“It is a civil battery and a criminal assault to give 12.2% or more of our children noticeably disfigured teeth.” says James Robert Deal, Attorney
by James Robert Deal, Attorney
Updated March 24, 2014
When I file my fluoride class action suit, I will first lay out the facts which I believe to constitute illegal acts. Then I will identify the civil (and criminal) laws which the fluoridationists are violating.
Fluoridation has been going on in the United States and Canada since 1945, and so most people assume that it must be legal. However, the lengthy continuation of a practice does not prove its legality. For example, the tetraethyl lead fraud and mass poisoning lasted from the mid-1920s to the mid-1980s, and still continues in Afghanistan, Burma, and other countries. It continues right here in the United States in that most piston driven aircraft still burn leaded aviation gas, spewing lead everywhere they fly and raising blood lead levels in areas around airports.
The fact that we were scammed by and continue to be scammed by the sellers of tetraethyl lead should open one’s mind to the possibility that we are being scammed regarding drinking water fluoridation.
Politically we are divided into naïve liberals and naïve conservatives. They think they have little in common, but they have almost everything in common because they are both naïve. Liberals distrust big corporations more; conservatives distrust government more. Each should distrust both. Greedhead scammers set up corporations which will lie and cheat and buy positions in goverment and our agencies and manipulate them. Greed is one of the roots of evil. Chemical companies devoid of any moral code other than profit maximization will poison their own children for money. Do not forget that fact as you study this issue.
Fluoridation began without approval from any federal or state agency. To this day no federal or state agency has ever approved fluoridation of drinking water or the fluoridation materials used to be safe or effective.
The Public Health Service, a branch of the armed forces when World War II was ending and the Cold War was beginning, pressured the FDA to give its approval of fluoridation. The best the FDA would do was to declare in 1952 that fluoridation was outside its perview and “not actionable”. In 1996 the FDA revoked even this declaration. Later the FDA banned fluoridated water intended for pregnant mothers.
Fluoridation materials are drugs by federal and state definitions. Under federal law the term “drugs” includes:
articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals,
“(a) Substances recognized as drugs in the official United States pharmacopoeia, official homeopathic pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official national formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
(b) Substances intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in human beings or animals;
(c) Substances (other than food, minerals or vitamins) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of human beings or animals; and
(d) Substances intended for use as a component of any article specified in (a), (b), or (c) of this subsection. It does not include devices or their components, parts, or accessories.
Definitions of the term “drugs” are similar in other states and countries. Given the fact that fluoridation materials are drugs under federal law, the FDA was initially the only agency with proper jurisdiction to approve, regulate, or ban fluoridation.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed in 1974. The operative provision relating to fluoridation stated:
No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.
It is said that one of the main reason why this law was passed was to put an end to drinking water fluoridation, although I have not yet found written documentation that this is so.
The language quoted above would apply to fluoridation materials, which are added to prevent tooth decay and not to remove contaminants or kill pathogens which would make drinking water not potable. However, this provision might in the future be applied to prohibit adding other drugs to drinking water, such as lithium and statins, and corporate drug vendors have seriously advocated adding both to drinking water. Orange County recycles sewer water back into the aquifer; reverse osmosis cannot remove the tiny lithium atom, which goes from brake linings into the sewers. San Diego is all set up to start its own toilet-to-tap program.
*Under the SDWA, either FDA or EPA could have banned fluoridation, although only the FDA could have approved it, assuming that the FDA found a form of fluoride and a method of fluoridation that would be safe and effective. The FDA is an agency under Health and Human Services, as is CDC. HHS and CDC administrators have been unquestioning supporters of fluoridation. FDA administrators have not been supporters but have failed in their duty to ban this poisonous practice.
In 1979 the FDA and the EPA entered into a memorandum of understanding with each other, under which FDA assigned and EPA assumed all responsibility over drinking water additives, including fluoridation. When FDA assigned the controversial issue to EPA, it probably assumed that the EPA would ban fluoridation.
