One thought on “17I. GENERAL HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT”
I recently went head-to-head with a county official (a “Director” of Water Resources) regarding consumer confidence reports involving sodium flouride and additives in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid to the county water interconnect of our municipality. Although I did determine that no additives are occuring in our community, the fluoride “language” in the reports still reads something to the effect of “water additive which promotes strong teeth” within a certain metric parameter levels. I sent them videos and other data confirming the science, and kept trying to “call them on” why they continued to post this misleading and aberrant text. They side-stepped my inquiries until they finally sent me EPA literature as adopted by the state in hopes of diverting my energies. I cannot identify the specific mandate on “descriptive” language in the guidelines (unlike established “safe” metric levels and certain contaminent sources which are clearly mandated word-for-word) that makes sense enough to answer my question.
I’ve been acting from the “gut” until now. I have a feeling that they are simply apathetic to the issue, ignoring the science, and posting the stuff anyway to conform to the alphabet agency. Additionally, the guidelines give rise that local governments have the option to change the langauge in their CCR’s, but don’t for the same reasons.
If there are any persons, activists, or others out there who have experinece with this sort of thing, I’d love to hear from you…any input would be great…before I address the state D.E.P. on the issue.
Drowning in absurdity 
I recently went head-to-head with a county official (a “Director” of Water Resources) regarding consumer confidence reports involving sodium flouride and additives in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid to the county water interconnect of our municipality. Although I did determine that no additives are occuring in our community, the fluoride “language” in the reports still reads something to the effect of “water additive which promotes strong teeth” within a certain metric parameter levels. I sent them videos and other data confirming the science, and kept trying to “call them on” why they continued to post this misleading and aberrant text. They side-stepped my inquiries until they finally sent me EPA literature as adopted by the state in hopes of diverting my energies. I cannot identify the specific mandate on “descriptive” language in the guidelines (unlike established “safe” metric levels and certain contaminent sources which are clearly mandated word-for-word) that makes sense enough to answer my question.
I’ve been acting from the “gut” until now. I have a feeling that they are simply apathetic to the issue, ignoring the science, and posting the stuff anyway to conform to the alphabet agency. Additionally, the guidelines give rise that local governments have the option to change the langauge in their CCR’s, but don’t for the same reasons.
If there are any persons, activists, or others out there who have experinece with this sort of thing, I’d love to hear from you…any input would be great…before I address the state D.E.P. on the issue.
LikeLike