Sodium Fluoride in Water Supply 2


GENRE: Email thread

TO: Graham Quirk – Brisbane Council; Tony Holmes

AUTHOR: John T

DATE SENT: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:31 AM

TITLE: Sodium Fluoride in Water Supply 2

STATUS: Awaiting response

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

To: Lord.Mayor@brisbane.qld.gov.au
Cc: gcccmail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au, mail@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au

Mr. Graham Quirk

Lord Mayor

Brisbane Council

Dear Graham

Thank you for your letter of 18 January 2013, advising that the council will continue adding Fluoride to the water supply.

Since writing to the Council I have undertaken further research and have some further issues I want you to consider while continuing to fluoridate the citizens of Brisbane.

As Mayor for the Council, please advise:

Do you agree the Fluoride added to the Council’s water supply is highly hazardous industrial grade chemical waste? If not, why not?

When handling the Fluoride, what precautions are in place to safeguard Council staff against injury/toxicity under Occupational Health and Safety laws? For example, is staff required to wear gas masks, protective clothing, etc.?

When delivered to Council, does the Fluoride contain any medical warnings if it comes in contact with the skin, the eyes, is inhaled or ingested?

Does the word “POISON” or a skull and crossbones appear anywhere on containers when the Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride is delivered to Council?

In your letter you have stated:

Finally, opinion polls and data indicate the majority of residents do, in fact, support fluoridation.

How were these polls conducted, and by whom? For example, did the Council hold a referendum, after advising the participants the Fluoride being added to the water supply is, in fact, a highly hazardous chemical waste, and also containing mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals?

Please also advise why you consider “Fluoride” to be safe to put into the Council’s water supply, when it is been banned in a number of countries, see:

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm

Please also provide me with the links, confirming the ADA, AMA and WHO support the ingesting of highly hazardous chemical waste and its accompanying heavy metals.

As the scientific research clearly shows, there is less tooth decay in non-fluoridated countries than fluoridated countries – see attached and below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yq3zZXzU7M ,

Will the Council continue to add Fluoride – and its accompanying heavy metals – to the Council’s water supply on the pretext these poisons prevent tooth decay? If so, why?

The following link provides scientific proof Sodium Fluoride causes hardening of the arteries and subsequent heart attacks:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616

Has the Council advised its insurer, that the Fluoride being added to the drinking water is Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride, and is highly hazardous chemical wastes? If not why not, as the Council could be subjected to a class action for destroying children’s’ teeth and the environment?

http://www.naturalnews.com/037322_fluoride_class_action_lawsuit_Seattle.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TwwNZyRVOA

Is the Council aware there are already class actions about fluoridation under way in this country and overseas?

http://fluoride-class-action.com/districts/australia http://www.efii.org/eurobodalla-shire-Council.html http://fluoride-class-action.com/fluoridation-suit-filed-in-israel

As Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Silicofluoride and heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, aluminium and copper, added to the water supply by Council are detrimental to health, what measures will the Council take, ensuring its citizen’s are no longer exposed to these poisons through the Council’s water supply? See:

http://afamildura.wordpress.com/fluoridation-chemicals/

What insurance does the Council have in place to compensate its citizens if their health continues to suffer from the ingestion of Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Silicofluoride and heavy metals currently being added to the water supply?

Are you also aware the Queensland and Victorian governments have legislated to prevent them being sued because of fluoridation?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ha1973201/s4.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/wfa2008215/s3.html

Clearly these State Governments are concerned about the harmful effects of adding a highly hazardous chemical waste to the water supply; otherwise, why would they pass such a law to protect them against prosecution?

It is extremely doubtful such legislation would stand up in a Court of law, as it is not possible to legislate against committing unlawful acts. It is apparent the systematic poisoning of the community and the environment is a criminal act, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqK7XvfLg0

When a cancer expert with 50 years experience claims, “Fluoride is public murder.” “People are being forced to kill themselves,” is it any wonder the Queensland government handed the issue of fluoridation over to the Councils?

I might add it would be prudent to bring these matters to the attention of the other Council Lord Mayors who share the grid with the Brisbane Council. Clearly they have just as much to lose by the continuation of this insanity. .

I also note some of the Gold Coast Councilors now oppose water fluoridation. According to this report, they maintain it would cost $10 million to convert to non-fluoridation, and this would translate into a one off levy of $60.00, see:

http://www.news.com.au/national/gold-coast-councillors-push-to-ditch-fluoride-in-drinking-water/story-fndo4ckr-1226559752921

As the Gold Coast is one of the Councils sharing the grid with you, please advise how you estimated a cost of $150 million to convert to non-fluoridation?

I look forward to hearing from you concerning these matters regarding the adding of industrial grade highly hazardous chemical waste to the water supply.

Yours faithfully

John Teagle

—————-

SENT: Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:03 PM

to:  Holmes Tony <holmes@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au>
cc:  nswombo@ombo.nsw.gov.au,
Andrew Guile <aguile@sasc.nsw.edu.au>,
Allan.Baptist@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
findleya@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Rodgers Julia <Julia.Rodgers@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au>,
Jo.Gash@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Karen.Anstiss@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Lynne.Kearney@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Mark.Kitchener@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Pavitt Don <PAVITT@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au>,
Patricia.White@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
watsong@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au
Mr Tony Holmes – Shoalhaven Water Supply
Dear Tony

Further to my email of 13th January 2013, wanting to know when I can expect a reply to matters I have raised previously.

As I have not heard from you, please provide me with the answers I seek in within the next 5 business days. If I have not had a reply in that time, I will be forced to take the matter to the NSW Ombudsman.

