Carroll-Boone Water District
Water Operators Speak Out Against
Non-compliance of a Regulated Chemical
Who’s Regulating the Regulators?
Written by Rene Fonseca,
Carroll-Boone Water District
In 2011, the Arkansas State Legislature very quickly passed a partially unfunded mandate that requires most water companies to add fluoride chemicals into public water supplies, not to purify the water but to medicate you. State legislators were lobbied by outsiders, and few Arkansas residents who oppose fluoridation were alerted. Water suppliers weren’t involved. So now there are many problems arising from this ill-advised fluoridation mandate including that fluoridation chemicals are not pure.
Our Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) has concluded and confirmed that fluoridation products, in the water industry, do contain contaminants not limited to just lead, arsenic, copper and radionuclides. The ADH states further that NSF test results have concluded that fluoride chemicals do not add a measurable amount of these contaminants to the water supply. (NSF is the private company that regulates water additives.)
The Arkansas Department of Health requires Water Districts to follow NSF/ANSI standard 60 and has confirmed that the NSF information for certification should be supplied by the supplier of the chemicals. But the fluoridation chemical suppliers won’t provide this, even though we have asked for them repeatedly.
NSF repeatedly represents on its web site and in the NSF 60 document entitled “NSF 60 Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects” that for fluoridation products to receive the NSF/ANSI Standard 60 mark of approval, they must be subjected to toxicological “studies”, “toxicity studies”, “assays”, and “testing” of many types. Further, NSF represents that it requires “toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level”. Some of the studies to be done are: “assays of genetic toxicity, acute toxicity (1 to 14 d exposure), short-term toxicity (14 to 28 d exposure), subchronic toxicity (90 d exposure), reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, chronic toxicity (including carcinogenicity), and human data (clinical, epidemiological, or occupational) when available”, “supplemental studies … including mode or mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, sensitization, endocrine disruption”, “studies using routes of exposure other than ingestion”, “structure activity relationships, physical and chemical properties, and any other chemical specific information relevant to the risk assessment”, “qualitative risk assessment approach … or a quantitative risk assessment approach”, “gene mutation assay and a chromosomal aberration assay”, “assays of genetic toxicity, and supplemental toxicity studies”, subchronic toxicity study”, “studies using alternate routes of exposure, alternate assays of genetic toxicity, and supplemental toxicity studies other than those specified”, “quantitative risk estimation”, “studies for the evaluation of reproductive and developmental toxicity”.
Thirteen months have lapsed since CBWD has requested NSF/ANSI standard 60 section 3.2.1 information requiring proper product disclosure and toxicological information and studies from 49 manufacturers and suppliers in the United States and Canada. CBWD also requested an assurance of safety and effectiveness of the manufacturer’s product in fulfilling the goals and intent of Act 197.
To date, Carroll-Boone Water District has not received any reply to their request. Since February 2012, CBWD has been notified by our engineers that we can no longer obtain sodium flurosilicates or sodium fluoride in the United States and have been working jointly with Hawkins Inc., a chemical supplier, to obtain NSF/ANSI standard 60 product disclosure from overseas manufacturers.
We know for a fact that fluoridation products used in the water industry are highly toxic (acute oral toxicity for a man is about 6 grams). We also know that sodium flurosilicates contain elements that are neurotoxins and radionuclides such as thorium. We don’t know how the product was formulated or what level of concentration of these toxins are present in the product when it is delivered to a water treatment plant WITHOUT the information required by NSF/ANSI standard 60 section 3.2.1 : information that no one entity is able or willing to provide.
We cannot accept Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) or certificates of analysis predicated on tests results obtained from dilution of the raw product. We again are requesting for manufacturers to submit proper disclosure of information required under NSF/ANSI standard 60.
I attended a meeting in Harrison, Arkansas, on January 12, 2012 with representatives of four water districts which oppose mandatory fluoridation. We met to discuss financial and public health concerns with members of the Arkansas Legislature. When I posed questions of product disclosure and public health concerns, a state representative told me that “No one back there (referring to the State Capitol ), wanted to hear anything about public health.” My jaw dropped, and I hoped that it was only this legislator’s impression and not reality!
I attended a Carroll County Republican Committee meeting, held in Berryville, Arkansas, that hosted candidates running in the recent primary elections. I asked our local Representative, Mr. Bryan King, if elected to the Senate, would he be willing to introduce or support a Bill requiring full disclosure of fluoride products in their raw state as required by NSF/ANSI standard 60.
He replied most definitely. He told the audience how he voted against mandatory fluoridation on three different occasions in committee and on the House floor. He mentioned how lobbyists would speak with lawmakers in the halls convincing them to vote yes and offering contributions to election campaigns. Mr King told those present that he did not listen to the lobbyists but instead choose to listen to the wishes of the people in his district and voted NO on Act 197.
Representative King told us if someone would introduce a Bill in the House next session, like Representative Loy Mauch’s Water Additive Act, He would lead the charge in the Senate to try and advance such a Bill for passage.
I would like to remind everyone that every seat in the Arkansas State House and Senate is up for election this November. You owe it to your health and the health of your family to attend local meetings, ask questions, and see if candidates are aware of the challenges water districts face and the potential dangers associated with fluoridation of water supplies. If they don’t know or if they don’t care to find out the truth, we should send them packing.
So, you see, your voice does count. You only have to speak up and exercise your rights. Speak up and educate your family and neighbors about water fluoridation. Question your local candidates for office on their position and knowledge on water fluoridation products used in the water industry. I urge everyone located throughout the State of Arkansas that has issues with this mandate to PLEASE SPEAK OUT.
There are very few things in life more important or basic than one’s health. The time is NOW to protect your health and your families’ health. YOU are the ONE that has to take action!
Rene Fonseca On behalf of all 12 CBWD Water Operators in opposition to mandate.
John Summers, Plant Mgr.
James Allison, office Mgr.
Eric Torgerson, Rick Boling, Mike Bailes,Tom Dugger, Barry Connell, Don Crawford, Rick Thomas, Chris Dulin, water operators.
All operators listed above including myself, hold a Class Four(highest license afforded by state)Water Treatment License and a Class Four Water Distribution License from Arkansas Department of Health.