.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Reply to Steven's comment

Hello Steven you are most welcome to give your view as a comment on this blog.
In fact while you are here what is your response to a reasonable question on the wisdom of pouring in a substance that is only 98% pure when each year tonnes of this toxic mix is added to the water supply?

Bill

The UK's Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, since incorporated into the 1991 Water Industry Act, allows hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) to be used to increase the fluoride content of water. The published Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies (Department of the Environment, 1987) gives specifications for these substances and states that 'the product. ..must not contain any mineral or organic substances capable of impairing the health of those drinking water correctly treated with the product'. For H2SiF6, limits are given for a number of possible impurities, including for iron, heavy metals, sulphate, phosphate, and chloride. The specification for Na2SiF6 powder requires a minimum of 98% m/m of the pure chemical, and gives maximum limits for impurities, including heavy metals (as lead) and iron. No other substances are allowed to be used in the fluoridation process, other than an anti-caking agent (the identity of which must be disclosed) in the case of Na2SiF6. Synthetic detergents are not permitted.



Steve Slott has left a new comment on your post "Dr Mercola":

Instead of sole reliance on misinformation gleaned from "FAN" and other such antifluoridationist sources, intelligent readers would be far better served by obtaining honest, accurate information on fluoridation from reliable, respected sources. The websites of the US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the British Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation readily available to anyone.

Now, let's see if the "UK Against Fluoridation" has the integrity to post this comment, or whether it, like most other antifluoridationist sites, must depend on censorship to promote its position.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

posted by Bill at 3:07 PM

1 Comments:

  • Hi Bill, I believe the 1987 version has been replaced by this 2005 version.

    http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/stakeholders/guidance-and-codes-of-practice/fluoridation-2005.pdf

    In it the DWI defer water quality to BS EN (European Standards) 12174/2001 and 12175/2001

    I have access to a copy of the 12175 Standard and can confirm the following: Within the text of the Standard there are caveats that distance the Standard from such claims.

    a) "This publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions of a contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.

    Compliance with a British Standard cannot confer immunity from legal obligations." (!!!)

    b) "In respect of potential adverse effects on the quality of water intended for human consumption, caused by the product covered by this document: a) this document provides no information as to whether the product may be used without restriction in any of the Member States of the EU or EFTA ;"

    c) "NOTE Conformity with this document does not confer or imply acceptance or approval of the product in any of the Member States of the EU or EFTA. The use of the product covered by this document is subject to regulation or control by National Authorities."

    d) "NOTE Users of this product should check the national regulations in order to clarify whether it is of appropriate purity for treatment of water intended for human consumption, taking into account raw water quality, required dosage, contents of other impurities and additives used in the products not stated in this document."

    e) "The marking shall include the following:
    1. name "hexafluorosilicic acid", trade name and grade;"

    (Also says "don't empty into drains" but we'll skip over that!).


    Lot of get out clauses there! Also some rather circular logic as to who is responsible for what. My understanding is that the DWI is an overseeing, advice and enforcement body. It does not make up law.


    So, my question is this. Where is the direction in law that authorises the DWI to say the Water Companies "must" adhere to the levels of contaminents and other parts of this Standard? Where in any Act, regulation, ministerial order or other authority, coming from parliament is the DWI authorised to make this law? Is there any authority for the DWI to make up this "law"? I'd be grateful if somebody could enlighten me. :-)

    By Blogger Unknown, at 15 June, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home