We Don’t Need Safety Studies

The Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act states nothing is permitted into drinking water that is in contravention of a prescribed standard. Safe water advocates, and anyone that takes an in-depth look, knows that fluoridation chemicals are in contravention of a prescribed standard. Standard NSF60 requires toxicology studies and those studies have never been done.  This is confirmed by Health Canada, former WUC CAO John Stuart, and by the presentation made by former Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Heimann.

Public Works employees continue to advise councils that the chemicals used in fluoridation do meet the standard, without providing any evidence that they do.

Windsor Utilities Commission report, June 25, 2012 section 3. Toxicology

Why we have Standard 60 as a safety protocol:

Screen Shot 2019-02-01 at 1.49.04 PM

Further, the WUC report claims that 1) Health Canada has the required tox studies (but they do not as linked to above) and 2) that we don’t need them anyway because of hydrolyzing and dissociation.

Admittance that fluoridation chemicals do not meet Standard 60:Screen Shot 2019-02-01 at 1.41.37 PM

Interestingly, the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act says nothing can be added to the water that hasn’t met a prescribed standard, it doesn’t exempt things from being added because under some conditions that thing dissociates and it even goes so far as to state that dilution of the thing is no defence to adding the thing to the public’s drinking water.

Dissociation and Hydrolyzing Makes Contaminants Disappear!

WUC Report from June 2012, 3. Toxicology, con’t:

Screen Shot 2019-02-01 at 2.15.16 PM

Or does it…

How does the water provider ensure dissociation remains under conditions outside the water plant?  The pH, temperature and fluoride concentration can change from what is measured at the water plant to what is found at the tap, in infant formula, in the human stomach. But that’s not all…

Debunking the claim that no safety tox studies are required because of dissociation:

Click to see the full presentation on Debunking Dissociation. We’ve pulled out a few images to highlight how important it is that we have safety tox studies done.

debunking dissociation pg1

Finney is the study referenced in the WUC report above that claims we don’t need safety studies because of dissociation. Why didn’t they consider the Westendorf study? Why are they relying on studies that use purified versions of fluoride and water that isn’t the same chemistry as municipal tap water?

debunking dissociation pg2

Fate Of Fluorosilicate Drinking Water Additives, Urbansky, 2002, indicates that re-association may occur. And in, A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals, Mullenix points to further concerns about the toxicity of post dissociated compounds.

debunking dissociation pg3

debunking dissociation pg4

So we need SAFETY STUDIES after all…

The regulatory standard requires safety tox studies and dissociation is not a good enough reason to bypass this Safe Drinking Water Act requirement.

The Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act exists to protect all of Ontario’s municipal water drinkers from contaminants. Putting an untested, unregulated contaminant, silicofluorides, with trace co-contaminants of arsenic, lead and mercury, into the drinking water supply is not permitted, nor should it be.


It’s not just fluoride in fluorosilicates:



  • Health Canada’s guideline for lead (MAC 0.01 mg/L) has not been re-assessed since 1992, and it states “Exposure to lead should nevertheless be kept to a minimum.”

  • The World Health Organization states that “Lead is a cumulative toxicant that affects multiple body systems and is particularly harmful to young children. Lead in the body is distributed to the brain, liver, kidney and bones. It is stored in the teeth and bones, where it accumulates over time. .. Lead in bone is released into blood during pregnancy and becomes a source of exposure to the developing fetus.  There is no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe”  http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs379/en/

  • The EPA’s Public Health Goal / Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for lead is zero.  “Definitions:  Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)—The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.”  https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants#one

  • The (10 parts per billion threshold) is obsolete,” says Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a health sciences professor who specializes in lead exposure in children at Simon Fraser University. “We’ve got science that is conclusive, definitive and evaluated by independent advisory boards but policy hasn’t kept up with that.”  …  Kathleen Cooper, senior researcher and lead expert with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, says there is “incredibly solid evidence to say there is no safe level (of lead).”  http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/05/20/water_quality_tests_data_shows_elevated_lead_levels_in_toronto_homes.html


  1. Leave a comment

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: