Environmental Impact Statements


GENRE: Email letter

TO: Dr Shanti Sivaneswaran

 AUTHOR: John T

DATE SENT:  Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:41 PM

TITLE:   Environmental Impact Statements

STATUS: No response.

UPDATES: Please place any updates into the COMMENTS section below

ATTACHMENTS: 1 x PDF (below letter)

Dear Doctor Shanti

I am in possession of email correspondence between you and Merilyn Haines.

In her email dated 12 April 2012 Merilyn raised the issue of NSW Government ever conducting formal health assessments or Environmental Impact Studies to assess risks to humans and the environment and requested a copy of these reports under GIPA legislation. In your response of 23 April 2012 you stated:

Most fluoridation plants in NSW are built where existing water filtration plants already exist and therefore does not require a Review of Environmental Factors. The construction of the fluoridation plant including environmental assessment is the responsibility of the water utility. The NSW EPA (formerly the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water) do not consider that fluoridation of drinking water poses a risk to the environment.

As the Principle Adviser for the Centre for Oral Heath Strategy you are no doubt aware that NSW Health is responsible for the administration of the Fluoridation law and this includes the Code of Practice. Section 7 of this Code states:

 7.1 Primary Requirements

7.1.1 The environment is protected from impact due to the fluoridation plant.

7.1.1.1 The water utility must comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (PEO Act) and other environmental protection legislation or regulations made from time to time The PEO Act and other environment protection Acts and Regulations may impact all aspects of the fluoridation plant including design operational and maintenance procedure straining auditing and record keeping.

Water supply authorities need to regularly review the requirements of these Acts and Regulations to ensure compliance. In the area of protection of the environment these Acts and Regulations will have precedence over the Fluoridation Act Regulation and Code of Practice. If clarification is required in these areas then the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW) and Work Cover NSW will provide the defining interpretations. On this basis no other minimum standards are stated under this section. Specific requirements under legislation administered by those authorities should therefore be referred to and the following should be considered only as general information rather than being conclusive as to other regulatory requirements. The following guide notes in this section of the Code however provide a basis for a water utility to assess what control measures it should employ to manage environmental risks associated with fluoridation systems. The issues and control measures discussed are focussed on meeting some of the key elements of the Acts and Regulations involved. They are in no way exhaustive and the use of these control measures in no way infers that this is sufficient to comply with these Acts and Regulations.

It is irrefutable the water utility must comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (PEO Act) and other environmental protection legislation or regulations made from time to time. Furthermore the PEO Act and other environment protection Acts and Regulations may impact all aspects of the fluoridation plant including design operational and maintenance procedure straining auditing and record keeping.  The PEO Act is administered by NSW EPA the authority responsible for protecting the environment under the provisions of Section 120 that states

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS ACT 1997 – SECT 120

Prohibition of pollution of waters

120 Prohibition of pollution of waters

(1) A person who pollutes any waters is guilty of an offence.

Note: An offence against subsection (1) committed by a corporation is an offence attracting special executive liability for a director or other person involved in the management of the corporation-see section 169.

(2) In this section:

“pollute” waters includes cause or permit any waters to be polluted.

The scope of this provision is extremely wide and requires the NSW EPA to protect waterways from pollution. In written advice received from that authority it is stated:

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is responsible for the administration of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (Act). Schedule 1 of the 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  Act as an activity that is required to be licensed by 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  Act prohibits the disposal direct to waterways of fluoride waste streams that are generated from industrial or manufacturing processes.

It is irrefutable NSW EPA considers fluoride waste streams generated from industrial or manufacturing processes to be pollutants. No doubt you are aware the fluoride added to water supplies is an industrial grade highly hazardous fluoride chemical waste. This is consistent with the provisions of Section 5 of the Code as follows:

5.1.5 The design of the fluoridation plant shall provide a safe working environment and facilitate safe working practices to protect both plant operations staff and the public (refer also to Section 6).

