Formal complaint: Medical Officer’s unsupported claims re toxic fluoridation chemical
Infertility is becoming an usual cialis generika problem in males. Wrong propaganda “Nonfat, no cholesterol” has brought Americans to high carbohydrate diet full of the sugars. secretworldchronicle.com tadalafil wholesale Its fruit-like tastes avail the easiest and interesting way of treating erectile problems in just 20 minutes. * The effect of Kamagra will remain on the body for 4 to 6 hours. online cialis And in the long run it spoils the relation. generika viagra
Dear Mr. Szwarc,
This morning at the Regional Council meeting, Dr. de Villa once again repeated her insistence that residents are not exposed to HFSA, the industrial waste fluoridation chemical added to our drinking water.
As you can see from the emails below, for many months Dr. de Villa has failed to supply valid evidence to support this claim, and has ignored all of my queries on the topic.
I delegated to Council on September 8, 2016 about this very issue (see slides 2 – 5: http://www.fluoridefreepeel.
Please consider this a formal complaint against Dr. de Villa, and please confirm receipt of this complaint.
From: Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:13 PM
Subject: Fwd: no evidence that HFSA dissociates 100% in municipal water
To: “de Villa, Eileen” <Eileen.deVilla@peelregion.ca>
Cc: “cc: Johanna Downey” <johanna.downey@caledon.ca>, “cc:Tovey, Jim” <jim.tovey@mississauga.ca>, “cc: cc: Sprovieri, John Councillor” <John.Sprovieri@brampton.ca>, Annette Groves <Annette.Groves@caledon.ca>, “Palleschi, Michael – Councillor” <michael.palleschi@brampton.ca
Dear Dr. de Villa,
Yesterday at the CWFC meeting, you once again insisted that the Region’s fluoridation chemical, industrial waste HFSA collected in the pollution control devices (scrubbers) that are required in the smokestacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry, dissociates 100% once added to our tap water. I believe you also implied that it is extremely unlikely to re-associate. You also claimed that because all contaminant levels in our water are below Health Canada’s MACs, fluoridation is perfectly safe. I have heard you make this claim several times before.
I am concerned that your claim is entirely unscientific.
1.
It has now been almost 8 months since Councillor Sprovieri informed you that the only study ever cited by PH staff to support the ‘dissociation’ argument, the 2006 study by Finney et al, is not generalizable to the reality of artificial water fluoridation.
‘Nanopure’ water could not be more different from tap water. It is de-ionized water devoid of impurities. Our tap water is loaded with impurities.
The high grade HFSA used in the study is not the industrial waste HFSA that is disposed of in our water and full of contaminants.
An experiment conducted under one set of conditions cannot scientifically be assumed to reflect what happens under an entirely different set of conditions.
I delegated to Council about this very issue back on September 8, 2016: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca
At another recent meeting of the committee, you referred to “studies” but provided no references whatsoever. You made a new claim, stating that: “most studies” have been carried out using “distilled water” but ph level is the only factor in determining HFSA’s behaviour in drinking water (not the presence of contaminants, temperature, or anything else) and that the “studies” are therefore applicable to AWF. You have never, to my knowledge, provided a shred of evidence to back up this claim.
You have also never, to my knowledge, provided a shred of evidence to back up your new claim that once HFSA allegedly dissociates 100%, it is unlikely to re-associate.
Dr. de Villa, please provide all of the “studies” you rely upon when insisting that industrial waste HFSA dissociates 100% in our drinking water and that ph level is the only determining factor. Further, please provide all studies relied upon when insisting that HFSA stays dissociated even in acidic conditions such as coffee, tea and GI tracts and in the presence of many contaminants.
2.
Even IF HFSA were to dissociate and stay that way, the fact that individual contaminant levels are within the MAC levels is a repugnant defense, as my colleague has pointed out to you. Arsenic
- Health Canada’s guideline for arsenic, classified as a human carcinogen (maximum acceptable concentration, MAC, 0.01 mg/L ALARA as low as reasonably achievable), also states “MAC based on treatment achievability; … levels should be kept as low as reasonably achievable”.
- The EPA’s Public Health Goal / Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for arsenic 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-wat
er-and-drinking-water/table- regulated-drinking-water- contaminants#one
You misled the Fluoridation Committee of the basis of Health Canada’s guideline for arsenic. It is not based on safety. You also failed to advise the Committee of Health Canada’s advice to keep arsenic levels as low as reasonably achievable.
