100 Kilometers of Pristine Coastline Ruined, Just Like The Rena Disaster only Worse!
The New Disaster Looks Like A Deliberate Act, by our Council?
Industrial Fluoride into The Pacific Ocean?
Phone Call To The MOH
I have called the MOH Environmental Health Officer and asked for the appropriate Resource Consent: Not available, Please write to info@health.govt.nz < 28/08/2025 done.
Who is Responsible?
Every time I examine a major policy that harms society, I trace influence back to the World Economic Forum (WEF). Its agenda reaches into the United Nations, the WHO, and frameworks like the Paris Climate Accord.
In practice, these organisations promote products and services while ignoring nature’s limits. The pattern resembles a marketing pipeline into government: sell “benefits,” downplay harms.
To drive adoption, they lean on universities and commissioned reports that highlight supportive findings and minimise contrary evidence.
My stance is simple: Put nature and people first. Demand transparency, full environmental impact, and accountability—before adoption, not after harm.
EMAIL NOTICE Sent: Monday, 25 August 2025 10:33 am
From: Ian Stephenson
To: Marty Grenfell <marty.grenfell@tauranga.govt.nz>; Christine Jones <Christine.Jones@tauranga.govt.nz>; Sarah Omundsen <Sarah.Omundsen@tauranga.govt.nz>; Barbara Dempsey <Barbara.Dempsey@tauranga.govt.nz>; Nic Johansson <Nic.Johansson@tauranga.govt.nz>; Mayor Mahé Drysdale <Mahe.Drysdale@tauranga.govt.nz>; Cr Jen Scoular <Jen.Scoular@tauranga.govt.nz>
Cc: newsroom@thesun.co.nz
Subject: Formal Notice: Urgent Action Required on Coastal Toxicity
To: Tauranga City Council
Attention:
Dear Mr Grenfell, Mayor Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Scoular, Ms Jones, Ms Omundsen, Ms Dempsey, and Mr Johansson,
Date: 25 August 2025
Subject: Immediate Suspension of Fluoride Discharge Pending Investigation
This letter is written in duty of care for Tauranga, our people, and our marine environment.
Since 15 August 2025, the MPI issued a black warning regarding:
“Toxic shellfish identified across more than 100 km of coastline.”
This is unprecedented. Never before have we witnessed such a wide and sustained ecological disaster which coincides with the misguided initiative to toxify our water supply, and release banned chemicals from our wastewater outflows.
The Concern
Fluoridation chemicals discharged into Tauranga’s water system — specifically hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) — are classified as hazardous waste under New Zealand and international standards. (See standards referenced below.)
On contact with saltwater, solvated fluoride rebonds into toxic solid form, creating a persistent contamination cloud that threatens shellfish, fish, and the broader food chain.
The volume of toxins introduced into drinking, bathing, cooking, crop and stock-raising water supply is the same volume released into the marine environment through wastewater outflows, excluding that retained in human and various other biology. This is fundamentally equivalent to dumping toxic chemicals directly into the environment, using humans as an intermediate filtration system.
Long-term, this will impact society and exacerbate chronic health issues, much like asbestos and DDT.
Already, 100 kilometres of shellfish warnings prove toxicity is present. Fish feeding on shellfish magnify the impact, poisoning not just kaimoana but the entire marine food web. This creates a serious and ongoing public health concern for years to come.
The government looks at the escalating health crisis and ignores obvious causal links created by flawed ideologies such as “introducing toxic waste into the water supply improves health.” This is a classic DARVO strategy: discredit real science while promoting false science from consultants and organisations with vested financial interests, destroying our environment and society for gain.
The Responsibility
This is not a question of blame. It is a question of urgent action. To do nothing is to permit ongoing poisoning of our harbour, environment, and people.
The Demand
I respectfully but firmly request that you:
- Suspend fluoridation discharges immediately, pending proof of safety.
- Commission an independent investigation, conducted transparently and openly, to determine causation.
- Report findings publicly, so that trust may be restored.
The Principle
If fluoride is proven not to be the cause, then so be it — you will have evidence that supports your current programme.
But if it is proven to be the cause, then immediate remedial action must follow.
Final Word
This is not about politics. It is about people, food safety, and ecological survival. There is nothing more toxic to public health than toxicity caused by the failure to recognise flawed policies and mandates.
Our coastline, our kaimoana, and our families depend on swift and responsible action. This ecological disaster is, without question, human-made, and represents the greatest insult to nature, progress, and the future of our community’s safety.
Respectfully,
Ian Stephenson
Citizen of Tauranga / Candidate for Mayor 2028
P.S. Please be aware that all communications are made public and presented as subjects of concern during my campaign for Mayor in 2028
Standards Being Breached
- HSNO Act (1996) – Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
- Hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) is classified under HSNO as Corrosive (Class 8) and Dangerous for the environment (Class 9). By law, hazardous substances must not be discharged into the environment without controls.
- NZS 5433:2020 – Transport of Dangerous Goods on Land
- H₂SiF₆ is listed as UN 1778 (Fluorosilicic Acid). Classified as a Class 8 Corrosive liquid, toxic, n.o.s., requiring strict handling, packaging, and no uncontrolled disposal.
- Basel Convention (1989) – International Treaty on Hazardous Wastes
Prohibits the dumping of hazardous waste into the sea without full environmental protection and justification. Fluoride waste as an industrial by-product (fertiliser flue gas capture) falls under this prohibition. - Resource Management Act (1991) – New Zealand
Section 15: “No person may discharge any contaminant into water unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a rule in a regional plan, a resource consent, or regulations.” Fluoride discharge into wastewater → ocean outfall = contaminant discharge without lawful consent. - Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) Restrictions
MPI prohibits fluoride use in fertilisers because of harm to cattle and ecosystems. Contradictory for the same substance to be released into marine environments. - WHO & International Drinking Water Standards
WHO requires pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride or sodium fluorosilicate for drinking water programmes. New Zealand instead uses industrial-grade H₂SiF₆ containing arsenic, lead, and radionuclides, breaching purity standards.
