WASHINGTON ACTION FOR SAFE WATER

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

November 2, 2011

SAVINGS COME WHEN SILICOFLUORIDE GOES

Dear Council Members,

I write as vice-president of Washington Action for Safe Water. See www.WashingtonSafeWater.com.

If fluoridation is terminated, how much would the city save?

1)       If the city terminated fluoridation, it would save around $___________ per year (probably around $200,000), the sum it uses to buy industrial grade toxic waste silicofluoride for injection into drinking water. Consult with Everett Utilities for the exact figure.

2)       If the city terminated fluoridation, it would save the $___________ (I estimate $50,000, around $120 per ton) it spends each year on chemicals needed to neutralize the acidity caused by silicofluoride. Common alkalizers are sodium hydroxide (Draino®) or sodium carbonate (soda ash). For every ton of fluorosilicic acid used, a half ton of alkalizer must be used.

3)       If the city terminated fluoridation, it would not be spending additional tens of thousands of dollars operating and maintain its fluoridation facilities.

4)       If the city terminated fluoridation, it would not have to repair and upgrade fluoridation facilities, which have been in operation for some 20 years and which are always in need of expensive work.

5)       If the city terminated fluoridation, it would not have to spend thousands of dollars training workers in how to wear handle the liquid acid and hazmat suits.

6)       If the city terminated fluoridation, it would pay less for insurance since it would not need coverage for harm caused to workers through handline of the liquid acid.

7)       If the city terminated fluoridation, the city and the Everett School District would not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars removing and replacing old galvanized pipe and brass fittings from old schools which have not been retrofitted – as the Seattle School District has been doing.

There are reports that the Everett School District has already completely replaced all its old lead pipes in all its schools. However, it is not known if all brass-lead fittings have been replaced, and this is often overlooked. I have also learned from reports done on the lead reduction program in Seattle that even in schools where pipes have been changed, lead levels in some cases are still exceeding 20 ppb. The Everett School District should compare its results with results from water districts which do not fluoridate.

As long as Everett fluoridates there will be lead in drinking water, because there is lead in the silicofluoride and in fittings made of brass-lead.

8)       If Everett and the Everett School District have already removed all lead bearing pipes and fittings from schools, this is commendable. However, it has not solved the overall problem. This is because there are also lead bearing pipes and fittings not just in schools but also in old houses, old apartment buildings, old commercial buildings, and old office buildings throughout the city. Changing the pipes in schools addresses only a small part of the problem. If it were consistent, Everett and the Everett School District would also pay the cost of replacing all the lead bearing pipes and fittings in old houses, old apartment buildings, old commercial buildings, and old office buildings throughout the city. The cost would be in the tens of millions of dollars. Only California regulated zero lead pipes and fittings should be used. Federal and Washington law still allows the use of galvanized and brass pipe containing up to 8% lead.

9)       A pregnant mother who drinks silicofluoride water is consuming lead, which passes through the placenta into the growing fetus. Babies and children have an especially hard time excreting lead. They grow up with lower IQs than they would have otherwise. The number of children with low IQ is increased, and then number of children with high IQ is decreased. The entire intelligence curve bell curve is moved to the left. When children are “dumbed down”, they grow up to be produce less income, pay less taxes, and rely more on local government for support services. Theoretically Everett is already bearing this cost, and this cost will only grow if fluoridation continues.

If fluoridation were terminated, lead levels in drinking water and lead levels in our blood and our children’s blood would drop. It would not drop to zero because chlorine dissolves lead, although to a much lesser extent than does silicofluoride. Treating water with calcium containing buffers would help prevent most lead leaching, and that is because lead is strongly attracted to calcium. The ultimate solution would be ozonation, not of the entire system, but in each neighborhood.

10)     Sewer water flushing into Puget Sound is high in fluoride. High fluoride levels extends for a distance from the outfall. To fish fluoride stinks. It disorients them or “narcotizes” them. They swim the other way. At a time when we are trying to restore salmon runs, it makes no sense to be dumping a fish repellent into the water. This is an external cost in the sense that it does not show up in the city budget, but it is a real, long-term cost nevertheless and should not be ignored.

11)     If the city terminated fluoridation, the it would be taking a big step in immunizing itself from potential litigation on the part of injured residents. The city would be able to say that as soon as it learned of the problem, it listened to its conscience and did something about it.

