Relying on Fluoridation Law


GENRE: Email request

TO:  Tony Holmes; Various email Bcc list

AUTHOR: John T

DATE SENT:   Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:44 AM

TITLE: Relying on Fluoridation Law

STATUS:

UPDATES:  Please post all updates and comments in the LEAVE A REPLY section below.

EXTERNAL LINKS: http://www.ukcaf.org/oshlack_v_rous_water_-_preliminary_ruling.html

ATTACHMENTS: x 2
biscoe_decision_may_2011
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

to:  Holmes Tony <holmes@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au>
cc:  Andrew Guile <aguile@sasc.nsw.edu.au>,
Clive.Robertson@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
findleya@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Rodgers Julia <Julia.Rodgers@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au>,
Jo.Gash@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
John.Wells@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Jim.McCrudden@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Karen.Anstiss@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Lynne.Kearney@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
Mark.Kitchener@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
NSW Health Department <quality@doh.health.nsw.gov.au>,
Patricia.White@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au,
watsong@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au

Shoalhaven Water

Dear Tony

In my previous correspondence, I raised the issue of environmental protection. I inquired about the safety measures the Council has in place to protect the environment from the Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicafluoride being added to the reticulated water supply.

Your response to this request was fluoridation of public water supplies is regulated by the Fluoridation of the Public Water Supplies Regulation 2012. It is apparent from these comments you consider Shoalhaven Water is legally entitled to pollute the Shoalhaven environment because of this legislation. However, this is not the case. In April 2011 Justice Biscoe (Oshlack Vs Rous Water and Ballina Council) has ruled that the Code of Practice 2002, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 needs to be considered, along with the Fluoridation Act 1957. Furthermore he stated the fullest impact (Part 5 Section 111 of EP&A Act) on human health and the environment must be considered. Both NEW and EXISTING plants are expected to abide by the Act. In view of this legal precedent, please advise what action has been taken by Shoalhaven Water to look at the effects of the fluoridation plant or the holding dams on the environment and human health. The court ruling is attached for your reference. In particular, please note the judgement comments on page 12 of the Court decision as follows:

The Fluoridation Code (5.1.7) under the heading “Design Controls for Fluoridation Facilities” states that the water supply authority “shall ensure the fluoridation plant complies with all legislative requirements”. It continues “The Fluoridation Act, Regulation and Code of Practice does not contain all legislative requirements that a water supply authority may have to comply with in design, construction and operation of a fluoridation plant (for example building codes). The responsibility for and identification of, and compliance with relevant legislation lies with the Water Supply Authority”. The Fluoridation Code at (6.1 .1) and (7.1.1) under the headings “Occupational Health and Safety” and “Environment Safety” states that the Water Authority must comply with the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, the Dangerous Goods Act 1975 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and that: in the area of protection of the environment these Acts and Regulations will take precedence over the Fluoridation Act, Fluoridation Regulation and Code of Practice.

This judgement makes it clear the environmental legislation takes precedence over the fluoridation legislation.

Please advise when Shoalhaven Water conducted its environment impact study in accordance with this legal precedence. Where can I find this link on your Website?

If Shoalhaven Water has not conducted an environment impact study in accordance with the requirements of the Fluoridation and EPA legislation then it is acting illegally in terms of this legal precedence handed down in the Environmental Land Court.

If this is the case then Shoalhaven Water should immediately notify NSW Health and request approval from discontinuance of water fluoridation under Section 6B of the Act, as it cannot satisfy the legal requirements of Section 111 and 112 of the EP&A Act 1979.

Furthermore Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicafluoride are listed poisons, and the actual end product has not been tested, nor approved by any national, or international bodies regulating medications, additives or chemicals. These fluorides are listed in the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (SUSMP) as S6 poisons, please provide me with a “safety” certification for this poison, as well as for the combined end product, fluoridated water.

To further understand the serious implications for Council regarding this Court case, please see:

http://www.ukcaf.org/oshlack_v_rous_water_-_preliminary_ruling.html 

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

Your faithfully

John

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