However, EPA administrators – the non-scientists and pro-industry party within the EPA, which has the real power – did not want to ban fluoridation. It was already a big cash flow item for chemical companies.
Conversely, EPA administrators could not write a regulation requiring fluoridation because of the explicit language of the SDWA. Nor could EPA administrators grant certification or formal approval of fluoridation, probably because it would have violated the spirit of the SDWA and also because they would have needed the cooperation of EPA scientists to run and supervise tests, and the scientists were unwilling to issue a fake certification. So instead, EPA administrators settled for joining with the CDC merely to recommend fluoridation. In response, EPA scientists revolted and sued EPA administrators.
Enters the scene at this point one National Sanitation Foundation, also known as the NSF or NSF International. NSF got its start certifying dishwashing chemicals for restaurant use. NSF was and remains a mere trade association. Just as the FDA had tossed the fluoridation hotball to the EPA, the EPA tossed the fluoridation hotball to NSF. The EPA contracted with, trained, and financed NSF to do what the EPA could not do, to certify sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, and sodium silicofluoride to be safe when added to drinking water. The EPA to this day reviews NSF’s fluoridation certification work, endorses, it, and finances it. CDC even assists water districts in the actual practice of setting up fluoridation machinery. The Oral Health Division actually runs a fluoridation engineering advisory agency out of the CDC basement. The Oral Health Division is a renegade group of mostly dentists and engineers and lawbreakers of the first degree.
NSF is the only organization which has ever approved fluoridation or fluoridation materials to be “safe”. Although NSF certifies fluoridation materials to be “safe”, it does not certify them to be “safe and effective”, which is what the FDA would have to do if it were ever to approve them. Safety alone is not good enough. Drugs must in addition be effective. The reason for this is first that “safety” is a relative term. All drugs have side effects. If a drug offers no benefit, then a safe but ineffective drug would cause harm at least to some. NSF is not only a fake FDA, it is also an ineffectual, fake FDA.
As with most trade associations, the NSF Board is made up of representatives of the companies regulated, potentially including representatives of companies which produce and resell fluoridation materials. This is an obvious conflict of interest.
NSF created “the mark”, the NSF 60 icon which certifies that fluoridation materials have been tested and are safe. Three documents are delivered with each tanker load of fluorosilicic acid, an invoice, a bill of lading, and finally a certificate of analysis, which prominently features the NSF 60 mark.
NSF publishes an NSF 60 Standards document. In the introduction thereto EPA endorses what NSF is doing, although some strange and equivocal disavowal terminology also appears. Because the EPA vouches for NSF, federal and state agencies, the surgeon general, state boards of health, county health districts, city councils, water districts, boards of pharmacy, and probably even the President himself trust NSF. NSF 60 is recognized as authoritative in Canada and other countries the world over. Fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride could not be sold for drinking water fluoridation purposes without NSF 60 certification. Because of NSF, elected and appointed officials at every level feel safe in supporting and voting in favor of fluoridation.
If you take a look at the bill of lading which comes with the tanker load of fluorosilicic acid, you will read that suppliers try to waive liability. But they can’t take back the warranty they made by obtaining the NSF 60 seal of approval by a waiver of liability.
There are problems with this FDA-EPA-NSF arrangement. First, FDA had no authority to assign its regulatory power over fluoridation drugs to the EPA.
Second, EPA had no authority to assign any regulatory power it might have received from the FDA over fluoridation drugs to NSF.
Third, EPA had no authority to delegate to NSF the authority to certify something as safe that EPA could not itself certify to be safe. For the EPA itself to certify fluoridation materials to be safe, it would have had to conduct the twenty toxicological studies referred to in the NSF 60 regulation book. The EPA has not done these tests. The list of twenty toxicological studies definitely has been approved by the EPA, because the NSF 60 Standards book says so. The unanswered question is whether the EPA wrote the list of 20 toxicological studies or got it from the FDA at the time that the FDA turned over regulation of water additives to the EPA under the 1979 Memorandum.
