RSS![[Masthead]](http://www.lovelycitizen.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (12)
This is a response to the letter sent by the Arkansas Department of Health "experts" published in the Citizen, May 3.
In their letter, ADH "experts" stated, "experts around the world have provided strong evidence that water fluoridation is both safe and effective. There is no link between community water fluoridation and any harmful health problem ... fluoride is a natural element found in rocks, soil, fresh water and the ocean."
For the average person, fluoride is fluoride. But the above "highly educated experts" confuse calcium fluoride which is good for bones, teeth, and found in nature, with sodium fluoride, an EPA regulated hazardous waste byproduct from the aluminum smelting industry that was found to increase suggestibility and mild retardation, as well as weakening the immune system when administered in small doses to humans over time.
Fluoridated water is banned for public consumption in many countries including China, Japan, Germany, Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Why is our leadership attempting to force sodium fluoride poisoning upon the citizenry?
Since the wise citizens of the Carroll-Boone Water District have (twice) elected not to fluoridate our drinking water, our "elected experts" apparently have forgotten a couple of definitions and articles of law which should make the picture perfectly clear for literate citizen and their representatives:
Election: "Indicates the political will of the citizenry." Black's Law Dictionary
Republic: "A government where the citizens have the supreme authority and are entitled to vote elected representatives and officers who are governing according to law." Webster's
Dictatorship: "A government ... where absolute control is held by leadership." Webster's
Treason: "The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which one owes allegiance or to kill or injure the sovereign or his family." Webster's
Genocide: "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group." Webster's
There are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution for federal or state regulation of our water supply -- or food supply, or medicine or education. Our officials do not have authority to mandate where those powers are not specified. Since citizens of the Carroll/Boone Water District have twice elected not to fluoridate, this forced poisoning of the citizenry is an act of treason.
The Carroll-Boone Water District Board is under no obligation to follow unconstitutional law, as is clearly stated in the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
CBWD board members may lawfully disregard this unconstitutional mandate. If the state attempts to prosecute the board for non-compliance, the board may safely fall upon the support of the citizens of our state and district.
Power of the citizens to void illegal laws was given in the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Sect. 2, Clause 3; Bill of Rights, Article VI & VII), "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed."
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
Since a jury trial requires a unanimous decision, only one vote of "not guilty" is required to nullify the bad law. Trial by jury is where "government by the consent of the governed" actually works. Since we are not generally taught this, we usually end up with a dictatorship by default -- "For lack of essential knowledge, my people perish."
"The jury has an ... unreviewable and unreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." -- U. S. v. Dougherty, 1972, from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Citizens used trial by jury to successfully void Alcohol Prohibition as well as Fugitive Slave Laws. Government is powerless to enforce laws that are not supported by citizens, provided citizens know of their obligation to void illegal or unjust laws, prohibitions and mandates by using their jury power.
The revolution has already happened, and the hard part is done! All we have to do now is study and follow our law; a citizen government cannot exist without the citizens knowing how it works.
If the governor or the Congress continues to force this poisoning on citizens after being given this public notice, they are knowingly committing an act of treason, an attempted genocide of the citizenry, and should be lawfully and permanently removed from office.
Eric Scheunemann
Comments
Follow the money. These same lies that 'fluoridation' is 'safe and effective' is regurgitated by all the Health Departments throughout Australia - all evidence of cumulative harm is overlooked, covered-up,stifled, buried - Fluoridation is not safe nor effective as the Dental Crises Australia wide will prove after up to 50+ years of 'fluoridation' Australia wide. The drinking water supplies of the people should never have been polluted with this hazardous waste known as 'fluoride' but access to affordable dental health care services for all the population should have been provided in the first place.