Lead:
- 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 “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-wat
er-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/gt
a/2014/05/20/water_quality_tes ts_data_shows_elevated_lead_ levels_in_toronto_homes.html
You misled the Fluoridation Committee regarding Health Canada’s guideline for lead in 1) neglecting to inform them of the advisory to keep lead levels to a minimum and 2) in neglecting to inform them that this guideline is grossly outdated.
Arsenic and lead are just 2 of HFSA’s many contaminants. Others are not even reported on the certificates of analysis.
3.
There is so much that could be said about the fluoride level in our water, but I will leave it at this for now:
A 350ml glass of Peel’s F’d tap water has the same dose of fluoride as found in a pea-sized bit of F’d toothpaste. Please follow the basic math for yourself: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca
The EPA’s Reference Dose for Chronic Oral Fluoride Exposure is: 60 ug/kg/day = 0.06 mg/kg/day based on noncarcinogenic effects only: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iri
The prestigious 2006 NRC report “FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards“, page 263: “In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.“
Infants consuming fluoridated tap water have the HIGHEST fluoride intakes of any age group (up to 0.21 mg/kg/day – Source: EPA-822-R-00-001, 2004)…
http://www.fluoridealert.org/w
…exceeding the EPA’s Reference Dose and exceeding the “no effect” levels for various adverse effects (see pages 43 and 44 of the legal brief with appended affidavit from fluoride toxicity expert Kathleen Thiessen, PhD – this document was provided to the Region in June 2014)
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-co
Health Canada’s technical document on fluoride in drinking water shows that infants whose formula is mixed with fluoridated water consume up to 120 ug/kg/day = 0.12 mg/kg/day based on 1ppm fluoride in water (http://healthycanadians.gc.ca
At 5:40, witness Dr. Howard Pollick, one of the pro-fluoridation experts who presented at the illegally closed Peel meeting last year, rationalize making tap water unfit for infants at a San Diego meeting. Dr. Pollick recommended distilled water for mixing infant formula. The Region, on your advice, does not bother to pass this recommendation, which is made by many experts, along to Peel’s parents.
“I don’t understand why the Peel Public Health will say that there’s no evidence of any harm when we clearly have published the effects on bone and teeth. I’m flabbergasted.”
–Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, former head of Preventive Dentistry at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, a position he served for 18 years, and former President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research, co-author of the prestigious 2006 NRC report “FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards“, at the illegally closed Regional Council meeting on artificial water fluoridation, January 2016 (on page 49 of the heavily redacted transcript).
4.You consistently ignore the issue of synergistic effects between HFSA, dissociated or not, it’s contaminants, and all of the other contaminants in our tap water.
Christine Massey
Fluoride Free Peel
From: Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: no evidence that HFSA dissociates 100% in municipal water
To: “de Villa, Eileen” <Eileen.deVilla@peelregion.ca>
Cc: “Sprovieri, John Councillor” <John.Sprovieri@brampton.ca>, “rbelgrave@thebramptonguardian
Dear Dr. de Villa, Ms. Lockyer, Ms. Smith, Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Szwarc and Mr. Hennings,
It has been approximately 8 months since Councillor Sprovieri informed Dr. de Villa that the cited 2006 study by Finney et al is not remotely generalizable to water fluoridation, as per my emails sent to all of you on September 6, 2016, October 18, 2016, and November 21, 2016, below.
Have any of you done your due diligence on this urgent matter relating to both the safety and legality of the Region’s water fluoridation program?
Dr. de Villa made reference to “studies” but provided no references on this topic whatsoever. She stated that “most studies” had been carried out using “distilled water” and claimed that ph level is the crucial factor in determining HFSA’s behaviour in drinking water.
Christine Massey
Fluoride Free Peel
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. de Villa, Ms. Lockyer, Ms. Smith, Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Szwarc and Mr. Hennings,
It has been over 6 months since Councillor Sprovieri informed Dr. de Villa that the cited 2006 study by Finney et al is not remotely generalizable to water fluoridation, as per my emails sent to all of you on September 6, 2016, October 18, 2016, and November 21, 2016, below.
Have any of you done your due diligence on this urgent matter relating to both the safety and legality of the Region’s water fluoridation program?
Please note that Dr. de Villa repeated her insistence that HFSA dissociates 100%, and made many other unsubstantiated claims, during her recent presentations to the Fluoridation Committee which took up the entire meeting and allowed no time for questions from Committee Members.