Also unanswered is whether EPA modified the procedures which it got from FDA.
Fourth, nor has NSF done those twenty toxicological studies. NSF administrator Stan Hazan has admitted this under oath in a California deposition. NSF admits that instead it just relies on EPA’s maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for fluoridation materials and the contaminants therein, and as long as the concentration of each contaminant is below the EPA action level. Stan Hazan said the same thing in a 2000 letter to Congress. NSF does not take into account the symbiotic effect of so many different contaminants.
For a more detailed history of the NSF see: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.
Some 70% of United States residents, around 210 million of us, receive fluoridated tap water. Around 92% of those receive industrial grade fluorosilicic acid (which comes as a liquid in tanker trucks) or sodium silicofluoride (the granular salt version of fluorosilicic acid).
Fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride contain or break down into fluoride ion, hydrogen ion, hydrogen-fluoride, silicic acid, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, barium, thallium, and other heavy metals and toxins known to be harmful to health.
Around 8% of those receiving fluoridated water receive industrial grade sodium fluoride, which is just as poisonous as fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, but is slightly less contaminated than the first two and does not leach lead from pipes to the extent that fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride do.
Fluoridationists refer to “fluoride” and “fluoridation” without clarifying the different types of fluoride when it is relevant to do so. Washington regulations, WAC 246-290-460, authorize “fluoridation” with “fluoride”. It is incorrect in most cases to talk generally about “fluoride” because the fluoride behaves differently depending on what other elements or compounds it is bound with, the pH of the water it is dissolved in, and what other elements and compounds are present in the water.
For example, naturally fluoridated water generally contains calcium fluoride, which is not even classified as a poison. The well on 164th Street SW in Lynnwood, Washington, which I visit weekly to fill six three-gallon jugs and four one-gallon jugs, contains .14 ppm fluoride. However, it is all calcium, and there are high concentrations of calcium and magnesium in that water, which act to bind with and thus “buffer” fluoride.
On the other hand, the industrial fluorides used for fluoridation are never bound with calcium, and are deadly poisons in small amounts.
The snow melt drinking water, such as that in the Pacific Northwest, contains very low levels of calcium, magnesium and other minerals which would act to bind with and thus “buffer” fluoride. When industrial fluorides are added to such soft water, they are much more potent.
Fluoridationists say they are merely “adjusting” the level of naturally occurring fluoride, but this is scientific sloppiness. Instead they are adding artificial fluorides, ones which do not occur naturally, and which act very unnaturally on our bodies.
In 1945 the Public Health Service, then a branch of the military, began a fluoridation experiment in Grand Rapids, Michigan, using sodium fluoride. The military had enormous powers during the War, and these continued immediately into the Cold War. Alcoa had excess sodium fluoride to offload. Alcoa had powerful friends in the Public Health Institute and in the Kettering Institute, which backed fluoridation. (The same Kettering Institute had backed tetraethyl lead in the 1920s.)
Fluoridation supporters latched onto a legend that natural fluoride in Texas and Colorado reduced decay, although Dr. Sauerheber says that almost certainly the basis for legend was that the Texas and Colorado well water was not only high in sodium fluoride. It was super high in calcium and magnesium. He says that the ratio between calcium/magnesium and fluoride ion is more important than the absolute amount of fluoride ion present.
These powerful groups generally got their way during that era. The Fluorine Lawyers jumped on anyone who sued or threatened to sue. Chemical companies rewarded universities for supporting fluoridation, endowing chairs at universities, chairs chaired by supporters of the fluoridation vice. Thus, the universities graduated physicians and dentists who had heard almost nothing about fluoridation when studying but who later became featured speaker “trusted professionals”, the highly organized, very well financed, cabal of endorsers and defenders of fluoridation. I presume that most of the “trusted professionals” we rely on are themselves deceived and that the rest are knowing liars.
Fluoridation began without prior approval by any federal or state agency. Since 1945 no agency has had the courage to stop it.
