The fact that sodium fluoride would control certain
types of insects has been known for many years,
but all attempts to use it and other fluorine
compounds on plants failed because
of plant injury...




“Fluorine has played a significant role in insect control since about 1896 when
sodium fluoride and various iron fluorides were patented in England as insecticides.

   Sodium fluoride was used in the United States for cockroach control before 1900 and was introduced in 1915 for the control of poultry lice. However, the use of fluorine insecticides did not become general until the 1930´s when the disadvantages of arsenical residues on food crops became apparent and the inorganic fluorine compounds were introduced as “safer substitutes”.

Systematic investigation of organofluorine insecticides began about 1935 in the I. G. Farbenindustrie and the fluoroalcohols and fluorophosphates (phosphorofluoridates) were intensively investigated largely through the research of Schrader (1952). During World War II fluoro-DDT or “Gix” was used for the control of insects of medical importance. More recently, fluoroacetamide and analogues have been used as systemic insecticides and a large variety of other fluorinated organic compounds have shown insecticidal activity. Sulfuryl fluoride has recently been marketed as a fumigant for household and structural pests…”

Alvord and Dietz, of Grasselli Chemical Company, Cleveland, Ohio, point out certain problems with the use of soluble fluorides as insecticides (Ind. Eng. Chem. 25 (June 1933) 629-633):

“The fact that sodium fluoride would control certain types of insects had been known for many years, but all attempts to use it and other fluorine compounds on plants failed because of plant injury. Progress along the line of utilizing the fluorine compounds in this connection really began with the discovery by Roark that the relatively insoluble fluorides would not injure the foliage and would control certain insects. About the time of this discovery, the Grasselli Chemical Company began to experiment with barium fluosilicate. The development of this material was held back for several years because of plant injury following its use, and it was not until the discovery, quite by accident, that the injury was due to an unsuspected impurity and that the pure compound was in reality safe to most foliage, that rapid progress was made.”

S. Marcovitch gives some details as to how those fluoride insecticides work (Ind. Eng. Chem. 16 (1924) 1249):

“The value of sodium fluosilicate as an insecticide is due to the fact that it is both a contact and stomach poison. Shafer has determined that when a roach walks over powdered sodium fluoride a little of the powder adheres to the lower part of the body, antennae and tarsi of the feet, and dissolves in the exudations of the integument. This seems to cause some irritation and uneasiness; the insect soon begins to clean the moistened powder from the body by licking it. In doing this enough of the poison may be brought into the mouth and swallowed, to kill after a period varying in from five to ten days. Other insects, such as Mexican bean beetles, also have the habit of cleaning themselves and by putting their feet in their mouths become very easy to kill. For this reason the sodium fluosilicate is more effective against the adult beetles than the larvae, which do not have these habits.”

Because of such habits, toxicity to higher animals became of concern (Marcovitch S.: “The fluosilicates as insecticides”, Ind. Eng. Chem. 18 (June 1926) 572-573

The Patents:


Charles Henry HIGBEE, of New York City, N.Y., Manager of Manufacturing Company: “An improved composition or material for destroying insects”, British Patent GB 8236; filed April 18, 1896; pat. May 23, 1896. (“The compounds of fluorine which I employ for the purpose of destroying insects, are certain soluble ones, viz.: sodium fluoride, ferric fluoride, the silico-fluorides of the same bases, hydro-fluo-silicic acid, and the boro-fluo-silicates”, which the inventor claims to be less toxic for humans then many of the compounds then in use for the same purpose, i.e. “arsenic, copper, phosphorus, and the like”)


Karl Heinrich WOLMAN and Bernard DIAMAND, Idaweiche, Oberschlesien, Germany, assignors to Max Marschall, Nice-Cimiez, France: “Preserving composition for fibrous material”, US Patent 934,871; filed Nov. 6, 1906; granted Sept. 21, 1909  (uses “sodium fluorid” and “sodium silico-fluorid”. “We have also found that the salts of hydrofluoric acid and of silicofluoric acid both of which are weak, bactericidal acids when used in connection wioth a strong mineral acid, as above set forth, will produce good results …”)