Diane Drayton Buckland
Independent Chemical Researcher/Activist
FIA www.dianabuckland.webs.com
MCS Global www.mcsglobalawareness.com
"Further, the prestigious National Research Council's (NRC) 2006 fluoride report revealed that fluoride, even in low doses, can harm the thyroid gland, kidney patients, babies and high water drinkers." "We have served as guinea pigs in this ongoing and failed experiment for far too long. In my position as Alderman, it is my duty to promote the health, safety and welfare of all our residents. Adding fluoride chemicals into our public water supply runs counter to this and therefore needs to end."
http://www.endfluoridemilwaukee.blogspot...
End Fluoride Milwaukee
Water fluoridation is not safe and not effective, end of story (as the dental crises in all long time fluoridated cities will attest). The population have been lab rats for decades and this must be stopped urgently, permanently and irrevocably for all time for the protection of the long term health and safety of the population and our environment. The drinking water supplies of the population were not meant to be hazardous waste disposal areas nor are the kidneys of the population meant to be hazardous waste disposal/filtration units. It must be stopped.
HUMAN TOXICITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION here
http://www.enviro.ie/risk.html
FLUORIDE CAUSES CANCER -- Dr John Yiamouyiannis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featur... "Our studies show that cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, kidney, bladder, breast and ovaries are those primarily associated with fluoride intake". John Yiamouyiannis PhD, Cancer Control Journal, Vol. 5, no's1 + 2, p. 75.
FLUORIDE CAUSES CANCER - Dr. Dean Burk - Former Chief of Cytochemistry at National Cancer Institute for 30 years http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqK7XvfL...
FLUORIDE'S LINK TO CANCER - DR. DAVID KENNEDY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um4baHtxs...
FLUORIDE AND CANCER http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/canc...
FLUORIDE HEALTH EFECTS DATABASE http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/
FLUORIDE & CANCER http://slweb.org/bibliography.html click on CANCER link http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html#c...
BRAIN DEAD ANYONE WHO STILL THINKS 'WATER FLUORIDATION' IS A GOOD IDEA http://www.g-tigerclaw.com/Fluoride/fluo...
US courts have acknowledged that there is no scientific controversy regarding the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation. No state or federal appellate court has ever ruled that fluoridation is an unconstitutional exercise of government powers. Because fluoride is scientifically classified as a naturally-occurring mineral nutrient, like calcium or iron, courts have also found that adjusting fluoride levels in drinking water cannot legally be classified as "mass medication." Fluoridation implementation is not illegal.
THE FDA WON'T APPROVE THE FLUORIDE THAT IS ADDED TO WATER. THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT PRODUCED IN A CONTROLLED CLEAN ROOM OR FOOD GRADE FACILITY, BUT AS A TOXIC INDUSTRIALL WASTE FROM SEVERAL INDUSTRIES. IT IS ILLEGAL AND CORRUPT TO FORCE AN UNAPPROVED PSYCOACTIVE DRUG ON CHILDREN IN AMERICA. My family and I choose to abstain from any Non-FDA approved drugs because if the FDA hasn't done a study we simply don't know how dangerous the material is, if it works, OR HOW IT INTERACTS WITH OTHER DRUGS. Anyone who says it's safe know's they're lying because a full FDA STUDY IS THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW THAT. Fluoride would be the only safe-in-any-dose-for-everyone drug in the world. Why can't we opt out of this ridiculous experiment with American's health. As the CDC and toothpaste companies have acknowledged no amount of fluoride is safe for pregnant mothers or infants, any woman trying to get pregnant, or those with kidney or thyroid disease, osteoporosis, cancer, or at risk for those diseases in their lifetime. That's at least half the population now that cancer affects nearly every other person.
It would be a lot more cost-effective, and consistent with America's bill of rights to leave this unapproved drug out of our water. Since it is cheap and readily available at every grocery and drug store, you can get as much as you want, if you choose. If you believe, against ALL OF THE DATA, that ingesting fluoride is necessary, again, just swallow your fluoride rinse or toothpaste. Cheap and efficient. Those who want it have it, those who don't are already sick aren't made more uncomfortable. The extra health burden on poor people caused by water fluoridation is unfair, and that along with the undefensible ethical consideration is going to get a lot of "go with the flow" politicians unelected. Selling citizens out to rich fertilizer and aluminum companies is not wise now that we all know the truth about the fluoride cover-up.