Dr. de Villa made reference to “studies” but provided no references on this topic whatsoever. She stated that “most studies” had been carried out using “distilled water” and claimed that ph level is the crucial factor in determining HFSA’s behaviour in drinking water.
Dr. de Villa, please provide all of the “studies” you rely upon when insisting that industrial waste HFSA dissociates 100% in our drinking water. Further, please provide all studies relied upon if you also insist that HFSA stays dissociated even in acidic conditions such as coffee, tea and GI tracts.Best wishes,Christine Massey
Fluoride Free Peel
Endorse Fluoride Action Network’s Petition to the EPA to BAN Fluoridation Based on Risks to BRAINS by Signing the Change.org PetitionOn Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. de Villa, Ms. Lockyer, Ms. Smith, Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Szwarc, Mr. Dale and Mr. Hennings,
It has been over 5 months since Councillor Sprovieri informed Dr. de Villa that the cited 2006 study by Finney et al is not remotely generalizable to water fluoridation, as per my emails sent to all of you on September 6, 2016, and October 18, 2016, below.
Have any of you done your due diligence on this urgent matter relating to both the safety and legality of the Region’s water fluoridation program?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. de Villa, Ms. Lockyer, Ms. Smith, Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Szwarc, Mr. Dale and Mr. Hennings,
At 2 recent Regional meetings (June 9th and September 8th), Staff’s claim that “there is no need for toxicological studies on the Region’s fluoridation chemical because it dissociates 100% in drinking water and therefore residents do not come into contact with it” was challenged.
During the June 9th meeting of the Community Water Fluoridation Committee, Councillor Sprovieri pointed out to Dr. de Villa that the study cited by Staff as evidence supporting their claim was conducted using purified water rather than tap water.
I wrote to all of you about this on September 6th, below, but have had no reply whatsoever.
On September 8th, I also delegated to Council on behalf of Fluoride Free Peel about the cited 2006 study by Finney et al which is not remotely generalizable to water fluoridation (click to view presentation).It has been over 3 months since Councillor Sprovieri informed Dr. de Villa of this issue. Have any of you done your due diligence on this urgent matter relating to both the safety and legality of the Region’s water fluoridation program?
Also, who exactly is responsible for the Region’s determination that toxicology studies are not necessary?
Best wishes,Christine Massey
Fluoride Free PeelOn Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. de Villa, Ms. Lockyer, Ms. Smith, Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Szwarc, Mr. Dale and Mr. Hennings,
For years, and most recently at a fluoridation committee meeting, Regional Staff have advised Councillors that that there is no need for toxicological studies on the Region’s fluoridation chemical, toxic waste HFSA, because it dissociates 100% in drinking water and therefore residents do not come into contact with it at all.
This assertion is not supported by the scientific literature, including the 2006 Finney (Michigan) study cited by Staff (for example, in a 2014 memo from Ms. Smith and Dr. David Mowat to Councillor Sprovieri, copied to Regional Chair Kolb and Mr. O’Connor).
The 2006 Finney (Michigan) study, attached, used a higher-than-pharmaceutical grade HFSA (while the Region uses industrial grade HFSA – toxic waste from the smokestacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry) and high purity deionized water devoid of impurities, “Nanopure water” (while our municipal tap water is full of impurities).
As you can see, the study does not remotely reflect fluoridation in the Region of Peel, as was pointed out at a recent Committee meeting to Dr. de Villa by Councillor Sprovieri.
It has aslo been demonstrated that:
- dissociation depends on a number of factors such as temperature, presence of other substances (metal cations), water hardness and most importantly pH, as shown in the Michigan study, and
- re-association may occur under acidic pH conditions (see Urbansky, 2002 and Morris, 2004), for example in our gut or in acidic beverages such as tea or coffee prepared using fluoridated water, and
- Mullenix, in 2014, stressed the potential generation of “decomposition products with toxicity greater than that of the original compounds”: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm
c/articles/PMC4090869/pdf/oeh- 20-02-157.pdf
Questions:
Were these facts discussed at the Jan. 21st closed meeting? If not, please immediately add them to the public record and bring them to the attention of the water fluoridation committee.Who is responsible for the Region’s determination that toxicology studies are not necessary?
Please advise what each of you plan to do about this grievous situation.
Best wishes,Christine MasseyBrampton
