The Solution, Can Tauranga City Council Handle The Truth?
This email and references were sent to all concilors of the TCC at 8:00 am 29/08/2023.
<Previous Thread
Dear Tauranga City Council
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 fertiliser 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.”
Draft Structure: Analysis Paper on Fluorosilicic Acid and NZ Drinking-Water Standards
Title
“Fluorosilicic Acid in New Zealand’s Drinking Water Standards: A Health and Safety Blind Spot”
Abstract
A concise 200-word summary of findings:
-
NZ’s DWSNZ evaluates fluoride at the ion level only, ignoring the properties of fluorosilicic acid (FSA).
-
FSA is highly corrosive and acutely toxic, posing major occupational risks.
-
Chronic public exposure risks are not directly assessed.
-
Regulatory framework assumes safety through ion equivalence, leaving a blind spot in risk assessment.
-
Implications: urgent need for transparent reassessment and independent review.
Introduction
-
Context: Taumata Arowai, DWSNZ, and their role.
-
Fluoridation policy background in NZ.
-
Distinction between naturally occurring fluoride and industrial fluorosilicic acid.
Methods (Our Approach)
-
Reviewed Taumata Arowai datasheets, Draft Standards, and WHO/DWSNZ MAVs.
-
Compared with international SDS data (Simplot, Redox, USEPA).
-
Analysed health and safety implications for both workers and consumers.
Findings
1. Chemical Identity & Handling Hazards
-
FSA as fertilizer by-product, hydrolyses to HF and fluoride.
-
Severe corrosivity, metal degradation, HF vapour risks.
2. Regulatory Assessment Gap
-
MAV only applies to fluoride ion (1.5 mg/L)
-
No MAV or guideline for FSA itself.
-
Standards explicitly disclaim responsibility for fluoride as a nutrient
3. Occupational Risk
-
Concentrated FSA poses acute dangers to plant operators.
-
SDS warnings (skin burns, eye damage, HF toxicity).
4. Public Health Risk
-
Narrow safety margin between dental benefit and fluorosis.
-
No monitoring for by-products, impurities, or incomplete hydrolysis.
-
At-risk groups: children, high-water consumers, kidney patients.
Discussion
-
Why treating FSA as equivalent to fluoride ion is scientifically inadequate.
-
Implications for public health trust and regulatory accountability.
-
Ethical concerns: water supplies as delivery systems for an industrial by-product.
Conclusion
Fluorosilicic acid in drinking water is a regulatory blind spot. The failure to evaluate the parent chemical’s unique toxicology undermines claims of safety. Independent review is urgently needed before continuing fluoridation practices.
References
-
DWSNZ Draft Standards
International Safety Data Sheets (Redox, Simplot, USEPA).
-
WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.
Comments
Post a Comment