Diluting a carcinogen in water and forcing small children, mothers, and small pets to consume it, knowing it will eventually cause crippling health problems, is something that not even Cuba, China, or Russia would do to it's people, why do we do it here, for one reason, MONEY. Very rich industries, save a ton of money, not having to properly dispose of their waste.......... Coloradoan, if you wan't to use fluoride go ahead, LIKE ANY OTHER DRUG, but why do you propose to force it on people who don't need it or want it, are you an illegal drug pusher? Or are you on their payroll, it's one or the other, because nobody else could defend this practice.
fluoride is top secret classified. thats why you cannot get any info on it. as existing is a massive stockpile of CW which does not conform to international The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.A chemical weapon (CW)[Note 1] is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They are classified as weapons of mass destruction,Chemical weapons are said to "make deliberate use of the toxic properties of chemical substances to inflict death".
Regardless of your belief of being pro or anti, laws are being broken and ignored.
Force the FDA to do it's job
Fluoridation started in 1945 in Grand Rapids Michigan. The very first drop was illegal and millions of gallons later nothing has changed. NaF, Na2SiF6, and H2SiF6 have never been approved by the FDA for internal ingestion intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and ... intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals. Furthermore, all fluoride vitamins, drops and pills would fall into this category.
The entire chain, from the manufacturer, shippers, middlemen, distributors, pharmacies, doctors, dentists, cities, mayors, city boards, commissioners private and public water distributes and all personal, and the National Sanitation Foundation are liable for criminal charges and direct action by the Food and Drug Administration at any time.
Potentially, all food manufactured using fluoridated water could be exposed to the same liabilities.
Why has the FDA failed to act on the issue of unapproved fluoridation drugs? The FDA is ignoring the law. FDA's actions are contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. The plain language of the law says an article that appears to be misbranded or unapproved shall be in violation. The FDA should notify immediately anyone in possession of foreign or domestic-manufactured fluoridation chemicals/drugs that its use is prohibited by law and that the drug must be returned to the FDA. It is unlawful to import or introduce into interstate commerce any unapproved drug. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should seize supplies because they are illegal or because of questions over how they were manufactured. The FDA is undermining its own policy of maintaining a closed drug distribution system designed to keep dangerous drugs out of U.S. Commerce. Opening up the 'closed' drug system by allowing an unapproved drug, the FDA is jeopardizing their own system and threatens the public health by creating a risk that could cause harm the general public.
The FDA has long taken the position that consumers are exposed to a number of risks when they are exposed to unapproved drugs because,they may be expired, subpotent, contaminated or counterfeit product, the wrong or a contraindicated product, an incorrect dose, or medication unaccompanied by adequate directions for use.
The FDA's decision not to act on enforcing the removal of unapproved drugs or to initiate enforcement proceedings against a violator is a decision to ignore an administrative directive.
Causing the illegal introduction in interstate commerce of misbranded drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2); Receiving in interstate commerce a drug that was misbranded, and the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for payor otherwise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(c) and 333(a)(2); Causing the introduction into interstate commerce of an unapproved new drug, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 33 1 (d) and 333(a)(2); and False Statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
RELEVANT LAW
The Food. Drug and Cosmetic Act
4. Under the FDCA, "label" means a display of written, printed, or graphic matter upon the immediate container of any article. 21 U.S.C. § 321(k). The term "labeling" is defined as all labels and other printed or graphic matter upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or accompanying such article. 21 U.S.C. § 321(m).
5. Under the FDCA, "drugs" are defined as, among other things: (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopeia official Homeopathic Pharmacopeia or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (0) articles intended for use as a component of any articles specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). 21 U.S.C. § 321(g).
