"WHOLLY WATER ® The Ultimate Drinking Water Appliance"
is a heavy-duty, long lasting, under-the-counter drinking water
appliance.
Delivers the highest quality drinking water. Convenient, no changing
filters, no service calls.
The most advanced new technology available. Featuring self-cleaning,
push-button back wash cycle every 3 months. "Patented"
5 filter beds will remove a broader range of contaminants and
do it to a higher purity for a longer time.
WHOLLY WATER ® is certified to NSF / ANSI Standards 53 (health effects) & 42 (taste & odor) to meet EPA requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act by Terra Labs, an independent 3rd party laboratory. Water Analysis
The best industry warranty of 6 years. With a limited time OFFER,
buy online from the factory. Less than a penny a gallon... Stop
Paying High Prices for bottled water or
high-priced units that always require you to buy their expensive
cartridges.
WHOLLY WATER ®
Owners Club
WHOLLY WATER ® CLICK
HERE
Semantics,
Politics or Fraud?
George
Glasser
In
April, 2,000, the Palm Beach Dental Director, Robert Dumbaugh, found
himself in a dilemma in his push to fluoridate the drinking water of
the small town of Wellington. When local activists revealed that the
product used to fluoridate is, in reality, captured pollution from
the production of phosphate fertilizer, Thomas Reeves, the US
National Fluoridation Engineer, remained silent on the issue,
refusing to answer any questions about the origin of the fluoridation
agent.
An obviously worried, Dumbaugh emailed the Palm Beach
County Pollution Supervisor, Frank Gargiulo, copied to Gargiulo's
subordinate, Darrel Graziani and prominent pro-fluoridation lobbyist,
Michael Easley, at the University of Buffalo.
“Frank:
You can see what we are up against. This argument represents the
major thrust of the opposition in Wellington. We will have to come up
with some very convincing explanation that defuses the mass hysteria
surrounding ‘pollution scrubbers’ and toxic waste dumping.
Any suggestions? They even have Tom Reeves on the ropes now. I think
we have to have somebody that understands the industrial process and
can speak to the regulations which govern and permit the production
of fluosilicic acid, and speak to the safety issue. Thanks, Bob.”
By
June, arrangements had been made for Dumbaugh and Darrel Graziani, to
spend a day on an educational visit at the Cargill Fertilizer Inc.
phosphate fertizer complex at Riverview, Florida. Subsequently, after
one field trip and reviewing some information, Mr. Graziani became
Palm Beach County's resident 'expert' on the pollution effluent used
to fluoridate drinking water.
Under an odd Florida law,
pollution is not considered to be pollution until it reaches the
environment. Using this device, Graziani declared, before a
Wellington forum held on July 19, that the recovered pollution was
indeed a 'product' and therefore was not pollution.
However,
after several emails from this writer, Graziani and Dumbaugh became
concerned that the issue may flare up again. Dumbaugh wrote Graziani:
“Darrel:
If you can write a brief rebuttal to Mr. Glasser’s statement, I
will not release it to anyone, but I can verbally discuss it with the
mayor when I meet him tomorrow. What do you think. Bob.”
Graziani
responded to Dumbaugh’s note:
“I was suprized (sic) to see that you received a copy of Mr. Glasser’s e-mail. which appeared to be not only directed to myself, but Governor Jeb Bush. Due to the nature of the email, I will not respond to Mr. Glasser unless Governor Jeb Bush orders me to.”
On receipt of copies of the email correspondence between Dumbaugh and Graziani, this writer responded to the allegations as follows:
“In the email response that you wrote for Dr. Dumbaugh to use as rebuttals to my allegations, it was stated: ‘Mr. Glasser's statement "You seemed not to know what you are talking about!!! a superficial knowledge at best" appears to be a personal attack in light of the results of our findings versus his publications. He also continues to show little if any professional respect for those of differing opinion. This can be noted within his e-mail by the implied description of those supporting fluoridation as not "having the slightest amount of common sense." I find the underling (SIC) messages to be unjustified, offensive and concerning.’
“In reality, the questions pertained to known carcinogens in the fluoridation agent such as Arsenic and Beryllium which are cumulative and Group 1(a) carcinogens (known to cause cancer in humans).
