The History of Water Fluoridation, Part Two |
Is it true that the fluoride used for fluoridation is toxic waste from the phosphate fertiliser industry, collected from the factory chimneys?
BFS suggested answer
It is not true. Fluoride used for water fluoridation is manufactured to very high quality standards which are set by the Department of Environment.
Two compounds of fluoride are permitted for artificial fluoridation in the UK: fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), and sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6). These compounds are manufactured to exacting quality standards, and must meet Department of Environment purity specifications.
BFS suggested answer refuted
In regard to the use of fluosilicic [fluorosilicic] acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to the communities.
Official US EPA policy, 1983
The marketing of fluoride in the USA continued apace as fluoride waste was produced in ever greater quantities. In a 1983 letter from the Environmental Protection Agency, then deputy assistant administrator in the Office for Water, Rebecca Hamner, wrote the quotation above.1 She aims to reduce (air) pollution by increasing (water) pollution!
Today, about 130 million Americans in 9,600 communities drink fluoridated water.2 But the fluoridation agent is no longer sodium fluoride. That became too expensive when a cheaper source of fluoride was found.
Fertiliser industries’ waste replaces metal industries’ waste
The aluminium industry was not the only industry with concerns about how to minimise the cost of getting rid of their toxic fluoride wastes. In the 1940s the Blockson Chemical Company of Joliet, Illinois, sponsored a year-long survey ‘to develop new uses for sodium fluosilicate’, the waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry.3 Almost all of the sodium fluorosilicate produced today is a by-product of the phosphate industry and is derived from the calcium fluoride and fluorapatite in phosphate rock.
In 1931 Frank McClure wrote a PhD thesis about the toxic effects of fluoride contained in rock phosphate.4 In 1943 he wrote again of fluoride’s toxicity: ‘The production of endemic dental fluorosis in human beings by fluoride in drinking water is an outstanding example of the toxic effect of an excessive intake of the element.’5 Despite this, in 1950 McClure looked at the possibility of using sodium fluorosilicate in place of sodium fluoride for water fluoridation.6
Certainly, other chemicals were needed if fluoridation of the USA was to be continued and extended. Sodium fluoride was becoming scarce. Sodium fluorosilicate looked like the answer. However, its production too needed to be stepped up if fluoridation was to expand. In August 1951 the American Office of Price Stabilization granted higher price ceilings to manufacturers of sodium silicofluoride to promote its manufacture and add impetus to the fluoridation programme.7
In the USA today, practically all of the fluorosilicates used for water fluoridation come from the phosphate fertiliser industry in Florida.
The origins of the product
During the process of manufacturing phosphoric acid from phosphate-rich rock, several chemicals are added, and inherent toxic contaminants common in phosphate rock are boiled off. These vapours are classified as ‘hazardous air pollutants’. Their release into the atmosphere is prohibited. Thus, chimneys of phosphate plants are fitted with ‘scrubbers’ to wash the emitted gases and capture these pollutant chemicals. The scrubbing process removes not just the fluorides but all pollutants, including pollution from tank farms and other processes. The more efficient the scrubbing operation, the more contaminants will be concentrated in the scrubber liquor. The resultant pollution is a toxic liquid that contains a mixture of all the chemicals scrubbed from the waste gases.
Phosphoric acid reaction vessels are made of the alloy Hastelloy G-30. These vessels are corroded by the presence of fluorides and chlorides in the phosphoric acid and last on average three years. The metals from Hastelloy G-30, which include cancer-causing nickel and beryllium, are also present in the fluorosilicic acid as metal-complexed fluorosilicates.
Sulphuric acid is produced at these facilities, and the spent vanadium pentoxide catalyst, production sludge and waste water are dumped into the evaporation (settling) ponds, the catch-all for almost all toxic wastes. Radioactive scale from reaction vessels and filters, phosphoric acid sludges, radioactive fluorosilicates chipped from scrubbing pads and chambers, and general toxic wastes are also tossed into the mix.
To make matters worse, evaporation-pond water is always used in the pollution scrubbers because there are strict regulations regarding fresh water usage in Florida. Most of the waste water, sludges and waste chemicals from the analytical laboratories are dumped into the evaporation ponds, which are reused in the production of fluorosilicic acid for water fluoridation.
By now it should be evident that we are not dealing with a simple, pure, reagent-grade fluorosilicic acid purchased from a chemical supply house, as the BFS would have us believe. Even if the product had no fluorides present, it would be dangerous to put in the water, but with the complex chemical reactions and possible reactions with both organic and inorganic compounds, the fluoridating product is potentially extremely toxic.
The most frightening aspect is that no two batches are the same, and the toxic effects can vary from batch to batch. There will also be a variance from company to company supplying the product, because of the types and grades of chemicals, quality of the phosphate rock, processes and kind of solvent extraction method used to produce phosphoric acid.
Do they think we’re stupid?
