for this problem. The city counsels, the water districts, the suppliers of the toxic product all turn a blind eye while the toxicity goes on. When will you stand up to the suppliers and tell them to get the toxicity studies and start protecting the people who believe you are working in their best interest.

Fluoridation Math for Everett

July 26th, 2012 No comments

Fluoridation Math for Everett Washington

One half of one percent of Everett’s so-called fluoridated water is drunk by humans.  The rest goes down the drain.

The alleged reason for taking so-called fluoride internally is to harden the enamel of the permanent teeth of children as it is forming, before teeth erupt fully, from infancy up to around eight years. There is no claim of any significant benefit to adults from consuming fluoride. Children up to eight years constitute only around one-fifth of those who drink said fluoridated water and thus consume only around one-fifth of water which is consumed.

Note: We disagree that taking so-called fluoride internally makes for harder enamel; fluoride ruins enamel, especially when the calcium levels in water are low.


Grab a calculator:

One percent = .01

One half of that (divide by 2) = .005.

One fifth of that (divide by 5) = .001.

This means that only one one-thousandth of the fluoride reaches its target.

Each truckload of fluoride costs $16,000, and one one-thousandth of $16,000 is …… ($16,000 x .001)……$16 !

So….. your City is paying $16,000 for $16 worth of “benefit”, that is IF every child benefits.

The rest of the fluoride goes into the ecosystem. In the river or the intertidal zone it can harm fish. Salmon are repelled and even killed by fluoride at over .2 mg/L, and the plume of water from the sewer plant outfall into river or Sound is typically around 1.0 ppm.

The rest of the fluoride goes to poison the soil irreparably by repeatedly watering of lawns, gardens and farms.

Every three weeks you are spending $16 for “benefit” and $15,984 for polluting the environmen.

Yet all members of the Everett City Council members agree with pro-fluoridation activist Dr. Gary Goldbaum, director of the Snohomish Health District, that fluoridation is a financial bargain for the taxpayers.

How many more financial bargains like this can Everett afford?

Washington Safe Water Organizing

You are invited to join the Everett Safe Water Yahoo Group.

Subscribe to EverettSafeWater

Powered by

If you join, you are under no obligation to attend Everett City Council meetings, Snohomish County Council meetings, Snohomish Health District meetings and speak up, but we hope you will anyway, and that you will invite others, and invite others to join this Yahoo group.

The Everett City Council should institute a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation and then do further studies. Not the other way around.


I am setting up this Everett Safe Water Yahoo group to make it easier for Everett safe water people to get organized. I want the people of Everett to be able to stand on their own and help themselves. This Yahoo group will be a very helpful tool.

To subscribe send an email to:

To post a message or question send an email to:

This Yahoo group is intended to be a way to announce upcoming meetings and share ideas about how to spread the word throughout the city.

My vision of Everett Safe Water is this: The group will become self motivating and carry on even when I am not working to push things forward.

My vision of Everett Safe Water is that two or three leaders will arise who will see to it that there will be someone speaking every week to the City Council and who will invite people.

The City Council meets on Wednesdays at 6:30, except that the meeting on the fourth Wednesday of the month takes place at noon. The address is 3002 Wetmore Avenue in downtown Everett.

I have invited some people to join who are from out of the Everett area who can help you if you have technical questions.


Dr. Osmunson Reply to Dr. Goldbaum

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH, President
Washington Action for Safe Water
1418 – 112th Ave NE 200
Bellevue, WA 98004


June 3, 2012

City of Everett, Washington;;;;;;;;;;

Dear Ron Gipson, City Council President,

Washington Action for Safe Water is a not for profit organization to improve water quality in
the state of Washington. Although there are many pollutants in water, the addition of
fluoride to public water is the most egregious. The contaminant, substance, unapproved
drug is intentionally added and can simply be stopped by obeying laws and science.

It makes no sense to throw a toxic chemical, contaminant, unapproved drug at everyone in
an attempt to cover up bad health habits such as poor diet and lack of personal hygiene. If
Snohomish Health District were to focus on diet and personal hygiene, rates of other
diseases such as periodontal disease, obesity and diabetes as well as caries/decay would
be improved.

Snohomish Health District recommends ingestion of fluoride but fails to provide evidence
of an “optimal” enamel and dentin body concentration of fluoride which prevents dental
caries. Ask Snohomish Health District what is the optimal enamel and dentin fluoride
concentration (within the tooth) and provide one reference they have actually read.
Snohomish Health District fails to provide an “optimal” blood serum or urine fluoride
concentration which will achieve the “optimal” tooth fluoride concentration. Ask Snohomish
Health District what is the “optimal” blood fluoride concentration and have them provide
one reference which they have actually read.

Snohomish Health District fails to provide a single measured test, case, data or study on
what fluoride blood or urine concentrations are for customers of Everett City fluoridated
water. Ask Snohomish Health District what concentration of fluoride we have in our blood
and urine and ask for the data. Do we actually need more?

Snohomish Health District fails to provide data at what concentration of fluoride in the
water achieves the unknown “optimal” serum and urine fluoride concentrations which will
then result in the unknown optimal tooth fluoride concentrations.

Snohomish Health District claims to have 3,000 references on the benefits and safety of
fluoridation. Ask Snohomish Health District to provide a list of those articles they have
actually read or do they simply “trust” others to read the science.

Ask Snohomish Health District if their DEA license will cover the City of Everett’s use of
fluoride. Who has legal liability for harm? What legal support will Snohomish Health
District provide to the City of Everett should fluoridation, like lead, be found to cause or
contribute to harm?

Click here to read the rest of Dr. Osmonson’s response to Dr. Goldblum.

It is not too late to send comments to HHS and EPA

April 22nd, 2012 1 comment

HHS and EPA have still not come out with a final rule in response to their 2011 request for comment

HHS request for comments in the Federal Register

HHS Press Release page

Pre-publication preliminary version of the HHS recommendations.

Dr. Bill Osmunson submitted this comment on April 22, 2012.

New Members – March 21, 2012 – Everett City Council

March 26th, 2012 No comments

March 21, 2012

I’d like to introduce Donna Graham, Cindy Fischer, Mary Fischer, Kathleen Grieci, Sheryl Ladette, Vicki Rosenan and Christine Unckles who were first-time fluoride fighters for us on March 21 at the Everett City Council, having come because of James’ ad in the Everett Herald.

To watch this fabulous team in action, testifying to the Everett council, go to this link below, then fast-forward to the spot you want to view.

James Deal 00:26:00

Donna Graham 00:29:50

Cindy Fischer 00:33:10

Kathleen Grieci 00:34:30

Alli Larkin 00:36:30

Audrey Adams 00:40:55

Sheryl Ladette 00:45:25

When I watch the video, hearing all the testimonies again, I am amazed at how well everyone did! I am particularly impressed by the four new participants (Donna, Cindy, Kathleen and Sheryl) who had no idea you were going to speak at the council meeting that night and nailed it beautifully anyway!!

You were all so sincere, gracious and well-spoken. You thanked the council, you didn’t get angry (sometimes harder than it seems), your voice was calm but convicted and each of you spoke from your own heart, which gave the council many different points of view and different reasons to not fluoridate. The Council won’t suddenly decide not to fluoridate based on our testimonies, but with continued public pressure, education and awareness, they might stop it eventually.

I’d also like to introduce Guy Paduano from Kirkland who contacted me through FAN and would like to become involved. He has some IT experience (YEAH!)

Welcome to all of you!

Audrey Adams

Alli Larkin’s Address to Washington Board of Health

March 16th, 2012 No comments

Alli Larkin, Vice-President
Washington Action for Safe Water

March 14, 2012

To the Washington Board of Health


I hope you have done your ‘due diligence’ and read “The Case Against Fluoride” by Dr. Paul Connett that we gave each of you.  I am going to share part of an email that Dr. Connett sent out to the Fluoride Action Network.


The subject is, “An Ambitious Campaign Against An Unacceptable Realty”.  The title of the article is, “My Involvement With Fluoridation”.*


“When we published our book I thought it would raise the level of the debate. It has not. The promoters have not produced a single scientific response to our text. They have so much money to spin the issue that they have simply ignored this book, just as they ignored the landmark NRC report on fluoride’s toxicology of 2006.


This is nothing new. The promoters have ignored the demands of normal scientific debate for over 60 years. Instead, they have used two strategies: 1) insist that “authority” is on their side using a list of endorsements and 2) claim that opponents know nothing about “real science.”


Both strategies have worked superbly because they have served to intimidate most doctors, dentists and academics and kept them from reading the literature for themselves. Additionally, every time that more strong scientific evidence is presented that would convince anyone with an open mind that fluoridation is a bad idea (e.g. Bassin’s study on osteosarcoma; the 25 IQ studies; Li’s study on hip fractures, etc.), we have people supposedly “on our own side” giving these studies the kiss of death with nutty rants about Hitler and Stalin. I sometimes wonder if the proponents pay these people!


Every day I am confronted by the fact that the world doesn’t really function on a rational level on this and many other issues. As a scientist concerned about health this is a painful realization. Who would have thought that there are health professionals out there who would lend their names to a practice that may be harming people – may even be killing a few young men with osteosarcoma -without examining the issue carefully for themselves? Who would have thought that there are public health officers who confidently tell decision makers that it is “safe and effective” simply because their employer (e.g. Health Canada; CDC; UK Ministry of Health; Australian health authorities in every state etc) tells them to do so.


I keep going for several reasons. Firstly, I am working with some really wonderful people around the world who continue to stand up for the truth on this issue. Secondly, I realize that other people in history have fought even harder battles with far more pain and sacrifice and have finally won against the odds. I remember reading a statement from the South African author Alan Paton (Cry the beloved Country) during the apartheid era, “The only way to endure man’s inhumanity to man is to make one’s own life an example of man’s humanity to man.” Those few words have inspired me ever since.”


Please make this a “Safer and Healthier Washington” by removing the toxic waste silicofluoride out of Washington’s public water supply.

Alli Larkin, Vice-President
Washington Action for Safe Water

* Read the full statement from Dr. Paul Connett here.





Water Contamination by CAFO

February 16th, 2012 No comments

Factory Farms

CAFO conviction: Court holds factory farm accountable for water pollution


In a precedent-setting decision earlier this month that received scant national coverage, a federal district court judge in Washington state ordered a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation), also known as a factory farm, to monitor groundwater, drainage, and soil for illegal pollution resulting from its grossly inadequate manure management practices in violation of the Clean Water Act. This first-ever ruling holding a CAFO accountable for its pollution was a result of a lawsuit by the nonprofit Community Association for Restoration of the Environment (CARE) against the Nelson Faria Dairy in Royal, Wash. The ruling upholds the terms of a 2006 settlement CARE had with the dairy’s previous owners, which the current owners subsequently ignored.

The case underscores one of the major problems with CAFOs, which is the massive amount of manure they produce and the manners by which operators dispose of it, which have major environmental implications. According to the EPA, “a single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day,” which is “equivalent to that of 20-40 people.” The quantity of manure produced by one dairy cow can be multiplied on a CAFO by hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of heads. This higher concentration of CAFO animals leads to a higher concentration of animal waste, a problem that holds true for all types of livestock raised in these operations. As CARE describes the scale of the waste problem:

Operations like the Nelson Faria Dairy produce as much waste as a city of over 200,000 people. Unlike cities, however, which treat their wastes, the dairy industry applies manure to agricultural fields primarily to get rid of it.

In moderation, manure is a great soil fertilizer, but the sheer amount (and concentration) of untreated waste generated by CAFOs is a serious liability. When too much manure is spread out over fields for soil to properly absorb it, or when manure lagoons leak, overflow, or rupture, rain and stormwater runoff can carry the waste into groundwater and nearby waterways. This over-application or discharge of CAFO animal waste is an egregious example of nonpoint source pollution, where the source(s) is diffuse and can have a wide distribution area. Untreated animal waste is a hazard for both public health and ecosystems because it can contain harmful quantities of nutrients, pathogens, and heavy metals. (Ecocentric has covered the problems associated with large amounts of untreated CAFO animal waste.)

The case of the improper handling of manure on the Nelson Faria Dairy is typical of the CAFO industry. While state and federal animal waste rules exist, their enforcement is lax at best. As CARE president, Helen Reddout, explained:

The Washington Department of Agriculture had recently inspected the dairy and found that it was doing an excellent job managing its manure. Nothing could be further from the truth … It is now time for the agencies who are supposed to be protecting our health to follow the precedent set by this Order. Our state and federal laws were aimed at protecting people and now it’s time for the agencies responsible for safeguarding public health to do just that.

Reddout goes on to explain the reality of state agency CAFO inspections:

Washington Departments of Ecology and Agriculture (WSDA) are supposed to monitor and regulate the dairy industry to ensure that operations do not harm public health or the environment. Unfortunately, inspections often involve nothing more than cursory visits by WSDA staff. If problems are found, dairy owners receive only a slap on the wrist, at best.

The hope is that this court victory against CAFO manure handling and pollution — little mentioned in the media — will help set a precedent toward better practices, regulation, and enforcement of the CAFO industry. Reddout acknowledges that this court victory is one small step, albeit an important one, that shows that CAFOs aren’t above the law and puts them on notice for pollution practices, a particularly big deal for the economically (and thus politically) strong Yakima Valley dairy industry. Based on the compelling evidence of agricultural water contamination in the Lower Yakima Valley, and bolstered by the recent ruling, the EPA selected the area for inclusion in a study monitoring nitrate pollution in groundwater. Reddout expects the EPA report to be released in late spring 2012.

CARE and their allies in the Royal City area deserve our congratulations for this major legal victory that may ultimately inspire a regulatory approach to CAFOs capable of safeguarding human and ecological health. Government agencies must acknowledge the great harm cased by CAFO pollution and hold the industry accountable for the true costs CAFOs impose upon the public.

As expressed by CARE’s lead attorney, Charlie Tebbutt, “Citizens have once again proven that the CAFO industry is a huge polluter. It is time for the state agencies to step up.”

To find out how many CAFOs are in your area, check out Food & Water Watch’s Factory Farm Map.

This post originally appeared on Ecocentric.