5.1.5.1 Where hydrofluosilicic acid is used electrical control cubicles for the fluoridation plant shall be located so as to minimise deterioration due to corrosion and to minimise the need for staff to enter the fluoridation plant room or specific areas where fluoridation equipment is installed. This requirement is focused on minimising the need for entry into the fluoridation plant room or the plant site for operational and maintenance staffand reducing risk to the fluoridation process due to breakdowns from increased corrosion problems (particularly plants using hydrofluosilicic acid) as well as improving general asset life of the control equipment. Where dedicated fluoridation plant rooms are providedit is suggested that the control cubicles should be in a separate room beside the room containing the fluoridating agent dosing equipment. The two rooms would have separate entry doors a window in the common wall but no inter-connecting door or other means for air to pass between the rooms (eg unsealed electrical conduits or chases). Glass is not to be used for the window as it will be etched and frosted by acid fumes. The location/orientation of the control cubicles and fluoride dosing equipment should allow operators to have a clear view of the dosing equipment when operating the control panel.

It is irrefutable the Code allows dangerous chemicals to be added to the reticulated water supply of Councils. This explains why the NSW EPA maintains: Further the Act prohibits the disposal direct to waterways of fluoride waste streams that are generated from industrial or manufacturing processes.

Furthermore Justice Biscoe of the Land and Environment Court in a land mark decision on April 2011 ruled Councils are required to undertake Environmental Impact Studies and to make the resultant Environmental Impact Studies public as follows:

25 The Fluoridation Regulation incorporates by reference the Fluoridation Code. The Fluoridation Code at (2) states that it “includes generally technical material”which has not been specified in the Fluoridation Act or Regulationits aim is “to achieve best practice in the establishment and operation of fluoridation plants in New South Wales in order to meet the technical occupational health and safety and environmental requirements of the relevant legislation”. It applies to all new and existing plants and it is the responsibility of the fluoridating water supply authorities to ensure they comply with” the code.

26 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 2000the Dangerous Goods Act 1975 and theProtection 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 legally requires all Councils to comply with all relevant laws (including the POE Act and EP&A Act) when determining their legal obligations under the Fluoridation legislation. Consequently it follows they are obliged to satisfy the requirements of all the environment protection laws. Furthermore it applies to all new and established fluoridation plants operating in New South Wales. Hence it is irrelevant when the fluoridation plant was established. All plants must comply on an on-going basis. The judgement also makes Councils liable for ensuring all environment protection acts are complied with.

Please explain why you assert The NSW EPA (formerly the Department of EnvironmentClimate Change and Water) do not consider that fluoridation of drinking water poses a risk to the environment. How is this possible when NSW EPA maintains it has no oversight or role in reticulated water supplies and at the same time will prosecute those (including Councils) who directly dispose of this toxic waste into waterways.

According to the Biscoe decision all Councils are required to have Environmental Impact Statements certifying there is no harm to the environment when delivering this toxic waste into unsuspecting residents homes. As at least 97% of the fluoridated water is for non-drinking purposesresidents are polluting the environment when using this contaminated water in their environments. Please explain how Councils are able to protect the environment in these circumstances. For your reference I have enclosed a sample of an EIS showing the amount of testing required to ensure the environment is protected. In the case of water fluoridation it would require each individual using tap water to form part of that study. The only way the environment can possibly be protected is for fluoride to be a harmless substance. This is not the case as the Code irrefutably legislates for the treatment and processing of highly hazardous chemicals. Furthermore, the Schedule for Uniform Standard Medicines and Poisons lists fluorides as Schedule 6 poisons, for use other than human use. Fluoride  is far from constituting a harmless substance.

Furthermore I understand you made unsolicited approaches to the Deniliquin Council and were able to manipulate the Media to gain a favourable Plebiscite for the introduction of water fluoridation in January 2005. See:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2009.00154.x/abstract

At the time this plant was established your department would no doubt have advised the Council of its legal obligations under Section 7.1.1.1 of the Code. Consequently your department must have informed the Councilors of their primary requirements to conduct an environmental impact study and subsequently provide a copy of the resultant environmental impact statement to the Department of Planning and Industry and the Department of EnvironmentClimate Change and Water. Please advise where I can find the link for this EIS and supporting documentation.

If you are unable to provide me with this information by 3.00pm on Friday 26th April 2013 I will be entitled to state factually you have failed to comply with your Public Trust and duty of care obligations when promoting water fluoridation in the town of Deniliquin.

I look forward to your responses as I am in the process of making a formal complaint to the Independent Commission Against Corruption concerning this medical fraud.

Your faithfully

 John T

EISPDF

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