REPLY FROM MAYORS OFFICE Tue 26 Aug, 10:59
REPLY FROM: Rob Donald <Rob.Donald@boprc.govt.nz>
27-08-2025 - 10:28
Dear Mr Stephenson – Tauranga City Council have forwarded your query on to BOPRC. In it you link coastal algal blooms to the (relatively recent) introduction of fluoride into Tauranga drinking water. With respect, there is no sound basis for these claims. I base this on the following;
Coastal algal blooms are unfortunately relatively common in Bay of Plenty waters, and have been for as long as records have been kept. Simply put, these blooms were occurring before fluoride was added to the drinking water. If you would like evidence of this I suggest you contact the Food Safety Authority who coordinate the monitoring and should have the history of bloom related shellfish warnings. FSA will also be able to advise the nature of the toxins that have led to the warnings.
The concentration of fluoride in seawater is naturally higher than the recommended dose rate in drinking water. It is therefore not possible under normal operating conditions for fluoride dosing in Tauranga to increase the fluoride concentration in seawater in the coastal Bay of Plenty.
Regards
Rob Donald
Science Manager
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Toi Moana
MY COMMENT: DARVO in real time → Deflect: “blooms are natural”, Attack: “no sound basis”, Reverse Victim/Offender: you’re the one making baseless claims.
SENT TO ROB: Date: 11:09 - 27/08/2025
Subject: Clarification on Fluoride Compounds
Hi Rob,
Thank you for your reply. Before we investigate further, I’d like to clarify one key point:
Are you saying that hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆), the industrial by-product added to Tauranga’s water supply, is the same as naturally occurring fluoride (typically calcium fluoride in seawater and mineral deposits)?
From my reading:
- Natural fluoride in seawater is bound to calcium and other minerals, and is relatively stable.
- H₂SiF₆, by contrast, is an industrial waste product captured from fertiliser flue gases, classified under HSNO as corrosive and environmentally hazardous, and known to contain trace arsenic, lead, and radionuclides.
This distinction seems critical. If we are indeed discharging H₂SiF₆ into wastewater outfalls, then the assumption that it is chemically identical to “natural fluoride” may not hold.
Could you please confirm whether your statement refers to total fluoride ions only, or whether BOPRC regards H₂SiF₆ (with impurities and different bonding behaviour in saltwater) as equivalent to naturally occurring fluoride?
Respectfully,
Ian Stephenson
Citizen of Tauranga / Candidate for Mayor 2028
Date: 11:45 - 27/08/2025
Subject: Clarification on Fluoride Compounds and Environmental Evidence
Hi Rob,
Thank you for your response. I believe there may be a critical misunderstanding in the comparison you have drawn between naturally occurring fluoride in seawater and the industrial hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) added to New Zealand’s domestic water supply. With respect, equating the two is scientifically and regulatorily unsound.
To stay precise on the science and legal footing:
Different Compounds
- Seawater fluoride is predominantly bound in calcium salts (CaF₂), relatively stable.
- H₂SiF₆ is an industrial waste by-product from fertiliser flue-gas scrubbing, classified under HSNO as corrosive and environmentally hazardous, and known to contain arsenic, lead, and radionuclides.
Parent vs. Waste Stream
- Fertiliser runoff is widely recognised as driving algal blooms through nutrient loading.
- If the parent product causes ecological harm, on what evidence is its waste fraction presumed neutral when continuously discharged through wastewater outfalls?
Environmental Impact Reports (EIA)
- Please provide copies (or links) to any EIA or resource consent assessments that specifically evaluate:
- The fate of H₂SiF₆ discharged to coastal waters,
- Potential re-precipitation or particulate formation,
- Bioaccumulation in shellfish and fish, and
- Ecotoxicity in the marine environment.
Precautionary Burden
- Given the 100 km shellfish toxicity advisory now in place, the precautionary duty rests with Council to evidence safety rather than assume it.
For clarity, I attach a short science brief outlining the chemical differences, and a decision flowchart showing the simple path:
- If EIAs exist → publish them for public review.
- If no EIAs exist → suspend fluoridation until they are lawfully completed.
Respectfully,
Ian Stephenson
Citizen of Tauranga / Candidate for Mayor 2028
Included: science brief: Fertiliser vs. Fluoride Waste
- Fertiliser (Parent Product)
- Phosphate fertiliser runoff is well-documented to cause algal blooms.
- Mechanism: excess nitrogen & phosphorus → nutrient loading → explosive algal growth.
- Bay of Plenty has records of this for decades.
- Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (Waste Product)
- By-product captured from the same fertiliser industry flue gases.
- Classified as more toxic than fertiliser (HSNO: corrosive, environmental hazard).
- Contains arsenic, lead, radionuclides.
- Dumped directly into drinking water → then into wastewater → then the sea.
- The Contradiction
- Officials say:
- Fertiliser pollution → yes, causes blooms.
- Fluoride waste (from the same parent stream) → impossible to cause harm.
That’s illogical. If the “parent” (fertiliser) is acknowledged as a pollutant, then its waste fraction (H₂SiF₆), being more toxic, must be subject to equal or greater environmental concern. - The Core Question
- If fertiliser runoff is accepted as the driver of algal blooms, why is the toxic waste product from fertiliser manufacture assumed harmless?
- Where is the comparative science?
- Where are the environmental impact reports?
- If none exist → the precautionary principle demands suspension.
https://www.fixtheworld.club/stripe-checkout/checkout.html
Comments
Post a Comment