Select Page



For most politicians the method is to do a poll, find out what the average person thing about various issues, and then state a positions which are attractive to as many people as possible and as non-offensive to as many people as possible. There is little effort to explain positions and try to convince voters to change their opinions.

I choose to explain what I think about issues and to try to convince those who disagree with me to change their opinion. In the process I will either convince them that they need to change, or they will convince me that I need to change.


As a member of the City Council, I will raise the safe water issue. I will ask other members of the Council to join with me to renegotiate Lynnwood’s water purchase contract.

Lynnwood buys its water from the  Alderwood Water District, which in turn buys it from the Everett Water District. These contracts call for the purchase of water, not water contaminated with toxic waste. I will encourage the City to hold Everett to its contract.

I will ask the Council to nominate me to the Snohomish Health District Board, where I could raise these same issues.

I propose to educate other members of the Council and voters in general on this important issue. I will listen to and learn from voters, and develop consensus on issues. I will  present my findings to the Council and ask for action to protect the citizens of Lynnwood.


My work to stop so-called fluoridation is part of my pro bono work as an attorney, and so too is running for the office of Lynnwood City Council.

In my fluoridation work, my lawyer method is to put my arguments in writing, include links to scholarly journals which support my arguments, and call the polluters and politicians out. I accuse them and ask them to reply in writing. For example, I have called out the city of Everett and the Snohomish Health District, Seattle, Governor Gregoire, the Attorney General, the US Attorney, Simplot, and NSF.

I will do the same thing as a member of the City Council. I will serve as ombudsman for the people of Lynnwood. I will be the Ralph Nader of Lynnwood, always asking: Why do we have such and such policy? and Where is the proof? When I see an injustice, I will call the wrong doer out.

For example, see this letter to Simplot, mass producer of so-called fluoride, actually toxic waste fluorosilicic acid, which includes lead and arsenic, and which Simplot sells to gullible cities such as Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma.

See this letter to NSF, the National Sanitation Foundation, the private trade organization which masquerades as an agency like the FDA, and which approves said so-called fluoride, actually toxic waste fluorosilicic acid, which includes lead and arsenic.

NSF is a sham agency. It approves so-called fluoridation materials as being safe. As part of safety assurance NSF claims to do or to have done a score of toxicological tests. However, when put under oath, NSF has admitted they do not do the tests nor obtain them.

In my Notice of Liability to NSF,  I asked NSF to cease their approval of so-called fluoridation materials as being safe. After warning NSF that they could be sued for misrepresentation and violation of consumer protection laws, I gave them a way out. I pointed out a way that their chemical company friends could make just as much profit without producing toxic waste. This is what I said:

I want to leave you with some final thoughts: It is possible for polluting companies to retool themselves into clean, non-polluting companies, and make the same or greater profits. Digging up phosphate rock containing heavy metals and acids and producing mountains of toxic waste which are disposed of by dumping them into drinking water is a primitive practice. Organic farmers get along just fine without superphosphate fertilizer. It is not just fluoridation which must cease; it is superphosphate fertilizer production which must cease.

Poisonous minerals, as much as possible, should be left in the ground. The fertilizer company of the future will make as much or more money than it does today by delivering organic soil fertility services. Because most soils contain sufficient phosphorous and only need pH adjustment to release it, super-phosphate fertilizer will not be needed. Those soils which are deficient in phosphorus should receive phosphorus the same way organic farms deliver it, through amendments of composted phosphate rock plus seaweed, of which oceans contain virtually unlimited quantities. Harvesting and processing seaweed could be the next fertilizer growth industry.

The fight over fluoridation is part of a greater fight, whether we will cease to be a chemical intensive nation and become instead a chemical careful country. We should avoid the use of toxic chemicals wherever possible. We should be an organic nation to the greatest extent possible. Everything which can be grown or manufactured organically should be grown or manufactured organically.

Why spread toxic chemicals around when it is not even necessary to do so?

I am a strong believer in private enterprise, but not in the crony capitalism we have now. It is fine to make money as long as doing so does not deface the creation. There is plenty of profit to be made delivering products and foods which are not toxic.

Companies must accept responsiblity for the harm they cause and avoid causing harm.

If corporations are to have some of the rights of persons, they must develop a code of ethics like that of a person and abide by them. States should insist that corporations submit an ethical plan as a condition to doing business therein. Just as lawyers, accountants, physicians, and other professions develop and abide by codes of ethics, businesses above a certain size should adopt professional codes and abide by them. There is no reason why being a large corporation cannot be professionalized.

The structural change I am suggesting is not going to be easy. The most difficult step is to start, and after that the rest gets easier.

Ending the slow poisoning of people with toxic waste fluoride from unnecessary superphosphate fertilizer production is a good place to start.

Corporations are engines of prosperity and should not be destroyed. However, for their own good they need to  be regulated more closely. My theory is that the state of Washington could require as a condition of operating in Washington that a corporation have a code of ethics. Because they make such titanic sums of money, they are often more powerful than lawyers for example. If they are more powerful than lawyers, they should have more responsibility. They should have a code of ethics as do lawyers and be part of a professional organization that enforces the code.

If we fail to talk about such issues, we can never expect to solve them.

Submit a Comment

Share This