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

UK Against Fluoridation

Monday, August 22, 2016

Australia - OPINION: Thousands in savings when Gladstone fluoride removed

IF THE Gladstone Regional Council does not get a significant reduction in the cost of water supplied by the G.A.W.B. (where the council is the only customer) resulting from the cessation of fluoridation, then our council should call for an inquiry into past practice and find out how much the charges were increased when fluoridation was first introduced.

The Bligh government made a unilateral decision that all councils must fluoridate their water supply as a mass medication, and they provided money to purchase and install the dosing system (not enough as I recall) but operation and maintenance then became the responsibility of the council who then sub contracted this responsibility to the government-owned Water Board.

Legislation was enacted, and a code of practice provided which defined how the dosages would be administered, controlled, monitored and reported upon, for it was dealing with a very corrosive, dusty and toxic material.

The capital installation by my estimation would have cost in the order of one million dollars, and due to the corrosive nature of the materials used the capital costs would have been written off, at best over 10 years.So there is a capital cost of $100,000 per annum before materials and labour costs are even considered. The Code of Practice requires at least one operator is fully trained and available at all times, plus another similarly trained operator must be available to cover periods of sick leave, holidays, weekends etc.

There must be an operator labour cost of 1.5 men, with on costs to the council, costing around $150,000 per year. The materials used are quite corrosive and the equipment would have to be maintained regularly with a planned maintenance schedule for mechanical and instrument systems, which I imagine would cost around $50,000 per annum.

As well, there would be laboratory certification and calibration testing. Next there is the cost of chemicals used, and if they are of a purity certified for human consumption (even poisons have to be pure and not contain other poisons), then my bet is a material cost way past the fatuous figure of $14,319.00 as quoted off hand by a "council spokesman".

If the current situation is "locked in" and cannot be changed as claimed, then the council must demand that an independent audit be carried out, and the current contract be renegotiated. Another thing I notice is that this same "spokesman" says we will still have to pay some ridiculous figure of $12,000 per year for "maintenance" of equipment we no longer use or require.

It sounds to me like a section of the council is seeking to keep the equipment in running order so that they can covertly or overtly start the poisoning process again at any time. The equipment must be removed completely from the water mains and scrapped or sold off, then the Gladstone Regional Council should receive a reduction in charges of at least $300,000.

If costs are less than this ball park figure, then the Gladstone Area Water Board has not been acting in accordance with "The Code of Practice" and should be held accountable for culpable practices endangering lives.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home