Toxicological Reports Missing?
Toxicological Reports Missing?
Gary O, Pittman—an insider's report. Part 1
Gary O. Pittman, of Jennings, Florida in 1998 addressed production of fluorosilicic acid (FSA) and sodium fluorosilicate (SFS) in a letter to his Congressmen and Senators:
“I worked in about every position and in every aspect of production from the analytical laboratory to pilot experimental projects, and my last position was supervising one-third of the Occidental Swift Creek Chemical Complex. I can assure you the FSA and SFS used to fluoridate drinking water contains much more than “fluoride” as EPA/CDC would have you believe...”
Multiple illnesses disabled Mr. Pittman and coworkers at a Florida phosphate producing complex. ”Toxic brain syndrome and heart problems seem to be the most common problems among the workers. Hamilton County also has the highest rate of cancer in Florida due to pollution from phosphoric acid manufacturing”.
“Over 50% of the communities in the United States use fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) or sodium fluorosilicate (NaSiF6) to fluoridate drinking water. Neither USEPA nor U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can provide one safety study proving the product is safe for long-term, low level consumption. Not one clinical study with animal models has ever been done with the products..”
“Both fluorosilicic acid (FSA) and sodium fluorosilicate (SFS) are derived from pollution scrubbing operations from phosphoric acid production. The pollution scrubber liquor is a unique product derived from a specific process with unique toxicological characteristics. The presence of chlorides, amines, diesel fuel, kerosene, sulfides, reagents, metals (including arsenic, lead, aluminum, uranium-238 and its decay rate products, etc., phosphorus and other toxic reactants create a specific product in which FSA is the active ingredient. FSA only comprises about 23% of the total pollution concentrate. It is a highly corrosive acid which can react with most organic and inorganic substances to form many different complexes and possibly very toxic fluorides. I state again, not one safety study has been done with these particular products...”
Testing is carried out by direction of industry stakeholders, the National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF). Specific test results are trade secrets. Although many batches of fluoridation liquor may be produced, only one batch per year per manufacturer is required to be tested. Test requirements include toxicologic reports. THESE ARE MISSING. Stan Hazen. Executive Director for the Center for Public Health Education of NSF testified under oath in 2004 that required toxicologic tests were not being submitted. NO ONE, not even our State Department of Health has the results of required tests. Port Angeles' supplier of FSA sent a safety data sheet dated March 2, 2014 which states: “To the best of our knowledge, the chemical, physical, and toxicologic properties have not been thoroughly tested.”
A challenge to fluoridation advocates: Please supply a listing of all toxic ingredients and their amounts in the fluoridation liquor currently being added to our drinking water.
If you do not know what is in the fluoridation mixture how can you tell us it is safe?
Gary O, Pittman—an insider's report. Part 2
Gary O. Pittman of Jennings, Florida spent 21 years working for a phosphate manufacturing plant which also produced the type of fluorosilicic acid (FSA) added to Port Angeles' 'drinking water. I quote from a letter Mr. Pittman wrote in 1998 to his Federal representatives and senators.
“There are many factors involved in the creation of the FSA. ...Other chemicals are added such as oil based defoamers (possibly containing dioxins), polymers, petroleum products, naphthalene, chlorides, sulfides, Synspar and various reagents. During the phosphoric acid concentration processes, these added chemicals and inherent toxic contaminants common in phosphate rock are boiled off the acid in a partial vacuum at very high temperatures, about 500 degrees F .The vapors from all these chemicals are washed and captured in the pollution scrubbers along with the fluorine and fluorosilicate gases.”
“Although it is more convenient for scientists to believe the pollution scrubbing is discriminant, it is not. One scrubber catches all, including pollution from tank farms and other processes. Also the more efficient the scrubbing operation the more pollutants will be concentrated in the scrubber liquor”.
“Phosphoric acid reaction vessels are made of the alloy, Hastelloy G-30. The Hastelloy G 30 vessels only last for about three years...The vessels are corroded beyond use by the presence of fluorides and chlorides in the phosphoric acid. The metals from Hastelloy G-30 (nickel, beryllium, etc.) are also present in the FSA as metal complexed fluorosilicates.”
“At this point, I believe it is evident that we are not dealing with a simple, pure, reagent grade SFA/SFS purchased from the chemical supply house as most researchers/chemists find it convenient to believe and predicate their hypotheses and research upon. If the captured pollution 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, FSA/SFS are very dangerous and carcinogenic/neurotoxic, as I well know.”.
“The most frightening aspect is that no two batches are the same, and the toxic effects can vary from batch to batch. There would also be a variance from company to company supplying the product..”
As noted in Part 1 of this report testing is carried out by direction of industry stakeholders, the National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF). Specific test results are trade secrets. Although many batches of fluoridation liquor may be produced by a manufacturer, only one batch per year per manufacturer is required to be tested. Test requirements include toxicological reports. THESE ARE MISSING. Even State Health Department does not have them.
The vendor of Port Angeles' fluoride has placed on his March, 2014 safety data sheet:, “To the best of our knowledge the chemical, physical, and toxicologic properties have not been thoroughly investigated”.
County Health Officer Locke told City Council on November 18; “...there are purity standards for all water treatment additives, including what’s used in community water systems and these are highly protective standards.” How can protection be assured given the above?