*manipulative aspect So you are probably wondering how something as clearly wrong headed as fluoridation has been allowed to continue. The answer is that corporate greed knows no limits. Corporations do not necessarily have any conscience. They can even do things – such as tetraethyl lead, DDT, asbestos – which poison their own children.
There is also a marketing and manipulation aspect to this. It is possible for a marketer to create a profitable disreality. An obvious example is the advertising of unhealthy foods, those high in sugars and fats. Individual members of these corporations know their foods are harmful, but they cannot stop because the corporate structure eliminates consideration of ethical issues. As long as a sale of a product is not illegal, it will be done, especially if it is profitable.
The most disgraceful aspect of this is that the profits from the sale of fluordiation materials are not large. This is a cash flow which Cargill, Mosaic, Simplot would hardly miss. There are cleaner ways to put their capital to work which would make them just as much money Sometimes capitalists can really be stupid.
The fluoride experiment took place without the approval of any federal or state agency. The experiment was to last ten years, however, after only five years, fluoridation was prematurely declared to be safe and effective. Water districts everywhere clamored to start fluoridating, and they did it using sodium fluoride. However, the supply was not sufficient, and so the phosphate fertilizer industry saw the opportunity to cash in on the boom. They too had excess fluoride, in the form of fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride. Without the approval or authorization of any agency fluoridation took a new and even more harmful form. Lead-leaching fluorosilicic acid is now the most commonly used fluoridating agent.
Fluorosilicic acid comes from the super-phosphate fertilizer industry, so it is important to understand some fertilizer background. Since the end of the last Ice Age, farmers had been growing crops organically. Most land had more than enough phosphorus. The trick was to lower pH of the soil to slightly acidic, so that the phosphorus could be released. If your soil really was short of phosphorus you brought in rock phosphate and let it rot for six months in cow manure or green manure.
However, in the 20th Century chemists developed super-phosphate fertilizer. They sold it as the convenient and quick acting alternative. Faster was better. Previous farmers had done nicely without it. Organic farmers today do nicely without it. With continuous use of super-phosphate fertilizer, soil becomes too rich in phosphate, which is harmful to microbial life and general soil fertility. Chemists created a market for an unnecessary product that gradually kills off microbial life in soils. So capitalists can really be stupid.
To make super-phosphate fertilizer, plants in Florida and Louisiana cooked rock phosphate in sulfuric acid, and the emissions of fluoride and other toxins polluted the air for miles around, burning crops, killing cattle, and running people off their land. In the 1970s and 1980s the EPA required the plants to capture the emissions with wet scrubbers installed in their smokestacks.
The emissions contain silicofluoride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, other heavy metals, and other toxins. Instead of the toxins going into the air, they were diverted into the scrubber liquor. Oh, that’s good. No, it’s not. What were they to do with all the scrubber liquor? It was illegal to dump it into rivers, lakes, or seas. They dumpted it into ponds the size of football fields, polluting central Fluorida. The solution to pollution was dilution, not dumping directly into rivers, lakes, and seas but doing so indirectly by first dumping it into drinking water, most of which 99% flows into rivers, lakes, and seas.
All 49 producers or resellers of fluoridation materials in the United States issue Material Safety Document Sheets (MSDS) in which they disclaim all liability for any harm whatsoever which fluoridation materials might cause. However, before offering said fluoridation materials for sale, they apply for and obtain certification of their product.
The certifying “agency” is the National Sanitation Foundation, known as NSF or NSF International. NSF proudly refers to its NSF 60 certification as “the mark”. It is displayed on certificates of analysis. It is recognized as authoritative by EPA administrators, CDC administrators, states, state agencies, cities, and water districts. The EPA itself finances and approves the NSF 60 standard. It is recognized as authoritative in Canada and other countries the world over. Silicofluoride and sodium fluoride would not be saleable for drinking water fluoridation purposes without such certification.
On the NSF web site NSF proclaims:
The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.
