Water Treatment With Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity +

Two chemicals H2SiF6 and Na2SiF6, jointly called “silicofluorides”
are used to treat public water supplies of 140 million Americans even
though, the EPA has admitted, they have never been tested for safety.



Roger D. Masters – Research Professor

-Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government, Emeritus Dartmouth College


Toxic metals like lead, manganese, copper and cadmium damage neurons
and deregulate neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine
which are essential to normal impulse control and learning.

Earlier studies show that — controlling for socio-economic and demographic factors — environmental pollution with lead is a highly significant risk factor in predicting higher rates of crime, attention deficit disorder or hyperactivity, and learning disabilities.

Exposure and uptake of lead has been associated with industrial pollution, leaded paint and plumbing systems in old housing, lead residues in soil, dietary habits (such as shortages of calcium and iron), and demographic factors (such as poverty, stress, and minority ethnicity). We report here on an additional “risk co-factor” making lead and other toxic metals in the environment more dangerous to local residents: the use of silicofluorides as agents in water treatment. The two chemicals in question — fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride — are toxins that, despite claims to the contrary, do not dissociate completely and change water chemistry when used under normal water treatment practices. As a result, water treatment with siliconfluorides apparently functions to increase the cellular uptake of lead. Data from lead screening of over 280,000 children in Massachusetts indicates that silicofluoride usage is associated with significant increases in average lead in children’s blood as well as percentage of children with blood lead in excess of 10μg/dL. Consistent with the hypothesized role of silicofluorides as enhancing uptake of lead whatever the source of exposure, children are especially at risk for higher blood lead in those communities with more old housing or lead in excess of 15 ppb in first draw water samples where silicofluorides are also in use. Preliminary findings from county-level data in Georgia confirm that silicofluoride usage is associated with higher levels of lead in children’s blood. In both Massachusetts and Georgia, moreover, behaviors associated with lead nurotoxicity are more frequent in communities using silicofluorides than in comparable localities that do not use these chemicals. Because there has been insufficient animal or human testing of silicofluoride treated water, further study of the effect of silicofluorides is needed to clarify the extent to which these chemicals are risk co-factors for lead uptake and the hazardous effects it produces.

Keywords: Lead; toxicity; pollution; children’s health; public water supplies


A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates
(Westport: Praeger, 2003), pp. 23-56.


It is impossible to deny that a revolution in neuroscience and other areas of biology has taken place over the last half-century.  The  estimates of 83 million Americans taking drugs like Prozac for depression and 11 million children on Ritalin for hyperactivity indicate it is time to reconsider the role of brain chemistry in social behavior and violent behavior.  Since it is obvious that loss of impulse control can contribute to violent outbursts – and evidence shows that some toxic chemicals (such as lead) can have this effect, it is time to consider neuroscientific evidence linking environmental toxins and rates of violent behavior.  To illustrate the implications of the new issues involved, I focus on a hitherto unexplored example.  Two chemicals (H2SiF6 and Na2SiF6, jointly called “silicofluorides” or SiFs) are used to treat public water supplies of 140 million Americans even though, as the EPA has admitted, they never been tested for safety.  To illustrate the interdisciplinary complexities entailed when linking brain chemistry to policy decisions concerning violent crime, our argument has four main stages: first, why might SiFs be dangerous? Second, what biochemical effects of SiF could have toxic consequences for humans?  Third, on this basis a research hypothesis is formulated to measure the types of harm.  In this case, we predict children in communities using SiF should have increased uptake of lead from environmental sources and higher rates of behavioral dysfunctions such as hyperactivity (ADHD) known to be caused by lead neurotoxicity.  Finally, the hypothesis is tested using multiple sources of data including rates of violent crime studied using a variety of multivariate statistical techniques (including analysis of variance, multiple regression, and stepwise regression).  As this outline should make clear, a combination of interdisciplinary perspectives and great prudence is needed to link research in neuroscience to policies concerning violent crime,  If confirmed, however, the potential benefits of hypotheses like the one tested below may be great, revealing the generally unsuspected value of including neuroscientific research in the analysis of human social behavior.

Requests for reprints and correspondence should be directed to: Prof. Roger D. Masters, Department of Government, HB 6222, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. Email: Roger.D.Masters@Dartmouth.edu


The full version of the above is on the net,
and as the above suggests adding silicofluorides
to drinking water amounts to domestic terrorism.

Black Lines separate

see also: http://www.waterloowatch.com/hydrofluorosilicic%20acid.html

see also:  www.navigatingtheaether.com/…/the-dangers-of-fluoride-conspiracy..