“The
actual statement Graziani was referring to was stated as such: "My
question to you is: Why would anyone with the slightest amount of
common sense justify the addition of any non-essential product
containing any amount of a known human carcinogen into the drinking
water?”
In
the interim, Dumbaugh, himself an executive member of the secretive
National
Center for Fluoride Policy and Research (NCFPR), headed by
Easley, was planning a presentation and an article for the National
Fluoridation Summit in Sacramento, California. Dumbaugh again emailed
Graziani, cc'd to Michael Easley, Teran Gall (Special Events Director
for the California Dental Association) and Thomas Reeves:
“Darrel:
As we discussed yesterday, I forwarded your Cargill photos to Mike
Easley this morning. Can you send me the two diagrams you used during
the Wellington presentation to send him also? Also, how do you feel
about working on an article for publication? You, I, Mike and Tom
Reeves from CDC could collaborate. You would be the principal author.
Would you have a preference of journals to send it to? How about the
AWWA journal? I could look into presenting the article at the
Fluoridation Summit that Teran Gall (California Dental Assoc.) is
setting up in September.”
In
the same sequence of email correspondence, Dumbaugh wrote to Thomas
Reeves:
"Tom: I have a copy, but I'd like you to talk with Darrel Graziani, P.E. who went to Cargill with me and take a look at the slides. It will be fine with him. He also has an FSA production flow chart which would be helpful in your presentation. The presentation would be designed to refute Glasser's allegation that FSA is toxic waste that is recovered from pollution scrubbers."
“I
have asked Darrel if he would be willing to co-author an article,
perhaps to be published in AWWA Journal, with you, Mike and I as
co-authors. He has agreed, and his boss concurs, but I would ask you
and Mike to put together the article outline. I don't really have to
be an author, but would be if you wished. At any rate, I think it
would be useful to talk with Darrel, just to discuss the issue and
your presentation at the Summit."
Meanwhile,
Reeves was emailing Dumbaugh and NCFPR colleagues to clarify matters:
“Hi
Folks, There is a small point of correction I would like to make
about the production of the fluorosilicic acid [which is the source
for the sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate, as well]. A lot of
people sometimes say, even once in a while myself, that the acid is
captured with pollution scrubbers. That is not technically
correct....This is a small point because the pollution scrubbers and
the product recovery units are similar. But since the antis make such
a big point about the "pollution" part of the pollution
scrubbers, maybe we should start using the correct term.”
In
the very next sequence of emails uncovered under the Florida Public
Records Act from Dumbaugh to Graziani, Dumbaugh comments, wryly:
“Darrel:
It appears that the correct term is "product recovery unit."
It would be nice if that's what the people at Cargill called it. Do
you think it would be in order to call them and ask? They were still
calling a scrubber when we were there.”
On
August 3, Graziani emailed Dumbaugh, saying, “Mr.
Glasser claims that he has written extensively on the subject of
Phosphate Fertilizer Pollution. This may be the basis of his
confusion since he is unable to distinguish between the FSA
production process and the Air Pollution Scrubbers.”
So,
during the one day field trip to the Cargill Fertilizer facility,
Graziani and Dumbaugh had managed to redefine the nature of FSA
pollution effluent!
However, the US Environmental Protection
Agency has a different view of the captured pollution. In 1999, the
EPA established that all facilities producing phosphate fertilizers
in the United States must use the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) to reduce emissions of hydrogen fluoride, and heavy
metals, including arsenic, beryllium, radionuclides, chromium and
lead, as well as methyl isobutyl ketone.
Many of the
hazardous air pollutants (or air toxics) released from the production
of phosphate fertilizer are known or suspected of causing cancer or
other serious health effects in humans and animals. EPA's action was
estimated to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants by about
345 tons annually, representing approximately 57 percent reduction
from current levels.
National Sanitation Foundation
International, which "certifies" the fluoridating agent,
stated in correspondence to Florida Department of Health
administrator, Pepe Mendez, that because of the EPA’s proposed
new guidelines for Arsenic levels in drinking water, there might be
"more product failures" due to inherent arsenic in the
fluorosilicic acid. They also stated that beryllium was also a
problem.
