Why is the Brampton Guardian taking so long to correct their error?
Resident have been ingesting and bathing in 30% more fluoride than reported by the Brampton Guardian in March.
Email sent June 15, 2017 (copied to Regional Council and Staff):
Hello Roger and Editor,
I have copied Mr. Jim Nardi, Regional Hub Manager, South Peel Facilities Regional Hub Office, Ontario Clean Water Agency (the Crown Corporation contracted by Peel to fluoridate our drinking water) on this message. I’m sure he will be happy to confirm for you, as he did for me, that OCWA is indeed fluoridating our water to a target level of 0.65 ppm, not 0.5 ppm.
In a June 7 Guardian opinion article, it was proclaimed “When media make a mistake, we own it very publicly.”
I am really appalled that you have still not published a correction on your March 9th story, which read:
Last month, committee members passed a motion to reaffirm the region’s commitment to oral health, while recommending fluoride concentrations in local drinking water be reduced to 0.5 mg/l.
This was never accurate, because the motion never specified a particular concentration, only “the lowest level in accordance with provincial standards.”
If you were as committed to fact-checking 3 months ago as you suddenly now claim to be, you would have uncovered long ago for yourself the fact that there is no provincial standard that says anything about adding fluoride to drinking water for any reason whatsoever, and you would have followed up on the contradictory nonsense spoken by Councillors and Staff during their March meeting.
You’ve had plenty of time to follow up on the MOE emails I forwarded long ago, and plenty of time to review the March Council meeting and hear the contradictions and lack of explicit information.
Here is the only set of standards for our municipal drinking water, it is not complicated and there is nothing about adding fluoride: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/
The technical document is only “supporting documentation”, not a “standard”… and it makes clear on page 1 that it is not implying that it is acceptable to degrade a water supply, which is exactly what adding HFSA does.
As confirmed by the Ontario Clean Water Agency, for the past 3 months residents have been getting 30% more fluoride in their drinking water than what you reported. It’s time to correct your error.
I look forward to your “very public” new article on this matter (not simply some editing on the old story that no one will go back and read).
You are also advised to massage the male organ using potent herbal cialis 20 mg check out for more info oil – Mast Mood oil along the length of the male organ and massage using fingers. Lots of people are suffering from different types http://downtownsault.org/cash-for-clutter/ tadalafil mastercard of erection problems. One can save their consultancy fees and found cheap viagra professional this site a cost preventing method. You might have heard this name many times when people are talking about male tadalafil sales impotence.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Roger and Editor,
The motion is right here and it states “adjusting it to the lowest level in accordance with provincial standards …”
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CW FC-Feb-23-Motion.pdf Council meeting minutes, page 6 (-79-)
http://www.peelregion.ca/council/council_minutes/2010s/2017/ rcmin20170309.pdf Dr. de Villa was still the head MO on March 9th. Loh is not even listed as attending that meeting.
If Ras and Dr. Loh “explained” that “the provincial standard provided by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change recommends a range of 0.5 mg/L to 0.8 mg/L. This range is provided to account for fluctuations in municipal water systems” then they lied to Roger. No “standard” recommends any addition of fluoride, or any level of fluoride for prevention of tooth decay, which I have pointed out over and over again to Roger and Council. The only “standard” for fluoride is the MAC of 1.5ppm.
So again, why did Roger not bother to pursue this matter after I had pointed out repeatedly that there is no such “standard”?
And again, you cannot have a target of 0.5 ppm with fluctuations and stay within 0.5 – 0.8ppm. This is just plain impossible and absurd to suggest. So why did Roger report that the target would be 0.5 ppm after being told that the range is 0.5 – 0.8ppm, that there would be fluctuations, and hearing during the March 9th meeting from de Villa that they would stay within “the range” even with the fluctuations? It made zero sense.Roger, when did Ras and Loh tell you the above, and did they do so verbally or in writing? If writing, would you please forward to me the email or letter? And are you willing to go on the public record as stating that Councillor Ras and Dr. Loh made this exact statement to you?
Apparently your new story should now indicate that you were misled by both Ras and Dr. Loh (before Dr. Loh even took over from Dr. de Villa he misled the media!).
I hope you will ask each of them to explain whether 1) they spoke without knowing the true facts or 2) they intentionally deceived you. Both scenarios are very serious, especially given that this involves the safety of our drinking water, and the public obviously needs to know which scenario took place.
If Ras and Loh claim that they genuinely believed that there is such a standard, who or what led them to believe this, and why did a Councillor and the very-well paid Medical Officer not do their due diligence before making statements to the media?
How many other Councillors and Staff are deluded in this way?
Why did no one from OCWA or the Region correct the false 0.5 ppm reporting?
Why did no one from the Region correct the earlier motion referring to “provincial standards”? With so many highly paid Staff, none of them spotted this utter b.s.?? I emailed Ras about it months ago and she ignored me. I was going to ask about this and other details at the next Council meeting, and then was blocked by Parrish’s motion to prevent all F related communications to Council indefinitely.
Who is responsible for this mess? Someone has to be held accountable.
What are the legal implications of a completely non-sensible motion?With no “standard” to follow, will Council continue with the current concentration of 0.65 ppm anyways? Will they revoke the motion? Lower the level?
Will they stop fluoridation once their incompetence is pointed out, especially since the province has not yet responded to the request for toxicology studies or the request for the province and the Health Minister to “take legislative responsibility” for putting HFSA in drinking water, and since the Ministry of Health cannot simply “take” responsibility anyways because the Ministry of Health has no jurisdiction over large drinking water systems (as confirmed by MOE emails)?
Did a closed-door meeting take place where a higher target level was decided on? This is still a valid question.
Did any Staff or Councillors know the actual lowered level was 0.65 ppm, or were they all deceived and/or making false assumptions?Who made the decision about the target level of neurotoxic, endocrine-disrupting, enzyme-inhibiting, mitochondrial-poisoning, carcinogenic, fluorosis-causing, industrial fluoride acid in our drinking water? It sounds like OCWA is doing their own thing.
Did someone at the Region not convey a target level to OCWA? Who knew what was really going on? Did they leave it to OCWA to guess or decide for themselves what the level ought to be? Did OCWA tell the Region their target level? Did OCWA deceive Staff? Did Staff deceive Council?
This is a scandal and you need to investigate and report on it thoroughly.
I will look forward to your next article that explains all of this to the public.
And again I ask you, has no one at OCWA or the Region bothered to inform you during the last 3 months that the target level was actually 0.65ppm?
Best wishes,Christine