Further to my latest email, I have now had a response from the EPA concerning the issuing of licences to the council.

In the council’s letter dated 17th December 2013, when replying to my concerns about fluoride being released into the environment, it is stated:

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 I found it inconceivable the EPA would grant a licence, allowing the council to pollute the environment, I wrote to that Department, who advised:

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is responsible for the administration of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act). Schedule 1 of the POEO Act stipulates certain activities that are required to be licensed by the EPA in order to be undertaken. The treatment of drinking water including the addition of any fluoride is not listed in Schedule 1 of the POEO Act as an activity that is required to be licensed by the EPA. As such, the drinking water treatment plants that are operated by Shoalhaven City Council do not hold any licences with the EPA. Accordingly, the EPA does not have any role or oversight with respect to the addition of fluoride to the reticulated water supply by Shoalhaven City Council. Further, the OPEO Act prohibits the disposal direct to waterways of fluoride waste streams that are generated from industrial or manufacturing processes.

It is clear from this advice, the council does not have approval (licence) from the EPA to add fluoride waste streams that are generated from industrial or manufacturing processes to its reticulated water supply. Please advise why the council informed me otherwise?

Your response to this question is a further extension of my previous inquiries about EPA licences, so it should tie in with your other responses. My concern here is how the council is able to legally pollute the reticulated water supply and consequently citizens and our environment without approval from the EPA?

Who does have the responsibility of protecting our environment when the EPA does not have any role or oversight with respect to the addition of fluoride to the reticulated water supply by Shoalhaven City Council? Please advise.

Also as the EPA maintains Accordingly, the EPA does not have any role or oversight with respect to the addition of fluoride to the reticulated water supply by Shoalhaven City Council, please advise who is responsible for checking the council’s reticulated water quality data each month?

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and I look forward to your professional responses shortly.

Yours faithfully

John T

——-Original Message——-

Mr Tony Holmes

Acting Director

Shoalhaven Water Supply

Dear Tony

Further to your letter of 9th January 2013 in which you advised, I do not anticipate a reply to your further enquiries within the 28 day timeframe, please advise when I can expect a reply.

Since writing to the Council I have undertaken further research and have some further issues I want you to include when responding to my previous email of 28th December 2012.

As acting director and engineer for the Council, please advise:

Do you agree the Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride added to the water supply is highly hazardous industrial grade chemical waste? If not, why not?

When handling the Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride what precautions are in place to safeguard Council staff against injury/toxicity under Occupational Health and Safety laws? For example, is staff required to wear gas masks, protective clothing, etc.?

When delivered to Council does the Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride contain any medical warnings if it comes in contact with the skin, the eyes, is inhaled or ingested?

Does the word “POISON” or a skull and crossbones appear anywhere on containers when the Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride is delivered to Council?

As the scientific research clearly shows there is less tooth decay in non-fluoridated countries than fluoridated countries – see attached and below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yq3zZXzU7M ,

Will the Council continue to add Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride, and its accompanying heavy metals to the Council’s water supply on the pretext these poisons prevent tooth decay? If so, why?

The following link provides scientific proof Sodium Fluoride causes hardening of the arteries and subsequent heart attacks:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616

Has the Council advised its insurer the Fluoride being added to the drinking water is Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride, highly hazardous chemical wastes? If not why not, as the Council could be subjected to a class action for destroying children’s’ teeth and the environment?

As previously advised I suffered a heart attack in February 2010, resulting in my undergoing angioplasty, with a stent inserted into my proximal LAD artery. After the heart attack, I was diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease (Angina), a life threatening illness due to restricted blood supply to the heart. As Sodium Fluoride is a cause of hardening of the arteries, what course of action is the Council going to take to ensure I am not forced to ingest this and other poisons through my drinking water and the food chain (tap water is used in food production) in future?

As Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Silicofluoride and heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, aluminium and copper, added to the water supply by Council are detrimental to my health, what measures will the Council take, ensuring I am no longer exposed to these poisons through the Council’s water supply? See:

http://afamildura.wordpress.com/fluoridation-chemicals/

What insurance does the Council have in place to compensate me if my health continues to suffer from the ingestion of Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Silicofluoride and heavy metals currently being added to the water supply?

In your original reply of 13th November 2012 to my concerns about fluoridation, you provided the following response:

Fluoride is naturally present in low concentrations in Shoalhaven Water’s sources. In addition, fluoride is used to prevent dental decay in accordance with the NSW Fluoridation Code of Practice 2011. It is a safe, effective way of providing benefit to individuals of all ages in the community. Extensive research supports water fluoridation as an effective measure in preventing and reducing tooth decay.

Are you claiming the Fluoride naturally present in Shoalhaven water’s sources is the same type of fluoride that is being added to the water supply?

With regard to the rest of your statement, please provide the extensive scientific research proving Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride is safe to ingest and is effective in preventing and reducing tooth decay. Please do not refer me to the NHMRC, as it has never tested these highly hazardous waste chemicals to determine whether they prevent tooth decay, or they are safe to ingest, see attached and below:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/limeback/

The NHMRC research has been restricted to the fluoride that occurs naturally in water. The only fluoride, occurring natural in water is Calcium Fluoride, and that is not what is being added to the Shoalhaven water supply. If you still maintain Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride has been tested and proven safe and effective by the NHMRC, please provide me with the links on their Website.

I look forward to hearing from you concerning these and the other matters previously raised regarding the adding of industrial grade highly hazardous chemical waste to the water supply.

When corresponding, please use email rather than the post as it is more efficient, cost effective and saves the environment.

Yours faithfully

John T

Advertisements

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