NPWA Letter
Dear Mr Robinson, Customer
Relations Manager
Head of Customer Relations Review Team
Severn Trent Water
Re: 17 August 2005 Response to Mrs. Joy Warren account Number 1211201547 -fluoridation
Mrs. Warren shared your response to her with National Pure Water Association and I was delegated to contact you. In reviewing the correspondence, most of the explanations were the general puerile public relations diatribe we have come to expect from a water company PR department. However, there were several statements that could be construed as fraudulent misrepresentation - if not blatant lies.
In the second item (2) of your response, you stated:
". . . IPCS/WHO, state that the safe concentration [offluoride] for sensitive species such as rainbow and brown trout are significantly higher, at approximately 5.1 and 7.5 respectively."
Here is the full text from which you derived your answer: you omitted "estimated" and also "lethal concentrations".
"Twenty-day LC50s for rainbow trout ranged from 2.7 to 4.7 mg fluoride/litre in static renewal tests. "Safe concentrations" (infinite hours LC0.01s) have been estimated for rainbow trout and brown trout (Salmo trutta) at 5.1 and 7.5 mg fluoride/litre, respectively. At concentrations of >3.2 (effluent) or >3.6 (sodium fluoride) mg fluoride/litre, the hatching of catla (Catla catla) fish eggs was delayed by 1-2 h. "
That one was only spun a little - but it was still misinformation on your part, as the "safe concentration" was an "estimate" not a concrete scientific conclusion.
More flagrant fabrications are as follows.
#3 - "Silico Fluorides are by no means a waste product. No-one would ever consider using waste products anywhere near potable water. Silicofluorides are a product in their own right manufactured to exacting standards and to a very high purity. All the fluoride products used within the water industry are from recognised sources and conform to BSEN: 12175."
Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Administrator for Water, USEPA, 1983, wrote: "...in regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a LONG-STANDING problem. By recovering byproduct fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them."
In fact, there are only two sources of bulk hexafluorosilicic acid. The first and most common source is derived from pollution scrubbing operations during the manufacture of phosphate fertilisers, and the second is pollution "scrubber liquor" from the manufacturing of hydrogen fluoride.
See: "Sodium Hexafluorosilicate [CASRN16893-85-9] and Fluorosilicic Acid
[CASRN16961-83-4], Review of Toxicological Literature, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, USCDC, 2001-
http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov
/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf .
As for the BSEN, it is irrelevant to product safety. The UK water industry has obtained a BSEN for sewage sludge, and boasts that British sewage sludge is the finest in all of Europe. You can get a BSEN for almost anything. A BSEN for hexafluorosilicic acid only sets the parameters for MCLs of contaminants.
Next, you will be telling me that 'British Sewage Sludge' is made to "exacting standards". I don't think you are going to convince anyone to sprinkle dessicated sewage sludge on their salads as a condiment. Severn Trent can't sell that one even if they hire Saatchi & Saatchi and invest millions in an ad campaign.
NPWA has heard every conceivable, feeble fabrication regarding the production of Hexafluorosilicic acid, from people like yourself.
1. "Product recovery unit" (2000): The US CDC and British Fluoridation Society were attempting to sanitise the product, and fabricated that one. It was thought up by Tom Reeves, National Fluoridation Engineer, US CDC [retired]. I personally did an extensive patent search for a "product recovery unit" - there was none, as my industry contacts confirmed beforehand, and neither the British Fluoridation Society nor the US CDC could produce documentation for a "product recovery unit."
2. Now you people are saying that the product is "purified". This is a real fabrication, worthy of a nine year old child. Again I did a patent search and found no applications for a hexafluorosilicic acid purification process. In fact, hexafluorosilicic is virtually impossible to purify in a bulk process. Consequently, if it were possible to purify the acid, it would be cost prohibitive for use in the water treatment process.
3. 'It's mined from special fluoride mines containing 99.0% pure fluoride.'