6. A "new drug" is any drug which is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof. 21 U.S.C. § 321(P)(1). In order to be lawfully marketed, sold or dispensed in the United States, a new drug had to be the subject of a New Drug Application (''NDA'') which had been approved by the FDA. 21 U.S.C. § 355.
7. A drug intended for use in man which, because of its toxicity, or other potentiality for harmful effect. or the method of its use, or the collateral measures necessary to its use, is not safe for use except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drug; or a drug which is limited by an approved application under 21 U.S.C. § 355 to use under the professional supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drug, can only be dispensed by a practitioner licensed by law pursuant to a lawful prescription. 21 U.S.C. § 353(b)(I). These drugs are commonly known as "prescription drugs." Dispensing a prescription drug without a valid prescription by a licensed practitioner is deemed by statute to be an act which causes the drug to be "misbranded" while held for sale. 21 U.S.C. § 353(b).
8. Under the FDCA, every person engaging in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of drugs in any establishment which he or she owns or operates, is required to immediately register his or her name, places of business, and all such establishments. 21 U.S.C. § 360(c). The terms "manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing" include repackaging or otherwise changing the container, wrapper, or labeling of any drug in furtherance of the distribution of the drug from the original place of manufacture to the person who makes the final sale to the ultimate consumer or user. 21 U.S.C. § 360(a)(1).
9. A drug is misbranded if, among other things, its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. 21 U.S.C. § 352(a). A drug is also misbranded if the labeling on the drug does not bear adequate directions for use. 21 U.S.C. § 352(1)(1). "Adequate directions for use" means directions under which a layman can use a drug safely and for the purposes for which it was intended without a doctors supervision. 21 C.F.R. § 201.5. This regulation goes on to state: "Directions for use may be inadequate because .... of omission, in whole or in part, or incorrect specification of: (a) Statements of all conditions, purposes, or uses for which such drug is intended, including conditions, purposes, or uses for which it is prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its oral, written, printed, or graphic advertising, and conditions, purposes, or uses for which the drug is commonly used."
10. Directions under which a layperson can use a drug safely cannot be written for a prescription drug because such drugs can, by definition, only be used safely (if at all) at the direction, and under the supervision, of a licensed practitioner. Approved prescription drugs dispensed pursuant to a valid prescription are exempt from having adequate directions for use by a layperson. But prescription drugs that are unapproved new drugs or dispensed without a valid prescription are necessarily misbranded for lacking adequate directions for use.
11. Dispensing a prescription drug without a valid prescription by a licensed practitioner is deemed by statute to be an act which results in the drug being misbranded while held for sale. 21 U.S.C. § 353(b)(1).
12. Under the FDCA, the doing or causing of the following acts, among others, is prohibited:
a. The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any drug that is misbranded (21 U.S.C. § 331(a».
b. The receipt in interstate commerce of any drug that is misbranded, and the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for pay or otherwise (21 U.S.C. § 33 1 (c».
c. The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of an unapproved new drug (21 U.S.C. § 331(d».
d. The doing of any act with respect to a drug, if such act is done while the drug is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce. which results in the drug being misbranded (21 U.S.C. § 331(k».
FluoridePoisoned, FDA doesn't regulated the addition of any chemicals to drinking water. EPA does.
During the last 60 years, the legality of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in our court systems. The highest courts of more than a dozen states have confirmed the consitutionality of fluoridation.
Bottom line? WE DON'T WANT IT!!!! NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS!
Arm yourselves and meet the scoundrels at the gate of the Carroll-Boone Water District. Do NOT let them in!
ffd2413
NSF/ANSI Standard 60
What or Who Is The National Sanitation Foundation?
Go to - http://fluoride-class-action.com/sham
JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
Summary: This is the story of how an obscure trade association, formed in 1944
to make standards for restaurant sanitation chemicals, grew to the point where
today it has agency-like authority to approve fluoridation materials and other
chemicals as safe to drink[1].