Kai Olson-Sawyer is a Research and Policy Analyst in the GRACE Water and Energy Programs where he also works on H2O Conserve project operations. Prior to joining GRACE, Kai was employed at the World Forestry Center in Portland, Oregon and researched with NYC Apollo Alliance. His body is composed of 60 percent water.

Tour of Everett Fluoridation Plant

January 15th, 2012 3 comments



Tour of Everett Water Treatment Plant at Sultan.


Let’s use January 28, Saturday, as the tentative date. Lets tell as many people as possible and see if that date works. I will try to get KSER Radio to announce it.


It is not hard to get to. You can go out either 522 to Monroe and then on 2 to Sultan.


Or you can go east from Everett on Hwy 2. The filtration and fluoridation plant is immediately to the south of Lake Chaplain.,ftc,1,fid,1517626,n,lake%20chaplain.cfm


Or we could organize carpools.


Regarding the meeting with the City Attorneys on Monday, this is my follow up letter.


We are still waiting for the video, Tim.

Do not give fluoridated water to babies or pregnant mothers

December 22nd, 2011 No comments

The Salem News has published an article by Dr. Bill Osmunson:

Dec-20-2011 22:05printcomments

Do Not Give Fluoridated Water to Babies or Pregnant Mothers

Dr. Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH for

There is still not one single prospective double blinded randomized controlled trial of fluoridation.

Fluoride Linked to Pre-term Birth and Anemia in Pregnancy
From the article: Fluoride Linked to Pre-term Birth and Anemia in Pregnancy published by

(WILSONVILLE, Ore.) – If you are upset with the lack of SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) oversight of Bernie Madoff, then fluoridation will break your heart. The incompetent oversight of Health and Human Services, CDC, EPA, and FDA CDER dwarfs the Madoff scandal. Those who have blind trust in all government regulators need not read further.


Fluoridation is the process of adding a highly toxic industrial waste, often contaminated with lead and arsenic, to public water. In contrast, naturally occurring fluoride is usually calcium fluoride, about 800 times less toxic.


In 2006 the CDC and others advised that infants should not consume fluoridated water. Fluoridated water contains around 200 times more fluoride than mother’s milk and is not safe for infants. Caution: do not mix infant formula with fluoridated water. Salem water is not safe for infants.

Mother’s breast milk provides complete nutrition for babies and is virtually fluoride free. A baby’s kidneys are only about 20% developed and their blood brain barrier has not fully formed. Most babies are consuming some formula, often made with tap water, up to four times more liquids for their weight as do adults.

Below is an EPA (2011 DRA) graph. All the children above the black line are ingesting too much fluoride. The EPA has attempted to paint the best picture possible. EPA does not include infants younger than six months of age. EPA only includes 90% of the children and provides a 1:1 margin of safety (1:10 or 1:100 is standard). The EPA increased the RfD by 33% and failed to include total fluoride exposure. Even then, more than a quarter of children are ingesting too much fluoride.


The FDA requires fluoride toothpaste labels to say “Drug Facts” “Use a Pea Size” “Do Not Swallow.” There is 0.25 mg of fluoride in a pea-sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste, the same as in one glass of fluoridated water! The FDA CDER advises not to swallow the same amount of fluoride as the City of Salem forces everyone to swallow in each glass of water.

Washington and Idaho Boards of Pharmacy confirmed fluoride is a drug and FDA CDER before Congress testified that fluoride is a drug and unapproved. Pharmacists sell fluoride for ingestion only by prescription, and unapproved drugs are illegal drugs.

There is still not one single prospective double blinded randomized controlled trial of fluoridation. The ingestion of fluoride in any form for the prevention of dental caries has never been approved by the FDA CDER. HHS, CDC and EPA evade Congress supporting corporate interests based on biased historic science, not much better than witchcraft.


EPA scientists concluded: “The toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring everyone to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of government.”

Graphing Iida’s data, finds an increase in dental fluorosis with increased fluoride (blue lines). Caries experience (red lines) finds virtually no benefit from fluoridation.

Colquhoun’s 1997 graph below shows a steady decline in dental caries regardless of fluoridation. We all agree fluoridation did not prevent dental caries before fluoridation started.

Compare developed countries of the world and fluoridation makes no difference. All have reduced dental caries to similar low levels.

Ranking states on the percentage of the whole population fluoridated finds no common cause. Fluoridation makes no difference.

How on earth do the CDC dentists protect their corporate fluoridating friends and claim for every dollar spent on fluoridation saves $38 in dentistry? Simple. When measured evidence doesn’t support policy, CDC dentists use estimates based on assumptions. Wouldn’t we all like to use estimates of assumptions to balance our check books or “prove” to our bosses we are worth our wages?


With little or no benefit, any risk or cost is unacceptable. CDC dentists claim safety by ignoring most risks.

Xiang in 2003 & 2005 published data illustrated below. An 8 IQ point drop with increased (0.04 ppm compared with 0.08 ppm) fasting blood serum fluoride concentrations, about half a standard deviation IQ drop throughout the entire population. Salem water is frying our brains.

The CDC reports less than 0.02 ppm fluoride serum concentration is “normal.” And studies find many have fluoride serum levels more than 10 times normal. What is your child’s serum fluoride concentration?

Ranking the states based on fluoridation and plotting the reported mental retardation rate confirms triple the number of mentally retarded (graph below), half a standard deviation.

25 human studies confirm ingesting fluoride damages the brain. The fetus and infants are most at risk.

Close to $1,000/yr less income is reported with each IQ point loss. With 180 million fluoridated in the USA, you do the math. The CDC dentists and HHS are unprecedented in their harm to the American public.

Dental fluorosis is an undisputed biomarker of excess fluoride ingestion, a toxic overdose and 41% of adolescents now have dental fluorosis. Repairs for dental fluorosis can cost over $1,000 per tooth, replaced about every 15 years.

Fluoride is an enzymatic reactor and the damage to cells, thyroid, kidneys, teeth, brains, GI tract, and bones has hundreds of published studies.

We do not give our consent to be fluoridated. If someone wants to ingest fluoride, they can disregard the FDA and swallow a pea size of toothpaste, but don’t force your neighbors to ingest the illegal fluoride drug.

More at;,;

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

Wilsonville, OR 97070

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Sammamish Plateau Water District

December 3rd, 2011 No comments

From Gary Flanzer:

Dear Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District Commissioner,

I am a long time Klahanie resident and in the Plateau water district.

I just read that the city of Fairbanks, Alaska has decided to discontinue adding fluoride to its water supply after a task force found new health concerns after conducting a year-long independent study using the latest data. I have attached to this email a copy of the results of the April 2011 Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force.

News Report:

As you may already know, the city of Calgary, Canada in February of this year also decided not to continue to fluoridate its drinking water after scientists changed their support of the drinking water additive.

Due to the recent concerns expressed in the Fairbanks report, including a 2006 potential link to cancer, I urge the commissioners here to revisit its 2003 decision (Resolution 3121 dated Dec 15, 2003 – not unanimous) to introduce fluoridation to our Issaquah /Sammamish drinking water. As I’m sure the health of our residents is your top concern, I request a hearing be held to consider this new data, not available in 2003. (Please see attached 54 page pdf file.)

Sincerely yours,

Gary Flanzer, Webmaster


“You do not have to teach the grass to grow, you just have to move the rocks off it.”


Reply from the Sammamish Plateau Water District re Fluoride Issue:

Mr. Flanzer,

Thank you for your comments and the material you passed along. I am glad to see you shared your message directly with the commissioners as the introduction of fluoride to our water supply is a policy decision the commission addressed some time ago. To change the direction would also be a matter requiring commissioner consideration.

You may want to consider contacting the commissioners directly or attending one of our commission meetings in the future to further explain your position.

Thank you,

Jay Krauss
General Manager
Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District
1510 228th Avenue SE
Sammamish, WA 98075
(425) 392-6256

Should we change our name?

December 3rd, 2011 3 comments

Should Washington Action for Safe Water change its name?

Should we be Fluoride Free Washington? What do you think?


From Golda:

I’ve been pondering this comment.  At first I kinda shook my head in agreement but the term continues to come up.  I just did a search for the popularity of the term Fluoride Free.  At this point it appears that this might be our best name yet. 

Popularity of using Fluoride Free:

Fluoride Free Windsor
Fluoride Free Austin
Fluoride Free Fairbanks
Fluoride Free Sacramento
Fluoride Free Australia
Fluoride Free NZ
Fluoride Free Wexford
Fluoride Free Portsmouth
Fluoride Free Murray River
Fluoride Free Moncton, Canada
Fluoride Free Winnipeg
Perth Fluoride Free, Australia
Fluoride Free Florida
Fluoride Free
Taranaki, NZ
Fluoride Free Waterloo
Fluoride Free Britain
Fluoride Free Yuma
Fluoride Free Findlay
Fluoride Free Ireland
Fluoride Free World
Fluoride Free New York City

By far the most popular term for anti-fluoridation organizations is Fluoride Free ______.  It could be a strong element of bonding us with worldwide anti-fluoride orgs.  Worth considering seriously.

Golda Starr


From Bill:

Indeed.  FAN has been encouraging the term Fluoride Free.

A very positive term.

If I were going to start from scratch, or if it were up to me, I would use the term “Fluoride Free Washington.”

In fact, keeping WASW and starting FFW would also be a good idea.

Right now I’m working with Fluoride Free TV (Tualatin Valley).

People know we are not Fluoride Free at this time, so I don’t think most people would jump to the conclusion that Washington is already Fluoride Free.

I’m not good at marketing and have no preference.



From James:

Over half the people think fluoride is good and think anti-fluoride people are nut jobs.

We come in and say we are looking at all aspects of water safety.

We are not just against fluoride. We are against lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lithium, statins in water. And maybe aluminum flocculent.

Maybe we should take a stand against Weed and Feed atrazine in lawn fertilizer. Why is it legal for people to put a powerful poison on their lawns?

And we are against a particular kind of fluoride especially, silicofluoride, because it leaches lead and is an enzyme interrupter, although in the last sentence we always say we are against any kind of fluoride in water.

And we have some allies who are pro-fluoride. Some are in favor of fluoride applied topically but opposed to putting it in the water because the dose cannot be controlled and because of the type of industrial waste fluoride used.

I am opposed to topical fluoride across the board, but I am willing to make allies with pro-topical fluoride people to stop water fluoridation.

WASW is a good name. It sounds objective. It allows us to attack water fluoridation specifically without attacking topical fluoride.

WASW offers more angles of attack than Fluoride Free Washington.

We are the objective protectors of our water.

So I think we should be happy that we have such a good name. That’s just my opinion. I’ll go with the majority opinion.



What do you think?

Mercer Island Needs Separate Water Supply

November 24th, 2011 No comments

Mercer Island needs separate water supply

Mercer Island Reporter – November 14, 2011 · 4:37 PM

Starting last August, Washington Action for Safe Water has been paying monthly visits to the Mercer Island City Hall.

Our goal is to educate the City Council about the lead, arsenic and silicofluoride that Seattle adds to Mercer Island water.

Neither the City Council nor the public ever had a chance to vote on whether they wanted dilute toxic waste added to their water.

We are proposing that Mercer Island demand that Seattle provide water free of any additives other than a little chlorine to kill microbes and a little alkalizer to raise the pH of our acidic snowmelt water to a more neutral, slightly alkaline level.

Seattle probably has numerous pipelines coming down from the Tolt and Cedar watersheds, and it should be no problem to bring silicofluoride free water down in at least one of them.

Seattle ought to install a new pipeline if necessary to deliver “just water” to Mercer Island.

In the meantime, Seattle ought to indemnify and hold Mercer Island harmless against the possibility of a lawsuit by residents of Mercer Island against the city.

We invite Islanders to meet with us at 6 p.m. before the next City Council meeting in the City Hall lobby on Nov. 21 to learn more.

James Robert Deal, Attorney, Vice-President

Washington Action for Safe Water

2.5 million fewer people fluoridated

November 22nd, 2011 No comments

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


November 21, 2011


Bruce Bassett – Councilmember        Jane Brahm – Councilmember
Mike Cero – Councilmember             Mike Grady – Councilmember
Dan Grausz – Councilmember          Jim Pearlman, Mayor

El Jahncke – Deputy Mayor

City of Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th Street
Mercer Island WA 98040

Dear Council Members, Mayor, and Deputy Mayor:

I am the president of Fluoride Class Action and the vice-president of Washington Action for Safe Water. I write this letter on behalf of Fluoride Class Action. Members of Fluoride Class Action and Washington Action for Safe Water live in Mercer Island and drink Seattle water.

Over the last year, the following communities have stopped adding fluoride to their drinking water. That’s approximately 2,538,500 people.

Nov. 13– Amesbury, Massachusetts
Oct. 25 — Palmer, Alaska (8,400)
Oct. 18 — Lawrenceburg, Tennessee (11,000)
Oct. 16 — Churchill, Manitoba (1000)
Oct. 13 — New Plymouth, New Zealand (50,000)
Oct. 4 — Pinellas County, Florida (700,000)
Sept. 30 — Spencer, Indiana/ BPP Water (10,500)
Sept. 22 — College Station, Texas (100,000)
Sept. 12 — Slave Lake, Alberta (7,000)
Sept. 6 — Hohenwald, Tennessee (4,000)
Aug. 16 — Pottstown, Pennsylvania (15,500)
Aug. 15 — Spring Hill, Tennessee (30,000)
Aug. 8 — Philomath, Oregon (4,500)
July 20 — Taber, Alberta (6,500)
July 4 — Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan (5,000)
June 30 — Taumarunui, New Zealand (5,000)
June 6 — Fairbanks, Alaska (30,500)
May 18 — Naples Village, New York (1070)
May 16 — Mount Clemons, Michigan (17,300)
April 21 — Lago Vista, Texas (6,500)
Mar. 17 — Marcellus, Michigan (1,100)
Feb. 16 — Independence, Virginia (1000)
Feb. 8 — Calgary, Alberta (1,300,000)
Feb. 7 — Yellow Springs, Ohio (3200)
Feb. 7 — Vercheres, Quebec (5240)
Jan. 19 — Schuylkill Haven, PA (5,500)
Nov. 15, 2010 — Sparta, North Carolina (2,000)
Nov. 4, 2010 — Tellico, TN (900)
Oct. 25, 2010 — Waterloo, St. Jacobs, and Elmira, Ontario (103,000)l


James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA Number 8103

Sultan Reservoir Repaired

November 21st, 2011 No comments
Published: Monday, November 21, 2011


With dam fixed, Lake 16 supplying Sultan with water again

By Alejandro Dominguez, Herald Writer
SULTAN — People are getting their water again from Lake 16, the city’s reservoir, which had been dry for about seven months.The dam repair officially ended in late October, and water started flowing from the man-made reservoir into to Sultan last week, city administrator Deborah Knight said.