Similar language appears in the NSF 60 handbook.
NSF official Stan Hazan, speaking under oath in deposition, admitted in 2000 that NSF has has no toxicological studies (see page 67) regarding fluoridation materials, although NSF certifies them to be “safe”. See www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.
Note that the fertilizer companies which produce the scrubber liquor can sit on the NSF boards which establish and enforce – or waive – the scrubber liquor standards. This is a clear conflict of interest. Such conflicts are detrimental to scientific objectivity and make it likely for profits to trump health and safety.
Defenders of fluoridation minimize the effect of the lead-arsenic-silicofluoride scrubber liquor cocktail, saying that the amounts of heavy metals and other toxins are small. However, one should not flippantly dismiss even small amounts of such highly toxic substances without thoroughly studying them, including a study of how they can interact with each other and symbiotically compound their toxicity.
Fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen. It is impossible to identify any level of a carcinogen which can safely be consumed, including arsenic. California proposed public health goal for arsenic in 2003 was 4 ppt. That is parts per trillion or .004 ppb or .000004 ppm. California says:
“… there is no evidence from methylation patterns [elemental arsenic converting into organic arsenic] that would support a threshold below which there would be no cancer risks. p. 128.
NSF admits that tap water fluoridated at 1 ppm fluoride may add up to 1.66 ppb arsenic in treated water, which is 1,600 ppt, which is 377 times the 4 ppt California public health goal. It is irresponsible knowingly to add any arsenic whatsoever to drinking water, although the California goal would imply it is acceptable to add up to 4 ppt.
The toxic waste silicofluoride used contains lead and leaches lead from pipes. Blood lead levels are around 70% higher in animals exposed to both fluoride and lead than in animals exposed only to lead. Blood lead levels are higher in cities fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid.
Some 47 states allow fluoridation to take place only if it is done using NSF 60 certified fluoridation materials. Washington is one of the 47 states. See WAC 246-290-220(3). The same is true of Oregon. See OAR 33-061-0087(06), http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_333/333_061.html.
The Washington Board of Health relies on the loud assurances of the NSF in making its decision to allow local-option fluoridation, to specify the fluoridation materials which may be used, and to set the allowable range of concentrations.
Likewise, local water districts rely on NSF certification to make their final decisions to fluoridate. Board and water districts believe in the truthfulness of the NSF 60 certification mark.
If silicofluoride and sodium fluoride did prevent tooth decay and did not cause any collateral harm to anyone, then maybe this deception could be excused. Unfortunately, the industrial silicofluoride used by Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma and the sodium fluoride used elsewhere is harmful to fetuses and infants in the short term, lowering IQ, and it is harmful to all of us in the long term. Public utility standards should be calibrated to be protective of all, but especially of the most vulnerable.
There is no debate over the harmful nature of fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride. In fact, the supporters of fluoridation, including the CDC, admit that 41% of children age 12-15 suffer from dental fluorosis, that 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and that 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). 8.6% + 3.6% = 12.2%.
It is a civil battery and a criminal assault to give 12.2% or more of our children noticeably disfigured teeth. The NRC says that most fluoride gets to children through drinking water and food made with drinking water. The other major source is toothpaste, packing a wallop of fluoride at around 1,500 ppm to 2,400 ppm. Some fluoride gets absorbed through tissues and some is swallowed.
The difference between fluoridated tap water and fluoridated toothpaste is that it is easy to avoid the fluoride in toothpaste simply by not brushing with it, while it is difficult and expensive to avoid the fluoride in tap water and food made with tap water.
Expert witnesses on all sides of this issue will admit if called to testify that fluoridation is causing hundreds of thousands of kids to have “funky teeth”. The causal connection is admitted and proven. When you add to that the known harm coming from lead and arsenic, the case becomes even stronger.