4. 'Fluoride ions extracted from fluoride-containing rocks.'
5. 'It's silicofluoride gas bubbled-up through pristine water.'
The next one I expect out of a water company PR department is that 'it's tooth fairy dust sprinkled into crystal clear, magic spring water and the elves bring it to the plant every morning in shiny gold buckets.' Also see: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/bfs_letters.htm
The reason hexafluorosilicic acid is used for fluoridation is that it is
CHEAP (See: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/Public_comment.html).
In light of your above response to Mrs. Warren regarding the source of hexafluorosilicic acid, NPWA must demand that you supply us with all the details of manufacturing, including the source of the product used by Severn Trent, and current analyses from an independent certification laboratory - not the Severn Trent laboratories.
#6. - You stated that Severn Trent's tap water is of "unsurpassed quality". That is quite a claim and NPWA will also demand that you qualify that statement. Severn Trent's product is Tap Water - the quality might be good for tap water, but stating that the water is of "unsurpassed quality" is a blatant lie.
NPWA also suggests that the fact that Severn Trent Laboratories does water quality testing for Severn Trent tap water is a direct conflict of interests. It leads us to question the credibility of any claims of "unsurpassed quality".
NPWA wishes to see test results from an independent certifying laboratory,such as National Sanitation Foundation International, to verify Severn Trent's claims of "unsurpassed quality" .
With regards to hexafluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate drinking water,NPWA strongly suggests that Severn Trent stop lying to its customers about the manufacturing process.
NPWA would also suggest, again, that Severn Trent PR people read http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/
Fluorosilicates.pdf before attempting to fabricate another 'tooth fairy' tale about the nature of hexafluorosilicic to placate customers.
Severn Trent could find itself in court for disseminating fraudulent information (See: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/pollution.htm.
Disseminating such misinformation reflects on the credibility of Severn Trent.
Regards,
George Glasser
Water Quality Advisor/Press Officer
National Pure Water Association
http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/H2O.html
Relations Manager
Head of Customer Relations Review Team
Severn Trent Water
Re: 17 August 2005 Response to Mrs. Joy Warren account Number 1211201547 -fluoridation
Mrs. Warren shared your response to her with National Pure Water Association and I was delegated to contact you. In reviewing the correspondence, most of the explanations were the general puerile public relations diatribe we have come to expect from a water company PR department. However, there were several statements that could be construed as fraudulent misrepresentation - if not blatant lies.
In the second item (2) of your response, you stated:
". . . IPCS/WHO, state that the safe concentration [offluoride] for sensitive species such as rainbow and brown trout are significantly higher, at approximately 5.1 and 7.5 respectively."
Here is the full text from which you derived your answer: you omitted "estimated" and also "lethal concentrations".
"Twenty-day LC50s for rainbow trout ranged from 2.7 to 4.7 mg fluoride/litre in static renewal tests. "Safe concentrations" (infinite hours LC0.01s) have been estimated for rainbow trout and brown trout (Salmo trutta) at 5.1 and 7.5 mg fluoride/litre, respectively. At concentrations of >3.2 (effluent) or >3.6 (sodium fluoride) mg fluoride/litre, the hatching of catla (Catla catla) fish eggs was delayed by 1-2 h. "
That one was only spun a little - but it was still misinformation on your part, as the "safe concentration" was an "estimate" not a concrete scientific conclusion.
More flagrant fabrications are as follows.
#3 - "Silico Fluorides are by no means a waste product. No-one would ever consider using waste products anywhere near potable water. Silicofluorides are a product in their own right manufactured to exacting standards and to a very high purity. All the fluoride products used within the water industry are from recognised sources and conform to BSEN: 12175."
Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Administrator for Water, USEPA, 1983, wrote: "...in regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a LONG-STANDING problem. By recovering byproduct fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them."
