Dear Auckland Council,
Can you provide a test report document, specifically a complete chemical analysis of the "Fluoride" medication chemicals that you use to medicate the water, which I understand to currently be hydrofluorosilicic acid. Specifically a complete chemical analysis of the chemical(s) which:
-is from an independent laboratory
-is dated and signed
-is one that determines all (both the anions and cations) ions present in the mixture, and the proportion of these components, such that when the components are summed they accrue to 100%, and thus all ions are accounted for.
-includes the test methods used to obtain the results and the sensitivities of the test methods.
It is understood that this test report document is common and that you would have this information prior to selecting, and in the ongoing determination of the suitability of, Fluoride medication providers. Hence I assert it should be freely available to both your internal staff as well as the "Fluoride" medicated public.

Furthermore can you please provide all documents provided to the public, either directly or indirectly, by the Auckland Council or its direct subsidiary Watercare, prior to and during your mandatory Fluoride medication initiative. Specifically any document that includes claims made with respect of the Fluoride addition to the water supply and it's claimed medicinal benefits. For example: The Watercare monthly fluoride report published for Dec 2018 simply claims fluoride is added for "oral health reasons". Other documents with more specific, similar or more expansive claims are sought, so that it can clearly be determined the range and nature of Fluoride medicinal claims that have been made, and what the claims have been over time.

Yours faithfully,
T Clayton

Dear LMcKenzie (Leanne),
Thank you for answering the first component of my request. The Chemical analysis of the Acid was Complete.

The second component of the Information request I posed remains unanswered. Specifically the links you have provided are public and in addition they are not new to me. Furthermore, while of general interest they do not not relate to the specific claims Watercare make or the chemicals Watercare has chosen to use, the legal basis for doing so, nor do they in any way answer the information request. Thus they are irrelevant.

Specifically, Fluoridation is a discretionary activity undertaken by Watercare. The drinking-water supplier is responsible for selecting the most suitable fluoridating agent for the drinking-water supply and for the method, set-points and actions that result in the acid being dosed into the water. Watercare is thus FULLY responsible for both making and supporting its own actions, and the claimed reasons for these actions. If common law provided a “legal substitution clause” whereby others can be blamed for actions of the guilty, no entity would ever be successfully prosecuted for its own criminal actions. I suggest to you that the Drinking water guidelines you referencing, are not a substitute for the common Law, they do not supersede the law, and they do not provide a valid excuse for breaking it. They are loose guidelines.

Medsafe and the TGA mandate that Therapeutic claims are properly made and supported for Medicines or any therapeutic good, using very prescribed methods and protocols.

Please supply the documents which I have thus shown, Watercare has a responsibility to provide and support by itself. Namely documents that include the specific claims and documented support for these claims, for its own actions, over time, with respect of adding the acid to public water.
Or, alternatively please supply and reference the legal documents that specifically provide the basis on which Watercares apparent, claim and support free, acid dosing actions, are provided for in LAW.

Regards

T Clayton

Dear PPerera (Priyan),
Thank you for your effort to reply.

However following your reply I feel forced to reiterate:
1. Fluoridation is a discretionary activity undertaken by Watercare.
2. Because of this Watercare personal are FULLY responsible for both making and supporting their own actions with respect of the law.

In response to your letter:
4. Firstly, with respect of to your point 7. The official information request To Minister of Health by Mark Allen July 27, 2015, demonstrates that their is NO information showing that hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe to add to potable water.
5. I see that Section 130 of Local Government Act 2002, provides obligations to maintain water services. However It in no away confers the power to:
a. Add toxic chemicals into potable water
b. Avoid compliance with Medsafe with respect of medicinal claims
6. The Health Act (I cant find the Health Act 2002 you reference) I have located does not confer the lawful justification or provide a reasonable excuse for adding poison into the potable Public water supplies.

I think the facts in the matter are therefore:
7. Watercare does not comply with any Medsafe rules or guidelines in respect of a product with a claimed medicinal benefit.
8. Watercare has made only general unsupported claims of benefit for the unique additives it has freely chosen to add to public potable water supply.
9. The Analysis shows the additive Watercare has chosen to use is comprised of:
a. Hydrofluorosilicic, 22%
b. Phosphorus, up to 1% (or 1000 mg/l )
c. Arsenic, 0.6 mg/l
d. Uranium, 0.069 mg/l
e. Aluminium, 10.7 mg/l
10. These additives are all HAZARDOUS AND HIGHLY TOXIC POISONS, specifically:
a. Rodenticide paste (Ratol, a common rat poison), contains 3% phosphorus and your additive is similar at 1% phosphorus
b. 1mg of Phosphorus per kg of body weight is a lethal dose for an adult.
f. A lethal dose of Phosphorus is 0.4 mg per kg of body weight per child.
g. Merely 11 µg/kg of Phosphorus has been shown to adversely effect reproduction abilities.
c. No law allows the addition of rat poison (phosphorus) into public water.
d. It is calculated that just by using an average phosphorus dose alone, EVERY DAY Watercare adds around 3000 Lethal Dose Equivalents of Phosphorus.

Given the preceding facts, the following conclusions must be drawn:
11. Watercare must be accountable for its own actions.
12. Many Watercare staff, including your self, are conspiring to authorize, enact and uphold the dosing of the massive addition of a collection of well known noxious poisons into public water, specifically Phosphorus, Arsenic, Uranium and Aluminum.
13. Watercare itself has not, shown any intention, elaborated on, supported in any way, or provided any statement that these chemicals benefit the public in any specific or meaningful way whatsoever.
14. Given this void of positive intention, it becomes apparent that the opposing view, could be rightfully being argued, and by inference must be true. Namely that:
a. The intention of those acting at Watercare is to cause grievous bodily harm to the public at large by adding poison to Public water
And/Or
b. Many key personnel have been and continue to act in an utterly reckless and ill considered manner by selecting, using, supporting and adding an additive containing millions of lethal dose equivalents of known poisons (rat poison), where better alternatives exist, or the choice of no additive was not enacted.
15. Make no mistake dosing Phosphorus and Arsenic into potable water is a serious crime, and these actions are specifically provided for within the Crimes Act 1961:
a. Section 200 Poisoning with intent
b. Section 298B Contaminating food, crops, water, or other products

For these reasons, I still believe my Official Information request remains partially unanswered, and so I wait to see if Watercare can complete the request by providing the supported claims documents, I specified in my Official information request.

If Watercare does not wish to document the beneficial claims for these additives, I cannot see how Watercare can possibly continue to dose known poisons, namely Phosphorus, Aluminum, Arsenic and Uranium. For if you continued with this practice, It could be argued that you will have demonstrated, either the ongoing intention to cause grievous harm ,and/or Watercare staff are continuing their ongoing reckless actions with respect of these poisons.

I await to hear with interest why it is that Phosphorus, Uranium, Aluminum and Arsenic are added to an otherwise clean potable water.

Yours sincerely,

Travis Clayton