Dumping Fluoride Into Oceans


GENRE: Email correspondence

TITLE: Dumping Fluoride into Oceans

FROM: John T

SENT: Friday, 30 November 2012 1:11 PM

TO: info@environment.nsw.gov.au

ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x 4: EPAfollowup.doc, Councilreply.doc, Councilfollowup.doc, TGA Letter.doc)

UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below.

Dear Sir/Madam

Here is copy of email I sent to your office previously (20.11.2012). Apparently you did not receive it.

I rang your office yesterday about the EPA prohibiting the dumping of fluoride in our oceans. The person I spoke to advise me to send a written request concerning this matter.

I recently watched a video on Youtube that stated it is illegal to dump fluoride into our oceans. The link is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SYgUi_f5yY

Please confirm that the EPA does not allow the dumping of fluoride into our oceans.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best wishes

John T

—————————————————————————————————————————–

From: Environment INFO

Date: 4/12/2012 1:24:25 PM

To: John T

Subject: RE: Dumping Fluoride into Oceans.

Hi John

The acceptable amount of fluoride that can be discharged to a water way from premises under an environment protection licence is determined on a case by case basis taking into account the matters that must be considered under s45 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.  It is not possible to provide a specific discharge critieria as the matters that would be considered include what alternatives to discharge to natural waters are practicable, the size, location and frequency of the discharge, the nature of the local environment and the impact that fluoride could have on that environment.

OEH uses the Australian Water Quality Guidelines ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) as a guide or benchmark when considering the pollution that might be caused and the impacts of that pollution.  There are currently no values for fluoride in the guidelines.  If an application to discharge fluoride to a waterway was received, OEH would need to investigate and consider other literature or research that might be available to determine a criterion.  There is a methodology in the guideline that allows criteria to be developed in cases where no guideline value is available

Regards
Information Centre
Office of Environment and Heritage
T: 131 555   F: 9995 5911
info@environment.nsw.gov.au

—————————————————————————————————————————–

SENT: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

FROM: John T

TO: info@environment.nsw.gov.au

Hi B******

Thanks for getting back to me.

I have now contacted the Shoalhaven Water Supply and been advised the EPA issued licences permitting it to add fluoride to the council’s water supply.

As the response from the council has only heightened my concerns about the quality of the water supply I find it necessary to write to you again.

Attached is a letter setting out my concerns together with other relevant correspondence.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly concerning these matters.

Best wishes

John T

—————————————————————————————————————————–

TITLE: EPA Follow up letter (sent as an attachment)

TO: B****** Information Centre – Office of Environment and Heritage info@environment.nsw.gov.au

FROM: John T

I refer to your previous email regarding the dumping of fluoride into our oceans and rivers. I have subsequently raised this matter again with the Shoalhaven Water Supply and there are now a number of issues that are causing me concern. I notice you use the generic term “fluoride” in your reply to my inquiry as follows:

The acceptable amount of fluoride that can be discharged to a water way from premises under an environment protection licence is determined on a case by case basis taking into account the matters that must be considered under s45 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. It is not possible to provide a specific discharge criteria as the matters that would be considered include what alternatives to discharge to natural waters are practicable, the size, location and frequency of the discharge, the nature of the local environment and the impact that fluoride could have on that environment

No doubt you are aware there is more than one type of fluoride, for instance there is Calcium Fluoride which occurs naturally in our waterways. There is also Hyrdofluorosilicic Acid, Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicafluoride, all highly hazardous waste chemicals from the production of aluminum and phosphate fertilizers.

 In the Council’s response the director has stated the fluoride going into our water supply is not Calcium Fluoride but Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicafluoride, as follows:

Shoalhaven has 4 distinct water supply systems in operation within the city.  Sodium Fluoride (Kangaroo Valley Supply) and Sodium Silicafluoride (Bamarang, Flatrock and Southern) is used as applicable. Fluoridation of public water supplies in New South Wales (NSW) is regulated by the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957, and the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Regulation 2007. The NSW Fluoridation Code of Practice 2011 forms part of this regulatory framework and it is NSW Health Policy to continue water fluoridation. Shoalhaven Water is required to fluoridate its supplies to a level determined by NSW Government Health.

Furthermore, the Council has advised it received approval from the EPA under licence to discharge these highly hazardous waste chemicals into the Shoalhaven water supply as follows:

Discharges to the environment from Council facilities are regulated via EPA licences. All Council’s licences can be viewed at  http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/prpoeo/index.htm

As your department is responsible for issuing these licences, please address my concerns as follows:

  • How are licences issued to councils? Presumably each council would need to apply for a licence in accordance with the advice you previously provided and this would be done on a case to case basis in accordance with the legislation (S45?).
  • When making its application did the Shoalhaven Water Supply (the council) disclose the type of “fluoride” to be discharged into the water supply is Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicafluoride, not Calcium Fluoride?
  • When considering the council’s application, did the EPA know the water supply is also for drinking purposes by residents? And if so, what measures did the EPA take to ensure this highly hazardous toxic waste (the waste) is of a food grade quality, not industrial grade quality which is not fit for human consumption?
  • If the EPA did take measures to ensure the waste is of a food grade standard (i.e. fit for human consumption), who did the testing as it could not have been undertaken by the Therapeutic Goods Administration? I have written to the TGA concerning this matter and this was the response:

TGA’s regulatory status for fluoride in water
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing may (under section 7 of the Act), by order published in the Gazette, declare that the goods, or the goods when used, advertised, or presented for supply in that way, are or are not, for the purposes of the Act, therapeutic goods. In accordance with this provision of the Act, the Secretary has declared that certain products are not therapeutic goods for the purposes of the Act (Therapeutic Goods (Excluded Goods) Order No. 1 of 2011, available at
www.tga.gov.au/industry/legislation-excluded-goods-order-1101.htm). This declaration relevantly declares that oral hygiene products for care of the teeth are not therapeutic goods if:
· any benefits claimed to result from use are directly related to improvements to oral hygiene, including for the prevention of tooth decay or the use of fluoride for the prevention of tooth decay; and
· other benefits in relation to diseases or ailments, e.g. gum or other oral disease or periodontal conditions are not claimed to result from use.

Fluoridated water satisfies this requirement and is therefore not a therapeutic good for the purposes of the therapeutic goods regulatory scheme.

We are sorry that we are not able to assist you further.

It is clear from the above that “fluoride” is not a therapeutic good and not subject to scrutiny by the TGA. So please advise who undertook the testing to ensure the waste is of a food grade standard?

In it’s application, did the council disclose the names of the companies supplying the waste? If not, why not? And if so, did the EPA conduct any tests to determine the type of “fluoride” being supplied to the council? Furthermore, did the EPA investigate the production methods used to produce this waste? Furthermore, did the EPA conduct any analysis of the waste as to ensure it did not contain any heavy metals such as lead, aluminum, cadmium arsenic, all of which any highly dangerous materials and are known to combine with Sodium Fluoride?

When were the licences issued to the council and how often have they reviewed?

The reason I need to know about the testing is because the council’s water supply contains a number of dangerous heavy metals, as well as the waste, go to:

http://shoalwater.nsw.gov.au/Publications/pdfs/Shoalhaven-City-Council-Retic-Water-Supply-Test-Results.pdf

Also I have checked the data of one of the Australian companies supplying the waste to councils and I find it frightening these toxic materials are being dumped in our water supplies, see:

 http://www.incitecpivot.com.au/msds.cfm

For some information as to just how highly hazardous these chemicals are go to:

http://data.rmt.com.au/msds/3082468.pdf

As it is illegal to dump the waste into our oceans, please advise why licences were issued to the council when only 1% of the water is for drinking, while the rest finishes up in our precious soil, rivers and oceans? If this is not the case, what assurances did the council provide to safeguard our environment, did they provide the EPA with a strategic plan for protecting our nature? If so, how is this achieved?

I look forward to your responses concerning these matters and have attached copies of other relevant correspondence for your information and consideration.

Yours faithfully

John T

——-Original Message——-

From: Environment INFO

Date: 3/01/2013 3:12:11 PM

To: John T

Subject: RE: Dumping Fluoride into Oceans.