The CDC minimizes the harm by saying that dental fluorosis is “cosmetic only”. However, fluorosis is definitely not “cosmetic only” for the 8.6% and the 3.6% who have mild, moderate, and severe fluorosis. Their teeth are ugly, and children are ashamed of them. The emotional impact on adolescents is like that of severe acne. Children with fluorosis tend to smile with their lips closed to hide their teeth.
The tradeoff is an alleged and slight reduction in tooth decay in return for fluorosis of an entire mouthful of teeth plus other harms. Caries can be x-rayed, “drilled, filled and billed” for under $100 each. Dr. Bill Osmunson, cosmetic dentist and public health graduate explains that fluorotic teeth, on the other hand, are difficult and expensive to fix, and that the cost of dental veneers and replacements over a lifetime can exceed $100,000. He notes that drinking water fluoridation is good for the cosmic dentistry business. If teeth are fluorotic, then all bones and other calcium rich areas are fluorotic too, because fluoride aggressively seeks out and binds with calcium throughout the body.
To the CDC, the EPA, and other pro-fluoridation groups, the disfigurement of 41%, 8.6%, or 3.6% of our children to different degrees is an acceptable casualty rate, a reasonable price to be paid to achieve a dubious reduction in caries, which they admit to be at best only a 17% to 25% reduction. Other studies show no reduction at all or worsening.
In addition to fetuses and infants, other groups are especially sensitive, including hard laborers and those with diabetes (because they drink so much water), those with kidney disease, arthritics and the aged, and those with thyroid disease. Further, around one percent of the population is “allergic” or hypersensitive to fluoride and must leave town or take extreme precautions to avoid it. The autistic are especially sensitive to fluoride.
In its own publication on its own website the CDC admits that any positive effect of fluoride is topical and not systemic, yet the CDC and other pro-fluoridation groups persist in advising us that we should drink and eat fluoride. For those who insist on consuming fluoride, eating a little toothpaste would be far more economical. Actually fluoridated toothpaste does not benefit teeth and contributes to our fluoride overload.
Neither the EPA nor the CDC has any jurisdiction to encourage, finance, or require adding fluoride to water. The Safe Drinking Water forbids them from requiring fluoridation:
Neither EPA nor CDC may require fluoridation, so they only encourage. The work around is to convince the states and water districts to require it, passing the buck down the line to local governing bodies such as the Everett City Council, in an effort to avoid violating the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I would like now to switch my approach from giving you the facts underlying the illegality, to the application of civil and criminal common law and statutory violations of law which take place in the process of fluoridation.
The first case would be a suit for a restraining order based on violation of state law: Washington law allows fluoridation to take place only with fluoridation materials which “comply with” NSF 60 guidelines. See WAC 246-290-220(3). Some 47 states and 9 provinces and many countries have similar statutes. States and water districts rely on NSF assurances of safety to make their decision to fluoridate. However NSF is not enforcing its own standards. Nether NSF nor the suppliers of fluoridation are doing the toxicological studies which NSF standards claim to be performed as a prerequisite to NSF 60 certification. Therefore, there are no NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials, and therefore fluoridation using materials which do not “comply with” NSF 60 and Washington law should be enjoined.
The second case would be a suit for a restraining order based on common law assault and battery. Fluoridation is a common law battery. A battery involves an impact on the body. Assault is the anticipation of the coming battery. People really are being harmed in the short term, especially those who are chemically sensitive, those with diabetes and arthritis and thyroid and kidney disease. Some hypersensitives have to leave town. Some are being harmed in the short term. All of us are being harmed in the long term.
A case for criminal assault and battery could be brought as well, although only a prosecutor could bring it.
The third case would be a suit for a restraining order based on the fact that the FDA regulation on hydrogen fluoride is being violated. An FDA regulation at 21 CFR 310.545 prohibits the marketing and sale of any anti-caries drug which contains hydrogen fluoride unless the the seller has first filed an FDA new drug application (NDA) and received FDA approval.
