Thu. Apr 18th, 2024

By Donna Westfall – March 5, 2017 –

Dr. William Hirzy, Ph.D. used to work for the EPA as a senior scientist.  It’s a name familiar in fluoride circles as a champion in trying to get this harmful chemical, hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) out of the drinking water supplies.

Recently, the City of Ishpening, Michigan was in the news because their city manager made this comment:

  • I am 100% certain that our DEQ would not allow us to use fluoride if there existed verifiable scientific information that it was harmful to our people.
    Mark Slown
    City Manager
    City of Ishpeming

Oh Boy!  Did he step into it.

Let’s take a look at the cover letter from Dr. Hirzy to the EPA.  It’s just page one of 254 pages, but tells it all:

It’s addressed to: (Note bolding and highlighting and use of italics by editor)

  • Robert Perciasepe, Administrator (Acting) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Dated April 22, 2013
  • On behalf of my co-petitioners, I am submitting on this 43rd anniversary of Earth Day a petition (enclosed) pursuant to 15 United states Code, Chapter 53, Section 2620, also known as section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), requesting that you take an action that will save the United states between $1 billion and $6 billion annually.  The action will simultaneously prevent hundreds of cases of lung and bladder cancer through the reduction in the amount of arsenic now being delivered to our citizens who drink water that is fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA).
  • Signed J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., Chemist in Residence, American University, Washington, D.C.

Have you ever wondered what our EPA was designed to do?  Was it designed to protect the health of the citizenry?Here’s the result of the EPA’s response:

  • On August 6, 2013, EPA notified the petitioners that after careful consideration, the Agency denied the TSCA section 21 petition because the evidence presented by the petitioners does not adequately support a conclusion that HFSA, when used as a fluoridation agent, presents or will present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment and that a TSCA section 6 rule making is necessary to protect adequately against such risk.

Here’s the response by Aliss Terpstra, CNP

“Well, there we have it. Proof that the government considers itself completely infallible and beyond the reach of democracy, justice and even the laws of nature. The EPA owns the whole pet shop. This parrot is not dead, because the EPA says it’s just resting.

The EPA says that its own commissioned National Research Council science panel findings of irreversible harm and incontrovertible human suffering from consumption of relatively low fluoride levels (0.3-0.9 mg/L) in drinking water “does not adequately support a conclusion that HFSA used as a fluoridation agent” (at 0.7-0.9 mg/L!!) is a problem.

The EPA says that thyroid disease, increased risk of cancer occurrence and decreased survival expectancy after diagnosis, tooth fluorosis in kids, bone fluorosis in high intake and medically vulnerable consumers, kidney damage, IQ reduction, anemia, IBS, cardiovascular disease, cataracts, preterm birth, migraines, hypersensitivity effects on skin affecting 1-5% of exposed consumers even if they don’t drink the water, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndromes, mental depression and ADD – are actually “reasonable” risks to health that the government says the public may expect and must endure WITHOUT RECOURSE from the addition of HFSA to public drinking water.

The EPA says there isn’t enough evidence to conclude that HFSA should not be added to public drinking water to reach a fluoride level five to fifty times what nature usually provides in natural source water taken for drinking, and discharged into the downstream environment at a level that radically changes the calcium ratio and kills keystone species in the aquatic food chain. Apparently common sense and logic are irrelevant in EPA decisions.

The EPA ignores the rule that UNESCO already wrote and the rest of the world signed, and says there has to be a new rule before fetus, infant, child and medically vulnerable consumer can have the human right not to be forced to suffer the effects of fluoride toxicity from HFSA added to their paid-for drinking water. A new rule, before any action can be taken to put a stop to the picayune obsessions of sociopathic public health officials up there in that protected section of the CDC offices in Atlanta where they study every horrible thing that Mengele ever did and try to figure out how to mandate it as a public policy for private profit.

Congratulations, America! You’ve been Raped by the EPA! Welcome to the Hunger Games, and may the odds be EVER in your favour.”

Many are applauding President Trump’s request to reduce the EPA budget by 24% or $2 billion.   If he’s successful, maybe there’s a chance that we can get rid of or reduce the budget of the California Coastal Commission.

At any rate, let’s hope that the stance of a streamlined EPA will get back to the business of protecting the health of our people.


One thought on “Is the EPA designed to protect the health of our citizenry?”
  1. Having fought the battle to get fluoride removed from our water system and knowing the government protects this pollutant, cheering on the destruction of the EPA because they they were falling in line with the rest of the government agencies on this topic is myopic and shortsighted. You should know as well as anyone how the web of deceit was/is woven around the fluoride issue and how big money influences such webs. But that does not excuse the even bigger corporate influence over the destruction of a vital government agency in the quest for even larger profit at the expense of all living things that depend on clean water and air. It may not be the best at what it does, what government agency is? But it does afford us common citizens some protections against corporate polluters. If anything the EPA needs more teeth, not fewer.

    Getting rid of the clean stream act? Who does that help? Corporate polluters. Got coal ash in your drinking water? Too bad, it’s legal now. And let’s not forget, the EPA was the agency who forced phosphate fertilizer factories to muzzle their emissions when those fluoride fumes were poisoning the air and killing the cattle.

    There are a ton of examples you can look up that point directly to corporate wish lists presented to the president as to what “business killing” regulations they want gone. NONE of them benefit anyone except corporate greed. And “business killing” is code for “more profits” because now they can dump their toxic waste where they choose without regard for your community’s health or caring about cleaning up their messes. The tax payer will be on the hook for that.

    We may feel insulated from runaway corporate pollution because of where we live, but that won’t last. We’ve been fighting the mining companies for a while now because of environmental destruction. They may get the upper hand after all. Take a look at some old pictures of New York or any other big city from 30 years ago. The air quality is VISIBLE. The EPA and clean air and water rules are for the people and the corporations want them gone. Trump is helping his friends, not the People.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *