24 Sep 2014

Still their web page assures us they care.

I wrote the following to the Environment Agency querying why they allow Public Health even to think about the right to dump 200 tonnes per annum of Hexafluorosilicic acid into our drinking water. 

"Are you aware that HF acid is only 98% pure and 2 % of heavy metals get tipped in as well including mercury which is dangerous at parts per billion? Surely no mercury should be the aim and not the addition no matter how small."

This their reply:

The discharge of mercury and other metals is covered by the same permitting policy. Mercury is classed as a priority hazardous substance i.e. it is considered to be harmful, but discharges may still be permitted if the EQS and deterioration requirements are complied with. Section 1.4 of the permitting guidance gives some more detail on the requirements for priority hazardous substances.

HAF chairman sums it up:

So all toxic waste polluters have to do is drip feed it into the environment continuously over many years and that is fine, which indeed does happen in many areas.  The cumulative load is then the legacy that often gets take up by plants and animals.  Then people wonder why cancers and degenerative diseases are on the continuous rise.

6 comments:

rcannard said...

The warnings from John Yiamouyiannis,Dr Dean Burk,The Lancet,Harvard University, and many more respected scientists and organizations are being ignored, plain and simple, those are the facts...The (PHE) think they no better but that's not because they are a leading authority on fluoride, it's because they source the information from government scientists who tend not to rock the boat, those who do speak out quickly find themselves out of a job...The (PHE) have NOT looked at all the science they are convinced that it's safe for consumption, this is the reason why i have NO creditability for this so called health authority and every single one of the board members should be held accountable for what lies ahead if fluoride is introduced into the water...

Cllr Chris said...

I think they are being a tad devious here. The guidance they seem to be referring to is the European Quality Standard for Inland and Coastal Waters. Not drinking water! The directive that should be used is directive 98/83/EC.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/regulation_en.html#top-page

There is nothing in 98/83/EC that allows for ANY action that promotes deterioration or allows an increase in pollution of the water quality. In fact quite the reverse! Under Article 4 (General Obligations) it specifically says this - "2. Member States shall ensure that the measures taken to implement this Directive in no circumstances have the effect of allowing, directly or indirectly, either any deterioration of the present quality of water intended for human consumption so far as that is relevant for the protection of human health or any increase in the pollution of waters used for the production of drinking water."

Whilst the quality of inland and coastal waters may have some effect on the quality of our drinking water that is not what the guidance they are trying to rely on is about. The usual smoke and mirrors from the pro-fluoridation fanatics.

Bill said...

I've followed it up with this.

You are saying it is legal to dump mercury and arsenic into our rivers as long as it doesn't exceed, down river, certain levels. I can understand that, if an industry discharged an amount of permitted toxins into the environment while manufacturing, but to say the Environment Agency would allow an authority to deliberately put it in? If the dubious practice of fluoridation is justified the Environment Agency should at least insist that only fluoride is added, 98% purity is not good enough. 2% heavy metals of 200 tonnes a year after year is a huge amount.
Is this something that the Environment Agency has considered?

rcannard said...

Logic tells me that a poison is a poison, so how can there be a safe level...Only about 2% of water is actually drunk so i would of thought that the Environment Agency would have concerns about the 98% that will go back into the environment year after year...

rcannard said...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/10/mercury-poisoning.aspx?e_cid=20120410_DNL_art_1

rcannard said...

EPA proposes rule requiring dentists to install amalgam separators
http://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=pmt&pag=dis&itemid=316484&wf=1991