February 19, 2016
Governor Jay Inslee
PO Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002
Dear Governor Inslee,
I am responding to a letter dated January 26, 2016, which I received from Taylor Wonhoff, your Deputy General Counsel. Regarding my Motion for Reconsideration of a proposed fluoridation rule, Mr. Wonhoff says:
As you concede in your motion, state law does not provide for matters of reconsideration. Accordingly, the Governor will not be able to review your motion for reconsideration.
This is an incorrect statement. RCW 34.05.330 does not prohibit the Governor from responding to a motion for reconsideration. It is not that you “will not be able to review” our motion. You simply choose not to do so.
There are four reasons why you have an obligation to respond. First, the Board of Health failed to specifically address all the issues I raised. RCW 34.05.330 says the Board of Health shall:
“either (a) deny the petition in writing, stating (i) its reasons for the denial, specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner, and, where appropriate, (ii) the alternative means by which it will address the concerns raised by the petitioner, or (b) initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with RCW 34.05.320.
The Board of Health failed to specifically address my argument that fluoridation materials fail the risk estimation test and therefore do not comply with NSF 60 and WAC 246-290-220 and therefore are forbidden to be used in Washington. And there were other arguments which the Board of Health failed to address. The Board of Health failed to initiate rule-making proceedings.
Second, you made the same error. RCW 34.05.320 says:
If an agency denies a petition to repeal or amend a rule submitted under subsection (1) of this section, the petitioner, within thirty days of the denial, may appeal the denial to the governor. … Within forty-five days after receiving the appeal, the governor shall either (a) deny the petition in writing, stating (i) his or her reasons for the denial, specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner, and, (ii) where appropriate, the alternative means by which he or she will address the concerns raised by the petitioner; (b) … direct the agency to initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with this chapter ….
You failed to specifically address my argument that fluoridation materials fail the risk estimation test and therefore do not comply with NSF 60 and WAC 246-290-220, and therefore may not be used. And there were other arguments which the you failed to address. You also failed to direct the Board of Health to initiate rule-making proceedings.
Third, fluoridation is clearly unscientific. We are learning from Flint that chlorine, chloramine, and fluorosilicic acid all leach lead from plumbing. The amount of soda ash sufficient to neutralize chlorine or chloramine (we do not use chloramine in Snohomish and King counties) is insufficient to neutralize the silicic acid. Fluorosilicic acid breaks down into silicic acid, which has an extremely low dissociation constant, meaning it is hard to neutralize. To neutralize it, the pH would have to be raised to 10, which is not desirable for other reasons. The water would be like milk of magnesia. The stomach would be unable to digest food. Of the three acids, chlorine, chloramine, and silicic acid, silicic acid is the most persistent in leaching lead. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/silicic-acid-2.
Adding fluorosilicic acid to drinking water can never decrease the amount of lead therein. Fluoridation will always increase lead levels in drinking water. Recall that I pointed out the letter from Tacoma Public Utilities, which confirmed that lead levels dropped almost by half when fluoridation was temporarily halted there because of a drought.
Fourth, you swore to uphold Washington law. Fluoridation using fluorosilicic acid is unquestionably illegal under Washington law.
If you persist in denying my petition or in refusing to respond to my motion for reconsideration, it will be clear that you support fluoridation and therefore that you support higher than normal lead levels. I urge you to get on the right side of history and put an end to this unscientific and illegal vice.
As tetraethyl leaded gasoline finally passed away, so too with drinking water fluoridation. Don’t be on the wrong side of science and history.
Re-read my Motion for Reconsideration at
James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA Number 8103