This blog is a inverse of events. The latest findings will be a t the top.
COMMUNITY WARNING!!!
Dear Ian
RE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION REQUEST – NOTIFICATION OF TRANSFER - LGOIMA Reference FLOW-738
We refer to your request for information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) regarding fluoride which was received by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Council) on 31 August 2025 and acknowledged by Council on 1 September 2025.
We have now considered your request and advise that we have partially transferred the Request to Tauranga City Council. The part of your request that we have transferred is;
“Request for Information
Ingredient Distinction
- Can you confirm that the chemical used in Tauranga’s water supply is fluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆), an industrial by-product, and not medical/pharmaceutical-grade fluoride (sodium fluoride or calcium fluoride)?”
The request has been partially transferred on the grounds that it relates to information not held by us but is believed to be held by Tauranga City Council. In these circumstances, we are required by section 12 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to transfer your request.
We will continue to make a decision on your remaining Request and communicate that decision to you by Friday 26 September 2025.
Please note that you have the right to lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman under section 27(3) of the Act. The Ombudsman’s Office can be contacted by calling 0800 802 602, emailing info@ombudsman.parliament.nz or online at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.
Our LGOIMA responses may be published on the Council website. If we do this, we will not publish the requester’s personal or contact details. Please contact us if you have any concerns.
If you contact the Council about this request, please quote the BOPRC reference number above.
Yours sincerely
Rob Donald
Science Manager
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Toi Moana
29 Aug 2025 - 10:18
Ian Stephenson <ianstephenson117@gmail.com>
Fri 29 Aug, 10:18 (4 days ago)
to NeilShaw, Rob, nic.johansson, bcc: merakss, bcc: Cr, bcc: Cr
DATE: 29-08-2025
Kia ora Neil,
Thank you for your response regarding Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). For clarity, I would like to formally request the following information:
Organisational Role
Please provide a summary of Taumata Arowai’s statutory role and responsibilities with respect to setting and enforcing drinking-water standards in New Zealand.
Responsibility for EIRs
You advised that Taumata Arowai does not hold Environmental Impact Reports and that responsibility lies with Tauranga District Council.
Please confirm this position in writing, including any legislation, regulations, or policy guidance that outlines why EIR responsibility rests with local councils rather than Taumata Arowai.
Fluoride Compounds
In the Drinking-water Standards and related health studies, “fluoride” is referenced in the context of maximum acceptable values (MAVs).
Please clarify:
a) Whether these MAVs are based on studies of naturally occurring fluoride (eg, calcium fluoride).
b) Whether the compounds actually used in water fluoridation (eg, fluorosilicic acid) have been independently assessed by Taumata Arowai for safety, or whether they are assumed to be equivalent to naturally occurring fluoride.
I look forward to your response within the standard timeframe under the Official Information Act (or relevant provisions).
Nāku noa, nā
Ian Stephenson
Citizen of Tauranga / Candidate for Mayor 2028
PS: I am including Rob Donald and Nic Johansson of The Tauranga City Council into this email because if what you are saying is correct, then these officials need to be aware of the responsibility to provide the EIR. Other stakeholders will receive this correspondence
Nic Johansson
Acting GM: City Waters, Transportation, and Major Transport Projects
From: ianstephenson117@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 7:58 AM
To: marty.grenfell@tauranga.govt.
Subject: SOLUTION: Flouride Is Good, But You Are Not Putting Fluoride In Our Water
At 10:00 today the deadline for providing your Environmental Impact Report expires.
Point One
We already know you cannot produce one. No report could ever show fluorosilicic acid to be safe.
Point Two
Why? Because fluorosilicic acid is not fluoride. They are completely different compounds.
To confuse them is like saying Coca-Cola is the same as milk. One is a nutrient, the other is a toxin.
Point Three
Every one of the 24 reports cited by the MOH, The WHO and others is about naturally occurring fluoride — the mineral, the 13th most abundant element in nature.
Yes, trace fluoride strengthens teeth and bone. Not one of those studies evaluates fluorosilicic acid, a fertilizer waste product classified as a hazard
Point Four
That mistake is not all yours. Consultants failed you. Suppliers failed you. Even your Science Manager confused the terms.
The Ministry of Health failed to check what was actually being dosed.
Point Five
But now you have a choice. You can lead. You can announce today that Tauranga will correct the error:
“Fluorosilicic acid is not fluoride.”
“We will pause, review, and protect our community.”
That would protect 160,000 citizens, our foreshore and seabed, and most of all, our mokopuna, who rely 100% on clean fluids as they develop.
At 10:00, silence will speak volumes. But a public correction today would make Tauranga the first council in New Zealand — perhaps the world — to put science, common sense, and community first.
Respectfully,
References:
1: Study Disconnect Summary – Fluoride vs Fluorosilicic Acid
2: How Did The Toxin Fluorosilicic Acid Get Incorrectly Labeled as Fluoride?
1: Study Disconnect Summary – Fluoride vs Fluorosilicic Acid
What the evidence says
24 international reports (WHO, CDC, NZ Ministry of Health, ADA, etc.) all reference fluoride improving tooth health and bone density.
The compounds studied are:
Natural calcium fluoride (CaF₂) in groundwater.
Sodium fluoride (NaF) – pharmaceutical grade.
Benefits claimed: reduction in dental caries, some evidence of bone strengthening.
What Tauranga is actually dosing
Hexafluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) – an industrial fertilizer by-product, classified as a hazardous substance under NZ Environmental Protection Authority rules.
Not one of the 24 reports evaluated H₂SiF₆ in drinking water.
The assumption that H₂SiF₆ = fluoride is a linguistic sleight of hand. They are different compounds.
Why this matters
Using H₂SiF₆ in place of fluoride invalidates all the studies cited as proof of safety or benefit.
Babies, children, elders, and the environment are being exposed to an untested industrial waste product, not the fluoride studied in health reports.
Continuing without a proper Environmental Impact Report or compound-specific toxicology is indefensible.
1: The Source of the Substance
Fluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) is an industrial waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
It’s captured from the scrubbing systems of fertilizer plants (otherwise it would be vented into the air as pollution).
2. The Semantic Switch
In water treatment policy, anything that contains the fluoride ion (F⁻) was labelled “fluoride.”
Bureaucrats and lobbyists began calling fluorosilicic acid simply “fluoride”, because when it dissolves, it releases fluoride ions into water.
This let them argue: “It’s just fluoride, same as the mineral in nature”.
3. Why That’s Misleading
Naturally occurring fluoride mineral (calcium fluoride) is stable, found in rocks, and occurs at low concentrations in groundwater.
Fluorosilicic acid is highly toxic, corrosive, unstable, and brings with it heavy metals (arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium) from fertilizer production.
No major health study proving safety was ever run on fluorosilicic acid itself — only on fluoride minerals.
4. How It Became Institutionalized
By the mid-20th century, US public health agencies (CDC, USPHS) and later the WHO promoted “community water fluoridation.”
Industry seized the opportunity: fertilizer waste could be sold to councils instead of paying millions to dispose of it.
Over decades, the chemical name “fluorosilicic acid” disappeared into policy language, replaced by the shorthand “fluoride.”
Subject: Formal Demand: Environmental Impact Reports on Fluoridation – Child Abuse & Neglect Liability - Public Record
- Resource Management Act 1991 – Section 15 prohibits discharge of contaminants into water, land, or air without lawful consent.
- Health Act 1956 – Councils have a duty to protect public health, not expose citizens to toxins.
- Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 11 – Protects the right to refuse medical treatment; compulsory fluoridation removes this right.
- Treaty of Waitangi, Article II – Active protection of taonga, including clean water and kaimoana, is required. Discharges that disproportionately harm Māori communities are a direct breach.
- Environment – Land and Sea: contamination of rivers, aquifers, and coastal ecosystems.
- Human Food Production: uptake into crops, processed foods, and infant formula.
- Livestock Watering: accumulation in bone, milk, and meat.
- Direct Human Exposure: absorption through showers, baths, and swimming pools.
- Infant Risk – Child Abuse & Neglect Liability
- Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 defines child abuse as “the harming (whether physically, emotionally, or sexually), ill-treatment, abuse, neglect, or deprivation of any child or young person.”
- Crimes Act 1961, Section 195 makes it an offence to “engage in conduct that causes harm to a child or vulnerable person.”
- Infants are 100% dependent on fluids for survival and development. Introducing H₂SiF₆ into the only available water supply means:
- Babies consume this toxin through formula, food preparation, and bathing.
- Mothers pass fluoride through breastmilk.
- This exposure is continuous and systemic.
- Without Environmental Impact Reports or infant-specific toxicology reports, Council’s actions may constitute:
- Child Abuse – knowingly exposing children to harm.
- Neglect – failure to provide safe conditions.
- Ongoing Endangerment – continuous, systemic exposure.
Formal Demand
- Copies of all Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) covering the four domains above.
- If no such reports exist, explicit confirmation of their absence.
- You have 24 hours from receipt of this communication to comply. (10:00 28/08/2025 to 10:00 29/08/2025)*
- Failure to respond will be taken as acknowledgement that no Environmental Impact Reports exist. This conclusion will be tabled publicly, and further legal and civic action will proceed on the basis that Tauranga City Council is operating outside lawful obligations and may be exposing children to harm under the Crimes Act 1961.
Subject: Clarification on Fluoride Compounds and Environmental Evidence
science brief: Fertiliser vs. Fluoride Waste
- Where is the comparative science?
- Where are the environmental impact reports?
- If none exist → the precautionary principle demands suspension.
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?
RE: Formal Notice: Urgent Action Required on Coastal Toxicity
Rob Donald <Rob.Donald@boprc.govt.nz>
27 Aug 2025, 10:28 (6 days ago)
to ianstephenson117@gmail.com
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
27 Aug 2025 - 10:28
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,
From: Ian Stephenson
Citizen of Tauranga
Candidate for Mayor 2028
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.”
The Weekend Sun - 15/08/2025
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.
Comments
Post a Comment