Water fluoridation violates The Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act protects drinking water by stopping contaminants from entering the water and empowers communities to take action to prevent threats from becoming significant.

Safe Water Drinking Act:
“Prohibition
20. (1) No person shall cause or permit any thing to enter a drinking water system if it could result in,
(a) a drinking water health hazard;
(b) a contravention of a prescribed standard; or
(c) interference with the normal operation of the system. 2002, c. 32, s. 20 (1)….

Dilution no defence
20. (3) For the purposes of prosecuting the offence of contravening subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the thing, if it was diluted when or after it entered the system, continued to result in or could have resulted in a drinking water health hazard. 2002, c. 32, s. 20 (3)…
Conflict
166. (1) The provisions of this Act and the regulations prevail over the provisions of any other Act and any regulation made under any other Act, irrespective of when the other Act is enacted or the regulation is made under the other Act. 2002, c. 32, s. 166 (1).”

On January 1, 2013, section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act came into effect. Section 19 requires municipal councillors and staff to “act honestly, competently and with integrity, with a view to ensuring the protection and safety” of drinking water users.

Complete wording of Section 19, Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002

19. (1) Each of the persons listed in subsection (2) shall,

(a) exercise the level of care, diligence and skill in respect of a municipal drinking-water system that a reasonably

prudent person would be expected to exercise in a similar situation; and

(b) act honestly, competently and with integrity, with a view to ensuring the protection and safety of the users of

the municipal drinking water system. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (1).

Same

(2) The following are the persons listed for the purposes of subsection (1):

1. The owner of the municipal drinking water system.

2. If the municipal drinking-water system is owned by a corporation other than a municipality, every officer and director of the corporation.

3. If the system is owned by a municipality, every person who, on behalf of the municipality, oversees the accredited operating authority of the system or exercises decision-making authority over the system. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (2).

Offence

(3) Every person under a duty described in subsection (1) who fails to carry out that duty is guilty of an offence. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (3).

Same

(4) A person may be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of a municipal drinking-water system whether or not the owner of the system is prosecuted or convicted. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (4).

Reliance on experts

(5) A person shall not be considered to have failed to carry out a duty described in subsection (1) in any circumstance in which the person relies in good faith on a report of an engineer, lawyer, accountant or other person whose professional qualifications lend credibility to the report. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (5).

Note: A proclamation has been issued naming January 1, 2013 as the day on which s.19 of this Act comes into force. For a copy of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 and its related regulations, go to the Ontario e- laws website at www.e-laws.gov.on.ca.

 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (of Ontario) states that all water systems must meet licensing requirements. The license requires that chemicals used meet the National Sanitation Foundation Standard 60. This standard provides criteria to conduct a toxicological risk assessment (it must be tested for SAFETY!).

 

“The NSF 60 standard requires that the chemicals added to drinking water, as well as any impurities in the chemicals, be supported by toxicological evaluation.“ Stan Hazan, General Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, NSF “A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects” NSF Fact Sheet 2008.

NSF 60 is recognized as authoritative in Canada.

To certify materials to be safe,it must conduct twenty toxicological studies referred to in the NSF 60 regulation book.

 

NSF has not done those twenty toxicological studies. NSF administrator Stan Hazan has admitted this under oath in a California deposition. NSF admits that instead it just relies on EPA’s maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for fluoridation materials and the contaminants therein, and as long as the concentration of each contaminant is below the EPA action level. Stan Hazan said the same thing in a 2000 letter to Congress. NSF does not take into account the symbiotic effect of so many different contaminants.

http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/illegal

 

Health Canada Has No Studies On Actual Fluoride Chemicals Used In Drinking Water

In a recent freedom of information act request  from someone in Edmonton Health Canada admits, they can supply no evidence that fluoridation is safe or effective. Clearly this reveals that the water fluoridation chemical hydrofluorosilicic acid, has never passed any toxicology testing as mandated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, therefore making the water fluoridation process illegal using the chemical hydrofluorosilicic acid.

With this document from Health Canada admitting that they have no safety studies on hydrofluosilicic acid, fluoridation should be stopped immediately. NSF/ANSI Standard 60: Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects requires a toxicology review of the product to ensure its safety at the maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminants in the product, but they do not have any toxicology reviews of this fluoridating agent either. Fluoridation is a clear violation of medical ethics, informed consent, and human rights. These reasons alone should have never allowed fluoridation to start in the first place. In this freedom of information request Health Canada also admits they have no documentation showing that they even considered human rights and medical ethics when allowing our water to be fluoridated…..

Hydrofluorosilicic acid, is OFFICIALLY labelled with a skull and crossbones. It’s classified as:

– “persistent,” “bio-accumulative” and “toxic” by Canadian Environmental Protection Act,
– “hazardous substance” by Environment Canada,
– “dangerous good” by Transport Canada,
– “class one hazardous waste” by US Environmental Protection Agency.

 

The EPA also lists it as a neurotoxin (brain damaging).

http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48P%20Mundy%20TDAS.pdf

Due to the lack of processing, this chemical is known to contain a number of toxic substances in its fluid mix

NSF has reported that various tanker loads of so-called fluorosilicic acid have contained and therefore can be expected to contain the following elements and compounds: fluorosilicic acid, fluoride ion, hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, thallium, selenium, and barium. NSF admitted in 2008 that some tanker loads emit beta radiation.

This information comes from three publications by NSF, the first an April 24, 2000, letter from NSF to the Fluorida Department of Public Health, the second the 2008 NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation, and third the 2012 NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation, plus a typical Certificate of Analysis from Simplot, which supplies King and Snohomish counties with fluoridation materials.

fluoride-class-action.com /what-is-in-it

That’s what you are swallowing with every glass of water that you drink. Is this really a healthy drink? I don’t think so!

For more information on the actual product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, and where it comes from visit here:

http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-…