Hi John

The EPA licence for Shoalhaven water treatment has no advice in it about water additives and EPA has no role in additives to drinking water approved under other legislation. I have attached a link to one of the Shoalhaven STP licences for the area for your review. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/prpoeoapp/ViewPOEOLicence.aspx?DOCID=31303&SYSUID=1&LICID=4128

As advised previously and confirmed in the letter you attached from Shoalhaven Water, fluoride is added to drinking water in accordance with NSW health guidelines. I have passed your email to the EPA for further consideration. Note that it will be treated as correspondence with a 30 day turn around guarantee.

Regards

L

Environment Line and Information Centre

Office of Environment and Heritage

Department of Premier and Cabinet

info@environment.nsw.gov.au

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au

—————-

From: John T
Sent: Thursday, 3 January 2013 5:13 PM
To: INFO@Environment
Subject: RE: Dumping Fluoride into Oceans.

Hi L,
Thanks for getting back to me. I am slightly confused by your response. Please clarify the following for me:
The EPA licence for Shoalhaven water treatment has no advice in it about water additives and EPA has no role in additives to drinking water approved under other legislation
Does this mean the EPA has no control over the types of additives that the licence allows councils to put into the water supply,even though the EPA is responsible for issuing the licences?
 
If the EPA has no control over the additives going into the council water supply, how does it ensure that the the following guidelines are being met?
 
The licence states:
 
2 The objectives of this licence are to:
A) prevent as far as practicable sewage overflows and sewage treatment plant bypasses;
B) require proper and efficient management of the system to minimise harm to the environment and public health; and
C) require practical measures to be taken to protect the environment and public health from
Sewage overflows and sewage treatment plant effluent.
 
Does the council have any legal requirement to disclose to the EPA at the time of applying for a licence the type of Fluoride being added to the water supply?
 
If the EPA has no role in additives to drinking water, then how is the EPA informed by the NSW Health Department about the safety of these additives before the licence is issued in accordance with 2(B) above?
 
Has the EPA ever satisfied itself that the NSW Health Department guidelines are in accordance with the requirements of 2(B) of the licences being issued to councils wanting to add additives to their water supplies? 
 
As the EPA is the body responsible for issuing the licences and enforcing the licensing conditions, has it ever undertaken any independent scientific research to ensure the requirements of 2(B) are being satisfied, rather than relying on the NSW Health Department’s assurances?
 
As the NSW Health Department uses the generic term “Fluoride” in it’s Fact sheet, has the EPA ever required the NSW Health Department to advise the type of “Fluoride” that is claims to be safe and effective (presumably in preventing tooth decay)?
 
Is the EPA know what scientific research has been undertaken by the NSW Health Department to ensure it’s guidelines satisfy the requirements of 2(B) of the licences?
 
Or if there is no information provided by the NSW Health Department, does it mean any applications for a licence from councils are automatically approved, and not considered on a case by case basis, as previously advised?
 
Your comment you have passed my email on to the EPA is intriguing, as  I though you are the EPA?
 
I apologise for any misunderstanding but I do know who is willing to take responsibility for Fluoride being added to our water supply. So far, the council has denied any responsibility, referring me to the NSW Health Department. Now it appears the EPA is not willing for take responsibility (even though it issues the licences!!) and has referred me to the NSW Health Department. From the Fact sheet, it seems the NSW Health Department does not take responsibility for Fluoride in the water supply, maintaining it relies on scientific research provided by the NHRMC.

Best wishes

John

——-Original Message——-

From: Environment INFO

Date: 3/01/2013 5:49:07 PM

To: John T

Subject: RE: Dumping Fluoride into Oceans.

Hi John

I have passed on your concerns to EPA in Queanbeyan and they have acknowledged receipt. Please await a formal response.

Regards

L

Environment Line and Information Centre

Office of Environment and Heritage

Department of Premier and Cabinet

info@environment.nsw.gov.au

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

————–

From: John T
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013 12:13 PM
To: INFO@Environment
Subject: RE: Dumping Fluoride into Oceans.

Hi L,

As it is apparent you are not involved with the issuing of council licences, please provide me with the Queanbeyan office email, and the name of person I should deal with.