Both beryllium and arsenic are Group 1(a) substances
or known to cause cancer in humans. Scientists have found that
arsenic is responsible for causing, prostate, bladder, kidney, liver,
skin and lung cancers in humans. Beryllium is considered the only
verified causative of osteogenic sarcoma, and the EPA's maximum
contaminate level of Beryllium allowed in drinking water is 4.0 parts
per billion. Both, arsenic and beryllium are cumulative toxicants in
the body. Lead, a neurotoxicant, is also present in the fluoridating
agent. It, too, is a cumulative poison.
While heated arguments
continue about the fluoridation of drinking water, the revelations
about the product used in fluoridation schemes are causing much
consternation among the proponents. This is evidenced by the email
exchanges between top level fluoridation proponents as they
frantically attempt to sanitize the toxic pollution soup. However, as
much as they try, the reality is stated in the EPA air pollution
regulations.
They show the National Fluoridation Engineer,
Thomas Reeves, trying to turn a pollution scrubber into a "product
recovery unit." It was a matter of semantics because the product
being recovered was pollution.
Darrel Graziani based his view
on a curious Florida environmental law which states that pollution is
not really pollution unless it reaches the environment and that the
effluent product recovered from phosphate fertilizer production is
"high quality fluorosilicic acid."
Meanwhile, Thomas Reeves and Darrel Grazani were aware of another nasty little carcinogenic secret about the toxic soup. While everyone was conspiring to sanitize the pollution soup, Graziani was in possession of a 1998 letter and analysis results for radium and uranium levels from Cargill lab manager, Mike Wells to Reeves. The accompanying lab results from Thornton Laboratories of Tampa, Florida stated that the sample contained up to 3.0 parts per million of uranium. Interestingly, other contaminants which are not carcinogens are listed at levels as low as 2.0 parts per billion while the level of uranium is 1.5 thousand times that amount.
Another interesting aspect with the presence of uranium is the fact that other carcinogenic decay rate products will be present such as Radon 222, Lead 210, Polonium 210 and others. Radon is a gas which is released by heat and can be carried over to the toxic soup in greater quantities than uranium. Consequently, the toxic soup contains a variety of radioactive contaminants that are not reported on the certified analyses/specification sheets. This revelation leaves one to question the motives behind those people pushing a toxic waste product as a beneficial health measure by semantically transforming a pollution scrubber into a "product recovery unit."
The more frightening aspects of the uranium and its decay rate products is that a "half life" means that one-half of the radionuclide decays to the next product within a given amount of time. In other words, when we are talking about Polonium 210 (or whatever) lasting for 138 days (or whatever), what actually happens is that after 138 days (one half life), half of the polonium will have changed to something else, but half will still be there. After another half life, it will be down to a quarter activity, and after another half life it will be down to an eighth - i.e. - decreasing by half with each half life; consequently, radionuclides are the poison that keeps on poisoning in ever diminishing amounts.
In
March this year, Jane Jones, campaign director of the National Pure
Water Association, UK, wrote to Mr. Thomas Reeves, the U.S. Chief
Fluoridation Engineer, asking him to confirm or deny that the
fluoridating agent is pollution scrubber liquor and to provide Safety
Testing Data for the product.
"Reeves replied without
answering either question," said Ms Jones. "The push to
fluoridate is largely driven from America, so I also wrote to Dr
Michael Easley, the 'chief fluoridation guru' over there, and to Dr
Gennady Pakhomov, the Responsible Officer for the World Health
Organization's Oral Health Program. He acknowledged my email but
ducked the questions. I've written three times to each of these top
men, who are supposed to be 'experts'. Their silence is scandalous.
We know that the fluoridating agent is hazardous waste which has
never been tested as safe for human consumption."
To
date, none of the above mentioned enthusiastic promoters of
fluoridation have responded to Jane Jones’ query. Despite the
semantics, - "Product Recovery Unit" or "Air Pollution
Scrubber" - the end product remains the same: it is a
concentrated soup-mix of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Neither Darrel
Graziani, Thomas Reeves nor the Grand Poopah of drinking water
fluoridation, Michael Easley can transform toxic pollution into a
beneficial nutrient.
NATIONAL PURE WATER ASSOCIATION'S Admin Office:
12 Dennington Lane, Crigglestone, Wakefield, WF4 3ET, UK
Phone: 01924 25 44 33
National Pure Water Association
Registered
in England & Wales, No: 3366087
Registered office: Croft End, Lowick Bridge, Cumbria LA12 8EE
A not for profit Company
This
document may be freely copied.
|
|