In April, city workers found the dam reservoir had emptied because of a hole beneath its foundation. Sultan then started relying on water from Everett, which has an agreement to provide water to Sultan if needed.

“Because we had water from Everett, it wasn’t a problem,” Knight said.

The cause of the hole is unknown. Crews from Woodinville-based Harbor Pacific Contractors excavated underneath the dam and filled the hole by using large rocks. The gap between the rocks was covered with a substance similar to cement, Knight said.

During the work, old valves and pipes were replaced, concrete was repaired and a vault was built downstream to protect the installed valves and to provide safe access for public works crews.

The estimated $325,000 project was paid mostly by a state grant. The city paid about $83,000 of the project’s cost, Knight said.

Sultan gets 95 percent of its water from Lake 16. On a daily average, 4,918 people use about 538,000 gallons of water.

The reservoir is located two miles from the city’s water treatment plant and is a 45-minute drive from downtown.

The dam was built in 1949 and it dried up once before seven years ago. That time, the repair only took about an hour.

Alejandro Dominguez: 425-339-3422;

Everett Washington

November 20th, 2011 No comments

Everett is the county seat of Snohomish County, Washington.

I live in Lynnwood, in the southwest part of  the county.

The Everett Utility District supplies water to some 700,000 users, most of them in the central and southern part of the county, including Lynnwood where I live.

Everett sells water to the Alderwood Water District, which sells it to Lynnwood, which sells it to me.

The water comes from Spada Lake and Lake Chaplain, which are to the north and east of Sultan, and which drain into the Sultan river, which drains into the Snohomish, which drains into the sea.

In 2008 I made several speeches to the Alderwood Water District. Alderwood’s defense was that it had no control over what is in the water.

I disagree. They have a duty to demand and negotiate for the delivery of water that is not fluoridated. And until it is delivered, they have a duty to demand, on behalf of the citizens of Lynnwood, to require that Everett hold Lynnwood harmless in case of suit by injured plaintiffs.

In 2008 I submitted a Notice of Potential Liability to Everett as well as requests for disclosure of documents.

On June 9, 2011, I submitted this Notice of Liability to Everett for Water Contamination and Notice to Consult with Insurance Carrier.

On June 11, 2011, I handed out this Notice of Liability Flier Edition to 500 people at the Everett Garden Fair.

On June 12, 2011, I hand delivered this letter to the Bailey AME Church in Everett, along with other materials. On the same day I attended worship services at the Second Baptist Church of  Everett and talked with deacon and pastor about my project.

On June 22, 2011, I wrote this letter to the Second Baptist Church, asking this church, predominantly black, to help spearhead the de-fluoridation effort in Everett.

On June 22, 2011, I posted this news release about Alveda King, Bernice King, and Andrew Young coming out against water fluoridation.

Notice of Liability to the City of Everett for Water Contamination, dated June 9, 2011.

Notice of Liability to the City of Everett for Water Contamination delivered July 20, 2011.
Audio of presentation made

Renewed Notice of Liability to the City of Everett for Water Contamination, delivered August 3, 2011.
Audio of presentations made by James Robert Deal, Olemara Peters, Golda Starr.


This page is under construction. I am moving a lot of posts and pages on Everett topics from to


Citizens of Port Angeles and Forks Appeal to Washington Supreme Court

November 18th, 2011 No comments


Citizens of Port Angeles and Forks have filed suit again against their cities.

Read the latest brief asking the Washington Supreme Court to take the case directly, without it having to proceed through the mid-level Court of Appeals.

Read about the previous suit here.


Proof of Lead in Everett Water

November 16th, 2011 No comments

PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington  98036-2276
Telephone 425-

November 16, 2011

Audio Recording

The last time I addressed the Everett City Council, I mentioned, as I frequently do, that there is lead in the silicofluoride added to Everett drinking water and that silicofluoride leaches lead from pipes.

Council member Jeff Moore took exception and said that I should not compare Seattle’s problem with lead in schools with Everett.  He said that Everett schools had taken care of the lead problem.

In my efforts to inform the Everett City Council about the lead-arsenic-silicofluoride problem, I have noted that Council members just do not believe that their water contains lead – or arsenic. Council Member Paul Roberts, formerly a director of the Marysville Water District, has stated that Everett had the best water in the world, implying that it contains no lead or arsenic impurities.

So I looked through the documents returned to me in response to my 2008 Request for Documents.

I handed out copies of this particular document to the Council members, a 2006 water quality report, one of many documents which show there is up to .063 ppm lead in Everett drinking water, that is 63 ppb. See the item circled. Bear in mind that the same document shows that the EPA MCL – Maximum Contaminant Level – is 15 ppb.

Note also the information in footnote number 3. This lead level is measured at “178 consumer taps”. This information does not tell us the age of the houses and buildings in which these consumer taps are located.

A NSF letter from 2000 says that there can be up to 1.6 ppb lead in water after the silicofluoride is dilution 240,000 times to get the fluoride level down to 1 ppm. A 2008 NSF Fluoride Fact Sheet says the maximum is only .6 ppb. NSF Fact Sheets are updated only every three or four years. There has not been a new one since 2008.

Even if Everett has replaced all the lead bearing brass and galvanized pipes from its schools and all the brass fittings, it has not solved the problem. That is because there are still lead bearing pipes and fittings in homes, apartments, office buildings, commercial buildings, and churches. The typical lead level in brass pipes is 8.0% while for pipes installed before 1986 the level can be up to 30%.

Unless Everett is going to pay to replace all lead bearing pipe in all homes, apartments, office buildings, commercial buildings, and churches, it has not solved the lead problem in drinking water.

Further, Everett is failing to follow federal law, which requires that it give notice to water consumers of lead content in their water.

Each owner or operator of a public water system shall identify and provide notice to persons that may be affected by lead contamination of their drinking water where such contamination results from either or both of the following:
(i) The lead content in the construction materials of the public water distribution system.
(ii) Corrosivity of the water supply sufficient to cause leaching of lead.
The notice shall be provided in such manner and form as may be reasonably required by the Administrator. Notice under this paragraph shall be provided notwithstanding the absence of a violation of any national drinking water standard.
Everett is ignoring the lead notice law.
Everett is also endangering the health of its citizens. The simple solution to the lead problem is to quit fluoridating. Lead levels in water will drop and lead levels in blood will drop.

Why does St. Petersberg City Hall drink bottled water?

November 10th, 2011 1 comment

Another one to add to the disingenuous list is that many cities like St. Petersburg that are fluoridated buy Zephyrhills Spring Water.  I found the water company truck outside city hall back in 1994 and asked the driver if the water was for the city council, and he said “Yes, all and all the other departments.  I called the city utility department and asked for a letter specifying how long were they getting the water, what departments.  The letter came back saying all the city departments were getting the water, and it began right back in 1994 when fluoridation began!

I advise everyone reading this to call your utilities department, request the AWWA Standard for Fluorosilicic Acid B703-06 or the latest standard as this one is from 2006.  The standard advises the utilities foreman to take samples from top, middle and bottom when the acid arrives and check for heavy metals and uranium, radium 226-228 levels.  It also notes in Foreword page ix: “AWWA B7030-00 addresses additives requirments in Sec. 4.3 of the standard.  The transfer of contaminants from chemicals to processed water or the residual solids is becomming a problem of greater concern.”

Also, toothpaste with fluorides uses prescription-grade whereas the water fluorides are referenced even in the dictionary as commercial-grade, but, whoa! Don’t swallow the toothpaste, but swig down all the fluoridated water, soft drinks, canned foods, and on and on.

Hope and pray for a Requiem for F,

Anita K, St. Petersburg

Pinellas County City Council in Florida voted to remove fluoridation from the city drinking water. (700,000 residents of Tampa-St. Petersburg region on West coast of Florida)

Commissioner Norm Roach, who championed the effort, is interviewed by Dr. Stan Monteith on his victory against public drinking water fluoridation:


related story:

Pinellas County Commission votes to remove toxic fluoride from water supply of more than 700,000 Floridians :


November 6th, 2011 No comments

Justice Department seeks to pass rule allowing government officials to lie in response to FOIA requests

Saturday, November 05, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

[Share this Article]

(NaturalNews) A powerful tool that allows ordinary citizens to obtain crucial information from government archives, the US Department of State (DOA) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is under attack. The Daily Caller reports that the US Justice Department wants to revise the law to allow government officials to lie about, or conceal the very existence of, records that it does not wish to release publicly.

The Justice Department claims that the law needs to be revised to protect sensitive information from being released. But current FOIA provisions already exempt certain information from having to be supplied, as long as those requesting the information are given a proper explanation as to why it cannot be released.

But the new rule would allow officials to not only conceal the information, but also to blatantly lie about it. In other words, when the federal government wants to keep certain dirty little secrets under wraps, even “secrets” not protected by the exemption, it will simply be able to tell those requesting such information that it does not exist.

“(The rule) will dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government information to be twisted to permit federal law enforcement agencies to actively lie to the American people,” said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and, in a joint public statement (…).

FOIA requests, of course, have been crucial in exposing all kinds of government corruption. A FOIA request exposed US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano as a liar concerning the safety of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) naked body scanners, for instance (…).

“The problem is, if you’re a FOIA requester and the agency says they don’t have the records, you have no reason to doubt that,” said CREW chief counsel Anne Weismann concerning the proposal. “But if they cite an exemption, you have the option to sue.”

The proposed FOIA revisions were first published back in March, and the Justice Department began taking public comments on them for a short period of time. Due to massive public backlash, the agency is once again accepting comments. You can submit your own comments by contacting:

Office of Information Policy (OIP)
Suite 11050
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-3642

Sources for this article include:

Learn more:

Press Release For Candidates

November 5th, 2011 No comments


November 5, 2011






Press Release


Golda had Stage 3 kidney disease, quit drinking Everett water, recovered kidney function

Fluoride suppliers disclaim all liability but still hide behind NSF claims of fluoride safety

 The precautionary principal should be applied

Daughter of Martin Luther King’s says this is the next civil rights issue –
because Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor are disproportionately harmed by fluoridation

Who fluoridates? Who has rejected it?

The same fraudsters who sold us tetraethyl lead sell us fluoride

To All Candidates for Office:

I write as vice-president of, president of, and a member of

We submitted notice to Everett that the silicofluoride it adds to drinking water is the cheap, industrial grade, toxic-waste version of fluoride, that it contains lead and arsenic, and that it leaches lead from pipes.

A separate group, Fluoride Class Action, submitted similar notice to Seattle.

Members of Washington Safe Water and other groups “occupied” Seattle City Hall on October 31 and gave a press release. TV Channel 4 covered it.

We circulated hundreds of our fliers to those who work at and visit City Hall.

We have made a convincing case that fluoridation is ineffectual to reduce tooth decay and harmful to health in many ways.

Council members of Everett and Seattle are dodging this issue, pretending it does not exist. Neither has responded in writing to our charges.

What we are asking is very reasonable: Put this issue on the regular agenda of every county, city, and water district. Talk about it openly. Hold hearings. Allow extensive discussion of the issue.

Take head out of sand.

If you find that it is reasonably possible that what we are saying is true – that sensitive populations are being harmed, then support a moratorium on fluoridation for one year.

During the one-year moratorium, call in experts on all sides of the issue who will give their professional opinion. Ask them the hard questions.

Note that we are not proposing that fluoridation facilities be decommissioned. The tap would simply be turned off for one year. Fluoridation could be restarted if that is the decision.

After hearing both sides of the issue, if city council members decide that adding an industrial grade, lead-arsenic-silicofluoride cocktail to our water poses no risk to any sensitive population – including infants, diabetics, arthritics, and those with kidney disease – then they may turn the fluoride spigot back on. Otherwise they should terminate it permanently.

Some counter: Why not leave the fluoride in, hold one year of hearings, and then make the up or down decision?

Because the burden of proof should not be on those who want lead-arsenic-silicofluoride to be removed. The burden of proof should be on those who want lead-arsenic-silicofluoride to be added. The precautionary principle requires this. Instituting a moratorium is a way of shifting the burden of proof and putting it where it ought to be.

Those water districts which buy pre-fluoridated water from Everett or Seattle should demand they be provided “just water”. Everett has at least four pipelines coming down from Spada Lake, and the one extending to southwest Everett contains “just water”, as requested by a manufacturing facility there.


Likewise, I assume that Seattle has multiple pipelines coming down from the headwaters of the Tolt and Cedar. New pipes could be installed if necessary. Seattle and Everett should pay the full cost – or stop fluoridating altogether.

Everett spends somewhere around $200,000 per year just to pay for the fertilizer smokestack, scrubber liquor silicofluoride. Seattle spends somewhere around $350,000. There are many other costs which are incurred in order to adapt the system to handle this highly acidic, toxic waste stew.

Until “just water” is provided, the counties, cities, and water districts should insist that Everett and Seattle indemnify them from liability in case of suit by injured parties. They should also insist that Everett and Seattle certify and demonstrate that they have insurance adequate to cover potential damage claims.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. We have gone past a prima facie case. We have made a convincing case. We have shifted the burden of proof.

Put the issue on the agenda, hold open hearings, and institute a one-year moratorium. To do less is to disregard public health and to be untrue to your oath.



James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA Number 8103

Fluoridation in Arkansas – Expensive and Complex

November 1st, 2011 No comments

Adding fluoride costly

Thursday, October 27, 2011

By Kathryn Lucariello Carroll County News

EUREKA SPRINGS — Citing preliminary cost estimates, Brad Hammond and Chris Hall of McGoodwin, Williams & Yates engineering firm told the Carroll-Boone Water District board Thursday that implementing state-mandated fluoride additive to the drinking water supply could cost around $1.27 million.

Hammond said their fluoride study was 90 percent complete, and they are waiting on supply prices.

The two did a presentation which looked at recommendations for the number of dispensing facilities, the type of fluoride to be used and cost.

Comparing building one injection facility versus two, Hammond said one facility would be cheaper and require less operator time, but would require injection in the water transmission line below both the east and west plants and would need two injection points, increasing “operational complexity.”

The two-facility option would have a separate building at each plant with fluoride added to the clearwells and would allow for easier monitoring with equipment already in place. The cost would be higher, however, and it would increase operator time.

“The actual feeding takes a few minutes, but operators need to wear special clothing. It will be dusty, so they’ll need masks,” Hammond said. “That would be the only time of day they’re in that building.”

He said he, Hall and the Carroll-Boone staff had toured the Beaver Water District fluoride plant and received helpful information, mostly about the building. McGoodwin, Williams & Yates engineered the Beaver fluoride plant years ago.

Of the three types of fluoride available for drinking water, fluorosilicic acid liquid, sodium fluoride powder and sodium fluorosilicate powder, they were recommending the third for several reasons.

Although it has less available fluoride (61 percent as opposed to 79 percent for the liquid), it has far less solubility (.0762 grams per 100 milliliters versus an infinite amount for the liquid form).

“The less soluble it is, the harder it is to overfeed it,” Hammond said, which increases its safety.

Although Hammond had not yet identified suppliers or country of origin for the fluoride, he said of the three types, sodium fluorosilicate powder has 98 to 99 percent commercial purity, with the liquid at 20 to 30 percent.

It is also the most economical of the three and is the one used by the Beaver Water District, which switched over from using the liquid years ago after fumes from the liquid severely damaged the injection facility.

The powder comes in 50 lb. bags, he said, and the district would probably go through about two bags per day at the west plant.

He gave recommendations for size and locations of the buildings as well. Each building would have enough space for the mixers, waterlines and pallet storage.

A breakdown of total project cost, which Hammond stressed is only an estimate at this point, shows $20,000 for site work, $380,000 for the east plant, $230,000 for the west plant, $280,000 for the feeder equipment, $30,000 for yard piping and a possible $330,000 for engineering and contingencies, which add up to $1.27 million. Hammond could not break down the actual engineering cost, apart from contingencies, he said.

“If the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission funded this, they usually allow about 10 percent for engineering design and another 8 percent during construction, so probably 15 to 20 percent. But I hate to use percentages because they may not be accurate.”

He said annual cost of the fluoride itself would probably be about $20,000.

The $280,000 equipment cost is all that would be funded by Delta Dental, who offered to fund equipment for any drinking water supplier in the state having to add fluoride under the mandate. The district would bear the remainder of the cost.

He said he and Hall will return when they get estimates from equipment manufacturers.

In other business, the board:

* Approved the 2012 budget, with a 3-percent, across-the-board payroll increase for all staff. Office Manager Jim Allison reported a record year of water sales, even though production costs were also increased because of spring flooding and summer drought.

* Heard Plant Manager John Summers report 1.5 million gallons of sludge have been removed from the sludge ponds so far this year and that total cost will probably run around $68,000. It is applied to fields in Garfield at no cost to the district.

* Heard Hall report the engineers recommend holding off on building the Kings River crossing parallel waterline and instead focus on replacing a 200-foot section of 24-inch line with 36-inch line where the Highway Department is planning the Green Forest bypass. more efficiently.

Fluoridation Problems Outweigh Benefits

Arkansas Approves Mandatory Fluoridation

Arkansas Oral Health Director Challenged Over Comments about Fluoridation

List of Washington Water Districts

October 21st, 2011 No comments
Adams County Water District #1
City: Othello
County: Adams
Phone: (509) 488-3529

Benton County

County Well Water District
City: Prosser
County: Benton
Phone: (509) 786-3619
Plymouth Water District
City: Plymouth
County: Benton
Tri City Estates Water District No. 45
City: Richland
County: Benton
Phone: (509) 627-2999

Chelan County

Alpine Water District
City: Leavenworth
County: Chelan
Chelan Falls Water District
City: Chelan Falls
County: Chelan
Lake Chelan Sewer District
City: Wenatchee
County: Chelan
Phone: (509) 682-8030
Lake Wenatchee Water District—Member since 1/1/2007
City: Lake Wenatchee
County: Chelan
Phone: (509) 763-2049
Malaga Water District
City: Malaga
County: Chelan
Phone: (509) 664-0142
Peshastin Water District
City: Peshastin
County: Chelan
Phone: (509) 548-5266
Stevens Pass Sewer District—Member since 10/1/2005
City: Leavenworth
County: Chelan
Phone: (360) 973-2804
Three Lakes Water District
City: Malaga
County: Chelan
Phone: (509) 663-2551

Clallam County

Black Diamond Water District
City: Port Angeles
County: Clallam
Phone: (360) 460-9954
Sunland Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Sequim
County: Clallam
Phone: (360) 683-3905

Clark County

Clark Regional Wastewater District
City: Vancouver
County: Clark
Phone: (360) 750-5876

Cowlitz County

Beacon Hill Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Kelso
County: Cowlitz
Phone: (360) 636-3860

Douglas County

Douglas County Sewer District No.1—Member since 1/1/1996
City: East Wenatchee
County: Douglas
Phone: (509) 884-2484
East Wenatchee Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: East Wenatchee
County: Douglas
Phone: (509) 884-3569

Ferry County

Curlew Water & Sewer District
City: Curlew
County: Ferry
Inchelium Water District
City: Inchelium
County: Ferry
Phone: (509) 722-3020

Grant County

Beverly Water District
City: Beverly
County: Grant
Phone: (509) 830-6210
Cascade Valley Water District
City: Moses Lake
County: Grant
Phone: (509) 765-3074
Royal Water District
City: Royal City
County: Grant
Phone: (509) 346-9730

Grays Harbor County

Grays Harbor County Water Dist. #1—Member since 6/1/2006
City: Grayland
County: Grays Harbor
Phone: (360) 267-2411
Grays Harbor County Water District #2
City: Aberdeen
County: Grays Harbor
Phone: (360) 532-1828

Island County

Admiral’s Cove Water District—Member since 2/1/2000
City: Coupeville
County: Island
Phone: (360) 678-3559
Bayview Beach Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Freeland
County: Island
Phone: (360) 331-4522
Camano Vista Water District
City: Camano Island
County: Island
Phone: (360) 387-7715
Clinton Water District—Member since 5/1/2002
City: Clinton
County: Island
Phone: (360) 341-5487
Crockett Lake Water District—Member since 4/1/2008
City: Coupeville
County: Island
Freeland Water District
City: Freeland
County: Island
Phone: (360) 331-5566
Holmes Harbor Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Freeland
County: Island
Phone: (360) 331-4636
Juniper Beach Water District—Member since 7/1/2003
City: Stanwood
County: Island
Phone: (360) 629-1965
Lagoon Point Water District—Member since 3/1/2000
City: Greenbank
County: Island
Phone: (360) 678-8399
Ledgewood Beach Water District
City: Coupeville
County: Island
Phone: (360) 678-5562
Long Beach Water District
City: Stanwood
County: Island
Phone: (360) 387-5540
North Whidbey Water District
City: Oak Harbor
County: Island
Phone: (360) 679-1043
Penn Cove Water & Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Oak Harbor
County: Island
Phone: (360) 679-4908
Rhodena Beach Water District
City: Coupeville
County: Island
Phone: (360) 678-4730
Saratoga Water District
City: Langley
County: Island
Scatchet Head Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Clinton
County: Island
Phone: (360) 678-5336
Swantown Water District
City: Oak Harbor
County: Island
Phone: (360) 675-2574

Jefferson County

Jefferson County Water District #1
City: Port Ludlow
County: Jefferson
Phone: (360) 437-9492
Jefferson County Water District #3
City: Quilcene
County: Jefferson
Phone: (360) 765-4137

King County

Cedar River Water & Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Maple Valley
County: King
Phone: (425) 255-6370
Coal Creek Utility District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Newcastle
County: King
Phone: (425) 235-9200
Covington Water District
City: Kent
County: King
Phone: (253) 631-0565
Fall City Water District—Member since 4/1/1998
City: Fall City
County: King
Phone: (425) 222-7882
Highlands Sewer District—Member since 5/1/2008
City: Seattle
County: King
Phone: 2064411447×305
Highline Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Kent
County: King
Phone: (206) 824-0375
King County Water District # 117—Member since 2/1/1998
City: Bellevue
County: King
Phone: (425) 641-0068
King County Water District # 125—Member since 1/1/1996
City: SeaTac
County: King
Phone: (206) 242-9547
King County Water District #1
City: Bellevue
County: King
Phone: (425) 688-8743
King County Water District #111—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Kent
County: King
Phone: (253) 631-3770
King County Water District #119—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Carnation
County: King
Phone: (425) 788-2885
King County Water District #123
City: Preston
County: King
Phone: (425) 222-5680
King County Water District #20—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Seattle
County: King
Phone: (206) 243-3990
King County Water District #45—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Seattle
County: King
Phone: (206) 762-3540
King County Water District #49—Member since 3/1/2006
City: Burien
County: King
Phone: (206) 242-8535
King County Water District #54—Member since 6/1/2000
City: Des Moines
County: King
Phone: (206) 878-7210
King County Water District #90—Member since 6/1/1998
City: Renton
County: King
Phone: (425) 255-9600
Lake Forest Park Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Lake Forest Park
County: King
Phone: (206) 365-3211
Lakehaven Utility District
City: Federal Way
County: King
Phone: (253) 941-1516
Midway Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Kent
County: King
Phone: (206) 824-4960
Northeast Sammamish Sewer & Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Sammamish
County: King
Phone: (425) 868-1144
Northshore Utility District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Kenmore
County: King
Phone: (425) 398-4400
Ronald Wastewater District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Shoreline
County: King
Phone: (206) 546-2494
Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District—Member since 2/1/1999
City: Sammamish
County: King
Phone: (425) 392-6256
Shoreline Water District—Member since 2/1/2002
City: Shoreline
County: King
Phone: (206) 362-8100
Skyway Water & Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Seattle
County: King
Phone: (206) 772-7343
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District—Member since 6/1/2006
City: Snoqualmie Pass
County: King
Phone: (425) 434-6633
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Renton
County: King
Phone: (253) 630-9900
Southwest Suburban Sewer District—Member since 8/1/2004
City: Burien
County: King
Phone: (206) 244-9575
Valley View Sewer District—Member since 4/1/2004
City: Seattle
County: King
Phone: (206) 242-3236
Vashon Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Vashon Island
County: King
Phone: (206) 463-9219
Water District 19—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Vashon
County: King
Phone: (206) 463-9007
Woodinville Water District—Member since 2/1/2001
City: Woodinville
County: King
Phone: (425) 487-4100

Kitsap County

Crystal Springs Water District
City: Bainbridge Island
County: Kitsap
Phone: (206) 842-2258
Kitsap County Sewer District #7
City: Bellevue
County: Kitsap
Phone: (206) 459-2796
Manchester Water District—Member since 3/1/1998
City: Manchester
County: Kitsap
Phone: (360) 871-0500
North Perry Avenue Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Bremerton
County: Kitsap
Phone: (360) 373-9508
Old Bangor Water District #19
City: Silverdale
County: Kitsap
Phone: (360) 692-3767
Rocky Point Water District #12
City: Bremerton
County: Kitsap
Silverdale Water District #16—Member since 1/1/1998
City: Silverdale
County: Kitsap
Phone: (360) 447-3500
Sunnyslope Water District
City: Port Orchard
County: Kitsap
Phone: (360) 674-2631
Westsound Utility District—Member since 11/27/2007
City: Port Orchard
County: Kitsap
Phone: (360) 876-2545

Kittitas County

Kittitas County Water District #2
City: Ronald
County: Kittitas
Phone: (509) 649-2806
Kittitas County Water District #3
City: Easton
County: Kittitas
Phone: (509) 656-0284
Kittitas County Water District #4
City: Thorp
County: Kittitas
Phone: (509) 201-0223
Kittitas County Water District #5—Member since 6/1/1997
City: Arlington
County: Kittitas
Phone: (360) 403-9059
Kittitas County Water District #6—Member since 3/1/2003
City: Vantage
County: Kittitas
Phone: (509) 856-2259
Kittitas County Water District #7
City: Thorp
County: Kittitas
Phone: (509) 925-3260

Lewis County

Lewis County Water & Sewer District #6
City: Mossyrock
County: Lewis
Phone: (360) 985-0586
Lewis County Water District #1
City: Randle
County: Lewis
Phone: (360) 497-5366
Lewis County Water District #2
City: Onalaska
County: Lewis
Phone: (360) 978-5191
Lewis County Water District #3
City: Packwood
County: Lewis
Phone: (360) 494-7631
Lewis County Water Sewer District #4—Member since 4/1/2001
City: Chehalis
County: Lewis
Phone: (360) 740-2671

Mason County

Belfair Water District #1—Member since 4/1/2008
City: Belfair
County: Mason
Phone: (360) 275-3008
Maggie Lake Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Tahuya
County: Mason
Phone: (360) 275-0358
Tahuya River Valley Water District
City: Belfair
County: Mason
Phone: (360) 277-3968
Trails End Water District
City: Belfair
County: Mason
Phone: (360) 275-5318

Okanogan County

Lake Osoyoos Water District
City: Oroville
County: Okanogan
Phone: (509) 476-2121

Pacific County

Chinook Water District
City: Chinook
County: Pacific
Phone: (360) 777-8770
North Beach Water District—Member since 3/1/2007
City: Ocean Park
County: Pacific
Phone: (360) 665-4144
Seaview Sewer District
City: Seaview
County: Pacific
Phone: (360) 642-5191
Willapa Valley Water District
City: Raymond
County: Pacific
Phone: (360) 942-3357