Carleton ELLIS, assignor, by mesne assignments, to Chadeloid Chemical Company, of New York, N.Y.: “Insecticide”, US Patent 1,082,507; filed March 11, 1908; pat. Dec. 30, 1913 (“The composition comprises a solution of wax in carbon bisulfid, or similar penetrating organic liquid, emulsified with an aqueous solution, considerably thickened for the purpose of emulsification, and carrying in solution a powerful insecticide such as inorganic compounds like bichlorid of mercury and ammonium fluorid, or organic compounds like ammonium formate, etc.”)


Jacques WITTLIN, of Vienna, Austria-Hungary, assignor of one-half to Siegfried Schlewinger, of New York: “Antiseptic”, US Patent 1,044,840; filed Jan. 12, 1911; granted Nov. 19, 1912 (“… my present invention further contemplates the incorporation of ammonium fluorid or equivalent fluorin-containing salts or fluorin compounds in the preparation of the antiseptic, whereby the germicidal or disinfectant properties thereof are very materially increased.”)


Henry Edward Percy HUTCHINGS, of Barking Essex, UK: “Improvements in or relating to rat and other vermin poisons”, British Patent GB 187,424; filed Sept. 15, 1921; pat. Oct. 26, 1922  (a bait for the purpose of rat and mouse extermination, with additions of either sodium fluoride, barium carbonate, squill or oxalic acid, to serve as a basic poison)


Rurik C. ROARK, Baltimore, Md.: “Insecticide”, US Patent 1,524,884; filed Aug. 6, 1923; granted Feb. 3, 1925 (“The poisonous action of soluble fluorides is well known and has been utilized for the control of injurious insects. For example, sodium fluoride, a salt readily soluble in water, is a very effective roach poison and is a common ingredient of roach powders. Potassium and barium fluorides have been similarly employed …”)

“There is nothing new in the use of sodium fluosilicate as an insecticide. Its use for that purpose was described nearly thirty years ago by HIGBEE (English Patent No. 8236, May 23, 1896). More recently, WILLE has reported tests with sodium fluosilicate against roaches and COBENZL mentions it as a common ingredient of rat and insect poisons” (Roark C., Department of Agriculture: “Fluorides vs. fluosilicates as insecticides”, Science 63 (April 23, 1926) 431-2)


Bernard GEHAUF and Harold W. WALKER, of Edgewood, Md.: “Method of making silicofluorides and products thereof”, US Patent 1,617,708; filed May 14, 1926; pat. Feb. 15,1927 (“This invention … also comprises a new composition of matter for insecticidal and other purposes … made by neutralizing hydrofluosilicic acid with the appropriate base … Hydrofluosilicic acid ordinarily is prepared by contacting various waste gases containing silicon fluorid with water.. Waste gases containing silicon fluorid arise in various industries, as in the manufacture of superphosphates.”)

Martin J. FORSELL, Seattle, Washington: “Insecticide”, US Patent 1,618,702; filed Aug. 30, 1926; granted Feb. 22, 1927 (“The insecticide consists of using apple after it is dried and powdered and mixing therewith any well-known poison in powdered form … any one of the compounds of fluorine preferably sodium or potassium fluoride or sodium or potassium silico fluoride …)

Howard S. McQUAID, Cleveland, Ohio, assignor to The Grasselli Chemical Company, of Cleveland, Ohio: “Production of Barium Silicofluoride”; US Patent 1,648,143; filed Nov. 22, 1926; patented Nov. 8, 1927 (Process for production of barium silicofluoride from sodium silicofluoride for use as an insecticide)


Hermann STÖTTER, Leverkusen, assignor to I.G. Farbenindustrie Akt.-Ges., Frankfurt a. M.: “Verfahren zum Schützen von Wolle, Pelzwerk u. dgl. gegen Mottenfraß”, German Patent (DE) 485,101; filed May 26, 1927; granted Oct. 10, 1929  (ammonium bifluoride, potassium ammonium fluoride)


Roscoe H. CARTER, Washington D.C. (Government employee): “Process for the manufacture of insecticides and method of making same”, US Patent 1,842,443; filed Nov. 15, 1929; granted Jan. 26, 1932  (“As pointed out in other patent applications of mine, the double fluorides of the alkali metals are useful insecticidal materials and can be formed from water soluble salts of aluminum by treatment with alkali metal compounds and fluorine acids in the proper molecular proportions.”)