Also for your own interest and that of your colleagues I suggest you check out these two short videos. I think you will find them frightening but very informative:

Both these links contain a great deal of information about the matters I am concerned with. The video in the first link is towards the end of the article. The most scary thing about fluoridation is that it is a slow acting poison, resulting in Sodium Fluoride Poisoning and because it is dumped into council water supplies, it is right through the food chain, not just in tap water.

It is a serious health issue for everyone exposed to fluoridation in this country. And that includes you and your loved ones, not someone else. 

Best wishes

John

——-Original Message——-
Date: 4/01/2013 12:17:05 PM
To: John T
Subject: RE: Dumping Fluoride into Oceans.

HI John

I am not sure who in Queanbeyan will be handling your enquiry and will leave it to the Queanbeyan office to contact you.

Regards

L

Environment Line and Information Centre

Office of Environment and Heritage

Department of Premier and Cabinet

info@environment.nsw.gov.au

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

———————–
From: John T


Sent: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:38 PM
To: info@environment.nsw.gov.au
Cc:Minister.Plibersek@health.gov.au, quality@doh.health.nsw.gov.au,
holmes@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au, aguile@sasc.nsw.edu.au,
Allan.Baptist@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au, Clive.Robertson@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
editorial@scnews.com.au, Karen.Anstiss@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au

Hi L,

I have amplified my requests for information from the EPA. Please ensure who ever is responsible for issuing licences to councils addresses all the matters I have raised in full.

As the scientific research is overwhelming that Sodium Fluoride is systematically poisoning the public and nature, I want to know why this is happening.

When a cancer research specialist of 50 years experience is will to publicly state, “Fluoride is public murder.” And other are taking class actions against the authorities because their valuable quarter horses and dogs have died from Sodium Fluoride Poisoning, it is time to stop this insanity.

Watch videos at:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/14/fluoride-effects-in-children

I have CC’ d others who no doubt should be as concerned as myself when it comes to adding poison to our water supply.I look forward to a reply within the next 30 days.Best wishes

John


Advertisements

6 comments on “Dumping Fluoride Into Oceans

  1. The water authorities such as Shoalhaven Water hide behind the NSW fluoridation legislation and Code of Practice. They maintain they are required by law to add this poison to the reticulated water supplies once NSW Health has given them approval to do so. There is provision in the legislation for Councils to request a cessation of fluoridation in cases where water authorities have been given approval to add fluoride chemicals but not in cases where they have been subsequently directed to do so by the Secretary. In NSW the only way to get this poison out of the water supply is by repealing the legislation as it is government policy and the politicians are responsible for the systematic poisoning of their constituents.

  2. Oh well now that you’ve clarified that i feel so much better “james”. Hell, why dont we find some other toxic chemicals to dump into the ocean on a mass scale! As long as it saves money and remains a small enough percentage to not kill off all sea life then everything should be just fine right?? Tell me james, are you a paid shill or were you just born without the ability to use common sense?

    • Note from ASWLA: Blake, ASWLA is unsure if you understand who ‘James'(Robert Deal) is; and what he means by his comment. James Robert Deal is an Attorney who has been fighting fluoride for decades now – he is one of the people working to rid fluoride from our drinking water worldwide (he is based in the States); so no, he is not a paid shill at all. He is correct about the dilution of run-off into the ocean not harming fish directly, due to the calcium inherent. We have more danger from Fukishima, than dilution of our water supply into the ocean (James is NOT talking about dumping straight fluoride chemicals into the ocean which is illegal; but the run-off of the water supply, that is already diluted down before reaching the ocean – of course, no silicofluorides is good to have flowing in; but . Please go here, to his fluoride site for more insights: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/

  3. Dumping fluoride waste from fertilizer production into oceans is of course illegal. However, it would be much less harmful than putting it into our drinking water and then into rivers and then into oceans. The ocean is so rich in calcium and other minerals that the 1 ppm fluoride ion level in the ocean is harmless to fish.

    • John T emails Dated jan 2013.
      What was the outcome of the bunbungee communication efforts with the Shoalhaven water authority? I have had the same experience with all local water suppliers. Until someone with massive amounts of money with a strong legal team drags these thugs to court nothing will change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s