Posts Tagged nsf60
Before we get to the outcome of the recent Windsor Utilities Commission meeting let’s take a look at the local media coverage. Fluoride Free Windsor and local Safe Water Advocates want to thank our media sources for doing such an amazing job of helping Windsor/Essex residents become informed about the facts of artificial water fluoridation!
February 29, 2012 Utilities Commission Recommends City Stop Fluoridating Water
February 27, 2012 ‘More Doctors Smoke Camels’
February 18, 2012 Researchers Explore Fluoride Debate
February 18, 2012 Fluoride Still Stirring Debate
February 10, 2012 Heather Gingerich on Ending Fluoridation of Drinking Water
February 7, 2012 Town Council Passes Moratorium on Water Fluoridation
December 2, 2011 City Urged to Consider Fluoride Ban
November 2, 2011 Group Wants Fluoride Removed
Fluoride Free Windsor, Council of Canadians, Canadian Medical Geology Association, a Registered Nurse and several local residents presented to the Windsor Utilities Commission (WUC) board members at a special fluoridation meeting held on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 to make the case for SAFE WATER.
The outcome of the meeting was a motion made by Councillor Dilkens and seconded by Councillor Marra to recommend that the City of Windsor cease fluoridation. All members of the commission, except for Councillor Sleiman, voted in favour of the motion. We wish to extend a huge thanks to Mr. Dilkens and Mr. Marra, as well as the commissioners, for voting in favour of SAFE WATER. For more videos of delegates’ presentations visit the Fluoride Free Windsor YouTube channel.
Windsor Utilities Commission has a mandate to supply SAFE WATER
A little background on this water supplier – they have state of the art technology using both ozonation and infra-red to clean the water (not chlorine!) and remove any pathogens – this is good because we get our drinking water from the Detroit River which, as most of you reading this will know, isn’t so clean! Unfortunately, after WUC does such a fantastic job of cleaning the water they add an agent that is classified as hazardous waste – hydrofluorosilicic acid – straight from the smoke stacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry, untreated, tanked and shipped to our municipality under the guise of ‘tooth medicine’. See here confirmation from WUC’s Chief Operating Officer, John Stuart, that the water fluoridation product is a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry:
WUC Fluoridation Reports
A May 23, 2006 WUC fluoridation report for City of Windsor Council states “It should be noted that The Windsor Utilities Commission reduced the level of fluoride from 1.2 mg/l to 0.65 mg/l several years ago.” which begs the question: Does that mean that for several decades WUC customers got twice the concentration of fluoride that they tell us is safe today? Will we be told in the future that the ‘safe’ limit is lower still, as fluoride lobbyists find it more and more difficult to disregard the mounting evidence that fluoride accumulates in our bodies and in our environment, causing harm?
In the WUC Fluoridation report dated February 17, 2012 (completed for the purposes of this special fluoridation meeting) it states:
“It is of interest that on January 7, 2011 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended dropping the fluoride concentration from their current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per litre to 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per litre. This updated recommendation was based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects.“
UNWANTED HEALTH EFFECTS? But our Medical Officer of Health and local dentists keep saying there are NO unwanted health effects. The WUC report quotes the Health Canada (2007) review that indicates “fluoride in drinking water is unlikely to cause adverse health effects…” and “fluoride in drinking water is unlikely to be the cause of moderate dental fluorosis…” (does that mean it is likely to be the cause of mild dental fluorosis?) As parents trying our best to protect our children from unnecessary chemicals, should we be reassured with Health Canada’s ‘unlikely to cause harm’ fluoridation endorsement? Can they back up this endorsement with safety studies?
Fluoride lobbyists admit that fluoride is harmful and can only claim it is ‘safe and effective’ at optimal levels. The problem is, that ‘optimal level’ has continued to be decreased ever since the water fluoridation experiments began. Why is that? For one thing, the science doesn’t support the ‘safe and effective’ propaganda. And so as decades pass and we’re in our third generation, of test subjects ingesting fluoride, we see more and more signs of fluoride toxicity – and so instead of our health authorities being PROTECTIVE and taking PRECAUTION we see them being reactive to mounting evidence of harm and lowering the fluoride limit in our drinking water time and again all while desperately defending this policy in an attempt to retain credibility. It seems that the opposite is happening. By defending worn-out policy, health and dental authorities are losing credibility when they do not take a precautionary stance that is protective of all.
