Fluoridation chemicals are the major source of ingested fluoride in the U.S., contributing over 50% of total daily intake at all ages due to the widespread practice of water fluoridation.
The fluoride added to municipal tap water systems most often comes in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid (HFSA), a hazardous waste byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production. HFSA is almost always used in large cities that fluoridate their water supplies. In smaller communities, sodium fluoride or sodium fluorosilicate may be used as the fluoridating agent.
Unlike the fluoride compounds found in toothpaste or supplements, fluoridation chemicals are not pharmaceutical grade quality. They are, instead, unpurified industrial by-products that are collected in the air pollution control systems of certain industries.
Due to the lack of processing, these chemicals are known to contain elevated levels of certain contaminants, particularly arsenic. In addition, recent research — including both epidemiological and laboratory investigations — have detected associations between the fluoridation of water with fluorosilicic acid and elevated lead exposure, particularly those living in houses with old pipes.
Fluoridation chemicals can also greatly contribute to indirect exposures of fluoride, as processed foods and beverages made with fluoridated water in fluoridated communities often make their way into the supply chains of un-fluoridated communities. This mechanism of indirect exposure is called the halo effect.
Our video “Fluoride Fundamentals #4: Sources of Fluoride” explains where the added fluoride in our water comes from:
The Industrial Sources of Fluoridation Chemicals
Until recently, all fluoridation chemicals were obtained from the wet scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry in central Florida.
In recent years, however, an increasing number of water departments have begun purchasing their fluoride chemicals from China. Based on recent incidents, it appears that the quality control of the Chinese chemicals is even more lax, and variable, than the U.S.-produced chemicals.
In the process of converting phosphate rock into soluble fertilizer, two very toxic fluoride gases are released: hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride. In the past, the phosphate industry used to let these two gases vent freely into the atmosphere. This, however, caused severe environmental damage among downwind communities, including widespread cattle poisonings, scorched vegetation, and various human health complaints.
Eventually, as a result of both litigation and regulation, the phosphate industry installed “wet scrubbers” to trap the fluoride gases. The collected liquid in these scrubbers (hydrofluoroslicic acid) is entered into storage tanks and shipped to water departments throughout the country. In 1983, an official at the Environmental Protection Agency stated the agency’s support for this process:
“In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as the source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.”
Others at EPA, however, have voiced their objections to this process. In 2000, Dr. William Hirzy, the senior vice president of EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists and Professionals, stated:
‘”If 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 into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant… There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.”
We interviewed Gary O. Pittman on the connection between the phosphate industry and the fluoride chemicals that are added to drinking water in the United States:
Chinese Industries
It is becoming increasingly common for U.S. water departments to purchase their fluoride chemicals from China. While little appears to be known about the source of these chemicals, recent incidents indicate that the contents of these chemicals can vary quite dramatically.
It was recently reported, for example, that a number of water plants using Chinese fluoridation chemicals were noticing a “mysterious residue” in the treated water. Although the CDC issued public assurances about the safety of these chemicals, it remains unclear exactly why, and how often, this problem occurs.
Arsenic Contamination
After being captured in the scrubbing system, the fluorosilicic acid is either shipped as is (an acidic liquid), or is converted into dry powders (sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride). Whether shipped in its original liquid form, or converted into powder, the fluorosilicic acid does not undergo purification procedures. As a result, fluorosilicic acid has been found to contain various contaminants, particularly arsenic.
The level of arsenic found in fluoridation chemicals is not trivial. According to a review in the American Water Works Association’s publication Opflow, the amount of arsenic that fluoridation adds to finished water “is hardly a minimal amount.”
The arsenic problem is unique to fluoridation chemicals as no other water treatment chemical has a problem with arsenic contamination. As demonstrated in the Opflow review, “about 90 percent of the arsenic . . . contributed by treatment chemicals is attributable to fluoride addition.”
So, how much arsenic do fluoridation chemicals contain? It depends on who you ask, and when you ask them.
The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), tasked with certifying fluoridation chemicals as safe, does not vouch for the safety of fluoridation chemicals because it has not conducted its own risk assessment on fluoride.
Silicofluorides and Lead
In addition to containing contaminants, such as arsenic, recent research suggests that fluoridation chemicals may be leaching lead out of pipes. Since lead exposure during childhood can cause a range of serious effects, including reduced IQ and asthma, the possibility that fluoridation may be increasing lead exposure among some children is a serious issue, which deserves very careful consideration (which it has not yet received).
BIG NEWS - Today, NTP authors published a new article in JAMA Pediatrics detailing their report released in Aug 2024 that concluded fluoride can lower the IQ of children. Today’s article goes further, showing fluoride lowers child IQ at exposures seen in fluoridated communities.
FAN’s Executive Director Stuart Cooper said, “The authors combined information from multiple studies to get a more reliable view of the total evidence that isn’t skewed by just one or two outlier studies. This approach is called meta-analysis.
Out of 59 studies, 52 linked higher fluoride levels with lower IQ. The average loss was 7 points.
Reduced IQ was also found in meta-analyses that combined seven high-quality studies having exposures below 1.5 milligrams fluoride per liter of water (mg/L), the range directly relevant to fluoridated areas.
The authors emphasized the finding’s ‘consistency’ and ‘robustness.’
This report gives ammunition to the scores of cities around the country now considering stopping fluoridation.”
Chris Neurath, FAN’s Science Director, emphasized, “The report also found a clear trend between studies, with IQ losses increasing as study fluoride levels increased. This dose-response relationship strengthens the NTP’s conclusion that the effect is real and not an artifact of confounding factors or chance.”
Neurath described what he considers another key finding that “deals a blow to claims by fluoridation defenders that loss of IQ has only been found in studies with exposures twice as high as in the US. Artificial fluoridation in the US has a target concentration of 0.7 mg/L.
The report’s dose-response analyses had studies with concentrations as low as 0.3 mg/L finding loss of IQ. Seven studies had concentrations below 1.5 mg/L and an average IQ loss of about 3 points.
2. A study of two towns in Finland that ended fluoridation found that over the next 6 years, decay rates in children either declined or remained the same after discontinuing the practice.
Big moment from our #fluoridelawsuit. World-renowned environmental epidemiologist Dr. Philip Grandjean testified at trial that he was bullied by colleagues and higher ups at his university, Harvard, to retract his 2012 conclusions of #neurotoxicity from #fluoride exposure.
2 “Well if you want the whole story, I was asked to meet with a professor from Harvard’s Dental School. He came to my office and essentially threatened me. He said I was endangering public health, and he demanded that I issue a statement similar to what you’re talking about now.”
3 “When I said that I would think it over, he went to the Dean’s of the medical school, the dental school, and the school of public health -that is my boss - without telling me, and the Dean’s did not know what was going on. They were just asked to sign a statement saying…”
Here is just some of the published science linking fluoridation to harm:
(Malin, 2018) published in Environment International, researchers reported that exposure to fluoridated water coupled with iodine deficiency in women is linked to hypothyroidism: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30316182/
Peckham, 2015, published in Epidemiology and Community Health found similar results linking fluoridation to hypothyroidism in the UK: jech.bmj.com/content/69/7/6…
(Green, 2019) published in JAMA Pediatrics. It reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31424532/