Silicofluoride is composed of and breaks down predominantly into fluoride ion, silicic acid, and hydrogen fluoride, plus small amounts of many other toxins. Hydrogen fluoride is the most immediately toxic component in silicofluoride. Because its charge is neutral (F–H+), it can slip easily through the neutral, non-polar, fatty lipid layer of the stomach lining, and then into the blood stream and the brain. Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma all use silicofluoride which is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride is also referred to euphemistically by the chemical companies as “free acid”. See the Simplot Certificate of Analysis for Everett and the Mosaic Certificate of Analysis for Seattle on the http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/foia page.
The FDA regulation includes a list of elements and compounds, including hydrogen fluoride. The regulation says of the chemicals on the list:
“…based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses.
Then the regulation states:
“Any OTC [over the counter] drug product … containing any active ingredient(s) as specified in … this section is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of … the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), for which an approved new drug application … is required for marketing.
The above hydrogen fluoride regulation is unenforced. It may be overlooked or just plain ignored. In the fluoridation arena you will find many overlooked and ignored laws.
Sodium fluoride is not quite as harmful as fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoide, because it does not contain as much lead or leach as much lead from pipes and fittings. However, they all contain and/or break down into hydrogen fluoride, and thus cannot be sold for anti-caries treatment without prior FDA approval.
The only open question is whether the FDA is the only entity which may enforce its regulations. Even if the FDA is the only entity which can enforce this regulation, the act of delivering hydrogen fluoride in drinking water violates law and therefore could form a per se case of negligence under civil law. The violation of a statute or regulation can constitute negligence per se, if the illegal action taken causes the kind of harm that the regulation was intended to prevent. And it does in this case.
Fourth, because consumers of fluoridated water are suffering common law assault and battery as well as criminal assault and battery, and because profiteers are manipulating and working with others to implement and continue the assault and battery, and because the assault, battery, the law against solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 USC 373 is being violated, especially with respect to fetuses and infants.
Because common law assault and battery as well as criminal assault and battery are being committed, and because said fraud is communicated through the mails and done across state lines, the mail fraud section under the RICO Act is being violated under 18 USC 341.
The supplier applies for and displays the NSF Rule 60 mark and so makes the same representations – that the toxicological studies are being done. At the same time the supplier attempts to waive all liability. Everett and the Health District are duped into participating in this RICO Act criminal fraud.
Again, this is a criminal case which only a prosecutor could bring. The defendants would be NSF and fluoridation suppliers.
Fifth, a case could be brought against utility districts based on their violation of federal lead laws. The fluorosilicic acid used contains lead and leaches a lot of lead from pipes and fittings. Federal law requires every water district to give lead notice when lead “contamination results from … corrosivity of the water supply sufficient to cause leaching of lead”. Everett admits leaching of lead producing water at taps of up to 63 ppb, an extremely high level. Lead levels drop when fluoridation stops, as happened in Tacoma in 1992. There is clear evidence that fluoridation with fluorosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. Water districts are ignoring this law, and our childrens’ IQ is being lowered.
This would not be a suit for an injunction against water districts ordering them to issue required lead disclosure.
Sixth, a mass toxic tort action could be brought for money damages. The fluoride sensitized would be the plaintiffs. A class action suit would not be appropriate because plaintiffs are being harmed in different ways. A mass toxic tort action is more cumbersome than a class action suit, however, it is possible to bring. The defendants would be water districts and states mandating fluoridation as well as NSF and the suppliers of fluoridation materials.
Because a fraud is being committed, the defendants are violating consumer protection laws, which would help because consumer protection laws provide for awards of reasonable attorney fees and exemplary damages.
Most attorneys keep their cards close to their chest, saving their secrets for when they bring their big case. I take the opposite approach. There are so many suits to be brought against so many water districts, states, suppliers of fluoridation materials, and fraudulent certifying groups such as NSF, that there is plenty of legal work to go around. Further, I am hoping to partner with large law firms which are set up to handle giant cases and which share my consumer protection and environmental values.
There are other causes of action which could be brought. I will keep these private until a later time.