It' a shell game of politics leading to water districts assuming all liability
for harm to the general public!
Safe Drinking Water Act : No national primary drinking water regulation may
require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes
unrelated to contamination of drinking water.
Surgeon General also has no jurisdiction over water fluoridation.
The CDC has no jurisdiction over water fluoridation.
EPA as administrator of the SDWA regulates only the removal of contaminants
which naturally appear in water or which have been added through pollution. The
SDWA does not authorize adding chemicals except for chemicals which remove or
neutralize contaminants. Thus, authorizing the addition of fluoride to drinking
water does not fit within the EPA's purview.
The FDA, in existence under that name since 1938, would have been the logical
agency for the Public Health Service to go to for approval of fluoride in public
water for human consumption, given that fluoride met the definition of a
drug,[61] that is:
articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or
prevention of disease in man or other animals; and ... articles (other than
food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or
other animals.
Department of Health is the lead agency for enforcement of the SDWA
but, like the EPA, it too is bound by the limitations of the SDWA
National Sanitation Foundation, more commonly known as "NSF". The EPA delegated
authority to NSF[2] to approve fluoridation materials[3] and other additives to
drinking water.
The NSF Joint Committee ... consists of ... product manufacturing
representatives. ... Standard 60 ... requires a toxicology review to determine
that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential
contaminations in the product. ... A toxicology evaluation of test results is
required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to
cause adverse human health effects. ... NSF also requires annual testing and
toxicological evaluation .... The NSF standard requires ... toxicological
evaluation.
Individual test reports, as well as formulation information are protected by
nondisclosure agreements with certification clients.
Contaminants in the finished drinking water are not permitted to exceed
one-tenth of the EPA's regulated MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) when the
product is added to drinking water at its Maximum Use Level, unless it can be
documented that a limited number of sources of the contaminant occur in drinking
water.
This shows that NSF does not even follow its own rules. Instead of setting a .4
ppm MAL, maximum allowable level, which would be one-tenth of the EPA 4.0 ppm
MCL, NSF sets a 1.2 ppm MAL
The "hot potato" was thus transferred by FDA to EPA, which transferred it to
NSF. NSF now functions as a sham FDA, approving fluoride as safe and authorizing
its dumping into drinking water. NSF advertises that it does or obtains
toxicological studies, but in reality it does not. State laws require that
fluoridation can take place only using fluoridation materials which are stamped
with the NSF 60 certification. By law water districts are required to conform to
a sham regulation issued by a sham agency, NSF.
SAUERHEBER: The EPA regulates contaminants in water, not substances intentionally added to treat humans. EPA does not have access to controlled clinical trials data with human volunteers on fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride ingestion in either long or short term studies. Clinical trials in fact do not exist. Because of this, the FDA has not approved any fluoride compound for human ingestion. FDA ruled correctly that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient and in water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. FDA requires warning labels on all toothpastes containing synthetic fluorides, to avoid swallowing even a pea-sized amount and to prevent use in children under six who cannot control swallowing the material, because synthetic fluorides are toxic compounds when taken internally through ingestion. Neither the EPA Office of Drinking Water nor the CDC require that water be treated with fluoride compounds. CDC recommends the practice but accepts no liability or responsibility for it and writes that cities themselves accept all liability and decide on their own accord whether to infuse fluoride compounds into water or not. The U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits any National requirement for a substance to be added to water to treat humans, or in fact any substance other than to sanitize the water. CDC suggests this water treatment that is prohibited from being required. Yes the FDA reviews fluoride chemicals used by U.S. consumers. It must be emphasized that no fluoride containing material has ever been approved by the FDA to be taken internally through ingestion, and yet synthetic fluorides are mass injected into 70% of all U.S. public water supplies. Luride sodium fluoride tablets are unapproved drugs that