In fact, there are only two sources of bulk hexafluorosilicic acid. The first and most common source is derived from pollution scrubbing operations during the manufacture of phosphate fertilisers, and the second is pollution "scrubber liquor" from the manufacturing of hydrogen fluoride.
See: "Sodium Hexafluorosilicate [CASRN16893-85-9] and Fluorosilicic Acid
[CASRN16961-83-4], Review of Toxicological Literature, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, USCDC, 2001-
http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov
/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf .
As for the BSEN, it is irrelevant to product safety. The UK water industry has obtained a BSEN for sewage sludge, and boasts that British sewage sludge is the finest in all of Europe. You can get a BSEN for almost anything. A BSEN for hexafluorosilicic acid only sets the parameters for MCLs of contaminants.
Next, you will be telling me that 'British Sewage Sludge' is made to "exacting standards". I don't think you are going to convince anyone to sprinkle dessicated sewage sludge on their salads as a condiment. Severn Trent can't sell that one even if they hire Saatchi & Saatchi and invest millions in an ad campaign.
NPWA has heard every conceivable, feeble fabrication regarding the production of Hexafluorosilicic acid, from people like yourself.
1. "Product recovery unit" (2000): The US CDC and British Fluoridation Society were attempting to sanitise the product, and fabricated that one. It was thought up by Tom Reeves, National Fluoridation Engineer, US CDC [retired]. I personally did an extensive patent search for a "product recovery unit" - there was none, as my industry contacts confirmed beforehand, and neither the British Fluoridation Society nor the US CDC could produce documentation for a "product recovery unit."
2. Now you people are saying that the product is "purified". This is a real fabrication, worthy of a nine year old child. Again I did a patent search and found no applications for a hexafluorosilicic acid purification process. In fact, hexafluorosilicic is virtually impossible to purify in a bulk process. Consequently, if it were possible to purify the acid, it would be cost prohibitive for use in the water treatment process.
3. 'It's mined from special fluoride mines containing 99.0% pure fluoride.'
4. 'Fluoride ions extracted from fluoride-containing rocks.'
5. 'It's silicofluoride gas bubbled-up through pristine water.'
The next one I expect out of a water company PR department is that 'it's tooth fairy dust sprinkled into crystal clear, magic spring water and the elves bring it to the plant every morning in shiny gold buckets.' Also see: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/bfs_letters.htm
The reason hexafluorosilicic acid is used for fluoridation is that it is
CHEAP (See: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/Public_comment.html).
In light of your above response to Mrs. Warren regarding the source of hexafluorosilicic acid, NPWA must demand that you supply us with all the details of manufacturing, including the source of the product used by Severn Trent, and current analyses from an independent certification laboratory - not the Severn Trent laboratories.
#6. - You stated that Severn Trent's tap water is of "unsurpassed quality". That is quite a claim and NPWA will also demand that you qualify that statement. Severn Trent's product is Tap Water - the quality might be good for tap water, but stating that the water is of "unsurpassed quality" is a blatant lie.
NPWA also suggests that the fact that Severn Trent Laboratories does water quality testing for Severn Trent tap water is a direct conflict of interests. It leads us to question the credibility of any claims of "unsurpassed quality".
NPWA wishes to see test results from an independent certifying laboratory,such as National Sanitation Foundation International, to verify Severn Trent's claims of "unsurpassed quality" .
With regards to hexafluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate drinking water,NPWA strongly suggests that Severn Trent stop lying to its customers about the manufacturing process.
NPWA would also suggest, again, that Severn Trent PR people read http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/
Fluorosilicates.pdf before attempting to fabricate another 'tooth fairy' tale about the nature of hexafluorosilicic to placate customers.
Severn Trent could find itself in court for disseminating fraudulent information (See: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/pollution.htm.
Disseminating such misinformation reflects on the credibility of Severn Trent.
Regards,
George Glasser
Water Quality Advisor/Press Officer
National Pure Water Association
http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/H2O.html
posted by Bill at
1:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home