Washington Action for Safe Water is strictly an educational organization. It has focused for years on educating the Washington Board of Health and Department of Health, however, those agencies say they it is the cities which make the ultimate decision to fluoridate, not them. Washington Action for Safe Water does not threaten litigation. Washington Action for Safe Water is here to help the city of Everett do the right thing and get ahead of the curve on this issue.

Fluoride Class Action likewise does not threaten litigation. It only warns that litigation is inevitable if the city of Everett continues down the fluoridation road. Fluoridation Class Action also delves into related legal issues and supplies personal injury and toxic tort attorneys with information about how to bring pressure and bring suit to stop fluoridation.

Making the Transition

Pinellas County Florida will terminate fluoridation by the end of 2011, as soon as the fluoride supply runs out. Pinellas Water District serves 700,000 citizens, around the same number as does Everett Public Works. Commissioners there expressed concern about the kind of fluoride utilized and the cost. They also pointed out that people could get fluoride from toothpaste.

For Everett to continue fluoridating, it must believe that fluoridation protects teeth and does not harm to teeth or any other organ or system within the body. This is a hard burden of proof to meet. In fact the burden has not been met. By the admission of the ADA and CDC, 41% of children have dental fluorosis. Drinking water is the primary source of consumed fluoride. They also agree that infants are a susceptible population and that formula should be made up predominantly with non-fluoridated water. Given the fact that poor parents cannot afford to buy or purify fluoridated water, and because Everett is not even notifying parents not to give fluoridated water to their children, it is conclusive that infants are being harmed.

For Everett to continue to fluoridate, it must also be convinced that fluoridation causes no other harms to any other age group or population sub- group. There is overwhelming evidence that fluoridation harms other organs and systems of the body.

In making its transition away from fluoridation, the city of Everett must resist the propaganda coming from pro-fluoride dentists and physicians, the strongest advocates of this strange fluoridation practice. Bear in mind that the chemical companies which sell fluoridation materials donate heavily to dental and medical schools, which in turn pressure dentists and doctors to support fluoridation.

Also pro-fluoride dentists and physicians seem to have no answer to the arguments we have made. The Council has presumably asked Dr. Goldblum for his opinion regarding our testimony. He has not responded in writing or by speaking in a Council meeting except on one occasion. The Council should ask Dr. Goldblum for a written reaction to the evidence we have presented.

Dr. Bill Osmunson, president of Washington Action for Safe Water, formerly supported fluoridation. He changed when he studied the evidence. More and more dentists are coming out against both mercury amalgam and drinking water fluoridation.

Dentists who do support fluoridation are limited to the claim that fluoridation reduces tooth decay 17% to 25%. Credible studies say there is no reduction. A 25% reduction (or more likely no reduction) in decay in return for a 41% fluorosis rate does not seem like a fair trade, especially since fluoride can be administered topically, and those who insist on consuming fluoride can easily swallow some of their toothpaste.

Pro-fluoride dentists cite endorsements made by agencies and groups such as the CDC and ADA. But endorsements prove nothing. Note also that the pro-fluoride dentists focus only on benefits to teeth, ignoring the harms caused to kidneys, thyroid, and other organs and systems throughout the body.

There are some dentists support the topical use of fluoride but oppose drinking it. Even the ADA and the CDC admit that the effect is topical, not systemic. Fluoride really does kill bacteria: The way it does it is by denaturing bacterial proteins and interfering with bacterial enzymatic activity. When we drink and eat fluoride, it does the same thing to our proteins and enzymes, all the more so because we can only excrete half of the fluoride we consume. The other half is stored in our bones, organs, and glands. The argument that only a small amount of lead, arsenic, and fluoride are present is invalid because the consumption goes on for years, because some drink much more water than others, and because some people are more susceptible.

Dr. David, MD, Board member of Washington Action for Safe Water, formerly supported fluoridation, until he studied the evidence. We presume that Dr. Goldblum will change is position, when he studies the evidence.

The City Council should commission City Attorney James D. Iles to study the medical and legal issues jointly and to advise the City Council regarding their findings on fluoridation with silicofluride.

Read Everett’s responses to 2008 Freedom of Action request here: http://washingtonsafewater.com/foia/

Sincerely,