Water drawn from the Great…

Water drawn from the Great Lakes watershed should not be taken outside of that watershed under almost any circumstances.

I oppose the current exemption occurring in Waukesha Wisconsin that continues despite large scale opposition during the gerrymandered governorship of Scott Walker and the seating distribution of the Wisconsin Legislature that actually displaced the party getting the most popular votes into a minority without a significant voice. This is a political fact that adversely impacted upon policy of the Great Lakes watershed. I continue to oppose any other proposals to do anything like this where the actual requesting township is not already partially within the watershed.

I support banning high capacity wells within the Great Lakes watershed as harming ground water by drawdown of levels that encourages drying up of wetlands and other water filtration systems that purify the water. When this occurs as it does in Wisconsin where I live, this harms the entire watershed in multiple ways including ways that are unfair to small family farms and neighbors downstream.

Until high capactiy wells are banned, water from high capacity wells within the Great Lakes watershed should not be bottled and should not leave that watershed. These bans are required in order to protect the Great Lakes' as an outstanding natural global resource, which also provides drinking water for millions around these lakes from two nations as well as all the First Nations. We need compliance monitoring with stringent high fines for any violations that serve as hefty deterants that far exceed the ability of corporations to strategize and plan to use fines as costs of doing business, when they externalize the costs to society which should not happen in an ethically run society. I strongly oppose any water from within the Great Lakes watershed being bottled, and particularly absolutely oppose any shipments of such water outside of the watershed.

I strongly oppose any Great Lakes water being bottled in containers that are not glass and do not contain a recycling deposit within the watershed. I particularly oppose the use of plastic to bottle water as it degrades and nanoparticles of plastic apparently are being consumed by humans with adverse health effects, and we do not need plastic breakdown of such invisible particles contaminating the Great Lakes watershed and harming wildlife and water quality.

The water within the Great Lakes watershed must be sufficiently protected from ionizing radioactive emissions that could get into the groundwater or into air emissions as particles and/or emissions. This requires sufficient care and monitoring of all nuclear sources of waste, generation, and use, and tracking of such materials as they travel, with ownership retained by the generator, even if possession is transferred for isolated and contained storage. All storage must be isolated and contained by qualified providers using the highest and best scientific methods. We need compliance monitoring with sufficiently stringent high fines for any violations that serve as hefty deterrants that far exceed the ability of owners to use fines as costs of doing business rather than applying the best science to protect public health. A ban must be placed on allowing any future radioactive waste from decommissioning to be dumped inside the Great Lakes watershed, particularly when it is not isolated and contained by the best and highest scientific methods.

The water within the Great Lakes watershed must be sufficiently protected from effluent pipes in which chemicals must be pre-filtered and processed out of any effluent or sewers for liquid disposal into ground water, water surfaces, or the soil. This should be monitored and verified by government sources that should be mandated to document this and make it available to public information upon request. This is also to be applied to air emissions, as air emissions eventually engage in deposition and much of that deposition is within the watershed and/or into surface waters flowing to the Great Lakes. Violations of chemical emissions and effluent must be given high fines that far exceed any concept of using fines as costs of doing business and these fines should be under the criminal category.

Water fluoridation should be banned from use within the Great Lakes basin. See the US district court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco, in terms of its water fluoridation case proceedings this summer under TSCA, Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, in California USA by Fluoride Action Alert (FAN)and public intervenors. This is Civ No 17-CV-02162-EMC. This presented credible unquestionable evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin based upon high quality scientific research that lowers the IQ of children and increases neuro-behavioral problems such as ADHD. The evidence shows that water fluoridation causes the greater population to have IQ loss equal to that of lead, and that evidence was tested and found by the world's foremost neurotoxin experts after cross examination by the US EPA Environmental Protection Agency, and 65 studies were cited that link fluoride with decreased children's IQ in terms of NIH studies. TSCA authorized the EPA to prohibit the use of chemicals with unreasonable risk to the general public or to susceptible sub-populations including the authority to prohibit drinking water additives, such as fluoride. On 11-22-2016 FAN and 5 organizations and 5 individual intervenors filed a Citizen's Petition Section 21 of TSCA to exercise the authority to prohibit the addition of fluoride chemicals to US water supplies on grounds of the large body of animal cellular and human research showing fluoride to be neuro-toxic at doses in the tap water of fluoridated communities.

Doctor Howard Hu MD MPH ScD, occupational medicine, University of Toronto, University of Washington School of Public Health did the lead NIH study. Hu also did Bashash studies in 2017 and in 2018. In 9-19-2017, a study was published about 299 mother-child pairs that determined prenatal fluoride exposure in terms of cognitive outcomes in children at 4 years and 6 to 12 years of age in Mexico. He also studied prenatal fluoride exposure and neuro-behavior among children 1 to 3 years of age in Mexico.

Dr. Philippe Grandjean MD PhD, DMCs Harvard School of Public Health, and University of Southern Denmark did studies on cognition and fluoride. He coauthored Green et al, 2019 involving 200 million drinking fluoride in the US, which is about 2/3 of the population, showing adverse results. He was involved in a 2020 study coauthored with Till et al. This Danish scientist and neuro-toxicologist studied fluoride and found it poses a threat to brains. He received grants and did consulting work for US EPA, NIH, US FDA, and WHO for 25 years. He is the author or coauthor of over 500 science publications. US EPA relies on him for mercury and other neuro-toxicants. He worked on fluoride since 1980s for Mt. Sinai. He did a publication meta-analysis of 27 fluoride IQ studies (all but 2 were from China) with consistent results conducted over 20 years with different geography, and 26 of 27 scientific studies showed a relationship that as fluoride went up the IQ went down. The safe reference point is less than 0.15 mg/d to protect against 1 point of IQ loss, which is the equivalent of 1 glass of fluoridated tap water a day. No parent would agree to a loss of 1 IQ point as a reasonable risk to achieve a very small benefit to teeth later on in life. Few scientists now believe that any benefit accrues to teeth in fetal stage or early infancy when the greatest risks to the developing brain occur.

Dr. Bruce Lanphear, Simon Frazer University, British Columbia, was the lead on a NIH lead study and fluoride study.

Kathleen Thiessen Public Health risk assessment at Oak Ridge and on the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council state of the art Fluoride review in 2006 was another expert.

Good public health makes sure that whatever is put into the water supply is an asset, but water fluoridation has been proven to damage and lower the brain's ability to work as measured by IQ and other supporting measures. The above named experts were involved in this legal case.

I ask Ontario to take action to remove all water fluoridation being used within the Great Lakes watershed as this neurotoxin then circulates within the ground water, surface waters, and is taken up by living organisms, wildlife, plants, and humans. Fluoridation directly added to surface waters is known to kill fish from its toxicity, and that is why it is not being dumped into surface waters. Adding it to drinking water appears to be a misguided effort for industry to externalize its costs of doing business involving its waste products which otherwise would be prohibitively expensive SuperFund toxic substances requiring tracking papers as ownership and/or possession is transferred.

I support Ontario Provincial Government taking all and any action needed to remove this horrid neurotoxin from being added to water supplies within the Great Lakes watershed where it will contaminate the watershed with a neurotoxin that eventually makes its way back to the surface waters of the Great Lakes. This is unacceptable and has been unacceptable since 2006 after the US EPA knew that fluoride was a neurotoxin that just needed a bit more research which it did not seek out, showing that it was a captured agency by industry and failing to appropriately serve public health policy.