Fw: Pathological Liars - DoH?
Over the past several months, NPWA has been contacted by numerous people regarding correspondence they have received from the DoH regarding the purity of the hexafluorosilicic acid used for drinking water fluoridation schemes in the UK.
Among the fraudulent claims made by DoH for the purity of the product were:
1. it went through a purification process,
2. a BS EN (British Standard - European Number) guaranteed the purity of the product, and
3. it's not toxic.
With regard to the first claim, NPWA has attempted to verify the existence of a "purification process". After extensive investigations, we can find no such equipment, or any patents (world-wide) for such equipment, which suggests that the DoH has fabricated that information. (In other words they simply made up another lie to placate you, or cast doubt on NPWA credibility).
As for the BS EN claim, one can obtain a BS EN for anything: they simply specify the criteria for analysing a particular product and the contaminants allowed in the product - it doesn't mean that the product is safe or has been safety tested. In fact,there is even a BS EN for sewage sludge (biosolids, humanure, etc.), for which the DoH can also claim the highest degree of purity' -
Environment-Agency
The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) boasts that the quality of UK sewage sludge is the best in all of Europe! However, we don't think anyone would want to use it as a nutritional supplement.
There is even a BS EN for children's playground swings and one for Environmental Management - in fact there is a BS EN for almost anything you can imagine.
A BS EN has no bearing on the safety or purity of a product: it simply states the testing criteria. It has nothing to do with the safety of the product.
There are only two major commercial sources of fluorosilicic acid: hydrogen
fluoride production and phosphate fertilizer production. In both cases the fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of the main manufacturing process, captured in pollution scrubbers, and is of a technical grade (ie. not pharmaceutical or food grade, therefore containing impurities).
See:
Minerals
There are no producers of fluorosilicic acid who simply add sand (silica) to hydrofluoric acid (as stated by some fluoride promoters). If they did simply add sand to hydrofluoric acid, they would use a technical (contaminated) grade of hydrofluoric acid, and that would still be cost prohibitive for fluoridation.
BS EN 12175 for hexafluorosilicic acid allows:
As (arsenic) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Cd (cadmium) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 40
Cr (chromium) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Hg (mercury) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 10
Ni (nickel) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Pb (lead) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Sb (antimony) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 80
Se (selenium) mg/kg H SiF max. 80
They don't test for radionuclides and other contaminants which are attendant to the process. If you don't look for something, you won't find it.
Regarding the toxicity of fluoride, we are repeatedly told that fluoride from any source breaks down in the body into 'the fluoride ion', which is how it becomes effective. The toxicity of 'the fluoride ion' has been well-documented by chemists and is not in question. The argument has been that, at very low exposures, the toxic effects are slight (or take a long time to show up) and are balanced by beneficial effects on teeth, but however slow or slight, it's still toxic. It isn't possible for 'the fluoride ion' to be toxic sometimes and not toxic at others.
If you read the following, you will see that this battle over how pure the product is has been going on for years - and the NPWA has uncovered the lies. See:
Watershed doc
Elixir
BFS_letters
The NPWA believes, from past experience, that DoH policy in dealing with questions about fluoridation is: make up a lie - any old lie will do.
**********************
The big push for drinking water fluoridation will begin after the election - we suggest that everyone start making waves, now.
Also, we strongly suggest that everyone sign up for the UK antifluoridation
forum at
Groups.Yahoo
Read the new NPWA Watershed at
NPWA Watershed
National Pure Water Association
Among the fraudulent claims made by DoH for the purity of the product were:
1. it went through a purification process,
2. a BS EN (British Standard - European Number) guaranteed the purity of the product, and
3. it's not toxic.
With regard to the first claim, NPWA has attempted to verify the existence of a "purification process". After extensive investigations, we can find no such equipment, or any patents (world-wide) for such equipment, which suggests that the DoH has fabricated that information. (In other words they simply made up another lie to placate you, or cast doubt on NPWA credibility).
As for the BS EN claim, one can obtain a BS EN for anything: they simply specify the criteria for analysing a particular product and the contaminants allowed in the product - it doesn't mean that the product is safe or has been safety tested. In fact,there is even a BS EN for sewage sludge (biosolids, humanure, etc.), for which the DoH can also claim the highest degree of purity' -
Environment-Agency
The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) boasts that the quality of UK sewage sludge is the best in all of Europe! However, we don't think anyone would want to use it as a nutritional supplement.
There is even a BS EN for children's playground swings and one for Environmental Management - in fact there is a BS EN for almost anything you can imagine.
A BS EN has no bearing on the safety or purity of a product: it simply states the testing criteria. It has nothing to do with the safety of the product.
There are only two major commercial sources of fluorosilicic acid: hydrogen
fluoride production and phosphate fertilizer production. In both cases the fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of the main manufacturing process, captured in pollution scrubbers, and is of a technical grade (ie. not pharmaceutical or food grade, therefore containing impurities).
See:
Minerals
There are no producers of fluorosilicic acid who simply add sand (silica) to hydrofluoric acid (as stated by some fluoride promoters). If they did simply add sand to hydrofluoric acid, they would use a technical (contaminated) grade of hydrofluoric acid, and that would still be cost prohibitive for fluoridation.
BS EN 12175 for hexafluorosilicic acid allows:
As (arsenic) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Cd (cadmium) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 40
Cr (chromium) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Hg (mercury) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 10
Ni (nickel) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Pb (lead) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Sb (antimony) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 80
Se (selenium) mg/kg H SiF max. 80
They don't test for radionuclides and other contaminants which are attendant to the process. If you don't look for something, you won't find it.
Regarding the toxicity of fluoride, we are repeatedly told that fluoride from any source breaks down in the body into 'the fluoride ion', which is how it becomes effective. The toxicity of 'the fluoride ion' has been well-documented by chemists and is not in question. The argument has been that, at very low exposures, the toxic effects are slight (or take a long time to show up) and are balanced by beneficial effects on teeth, but however slow or slight, it's still toxic. It isn't possible for 'the fluoride ion' to be toxic sometimes and not toxic at others.
If you read the following, you will see that this battle over how pure the product is has been going on for years - and the NPWA has uncovered the lies. See:
Watershed doc
Elixir
BFS_letters
The NPWA believes, from past experience, that DoH policy in dealing with questions about fluoridation is: make up a lie - any old lie will do.
**********************
The big push for drinking water fluoridation will begin after the election - we suggest that everyone start making waves, now.
Also, we strongly suggest that everyone sign up for the UK antifluoridation
forum at
Groups.Yahoo
Read the new NPWA Watershed at
NPWA Watershed
National Pure Water Association
posted by Bill at
3:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home