Canada - Bad fluoride decisions abound
When I read last Friday's Citizen with "Disposal of the water fluoridation to cost city $200K, report says" story, I almost laughed, however it is not funny.
I quote: "It will cost $140,000 to remove the 9,000 litres in the holding tanks."
My reaction was the same as the first person I asked if they read the item.
How could the report not come up with a simple common sense solution?
There are zero or low-cost solutions. These are:
1. Continue to add the fluoride until it is used up. After all it has been used in the city water system for years and a few more weeks or months wouldn't make any significant difference. Most people would rather do this than blow $140,000.
2. If this is not acceptable, then simply bleed a similar amount into the city sewer system until it is gone. Almost all the fluoridated water ended up in the city sewer system and to the river anyway. There should not be a concern as in the prior fluoridation 90 per cent-plus ended up in the river anyway through toilet flushing, bathing, lawn sprinkling, etc.
Having worked for many years in the private industrial sector for many years, this disposal issue would have taken about 15 minutes at an operational meeting with no big study required.
Common sense would have ruled.
This example of poor decision making and management leaves the following questions:
1. How much staff time and consultants were utilized and how much did it cost? This was a waste of taxpayers money that was not required.
2. Why didn't our city council and administration see the bad recommendations in the report and challenge them?
3. Is there an opportunity to sell some of this equipment in the U.S., where several states have legislated that all communities in their state must implement fluoridation. The exchange rate may make this attractive.
4. Council and administration should review who was involved in this bad decision making and who is accountable.
5. In regards to all the post fluoridation testing, why would a lot of testing be required? After the addition was stopped, the fluoride levels would eventually go to the natural water levels.
6. In regards to cutting up the tanks, could this be done in way that would allow the tanks to be reconstructed and sold or used?
Lloyd Clay
Prince George
I quote: "It will cost $140,000 to remove the 9,000 litres in the holding tanks."
My reaction was the same as the first person I asked if they read the item.
How could the report not come up with a simple common sense solution?
There are zero or low-cost solutions. These are:
1. Continue to add the fluoride until it is used up. After all it has been used in the city water system for years and a few more weeks or months wouldn't make any significant difference. Most people would rather do this than blow $140,000.
2. If this is not acceptable, then simply bleed a similar amount into the city sewer system until it is gone. Almost all the fluoridated water ended up in the city sewer system and to the river anyway. There should not be a concern as in the prior fluoridation 90 per cent-plus ended up in the river anyway through toilet flushing, bathing, lawn sprinkling, etc.
Having worked for many years in the private industrial sector for many years, this disposal issue would have taken about 15 minutes at an operational meeting with no big study required.
Common sense would have ruled.
This example of poor decision making and management leaves the following questions:
1. How much staff time and consultants were utilized and how much did it cost? This was a waste of taxpayers money that was not required.
2. Why didn't our city council and administration see the bad recommendations in the report and challenge them?
3. Is there an opportunity to sell some of this equipment in the U.S., where several states have legislated that all communities in their state must implement fluoridation. The exchange rate may make this attractive.
4. Council and administration should review who was involved in this bad decision making and who is accountable.
5. In regards to all the post fluoridation testing, why would a lot of testing be required? After the addition was stopped, the fluoride levels would eventually go to the natural water levels.
6. In regards to cutting up the tanks, could this be done in way that would allow the tanks to be reconstructed and sold or used?
Lloyd Clay
Prince George
posted by Bill at
9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home