are nevertheless allowed by the FDA by prescription only, and only in regions that have non-fluoridated water supplies, because synthetic fluorides when taken internally to affect tissue for any purpose may be considered unapproved drugs. For this reason sodium fluoride is listed in the U.S. Pharmacopeia and in Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Current Therapeutics. FDA allows bottled water that contains fluoride at 1 ppm or lower to be consumed by choice, but does not allow fluoride levels to be labeled on the bottle because fluoride is not considered a normal or necessary ingredient in fresh drinking water. Fluoride could be labeled as a contaminant but the FDA prefers the EPA to be in charge of contaminants, while the EPA recognizes that fluoride is routinely intentionally added, making it a substance used for a purpose other than an accidental contaminant or pollutant. EPA relinquished all authority to regulate water fluoridation in 1988. Many within the FDA cling to the notion that the EPA is in charge of water fluoridation, but EPA defers questions on safety and effectiveness (having no clinical trials data at hand) to the private organization the NSF, who defers such questions to the CDC, who accepts no liability for the infusions of synthetic fluorides that the "CDC" Oral Health Division consider a water supplement. All dietary supplements in the U.S. are under the control of the FDA, except the FDA considers fluoride in water to be an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug that should be regulated by the EPA. In response to these facts, the FDA chief investigator on the fluoride water treatment ban petition (FDA2007-P-0346), accepted for review in 2007, announced that "some governmental agency has to regulate it." Indeed, and the petition is still pending.
Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Palomar Community College
SAUERHEBER: Contaminants present in most all drinking water supplies in the U.S. are regulated and monitored by the U.S. EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and no law allows for the intentional addition into water of any contaminant at any level. Fluoride is an EPA contaminant that cannot exceed 4 ppm for water to be considered potable and to prevent skeletal fluorosis with increased bone fracture incidence (NRC, 2006, pp.151), and warnings must be provided for water with 2 ppm fluoride to minimize dental fluorosis during chronic consumption in children (NRC, 2006, pp.115-116), with abnormal enamel hypoplasia that costs thousands of dollars per tooth to restore. The EPA does not request cities fluoridate water, because fluoride is a recognized contaminant, but does not prohibit cities from choosing to do so as long as the above levels are not exceeded. EPA scientists involved in direct fluoride research oppose this allowance due to known discovered adverse serious health effects of chronic consumption of water at relatively low fluoride levels. The claim that fluorosilicic acid is not an industrial compound is disturbing. Fluorosilicic acid is not known to exist in nature, or in water in either concentrated or dilute form. Fluorosilicic acid is made synthetically, and when done so in large quantities, for industrial and other purported uses, it is indeed an industrial material compound. Fluorosilicic acid is not natural, while calcium fluoride is. In diluted, dissociated form, the fluoride ion from fluorosilicic acid is identical to fluoride ion from natural calcium fluoride, but only the latter solution has accompanying antidote calcium ion, which after ingestion minimizes assimilation of fluoride into the bloodstream. The fact that all contaminants in fluorosilicic acid, in addition to fluoride, are within EPA-allowed levels does not provide license to, or make legal, the intentional dumping of contaminants into public drinking water supplies in the United States. Point source exceptions have been often made for dumping certain contaminants into waterways by the EPA for various industries, but technically the SDWA prohibits dumping any contaminant at any level into water by intent. No exception to the SDWA has ever been officially granted to water districts by the EPA to infuse into public waters any or all of the contaminants known to be commonly present in industrial fluorosilicic acid preparations, such as arsenic and lead. No entity has legal rights to dump contaminants into a U.S. body of water simply because care is taken to ensure the final diluted level is below its EPA MCL. The NSF self-justifies certification of fluorosilicic acid by referring to fluoride as a water additive, but water additives sanitize water and are not added to treat people. Labeling fluoride as a water additive for dental benefit, as is found on some invoices for fluorosilicic acid, forces that fluoride be labeled a supplement, and alls supplements are under regulation by the FDA, not the EPA, NSF or CDC, as required by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.