Pend Oreille County

Chippewa Water & Sewer District
City: Ione
County: Pend Oreille
Phone: (509) 442-2225
Diamond Lake Water & Sewer District
City: Newport
County: Pend Oreille
Phone: (509) 447-4660
Lenora Sewer District
City: Usk
County: Pend Oreille
Phone: (509) 671-6363
Sacheen Lake Sewer & Water District
City: Colbert
County: Pend Oreille
Phone: (509) 447-4504

Pierce County

Ashford Water District
City: Ashford
County: Pierce
Phone: (253) 569-8811
Burnett Water District
City: Buckley
County: Pierce
Phone: (360) 829-0644
Clear Lake Water District
City: Eatonville
County: Pierce
Phone: (360) 832-3342
Crystal Mountain Sewer District—Member since 2/1/2000
City: Greenwater
County: Pierce
Phone: (360) 663-2626
East Gig Harbor Water District—Member since 2/1/2005
City: Gig Harbor
County: Pierce
Phone: (253) 851-4060
Web: http:///
Elbe Water & Sewer District
City: Elbe
County: Pierce
Phone: (360) 569-2668
Elkhorn Water District
City: Orting
County: Pierce
Phone: (360) 893-6799
Kapowsin Water District
City: Kapowsin
County: Pierce
Phone: (360) 879-5525
Kopachuck Ridge Estates Water District
City: Gig Harbor
County: Pierce
Phone: (253) 858-6100
Lakewood Water District
City: Lakewood
County: Pierce
Phone: (253) 588-4423
McKenna Water District
City: McKenna
County: Pierce
Phone: (360) 458-5252
Valley Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Puyallup
County: Pierce
Phone: (253) 841-9698
Webstone Water District
City: Pacific
County: Pierce
Phone: (253) 863-8224
Wollochet Harbor Sewer District
City: Gig Harbor
County: Pierce
Phone: (253) 265-3807

San Juan County

Cape San Juan Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Friday Harbor
County: San Juan
Phone: (360) 317-8335
Cattle Point Water District
City: Friday Harbor
County: San Juan
Phone: (360) 370-5001
Eastsound Sewer & Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Eastsound
County: San Juan
Phone: (360) 376-2720
Fisherman Bay Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Lopez Island
County: San Juan
Phone: (360) 468-2131
Web: http://treatment plant # 360.468.3724

Skagit County

Skagit County Sewer District #1—Member since 1/1/1998
City: La Conner
County: Skagit
Phone: (360) 466-2247
Skagit County Sewer District #2—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Mount Vernon
County: Skagit
Phone: (360) 422-8373
Skagit County Water District #1
City: Mount Vernon
County: Skagit
Phone: (360) 466-4443

Skamania County

Home Valley Water District #1
City: Stevenson
County: Skamania
Phone: (509) 427-9647

Snohomish County

Alderwood Water & Wastewater District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Lynnwood
County: Snohomish
Phone: (425) 743-4605
Cross Valley Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Snohomish
County: Snohomish
Phone: (360) 668-6766
Highland Water District—Member since 5/1/1998
City: Monroe
County: Snohomish
Phone: (360) 794-6900
Lake Stevens Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Lake Stevens
County: Snohomish
Phone: (425) 334-8588
Mukilteo Water District—Member since 11/28/2007
City: Mukilteo
County: Snohomish
Phone: (425) 355-3355
Olympic View Water & Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Edmonds
County: Snohomish
Phone: (425) 774-7769
Silver Lake Water and Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Mill Creek
County: Snohomish
Phone: (425) 337-3647
Startup Water District—Member since 6/1/2006
City: Startup
County: Snohomish
Phone: (360) 793-1833

Spokane County

East Spokane Water District #1
City: Spokane
County: Spokane
Phone: (509) 926-6072
Four Lakes Water District #10
City: Four Lakes
County: Spokane
Phone: (509) 299-7333
Hangman Hills Water Dist. #15
City: Spokane
County: Spokane
Phone: (509) 448-6823
Irvin Water District #6
City: Spokane
County: Spokane
Phone: (509) 924-9320
Liberty Lake Sewer & Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Liberty Lake
County: Spokane
Phone: (509) 922-5443
Spokane County Water District #14
City: Chattaroy
County: Spokane
Spokane County Water District #3
City: Spokane
County: Spokane
Phone: (509) 536-0121
Strathview Water District
City: Medical Lake
County: Spokane
Phone: (509) 299-5478
Valley of the Horses Water District #12
City: Cheney
County: Spokane
Phone: (509) 448-2202
Whitworth Water District No.2
City: Spokane
County: Spokane
Phone: (509) 466-0550
Williams Lake Sewer District No. 2
City: Cheney
County: Spokane

Stevens County

Hunters Water District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Hunters
County: Stevens
Phone: (509) 722-4733
Loon Lake Sewer District
City: Loon Lake
County: Stevens
Phone: (509) 233-2100
Loon Lake Sewer District #4
City: Loon Lake
County: Stevens
Phone: (509) 233-8132

Wahkiakum County

Skamokawa Water & Sewer District—Member since 11/1/1999
City: Skamokawa
County: Wahkiakum
Phone: (360) 795-0028

Walla Walla County

Artesia Irrigation District No. 8
City: Walla Walla
County: Walla Walla
Phone: (509) 525-4755
Blalock Orchard Irrigation #10
City: Walla Walla
County: Walla Walla
Phone: (509) 525-8712
Blalock Orchard Water District #12
City: Walla Walla
County: Walla Walla
Phone: (509) 526-0213
Walla Walla County Water District #2
City: Touchet
County: Walla Walla
Phone: (509) 394-2660
Wallula Water District #1
City: Wallula
County: Walla Walla
Phone: (509) 547-2172

Whatcom County

Acme Water District No. 18
City: Acme
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 595-2543
Birch Bay Water & Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Birch Bay
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 371-7100
Evergreen Water – Sewer District #19—Member since 4/1/2004
City: Maple Falls
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 599-1699
Glacier Water District—Member since 3/1/2002
City: Glacier
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 599-2558
Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District—Member since 1/1/2000
City: Bellingham
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 734-9224
Point Roberts Water District #4
City: Point Roberts
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 945-4696
Samish Water District—Member since 4/1/2001
City: Bellingham
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 734-5664
Whatcom County Water District #2—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Bellingham
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 733-5770
Whatcom County Water District #7—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Bellingham
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 752-9208
Whatcom County Water District No.13
City: Maple Falls
County: Whatcom
Phone: (360) 599-1801

Whitman County

Steptoe Sewer & Water District
City: Steptoe
County: Whitman
Phone: (509) 397-2722

Yakima County

Cowiche Sewer District
City: Cowiche
County: Yakima
Phone: (509) 678-5877
Terrace Heights Sewer District—Member since 1/1/1996
City: Yakima
County: Yakima
Phone: (509) 453-8702


Juanita Socks Seattle in the Kisser

October 16th, 2011 No comments

In a message dated 10/10/2011 9:41:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

Dear Juanita,

Thank you for your e-mail to Councilmember Burgess about fluoride. The attached Fact Sheet from Seattle Public Utilities contains information about the history of fluoride in our City’s water supply and why it continues to be provided.


Nate Van Duzer


Dear Mr. VanDouzer,

Thank you for your reply.

Did you think that because my name is JUANITA that I must be stupid?!  Does the Seattle City Council think Hispanics are stupid?  That so called Fact Sheet is a bunch of baloney as you and Councilmember Burgess and the entire Seattle City Council ought to know.

Do you honestly think that I am stupid enough not to know the true facts about fluoridation for myself?  Or are you assuming that someone named JUANITA would not even be able to do research on the subject for themselves and that I just sit around all day eating tacos and doing a Mexican hat dance?  Shame on you and Councilmember Burgess for trying to hoodwink me with that insulting Seattle Public Utilities “Fact Sheet” so let’s stop playing games.

I know that Councilmember Burgess–as does every single other Councilmember- knows perfectly well about the lead, arsenic, mercury, chromium 6, radioactive contaminants, etc. and the FACT that hydrofluorosilicic acid–an unrefined hazardous industrial waste product–is infinitely MORE toxic than natural calcium fluoride.

I think you know these things too and if you don’t you better start educating yourself–if someone named JUANITA could possibly be smart enough to do some research for myself then I am sure that you can do some too.

If you already know these things about the toxic fluoridation then I really wonder how you sleep at night knowing that you are deliberately spreading purposefully misleading information that can and does lead to great physical harm to countless trusting people.  I know that there are certain things that I absolutely will not do because I have a conscience–and spreading purposefully misleading information that can and will cause harm to innocent people is certainly high on my list of absolute no no’s.  If my boss tried to get me to do something like that I would quit and seek employment elsewhere.

That so called Fact Sheet is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and you know it.  So interesting how it deliberately left out the FACTS about fluoridation that I listed above!

I am not being “provided” with fluoride–my Civil Rights are being violated by having it FORCED upon me against my will.  LULAC has stated that it certainly IS a Civil Rights Violation.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid is an unapproved drug.  You can quote Surgeon Generals, the ADA, the U.S. Public Health Services etc. all you like in your ridiculous “Fact Sheet” but the final Federal Court Ruling in Doe vs Rumsfeld states “that no one, not even the Federal government has the right to force anyone to take into their body a non approved drug.”

A FINAL FEDERAL COURT RULING certainly trumps any silly quotes in that deliberately misleading “Fact Sheet”.

I suggest that the City Council start giving some very serious consideration to stopping the fluoridation ASAP.  If they will not do it because it is the right thing to do then they better start trying to figure out how they are going to be paying their legal bills and resulting judgements when the Civil Rights Violations Lawsuits start because I do not think their municipal nor their private insurance is going to cover them in this situation.

Thank you for your time and attention to this extremely serious matter.


Citizens for Safe Drinking Water File Suit

August 10th, 2011 No comments

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water: Largest Water Wholesaler in Southern California Sued for Illegal Use of an Unapproved Drug to Fulfill Fluoridation Program

SAN DIEGO, Aug. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, attorneys for citizen/consumers from San Diego, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties filed a lawsuit in the public interest of millions of consumers in Southern California, citing that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.

In legal action which may impact the decision-making of water districts across the country employing the same practices, the lawsuit filed on August 9 in U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, addresses the Constitutional right of Plaintiffs to be free of bodily intrusion from a drug that has not been approved for MWD’s intent to alter the physical structure and bodily functions to make a person’s teeth more resistant to the demineralization process of tooth decay without their consent.

While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to that of medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.

“This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation,” states Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the Plaintiffs. “It does challenge MWD’s bait and switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD’s perpetuation of absolute health claims.”

Despite early misrepresentations in the media, MWD of SoCal is not compelled to fluoridate its water by the State of California, and the costs of adding the unapproved drug are being borne by consumers in the form of rate hikes without water districts providing ratepayers clear notice of what the extra costs are for, or obtaining their consent.

The lawsuit’s filing clarifies that Congress has established that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the only government entity with the authority to approve claims of safety and effectiveness for products intended to treat and prevent disease, and that not only has the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency never had that authority, but in 1988 abandoned authority for safety standards for all direct water additives, including fluoridation chemicals.

While the Plaintiffs do not seek an award for any physical harm, they do point to evidence concerning safety/harm and effectiveness that by law and for consumers’ protection requires that the product be thoroughly evaluated, and approval given, for any claims and MWD’s intended health impact, before exposing consumers without their consent.

Plaintiffs point to MWD’s misrepresentations and omission of any notice of contraindications, government recognition of susceptible populations, and scientific evidence of disproportionate harm to children, Latinos, and African Americans, from the particular harmful side effects from the hydrofluosilicic acid drug selected by MWD, above other forms of fluoride.

“This lawsuit pushes past the rhetoric and reliance on unaccountable endorsements or opinions that usually accompany this subject, and focuses on whether MWD of SoCal adds hydrofluosilicic acid to public drinking water in order to treat or prevent dental disease, and whether FDA regulates products intended to treat disease, or not,” said Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and spokesperson for the Plaintiffs.

“In essence,” continued Green, “the Plaintiffs are saying, ‘Don’t tell us, or the media, or the court how safe it is. Go tell it to the FDA through the evaluation process and get approval for the claims for the specific product you deliver, and don’t administer it to us topically, systemically through our ingestion, or through our skin from our baths and showers, without our consent until you do.'”

Contact: Jeff Green
Plaintiff Spokesperson
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
(800) 728-3833

Kyle Nordrehaug, Attorney
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
(858) 551-1223

SOURCE Citizens for Safe Drinking Water


Cuba stopped fluoridation in 1997, and carries did not increase

Caries Res. 2000 Jan-Feb;34(1):20-5.

Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba.


Department of Preventive Dentistry, Dental School of Erfurt, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany.


In the past, caries has usually increased after cessation of water fluoridation. More recently an opposite trend could be observed: DMFT remaining stable or even decreasing further. The aim of the present study conducted in La Salud (Province of Habana) in March 1997 was to analyse the current caries trend under the special climatic and nutritional conditions of the subtropical sugar island Cuba, following the cessation, in 1990, of water fluoridation (0.8 ppm F).
Diagnostic evaluations were carried out using the same methods as in 1973 and 1982. Boys and girls aged 6-13 years (N = 414), lifelong residents in La Salud, were examined. Between 1973 and 1982 the mean DMFT had decreased by 71.4%, the mean DMFS by 73. 3% and the percentage of caries-free children had increased from 26. 3 to 61.6%.
In 1997, following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds (from 1. 1 to 0.8) and DMFS (from 1.5 to 1.2). In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease (DMFT from 2.1 to 1.1; DMFS from 3.1 to 1. 5), while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased from 4.8 (1973) and 33.3 (1982) up to 55.2%.
A possible explanation for this unexpected finding and for the good oral health status of the children in La Salud is the effect of the school mouthrinsing programme, which has involved fortnightly mouthrinses with 0.2% NaF solutions (i.e. 15 times/year) since 1990.
[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Seattle Reduces Fluoride to .8 ppm

March 30th, 2011 4 comments

March 29, 2011

Dear Dr. Osmunson,

Thank you for your inquiry about the new developments in regard to fluoride in drinking water.  Seattle Public Utilities has been tracking this issue closely in order to follow the recommendations of our public health agencies in the most appropriate manner.  As it stands now, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services has proposed a recommended level of fluoride in drinking water and is accepting comments on that proposal until April 15.  We are anticipating that the final recommendation will be made in late summer or early fall.