Residents should be allowed to monitor their own fluoride intake while depending on the tap water for bathing, cooking and drinking. Public health is NOT monitoring our fluoride intake from all exposures nor have our communities been assessed to determine what our fluoride intake is from all available sources. Some people are sensitive to fluoride, some people need to avoid it because they suffer from a suppressed thyroid or because they have a compromised immune system. Current water fluoridation concentrations are not protective of formula fed infants or aquatic species and claims of safety at any level is questionable, as we’ll soon see.
What does the Precautionary Principle say?
The principle requires that we consider the possible benefits, the possible harms and whether there are feasible alternatives for producing the benefit. For fluoride, the benefit is slight if any and does not pertain to a threat to public health. Possible harm is great and almost certain for some harm like dental fluorosis and thyroid suppression. There are harmless and accessible alternatives for attaining the desired benefit. And so, fluoride does not pass the test of the precautionary principle.
Anyone who believes that ingesting fluoride is contributing to their dental health can simply ingest more of the readily available foods that contain fluoride while leaving our municipal drinking water free of it so that it is as safe as possible. See here the USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods. There is no shortage of access to fluoride but avoiding it is near impossible when it is in our tap water. For those interested in SAFE methods of preventing dental caries see these Alternatives to Fluoride.
How SAFE is hydrofluorosilicic acid? What measures exist to ensure it is SAFE for us to ingest every day of our lives?
The Safe Drinking Water Act (2002) is clear that water systems must meet licensing requirements; the license (Schedule B, Section 14.0) requires that chemicals used meet the Standard NSF60. This standard provides criteria to conduct a toxicological risk assessment. This criteria was confirmed by WUC Chief Operating Officer, John Stuart, in the report dated February 17, 2012 submitted to commissioners for the purposes of the fluoridation meeting.
“Standard 60 was developed to establish minimum requirements for the control of potential human health effects from products added directly to water during its treatment, storage and distribution. The standard requires a full information disclosure of each chemical ingredient in a product. It also requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminants in the product…A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse health effects.”
The legislation is in place for safety criteria. So why are there no safety studies?
See here video coverage for the WUC meeting where administration admits no toxicological safety studies have been completed (in the 60 years of forcing this hazardous waste on us!). The video demonstrates how health authorities know full well that these safety studies do not exist and yet continue to promote the policy as ‘safe and effective’.
There is no scientific consensus that ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe. There are no safety studies to prove it is safe. More and more municipalities are becoming aware of this glaring oversight and are ending the fluoridation experiment. Let your Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle councillors know that you want them to follow the Windsor Utilities Commission’s recommendation to cease artificial water fluoridation to make our municipal drinking water supply as SAFE as possible. And allow us to enjoy Fluoride Free Water like the rest of Essex County, most of Canada and most of the World.
Fluoride lobbyists claim that ingesting fluoride is safe and that no credible evidence exists to show that it is harmful. They also admit that the actual product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, we’re ingesting has never undergone safety tests. No tests to prove safety and no credible evidence to show harm (if you don’t look, you can’t see!). This kind of double-speak is quite common in the fluoride lobbying literature.
However, the law is clear – chemicals added to our water supply MUST meet standards and those standards include toxicological testing. So decades old public policy and endorsements aside, would the claim that ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe, hold up in a court of law? This is the question Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle councillors need to ask themselves when they finally decide yay or nay for continuing to mass medicate residents without their informed consent.
Who is liable?
The Province of Ontario has provided municipal councillors with a document titled Taking Care of Your Drinking Water: A Guide for Members of Municipal Councils. This guide details how on January 1, 2013 a Standard of Care comes into effect that puts an unprecedented duty of care on municipal councillors. The guide shows an ‘ideal water treatment model’ and no fluoridation step is shown. This guide states: “It’s Your Duty. The Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, includes a statutory standard of care for individuals who have oversight responsibilities for municipal drinking water systems that can extend to municipal councillors as of January 1, 2013. There are legal consequences for negligence, including possible fines or imprisonment.”
With a warning like that coming from the Province, councillors must be fully certain that the product they’ve chosen to mass medicate their constituents with is, indeed, safe and effective, as the fluoride proponents claim. Because those fluoride lobbyists will not shield municipalities from legal liability.
Fluoride Free Windsor members have been doing their best to arm councillors with credible fluoridation information, including providing them with the Water Fluoridation Expert list, so councillors will have several professionals to turn to for the truth about the marketing claims that fluoride is safe and effective. These experts can and will help councillors make informed decisions that are protective of all constituents and adhere to environmental legislation.
No Means No
Following is a presentation titled NO MEANS NO that very appropriately highlights the fraudulent NSF certification that municipal governments are relying on as the safety standard for hydrofluorosilicic acid. Thank you to Carole Clinch of Citizens for Safe Water.