In 2000, Jane Jones, campaign director of the National Pure Water Association, attempted to find safety test data – any evidence at all – that would support the safety of the fluorosilicate products. She wrote repeatedly to dental spokespersons in the USA and the World Health Organization, and to US fluoridation engineers. Not one could quote a single study in its support. In fact, they refused to answer. There can be no doubt that there is something decidedly fishy about this product.
Jane Jones’s requests for safety data and George Glasser’s articles really hit a nerve: there was a great deal of consternation in the pro-fluoride camp, particularly about the use of the term ‘pollution scrubbers’. During a bitterly fought campaign to prevent fluoridation in Wellington, Florida, the Palm Beach County dental director, Robert Dumbaugh, wrote to the director of environmental health, Frank Gargiulo, seeking help:8
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 fluorosilicic acid, and speak to the safety issue.
Thanks
Bob
For the next couple of months e-mails hurtled through the ether asking if anyone could come up with a solution and a counter to the derogatory term ‘pollution scrubber’. Not an easy task when you consider that ‘pollution scrubber’ is the exact phrase the industry gives to the process used to remove fluoride pollution. How could the champions of fluoride refute it?
Well, it seems ‘pollution’ isn’t pollution if it doesn’t reach the environment (mind you, it does reach the environment when it is put in tap water, but let’s disregard that for now). As the scrubbers stop the silicofluorides from being vented to the atmosphere, these silicofluorides are no longer ‘pollution’.
Distinguished EPA scientist Dr William Hirzy, as previously noted, poured scorn on this obvious attempt to manipulate the facts, saying: ‘[I]f this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing!’9
Now, the pro-fluoride camp had to get rid of that other obnoxious word ‘scrubber’. The following e-mail from Tom Reeves, national fluoridation engineer, USPHS, was sent to explain how it could be done:
Hi Folks,
There is a small point of correction I would like to make about the production of the fluorosilicic acid. 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.
As most of you know, the apatite rock is ground up and treated with sulfuric acid, forming a gas by-product. The fluorosilicic acid is evaporated off the phosphoric acid and captured as fluorosilicic acid using fresh water and is condensed into a lined recycle system. These units are called product recovery units. The fluorosilicic acid does not come from pollution scrubbers and is not vented into the air. Pollution scrubbers usually do not use fresh, very clean, water. 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.
I have said for many years that the impurities in the apatite is [sic] lead, arsenic and zinc. Chuck Krepshaw of Cargill Fertilizer Inc., the producer of about 70–75% of the F chemicals used in the US, tells me now that in the newer vein of apatite rock, the impurities are very small amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury and barium. Of course when diluted into water, contain amounts that would all be much less than a part per billion, and in most cases, would be undetectable in fluoridated water without the use of highly specialized equipment.
I hope this clarifies this issue.
TOM
And with that sorted out, ‘toxic waste’ could become ‘beneficial nutrient’.
Conclusion
The products used for water fluoridation for decades are waste from the manufacture of phosphate fertiliser. They are a ‘soup’ of impurities on which no safety testing has ever been done. Scientists have drawn attention to the fact that the only other place this fluorosilicic acid can legally be disposed of is in a hazardous waste facility.
Vendors selling the pollution concentrate as a fluoridation agent use a broad disclaimer found on the Material Data Safety Sheet:
[N]o responsibility can be assumed by vendor for any damage or injury resulting from abnormal use, from any failure to adhere to recommended practices, or from any hazards inherent to the product. [Emphasis added]
In other words, you drink fluoridated water at your own risk.
1.Rebecca Hanmer, deputy administrator, Office of Water, US EPA. Correspondence with Dr Leslie Russell stating US EPA position on water fluoridation, 1983. Quoted in Glasser G. Fluoride in the drinking water: It’s pollution, stupid! 1 February 2000. http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/pollution.htm.
2.Hileman B. Fluoridation of Water. Chem Eng News 1988; 29; Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. Recent trends in dental caries in US children and the effect of water fluoridation. J Dent Res. 1990; 69: 723–7.
3.Hampel CA. Sodium fluosilicate – a neglected chemical. Chem Eng News 1949; 27: 2420.
4.McClure FJ, Mitchell HH. The effect of fluorine on the calcium metabolism of albino rats and the compostion of the bones. J Biol Chem 1931; 90: 297–320.
5.McClure FJ. Ingestion of fluoride and dental caries – quantitative relations based on food and water requirements of children 1 to 12 years old. Am J Dis Child 1943; 66: 362.
6.McClure FJ. Availability of fluorine in sodium fluoride vs. sodium fluosilicate. Public Health Rep 1950; 65: 1175.
7.Water fluoridation. J Am Dent Assoc 1951; 43: 499–500.
8.Glasser G. Fluoridation findings set teeth gnashing. http://www.npa.freeserve.co.uk/pants_down_comments.html.
9.Hirzy JW. Video interview with Michael Connett. 3 July 2000. Unpublished.