Since the proposed recommendation was announced on January 7, we have been in contact with our local and state health departments.  With their support, we have adjusted the fluoride level in the water supply to the lower end currently allowed by state law, 0.8 mg/L.    We will continue to work with the Washington State Department of Health and Public Health Seattle & King County in preparation for a final federal recommendation on fluoride levels.  This information is posted on our website at:

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Jim Nilson

Jim Nilson, PE
Sr. Water Quality Engineer
Drinking Water Division

Seattle Public Utilities

Ph. 206-615-1363
Fax 206-684-0206



From Audrey Adams:

I just wonder, though, why the state would set a minimum limit if a water district choses to fluoridate?  I mean, really, what is the point when 40% of Washington is at zero, to mandate any water district that does fluoridate to do so at any minimum level?  That IS a roundabout mandate to fluoridate, is it not?  How can the state claim that the decision to fluoridate is a local decision if they are requiring a certain level for certain water districts?  Should we be pushing the state to list no minimum, rather only list a maximum?

Audrey Adams


From Dr. Bill Osmunson:

As a dentist for 25 years I failed to review the science and simply believed fluoridation was effective and safe.  No appology begins to correct the problem of adding toxins to your child.

It is hard to sleep knowing we public health professionals have contributed to so much harm.



I just wonder, though, why the state would set a minimum limit if a WD choses to fluoridate?  I mean, really, what is the point when 40% of Washington is at zero, to mandate any WD that does fluoridate to do so at any minimum level?  That IS a roundabout mandate to fluoridate, is it not?  How can the state claim that the decision to fluoridate is a local decision if they are requiring a certain level for certain WDs?  Should we be pushing the state to list no minimum, rather only list a maximum?

WASW Letter to Regional EPA

February 7th, 2011 No comments

Washington Action for Safe Water

November 4, 2010

Edward J. Kowalski, Director,
Office of Compliance and Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Mail Stop OCE-164
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101

RE:       Environmental Justice Stakeholder Forum 10/28/10

Enforcement Group, Laws & Fluoridation, Action Item #1

Dear Mr. Kowalski,

I sincerely enjoyed meeting you and many other EPA staff during last Thursday’s Forum.  I felt very fortunate that there were four of you in the EJ Enforcement Group and, most importantly, that you listened to what I had to say and took my concerns seriously.

As you know, our EJ Enforcement Group determined that Goal #1 fit our topic the best:  “Eliminate, reduce or mitigate the burden of pollution and disproportionate, adverse public health and environmental impacts on low-income and minority communities and vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly.”

Water fluoridation is an Environmental Injustice to vulnerable populations:

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice upon those with chemical sensitivities who cannot drink, eat foods prepared with or bathe in fluoridated water without suffering serious health consequences, affecting a disproportionate number of children and adults with autism.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice to children because one-third living in fluoridated communities are expected to have dental fluorosis from excess fluoride and it is unreasonable to assume that a drug potent and toxic enough to permanently change the interior of the tooth has no effect on other organs, bones or health.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice against seniors because of the increase of bone fractures in fluoridated areas, which can be fatal for the most vulnerable elderly.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice against people of color because studies have shown blood lead levels higher in blacks than whites in fluoridated compared to unfluoridated areas.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice to children and adults with neurological disorders (including autism) and mental retardation because excess fluoride increases the rate of mental retardation, up to double in fluoridated areas compared to unfluoridated areas.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice to babies fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water because those babies will receive 250 times more fluoride than a baby on mother’s milk.

Ø      Fluoridation is an injustice to the poor, particularly, because they have no access to expensive fluoride-removal filtration systems, cannot transport bottled water from the store to their homes without a car, cannot afford to buy safe water for their babies and still do not have adequate access to dental care, have no better dental health than unfluoridated people but do have unnecessary health risks to because of it.

A review of the laws governing fluoride and water fluoridation is highly relevant to the public health, especially the most vulnerable.  Local and state authorities in Washington consider EPA the governing agency on fluoridation.  EPA’s authority over fluoridation has been cited repeatedly in petition denials from the Washington Board of Health and it perceives that EPA has fully certified the safety and effectiveness of fluoride for use on whole populations, presumably protecting the vulnerable.  We know these beliefs to be false.

The EJ Enforcement Group determined that our objective (loosely worded) was to enforce existing laws to protect vulnerable populations from “adverse public health and environmental impacts” from toxins, including those chemicals that may be added by governmental agencies.  Laws governing drugs apply to fluoride, but are being ignored.  Governmental agencies are not above the law, but have been allowed to act as if they are.

In discussing possible EJ Action Items regarding water fluoridation, you expressed concern that Region 10 cannot override or contradict EPA headquarters, however we at Washington Action for Safe Water (WASW) believe that what we are asking is simply a request of local compliance to stated EPA headquarter positions and the laws governing the EPA, FDA and state and local governments which have thus far been ignored, misinterpreted or brushed under the table for lack of someone willing or able to challenge it.  WASW, a non-profit with no paid staff, is challenging non-compliance here in Washington State.

Our Enforcement Group agreed to the following Action Items regarding fluoridation:

  1. Analyze the WASW petitions submitted to the Wash. State Board of Health (BOH), especially where BOH has cited EPA in their denial of those petitions.
  2. Meet with WASW board members, including Dr. Bill Osmunson, President, to discuss the petitions, process, legal issues and health effects of fluoridation.
  3. Survey national activities on water fluoridation (suggested by EPA staff).
  4. Determine if fluoridating water districts, BOH or other agencies are in compliance with state and federal laws governing the drug fluoride, as described in the WASW petitions that were denied by the BOH, citing EPA’s approval of fluoride.
  5. If non-compliance is found, educate/inform local and state agencies of Region 10’s law interpretations regarding the drug, water fluoridation.

I am attaching the following documents pertaining to Action Item #1 (more to follow):

BOH Petition #1 FDA Drug Approval 5-11-10

BOH Petition #1 Recom by EHC to Deny 6-9-10

BOH Petition #1 Initial Denial 6-14-10

BOH Petition #1 Governor Appeal 9-13-10

BOH Petition #1 Resubmission Denial 10-14-10

BOH Petition #1 Thiessen NRC Review

11-4-10 Email Letter to Edward Kowalski EPA Reg-10 (this letter in Word)

I understand that the attachments I have sent with this email are a tremendous amount of information to read, let alone analyze—it certainly is for myself having no scientific, drug or chemical expertise whatsoever.  I have been forced into this battle for environmental justice because the inabilty to tolerate fluoride or fluoridated water in any form affects my autistic son every single day of his life, and therefore mine, because of his severe chemical sensitivities.  I have two friends with autistic children who also cannot tolerate fluoride.  This is not a coincidence because people with autism suffer from chemical sensitivities at a much higher rate than the average population due to their reduced ability to detoxify.

The possibility has not been ruled out that this reduced ability to detoxify, along with chronic exposure to chemical toxins from multiple sources, including water fluoridation, may be at the root of the development of autism.  No governmental agency has bothered thus far to study this possible link, that I know of, nor to conduct any scientific studies to determine if the chronic exposure to fluoridated water may contribute to the severity of autism.  Given the epidemic of autism, this is beyond shameful.  For my son, fluoridated water increases the severity of his symptoms deemed to be “characteristics of autism”, yet he becomes “less autistic” without fluoride.

My personal motivation is my extreme concern over those autistic children and adults who may be suffering profound pain from fluoridated water, as my son did before my discovery, though their parents and caregivers may not figure it out for years, if ever.  Pain, when experienced by individuals with low or no language, is often exhibited as “behavioral problems”.  Doctors generally treat behavioral problems with drugs rather than determine the source of the problem, only making the situation worse.  The person with autism, even if he recognizes the source himself, is very often unable to tell those around him that his shower, for example, gives him a screaming headache.

I am sending several emails to you to disperse the attachments.  WASW has submitted a total of seven petitions to the Board of Health; only the first three have been acted upon—all denied and all based on EPA’s authority and approval of fluoridation.  I will not be sending all of them at this time to spare you the sheer volume.

Because of the complexity and volume of information, I recommend a preliminary meeting with Dr. Bill Osmunson as soon as possible to help you understand the information I am sending.

I can’t express enough my appreciation to all of you at Region 10 for your interest in this Environmental Justice topic and your action at the local level.


Audrey Adams, Board Member

Washington Action for Safe Water

10939 SE 183rd Ct

Renton, WA 98055


cc:        Donald Dossett & Dustan Bott, Office of Compliance & Enforcement, Region 10

Kendra Tyler, Assistant to DennisMcLerran, EPA Region 10 Administrator

Dr. Bill Osmunson DDS MPH and WASW Board

Additional email attachments:

2-A      BOH Petition #2 Concentration 8-16-10

2-B      BOH Petition #2 Denial 10-14-10

2-C      BOH Petition #2 Governor Appeal 10-19-10

3-A      BOH Petition #3 Lead (Deal) 9-13-10

3-B      BOH Petition #3 Denial 10-14-10

S-1      BOParmacy Determines Fluoride is a Drug 6-4-09

S-2      EPA FOI Request from WASW 6-14-10

S-3      EPA Response No Record of Authority 7-6-10

S-4      EPA Nat Pri Drinking Water Regulations 3-29-10

S-5      EPA Response to FAN atty 9-23-10

S-6      MOU Memo of Understanding FDA to EPA 1979

S-7      FDA FOI No Records Relinq Authority 6-30-10

S-8      FDA Letter to Congress 12-21-00

S-9      UW Study on Wash Decay Rates Fl vs Unfl 1995

John Yiamouyiannis

February 7th, 2011 No comments


Translation from the Japanese Journal of Fluoride Research, No. 19, Nov. 2000, p. 1, excerpts…

Dr John Yiamouyiannis, biochemist and founder of the Safe Water Foundation, USA, died October 8, 2000, passing away peacefully in sleep at his home in Delaware, Ohio, surrounded by members of his family.

Undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago and afterward, in 1967; PhD in biochemistry at the University of Rhode Island. Postdoctoral research at Western Reserve Medical School; became a biochemical editor at Chemical Abstracts Service. There, he became aware of the health-damaging effects of fluoride. His opposing water fluoridation prompted efforts by the National Institute of Dental Research to have CAS silence him or risk losing substantial US Public
Health Service funding. He resign from the CAS.

His experience is described in his book, Fluoride the Aging Factor.

Dr Ys studies with Dr Dean Burk to determine whether cancer death rates increased after fluoridation in the 1950s caused great concern among many Americans and prompted Congressional hearings in 1977 followed by a 21-day court trial in Pennsylvania. There the presiding judge was compellingly convinced of the adverse effects of fluoridation and ordered its halt as a public health hazard. His decision, however, was overruled on jurisdictional grounds, and at an administrative level fluoridation policy remained unchanged.

Tohru Murakami, DDS, PhD
Editor, Japanese Journal of Fluoride Research
1-5-16 Kamikoide-machi
Gunma-ken, 371 0037, Japan

Miltenberger to Frostburg Council

January 20th, 2011 No comments

To the Frostburg Mayor & Council
January 2011

Good Evening Gentleman:
Let me start my remarks by quoting one of our founders:
“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny.”  Thomas Jefferson (1778)
An ancient Roman adage says that “what touches all must be approved by all.”
Folks, water fluoridation was the first attempt by our government in socialized medicine.  When you mass medicate a population with a one size fits all approach without first considering the health, age, weight, dose, dosage, and the sensitivity to the medication by a subset of the population you run a foul to any notion of modern pharmacology, where informed consent, monitoring patient response to the medication and controlling the dosage are all paramount.
If we look the FDA OTC toothpaste warning on ingested fluoride requires a warning label on toothpaste for ingested fluoride that requests the consumer to call the poison control center after ingesting more than a pea size amount or the equivalent concentration of 8 oz. of fluoridated drinking water at 1 mg per liter;  while the other federal agencies are allowing or promoting both the MCL & MCLG for ingested fluoride in the drinking to remain at 4 ppm.  You see gentleman you have a dilemma here the in regulatory standard between two federal agencies towards ingesting fluoridated water, toothpaste and food stuffs.  The EPA water division has been dragging its feet for 5 years now on the new risk assessment ask for by the 2006 NRC report.  We are still waiting!!!  The EPA Water Division must either show with the current science available that ingesting 4 ppm fluoride is safe & effective at the MCL & MCLG or submit a lower MCLG &MCL that reflects this new science, which would by the way resemble FDA warning label and the PDR for Luride ( fluoride tablets) for ingested fluoride.
Let’s take Colgate Whiting  Toothpaste.  170 grams or 6 ounces have .24% of sodium fluoride within the concentration.  1/4 mg. of sodium fluoride is within 1/10th of a gram or a pea size amount of toothpaste.    8oz. or 1 cup of fluoridated water at 1 ppm. per liter = 1/4 mg of sodium fluoride.  4 ppm of fluoride per liter  = 2 oz. of water at the FDA toothpaste warning standard.
In the 2003 6th edition PDR special warning section for Luride – children under the age of six should not be taking the same dose (1 mg.) that municipalities add to the drinking water at 1mg per Liter or I ppm.  Why gentleman would you want to continue this practice when the PDR states that not even a dentist or doctor should be administering this equivalent dose to a child under the age of six.
I my humble opinion, when it becomes apparent to you that these two standards for ingestion are in conflict with the CDC & EPA standard, then it is only prudent for the Mayor & Council to error on the side of caution and discontinue this practice.  If the two federal standards are allowed to continue to be in conflict for ingested fluoride, this could result in more potential harm to the citizens on Frostburg’s Water Supply.  In the strongest of terms, the EPA Water Divisions is committing criminal regulatory negligence by refusing to finish this new risk assessment and not lower the MCL & MCLG for fluoride in the drinking water.
The ADA warning for infant formula when using fluoridated water and the MSDS warnings on chronic ingestion of fluoride from your supplier that highlighted their own standard of 1 mg. per kilogram per the AWWA & NSF Standard 60 does not provide a adequate margin of safety for ingestion. Furthermore, the synergistic effects of adding this fluoride toxic waste from China with lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, etc. should make any reasonable person stand up and take notice.
Recently, Dr. William Hirzy V.P. of EPA union commented that they have urged caution about adding fluoride to drinking water for a long time. In 1986 NFFE [National Federation of Federal Employees] local 2050 submitted an amicus brief in support of an NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council] suit vs. EPA over the issue. Other EPA unions joined the HQ union in 2005 in calling for EPA to consider a health based standard of zero fluoride in drinking water based on cancer studies.
He said, that the announcement on Jan. 7 that EPA and DHHS were considering lowering the recommended fluoride levels in water, not a whisper was made about other adverse effects reported in the peer-reviewed literature and cited in the National Research Council’s report to EPA on fluoride toxicity. These include suppression of thyroid function at levels now experienced in the U.S. population, neurotoxicity, including lowering of IQ in children, and increased risk of bone cancer seen in animal and human epidemiology studies.
He stated that a 1990 study (the largest ever done) published by the National Institute of Dental Research involving 39,000 U.S. kids failed to show statistically significant decreases in caries rates in kids who drank fluoridated water all their lives vs. kids who drank unfluoridated water all their lives. The study showed a “savings” of 0.6 tooth surfaces (out of 128 surfaces) in the fluoridated kids. David Locker, in a report commissioned by Canadian health authorities found fluoridation’s effect, “…is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance.” Similar results are reported from New Zealand, and four studies in Europe and Cuba showed no increases in caries rates when fluoridation is halted.
Furthermore he stated, his 21 year old son has been drinking only distilled water since going off his mother’s breast, and he’s had only one cavity in his permanent teeth.. that’s less than half as many as were seen in the average fluoridated kid’s mouth in the NIDR 1990 study.
Gentlemen, not one of you sitting here tonight voted to add fluoride to the drinking water.  It is time to stand up to the plate and do the right thing and remove this substance from our water supply and give back the citizens of Frostburg and the surrounding area the right of freedom of choice in their own health decisions.
Thank you,
Bernard W. Miltenberger
The Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland, Inc.

