Posts Tagged ‘candidates’

Ask the Hard Questions About Clean Water

November 8th, 2011 No comments



Under the Public Records I am asking Everett to produce documents and to answer hard questions about what it adds to drinking water.

Read the Request for Documents online here.

Download the Word version of the Request for Documents here.

For background – if you are new to this issue see this press release directed to candidates.

Read about NSF, the sham-agency which approves the strange additive but also admits that it contains lead and arsenic.

How would you answer Washington Action for Safe Water’s questionnaire to candidates?

Every tanker load is different. Only a tiny representative sample of tanker loads is tested.  Everett tests down to an arbitrary concentration and no further. Everett does not know for sure what is in the strange additive. Since 2008 I have been challenging Everett to perform an independent and detailed assay of the raw material, but Everett does not seem to want to know what is in the chemical stew, and so is showing disregard for the health of the people.

Tanker trucks arrive every 20 days or so at the Lake Chaplain treatment plant above Sultan. The liquid within is the unprocessed and unfiltered slurry liquor from the smokestacks of super-phosphate fertilizer production facilities in Florida, Mexico, China, and other countries. Raw phosphate rock contains around 4% F plus many other elements and chemicals. Sulphuric acid is added to phosphate rock, and there is a hot fire. The smoky end products is captured in EPA wet scrubbers. After cooling it goes into tankers for direct shipment to Everett and Seattle.

The main elements in the strange substance – lead, arsenic, and F – are all on the Superfund Priorities list of toxic substances.

Uranium was mined from the same rock, back when the price was higher, and may be minded there again if the price rises. The uranium concentration is not as high as in other mines, but uranium is there, and so, according to George Glasser, there is a very tiny amount of radionuclides in your water.

Those who support adding the strange substance contend that we should not worry because the amount of the strange substance is so small.  The problem with this defense is that the strange substance is cumulative. The body has difficulty excreting it. It builds up.

With such known poisons and carcinogens, there is no small amount that safely may be added.

If we stopped adding the strange substance to tap water, it would be no hardship to find another source. Those who want to eat and drink the strange additive can simply swallow some of their toothpaste. It would be a lot more pure than what is in the drinking water.

We ask Everett to quit forcing us to consume chemicals which we do not want to consume. Give us pure water.

The strange additive is expensive.

The proponents of adding the strange additive to drinking water admit that the effect is topical and occurs after childhood, not during formation of teeth. Some dentists favor topical application but oppose internal consumption.

The proponents admit that consuming too much of the additive is causing 41% of adolescents to have dental fluorosis. Paradoxically CDC and ADA still favor drinking and eating the additive.

The proponents of adding the strange additive to water provide no mechanism for those who are especially sensitive – arthritics, diabetics, all who drink much water such as laborers and athletes, those with kidney disease, children, babies, infants, and pregnant mothers and their fetuses – to obtain an alternate source of it. The old wells have been shut down in most districts.

As in Enemy of the People, the proponents of the strange additive oppose giving written disclosure to those who are sensitive to the additive, as it would imply there is something wrong with the water. It would hurt tourism. It would harm the giant chemical corporations by reducing sales of the strange additive. The price would drop only somewhat. There are other uses such as etching metal and glass and dissolving concrete.

There is a myth that if we stopped the strange practice that children’s teeth will immediately be smitten with more cavities. There are many other better ways of preventing tooth decay, and we know them. But we will not get serious about implementing them until we quit the strange practice.

And why are we so fixated on teeth? Why are we willing to poison all the other organs in the body and even cause fluorosis to some of the teeth in order perhaps to reduce cavities a small percentage if any?

How do the proponents of the strange practice come to believe the strange substance finds its way directly and only to tooth enamel, sparing all other parts of the body from any harm whatsoever?

To the contrary, the strange substance spreads throughout the body. It concentrates more in high-calcium regions and in the bones, kidneys, thyroid, and pineal. The body is poor at excreting the strange substance. We did not evolve to need needing to be able to do so because we consumed little if any of it.

The last time I talked with Alveda King she told me: “As soon as they started adding that stuff to the water, young, healthy wives started having stillbirths – spontaneous abortions.” Alveda says this is a civil rights issue. Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor in general are more likely to be the ones with the worst cases of fluorosis – brown spots on the teeth, with pitted and even chalky teeth.

The proponents of the strange additive agree that children under two years old should little or none of the additive. Yet they do nothing to deliver pure water containing none of the additive to poor mothers, those who need it the most.

So I am asking Everett the hard questions, the questions Everett should be asking. The questions that the other water districts in Snohomish County should be asking. We outside of Everett never got to vote on adding the strange substance to our water. Surrounding water districts should insist on receiving “just water”. Lay a new pipe if necessary.

If it is hard for you to entertain the notion that adding the strange substance to our water is not good for us and that big companies have manipulated us into poisoning ourselves, you can open your mind by refreshing your memory about the people who sold the world tetraethyl Lead in the 1920s. It is the same PR firm which sells us the strange substance today. Remember when we were assured that asbestos was nothing to worry about? Government agencies knew they were unhealthy but went along with the big chemical corporations.

How would you answer Washington Action for Safe Water’s questionnaire to candidates?



James Robert Deal , Attorney

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