Efficacy or Safety?

January 16th, 2011 No comments

Letter to Craig McLaughlin, Board of Health

from Dr. Bill Osmunson

Jan 13-2010

Greetings Craig,

Question:  On what Legislative authority (law) does the Board include the concept of efficacy when determining the safety of fluoridation?  In other words, what law, if any, gives the Board the authority to determine fluoridation’s efficacy?   In an effort not to keep your staff busy with public disclosure request or another petition for rule change, perhaps you could answer the following question easier and faster.  WASW has not made petitions based on the efficacy or economic impact of fluoridation because the Board is charged only with ensuring the safety of water.  The Legislature does not appear to have instructed the Board to weigh the balance between safety and efficacy of drug therapy, but just safety.

RCW 43.20.50 (2) “In order to protect public health, the state board of health shall: (a) Adopt rules for group A public water systems . . . necessary to assure safe and reliable public drinking water and to protect the public health.

Based on the Board’s statements (especially to deny our 5th petition, intent of use) it appears the Board does weigh the efficacy of fluoridation in with the decision to determine concentration.     Perhaps we should provide evidence on the lack of fluoridation’s efficacy?   Regards,   Bill

Dr. Miller on Fluoridation

November 24th, 2010 No comments

Fighting Fluoride
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD

November 9, 2010

The battle for and against fluoridation of the public water supply has
entered a new phase. Three things have happened since I researched and wrote
“Fluoride Follies” five years ago.

In their efforts to have all the community drinking water in the U.S. fluoridated, promoters of fluoridation are taking a different tack. Rather than grapple with community-level politics and local referendums on this matter, they are increasingly targeting state legislators and are pushing for statewide mandates to fluoridate the public water supply.

A second development has inflicted a chink in the Federal Government’s armor against antifluoridationists. The Office of Drinking Water in its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned the government’s National Research Council (NRC) to examine the toxicology of fluoride. It was commissioned to assess the EPA’s 4 ppm (parts per million) maximum contaminant level goal, along with its 2 ppm secondary maximum contaminant level, a level set to keep children from having unsightly dental fluorosis, where white specks form on teeth, and with further fluoride exposure become
confluent and turn brown. The council’s 506-page report was published in 2006. It unflinchingly faces up to the health-damaging effects of fluoride in public water.

The third development is the publication, in September 2010, of The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There by Paul Connett, PhD, the director of the Fluoride Action Network; James Beck, MD, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary, Canada; and H. S. Micklem, DPhil, Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, UK. The Case Against Fluoride is well-written, which makes it easy to read; and it is comprehensive, citing more than 1700 references, pro and con, dealing with fluoridation of public water. This book is the ideal litigator’s brief for prosecuting the case
against fluoride.

Most Americans, 269 million in a population of 304 million (88.5 %), get their water from public water systems, and 196 million (72.4 %) drink – and bathe and wash their clothes with – fluoridated water. Maryland is the most heavily fluoridated state, where 99.8% of people use fluoridated public water, followed by Kentucky (99.4%), Minnesota (98.8%), North Dakota (96.4%), Illinois (95.4%), and Indiana (94.5%) (The District of Columbia, appropriately enough, is 100 percent fluoridated.) Hawaii (at 10.8%), New Jersey (13.6%), Oregon (27.4%), and Louisiana (28.3%) are the least fluoridated states. These statistics are for 2008, the most recent ones available on fluoridation. That year, in Louisiana, the legislature approved and the governor signed into law an Act that requires all community water systems in Louisiana having 5,000 or more customers (some 110 systems serving 2 million) to fluoridate their water.

Promoters are pushing for mandatory statewide fluoridation in various states, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts among them. In Oregon, a bill (HB2025) is pending that will mandate statewide fluoridation. It would require all municipal water systems serving 10,000 or more customers to add fluoride to their water, for 2.4 million Oregonians, 66 percent of the state’s population. Legislators in California passed a state-mandated fluoridation law in 1995 that is contingent on municipalities obtaining an
outside, non-state source of funds for it. State officials are putting increasing pressure on California cities, notably San Diego, that have not yet complied with the law. (In 2008, 58.8% of California’s public water was fluoridated.)

Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that shows fluoride damages health. The National Research Council (NRC) report published in 2006, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards (available free online HERE) is the first one in the 65-year history of fluoridation that examines fluoride in an open-minded and unbiased way. Charged with carrying out a government-stipulated once-every-decade review of EPA’s fluoride standards, the council’s panel of reviewers examined not just epidemiologic studies but also biochemical and animal studies and clinical trials. The
report cites over 1,100 references. The panel concluded that the EPA’s maximum and secondary maximum contaminant level goals for fluoride, 4 ppm (4 mg/Liter) and 2 ppm (2mg/L) respectively, are “not protective of public health,” particularly with regard to three things: dental fluorosis; skeletal fluorosis, which causes chronic joint pain and arthritis imitating osteoarthritis; and fractures. Among the many studies the NRC panel
reviewed, for example, one showed that elderly people have a 3-times greater chance of having a hip fracture drinking water with a fluoride concentration of 4.4 ppm; and another one indicated that even a 1.5 ppm concentration, close to that used in public water, is associated with a possible doubling of hip fractures. These courageous government-appointed NRC reviewers also concluded that “fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers.” The [2010] Case Against Fluoride cites several other important health studies on fluoridation done since the publication of the
NRC report in 2006 that support its findings.

Concerns about these 2 and 4 mg/Liter maximum contaminant levels are relevant to people drinking and using fluoridated water at 1 mg/L. Even people who live in non-fluoridated communities consume, on average, 4 mg of fluoride a day. It is in toothpaste, fruit juices, soda pop, tea, and processed foods. People living in fluoridated areas consume twice as much fluoride, 8 mg/day. Fluoride is absorbed through the skin, bathing and wearing clothes washed with fluoridated water. It is also possible that you
could inhale aerosolized fluoride and absorb it through the lungs when taking a shower with fluoridated water. It is estimated (no direct measurements have been done) that two-thirds of the fluoride people take into their bodies using fluoridated community water comes from bathing and wearing clothes washed in it. Athletes and people working in hot climates who drink a lot of water, people with kidney failure, and infants who are fed formula with fluoridated tap water are at particular risk for being subjected to a potentially toxic daily dose of fluoride.

Four years have elapsed since the NRC recommended that the EPA carry out more studies and consider lowering its 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L fluoride maximum concentration level goals. So far nothing has been done. This agency’s response to the NRC’s unwelcome news on fluoride brings to mind an observation Winston Churchill made about such things: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”

Publication of “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There” is a signal event in the 65-year story of fluoridation. The book’s authors document in a convincing fashion that fluoridation is ineffective and harmful. They address first the ethics of this medical practice and present general arguments against fluoridation. In the summary to this part of the book, they write:

“When the fluoridation of drinking water began, there was little evidence for its long-term safety, and since then little attempt has been made to monitor its health effects systematically. Because there are so many unanswered health questions, fluoridation of water must be considered an ongoing experimental procedure, and as such it is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which forbids experimentation on humans without their informed consent. Only a minority of countries practice fluoridation. In Europe, nearly all countries either have never fluoridated their water or have ceased doing so. Yet the incidence of caries has declined just as much in those countries as in countries that practice fluoridation.”

The Case Against Fluoride next marshals evidence indicating that fluoridation is ineffective in its intended purpose of preventing tooth decay, then it recounts the history of what the authors call “The Great Fluoridation Gamble,” followed by a section on how fluoride harms health. Four chapters are devoted to explaining, in turn, how fluoride harms the brain, the endocrine system (especially the thyroid gland), bone, and kidneys. Another one analyzes evidence that fluoride causes osteosarcoma in young boys. In the chapter on fluoride and the brain, the authors write, “There have also been twenty-three studies indicating a lowered IQ in children associated with levels as low as 1.9 ppm fluoride in drinking water.” The chapter on the endocrine system finds that fluoride causes hypothyroidism and goiter, by a variety of biochemical mechanisms, and notes
that the second most widely prescribed drug in fluoridated America was levothyroxine (Synthroid), for impaired thyroid function. Fluoride poisons enzymes, particularly those in bones, which contain 99 percent of the fluoride in the body. With its enzymes poisoned by the fluoride stored there and unable make the collagen needed to keep bones healthy and strong, they become brittle and weak. The Case Against Fluoride makes a strong case that the 1 mg/Liter (1 ppm) concentration of fluoride added to community water can wreak widespread deleterious effects in multiple organ systems.

For the last 30 years the fluoride used to fluoridate community drinking water is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, or naturally occurring calcium fluoride, but untested silicofluorides – hexafluorosilicic acid and its sodium salt, sodium hexafluorosilicate. These fluoridating agents are waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry and contain trace amounts of arsenic and lead. Fertilizer plants sell these unpurified silicofluorides to municipal water systems at a profit, rather than, at
considerable expense, having to dispose of them as toxic waste.

In a court trial against fluoride, the judge presiding would stop pro-fluoridationists from making ad hominem attacks that focus on the character of the opposing witness instead of the evidence at hand; and proponents of fluoridation making repeated dogmatic assertions that fluoridation is safe and effective would be subject to cross examination. An attorney using The Case Against Fluoride as her brief in prosecuting the case against fluoridation would most likely obtain a criminal-level verdict of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Case Against Fluoride also addresses, and discredits, forty claims pro-fluoridationists make for fluoride. These are some of them: Claim 1) “There is no difference in principle between chlorination and fluoridation;” 3) “Fluoride is a nutrient;” 5) “The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you;” 9) “Fluoridation is needed to protect children in low-income families;” 12) “For every dollar spent on fluoridation, $38 is saved in dental costs;” 15) “Every major dental and medical authority supports fluoridation;” etc.

The authors deal with Claim 17 as follows:

“Fluoridation is safe and effective,” this way: “This empty phrase is parroted so many times by pro-fluoridation officials and dentists at meetings considering fluoridation that one begins to wonder if they receive some kind of commission every time it is uttered! Be that as it may, mechanically repeating a phrase, no matter how often, without backing it up with solid supporting evidence does not make it true.”

With solid evidence now showing that fluoride placed in public water is not safe, health authorities nevertheless still continue to promote fluoridation of community drinking water. The American Medical Association (AMA) says, “The AMA recognizes the important public health benefits of drinking properly fluoridated water and encourages its member physician and medical societies to work with local and state health departments, dental societies, and concerned citizens to assure optimal fluoridation of community drinking water.” The American Dental Association (ADA), in its statement on the subject, reminds us that “Studies conducted throughout the past sixty years have consistently indicated that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective in preventing dental decay in both children and adults.” The American Heart Association assures us that “no evidence exists that adjusting the fluoride content of public water supplies to a level of about one part per million has any harmful effect on the cardiovascular system;” and the American Cancer Society claims that “scientific studies show no connection between cancer rates in humans and adding fluoride to drinking water.” But none of these accolades can top the Federal Government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC has proclaimed fluoridation of community drinking water one of the ten great public health achievements in the 20th century.

Starting in the 1940s with World War II, vast amounts of fluoride were needed to make atom bombs (using uranium hexafluoride to separate the fissionable uranium-235 isotope from the nonfissionable uranium-238 isotope), and emitted as toxic waste in the metal industries, especially smelting aluminum used to make airplanes. Fluoride emissions from these industries were killing crops and livestock and lawsuits loomed. Pushed partly as a matter of national security, the government painted a happy face on fluoride and convinced health policy makers and medical and dental leaders to approve putting it, well diluted, in public drinking water (for more on this part of the story see “Fluoride Follies”).

How can health authorities continue to be wrong about fluoride? For 65 years? And for the last 30 years using a non-pharmaceutical-grade of fluoride taken unaltered and untested from the smokestacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry? The truth is such things are not as improbable as one might think. This is not the first time that authorities have been so wrong about the safety and effectiveness of what was considered to be a
therapeutic element. Before fluoride it was mercury. Mercury was used to treat a variety of conditions ranging from cuts and scratches to syphilis. It was considered to be safe and effective. Older Americans reading this can call to mind the little reddish-brown bottle of mercury-laden mercurochrome used to treat the odd cut or scratch. But even with syphilis, bad as that disease is, treating it with mercury proved to be worse than the disease itself. Finally recognized as the poison it is, medications containing mercury are no longer used, except, sad to say, mercury is still used in some multi-dose vaccines as a preservative. Likely what happened with mercury, however, will also happen with fluoride. Joel Kauffman, PhD, Professor of Chemistry Emeritus at the University of the
Sciences in Philadelphia, puts the issue plainly:

Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data. (J Am Phys Surg 2005;10:38-44, available online HERE)

As Upton Sinclair notes (with additions): “It is difficult to get a man [e.g., fluoride proponents] to understand something [the fact that fluoridation of public water is neither safe nor effective] when his salary [, reputation, and power] depends on his not understanding it.”

One hopes that Americans will come to see fluoride, like mercury before it, as the poison it is and demand that municipalities stop fluoridating their water. With The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There now in public hands, along with the NRC’s Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, government officials, the fertilizer industry, and misguided doctors and dentists pushing for statewide fluoridation of public water supplies will be stopped, and likely sued. The health of Americans will be substantially improved once fluoride is removed from their water.

Donald Miller is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. He is a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and writes articles on a variety of subjects for His web site is Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD also is author of “What Kerouac, Kennedy, Lincoln, and Practicing Medicine Have Taught Me About Liberty.”

Copyright © 2010 by Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Mercola on Fluoridation

November 14th, 2010 No comments

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride

A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association finds once again that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.

Exposure to high levels of fluoride results in a condition known as fluorosis, in which tooth enamel becomes discolored. The condition can eventually lead to badly damaged teeth. The new study found that fluoride intake during a child’s first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is of a similar opinion. According to their website:

“Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing … enamel fluorosis.”

Click here to read more.

Dr. Osmunson in McMinville

November 9th, 2010 No comments

Residents bare fangs at Mac dental debate

Government | Mon, 11/08/2010 – 11:03 am | Read 274 | Commented 2 | Emailed 0

By Nicole Montesano

A forum meant to showcase both sides in the debate over the safety of water fluoridation turned lopsided Thursday night, when the dentist representing the pro-fluoride side initially declined to participate, saying the role he was supposed to play had been misrepresented to him.

Dentist Gary Brooks of Willamina said he had not been asked to give a presentation, let alone a keynote presentation in a pro-con format. He said he thought he’d merely been invited to attend.

The forum grew contentious even before it began, and turned more so as it progressed.

The dentist, anti-fluoride activist Bill Osmunson of Lake Oswego, came prepared with a detailed slide presentation.

However, he ran into problems of his own when his computer was unable to interact with the system in the Carnegie Room of the McMinnville Public Library.

Meanwhile, audience member Denise Murphy raised an objection, saying the presentation shouldn’t go forward if it wasn’t going to be balanced. She said both sides should be fairly represented, as the meeting was taking place in a city-owned and tax-payer-funded building.

That led to shouting between Murphy and forum organizer Jo McIntyre, an anti-fluoride activist, who accused Murphy of representing a dental hygienist organization.

Murphy, a friend of Library Director Jill Poyer, later contacted the News-Register to deny the allegation.

In fact, she said, she works at the county courthouse and attended the meeting solely on her own behalf.

“I am not a shill for anyone even remotely connected to dentists or the fluoride industry,” Murphy said.

Poyer also contacted the News-Register, complaining that McIntyre had misled her.

“I was assured by Jo McIntyre that both sides would be represented in a fair and equal manner, and moderated accordingly. That clearly did not happen,” Poyer wrote.

“It was clearly a misuse of our meeting room guidelines and I am personally responsible for the error in judgment. … I was actually there for most of the meeting and was able to observe the imbalance first-hand.”

Brooks eventually agreed to improvise a presentation, to satisfy the audience.

During the evening, moderator Larry Bohnsack of KLYC Radio tried to diffuse the tension — and occasional shouting — with jokes about bourbon-flavored toothpaste and confusing formaldehyde with fluoride.

When a woman who identified herself as a dentist angrily told Osumson that he was counteracting the efforts of dentists who have “worked like dogs” to improve the public’s dental hygiene, Bohnsack noted his golden retriever doesn’t work at all hard.
“Well, I have toy poodles, and they are very energetic,” the woman responded.

Osmunson told the audience that dental cavities have been declining steadily and substantially worldwide since 1930, well before water fluoridation began. He said it has not been limited to countries where water is fluoridated.

Fluoridating water is actually illegal under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, passed in 1974, because the act prohibits adding anything to public water systems other than agents intended for disinfection. Osmunson said federal agencies “are deferring regulatory action” on the issue of water fluoridation, which is widespread throughout the United States.

He said the artificial fluoride added to drinking water, a by-product of phosphate fertilizer, is known to be toxic. He told the audience that a tube of fluoridated toothpaste contains instructions to use a pea-sized amount, which contains a quarter milligram of fluoride, to avoid swallowing it, and to contact the Poison Control Center if it is swallowed.

“That’s the same amount of fluoride as there is in one glass of McMinnville water,” he said.

Brooks told the audience he grew up in McMinnville and practiced dentistry in the community for several years before moving to Willamina. He said McMinnville and Sheridan fluoridate their water, while Willamina does not.

“It is obviously anecdotal evidence, which means there’s no scientific basis to it, but I am here to tell you that the kids in McMinnville and Sheridan have much better teeth than the kids in Willamina,” he said.

Brooks said he believes “the preponderance of evidence” shows that fluoride in effective in reducing tooth decay.

“The difference between a poison and a drug is in the dose,” he said.

He went on to note that McMinnville’s population has roughly doubled since 1982, when it had 19 full-time dentists, but it now gets by with 18.

“This tells me that the people in McMinnville are not needing the care,” Brooks said. “I believe that is due to fluoride.”

He said, “Seventy-six percent of people in the nation are drinking fluoridated water. I don’t think that would be the case if it were dangerous.”

Both dentists agreed that fluoride is absorbed by the teeth up to age 8, after which it becomes a topical treatment only.

People living in areas with naturally fluoridated water have much lower rates of tooth decay, even though in areas where the dose is high, they often suffer discoloration from a condition called dental fluorisis, Brooks said.

Osmunson argued that people today receive higher doses of fluoride than originally intended, because it is added to toothpaste and mouthwash, as well as drinking water.

In addition, he said, there is a significant difference between natural fluoride, which is calcium-based, and artificial fluoride, which is not. The calcium prevents the fluoride from being readily absorbed by the body, he said.

Brooks told the audience, “Fluoride is fluoride. Once it’s ionized — that means dissolved — that’s the stuff that gets in your teeth.”

The McMinnville City Council will hold a public hearing Tuesday evening at 7 p.m. on whether to put a measure on the ballot allowing residents to vote whether they want to continue fluoridating the city’s water. The meeting will be held in the Civic Hall, 200 N.E. Second St.

Seattle Fluoridated in 1968

July 13th, 2010 No comments

Seattle voters approved fluoridation of city water on November 5, 1968.

On November 5, 1968, Seattle voters approve fluoridation of city water. Supporters assert that fluoride will reduce tooth decay in children. Opponents claim that the chemical is harmful and an unwanted intrusion by government.

Twice before in Seattle’s history, fluoridation was the topic of a public referendum. In 1952, the citizens of Seattle voted 45,612 for and 88,168 against fluoridation. In 1963, the proposal was once again defeated, although by a smaller margin of 58,593 to 43,747 votes.

The fluoridation question resurfaced on the City Council’s agenda in 1968. Proponents of fluoridation included the State Health Department, Dental Associations, and a group of women called Mothers for Fluoridation. On April 8, 1968, the Mothers’ group presented Council President Floyd C. Miller with a petition bearing approximately 3,500 signatures requesting that the city?s water be “adjusted to contain one part fluoride for every million parts of water” (The Seattle Times, April 8, 1968).

Statistics showed that fluoride hardened teeth, and thus reduced tooth decay by as much as 65 percent. In presenting the petition, Patricia Schultz said that, based on State Health Department statistics, parents would save between $700,000 and $1 million per year in dentist bills as a result of fluoridation. Dr. Olin Hoffman, head of the State Health Department?s Dental-Health Section, described fluoridation as “one of the greatest public-health measures of all time” (Seattle Times, May 14, 1968). One of the key arguments put forth by those in favor of fluoridation was that underprivileged and low-income families could not afford proper dental care for their children, so voluntary fluoridation, such as drops, tablets or vitamin-additives, was out of the question. Fluoridation of the city’s water would therefore be of great benefit to the poor.

Unwanted Doctoring

Opponents of fluoridation, such as the Pure Water Association, were equally vociferous, and dismissed State Department estimates as unsound. They also raised the mass medication question. This held that fluoridation would force a treatment upon those who oppose it on religious grounds. Others warned of health hazards, such as mottled teeth, illness, or even death. Some opposition pamphlets were quite extreme in their views. One pamphlet stated “once the authorities have gotten around to doctoring your water to stop your teeth from rotting (through fluoridation), it is only a short step to doctoring it to prevent your mind from functioning” (The Seattle Times, November 1, 1968)

In the hopes of finding a happy medium between the two sides, B. J. Hartz, a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Washington, proposed adding fluorides to milk instead of to water. Unfluoridated milk would continue to be available, of course. This suggestion was quickly dismissed by the Seattle-King County Health Department, for numerous reasons, including cost, effectiveness, and control.

A public hearing on the fluoridation issue took place on June 28, 1968, after which the City Council voted 5 to 4 to fluoridate Seattle?s water. Existing laws granted state and local officials the power to compel fluoridation without first seeking a public referendum. However, according to the City?s Charter, opponents had 30 days following the Council?s vote to gather signatures equal in number to 8 percent of the votes cast for Mayor in the last general election (in this case approximately 14,000 signatures were needed), to put the question to a public referendum.

Surprisingly, however, on July 22, 1968, City Council did an about face by choosing to refer the fluoridation issue to voters. Councilman Tim Hill, who had pushed strongly for fluoridation, said “I am literally shocked and amazed that members of the Council who voted against putting this on the ballot would now change their minds without even discussing the matter beforehand.”

Myrtle Edwards (1894-1969), one of the two Council members who changed her vote, defended her actions by saying “some poor people are really frightened of fluoridated water” (Seattle P-I, July 23, 1968).

On November 5, 1968, Seattle voters approved the fluoridation proposal by 121,047 to 93,142. In a public statement by Dr. Sanford Lehman, Director of Seattle-King County Health Department, fluoride was to be added to the City?s water “in order to reduce the incidence of dental caries (tooth decay) among young people in a long-range preventative program” (The Seattle Times, December 13, 1969). The estimated cost for equipment and operation was $0.20 per person, per year. On January 12, 1970, Canadian-made liquid fluoride officially began to flow into Seattle City water.

In 2000, a study in the British Medical Journal credited fluoride with reducing tooth decay by 15 percent, but acknowledged that mottled teeth occurred 48 percent of the time.


City of Seattle Archives, Series 1802-B4, Box 1, Folders 8, 9, and 10, Files 216078, 247766, and 262435; “Council Reversal Leaves Fluoridation Up to Voters,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 23, 1968, p. 1; “Mothers? Group Petitions for Fluoridation of City Water,” The Seattle Times, April 8, 1968, p. 3; Herb Robinson, “Fluoridation Battle Looms Once Again,” Ibid., May 14, 1968, A; Douglas Willix, “City Council Approves Fluoridation,” Ibid., June 28, 1968, p. 1; “City Council Hears Fluoridation Pleas,” Ibid., June 28, 1968, p. 31; “Fluoridation of Milk Supplies Instead of Water is Proposed,” Ibid., August 4, 1968, p. 20; Herb Robinson, “Fluoridation Foes Scare Tactics are Unprecedented,” Ibid., November 1, 1968, p. 11; “Fluoridation of Milk Opposed,” Ibid., September 5, 1968, p. 2; “Date for Fluoridation Set,” Ibid., December 13, 1969, p. 33; Al Dieffenbach, “Fluoride Will Begin Flowing in Limited Amounts This Week,” Ibid., January 11, 1970, p.A-1; Emma Ross, “Study: Fluoridation Harmless,” Ibid., October 6, 2000, p. A-23. By Heather Trescases, December 07, 2002

Bill Osmunson Sends Freedom of Info Request to EPA 6-14-10

June 14th, 2010 No comments

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

President, Washington Action for Safe Water

1418 – 112th Ave NE

Bellevue Washington 98004


June 14, 2010

National Freedom of Information Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2822T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-1667      FAX (202) 566-2147

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Sir or Madam:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following information to be provided to me:

#1.       A digital copy of the EPA’s equivalent of the FDA’s New Drug Approval process for the fluoridation drug when used at 0.8 ppm to 1.2 ppm in public water, to include EPA’s required documentation for chemistry, nonclinical pharmacology and toxicology, human pharmacokinetics and bioavailability, clinical microbiology, clinicals, safety, statistics, case report tabulations, patient information on any patient claims, patient certification, establishment descriptions, and required drug legend.

#2.       A digital copy of records, reports, papers, meeting minutes, correspondence or clarifications of the MOU 225079-2001 between the EPA and FDA.  And any records further clarifying the intent of the MOU 225079-2001 or another MOU as to whether the EPA is permitted to approve the sale and use of substances defined as drugs by the FD&C Act, when the substance is added to public water. 

#3.       Records the EPA has of Congressional Authority which exempts drugs when added to public water from the New Drug Application regulatory process and FD&C Act and provides the EPA with authority to approve drugs when they are added to public water. 

            In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of any fees, you should know that I am the President of Washington Action for Safe Water a 501 (c) 3 Corporation, and I request a waiver of all fees for this request. 

Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not in our commercial interest.  The information will be used in creating new regulations for water safety in Washington State. 

If fees cannot be waved, please provide a list of documents and the costs associated with each.

I request that the information I seek be provided in electronic format, and I would like to receive it on a personal computer disk or a CD-ROM or email to or US postal service to the address below.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.


Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

President, Washington Action for Safe Water

1418 – 112th Ave NE

Bellevue Washington 98004


cc Ned Therien, WBOH

SAFE Supports WA Rule Making on Fluoridation

Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (SAFE) supports the petition of Washington Action for Safe Water to revise washington administrative law on fluoridation