Arthur H. HENNINGER, assignor to General Chemical Company, New York: “Process of making potassium aluminum fluoride”, US Patent 1,937,956; filed June 18, 1931; pat. Dec. 5, 1933 (“… for use as an insecticide. It has heretofore been proposed to use potassium aluminum fluoride as an insecticide for the control of various insect pests. This material is considered to possess advantages over lead arsenate as an insecticide for the reason that, although poisonous, the fluoride compound is less toxic to human beings and animals than is lead arsenate.”)


Earl B. ALVORD, assignor to Grasselli Chemical Company, Cleveland, Ohio: “Noncorrosive insecticdal compositions”, US Patent 1,931,367; filed Aug. 24, 1932; patented Oct. 17, 1933 (addition to their barium fluosilicate of a slightly water-soluble substantially neutral fluoride (such as cryolite, or barium fluoride) to overcome corrosive effects of the barium fluosilicate upon spray pumps)


John E. MORROW, assignor to Aluminum Company of America: “Insecticide and method of producing same”, US Patent 2,210,594; filed Jan. 6, 1938; pat. Aug. 6, 1940 (“Double fluorides of sodium and aluminum, such as natural and synthetic cryolite, have been used as insecticides, and the usefulness of such compounds as stomach poisons for various insects has been established. It has been demonstrated, for example, that these fluorides are particularly useful in combatting the codling moth and the Mexican bean beetle.”)


Alan BELL, Kingsport, Tennessee, assignor to Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, N. Y.: “Insecticidal compositions comprising either hexyl alkyl tetraphosphate or tetra-alkyl pyrophosphate and either an alkali metal fluoride or fluorosilicate”, US Patent 2,514,621; filed Dec. 26, 1948; granted July 11, 1950  (“Diethyl phosphate is the hydrolysis product produced by most of these phosphorus insecticides such as organic insecticides derived from triethyl phosphate – thionyl chloride reaction product, hexaethyltetraphosphate, tetraethylpyrophosphate. This hydrolysis product is not as toxic as parent compound in itself but mixed with NaF or Na2SiF6 has considerable toxicity.”)

Thin saftey strip

Lab Rat

Lab Rat f


Rats Research – Fluoride 1934

Thin saftey strip



    Notice the advertisement below.  ↓   roch-r1





    One Tube of Toothpaste – Cheap 3 Months Rat & Mouse Free

            Safer to eat insects than to swallow toothpaste!

Thin saftey strip

Extract: The Complete Dinosaur’ + info from China




    Fluoridation Queensland Logo  


Coal-burning power plants produce 82% of the total
fluoride air pollution
 in the United States.
China is the biggest coal-producer
and coal-consumer in the world. 


Data On Coal-Burning And Endemic
Fluorosis Throughout China


 106 Fluoride Vol. 36 No. 2 106-112 2003 Research Report

For Correspondence: Prof Wuyi Wang, Institute of

Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources

Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences,

Beijing 100101, China. E-mail:




Yonghua Li, Wuyi Wang, a Linsheng Yang, Hairong Li

Beijing, China

Data on coal-burning endemic fluorosis throughout China and on the exposure-response relationship between concentrations of fluoride determined in coal samples and the prevalence of dental fluorosis reported from 17 representative surveillance stations in Southwest China were used to estimate the safety threshold for coal fluoride. Coal-burning endemic fluorosis occurs mainly in the mountainous areas of this part of China, where the prevalence of the disease is closely linked to geochemical parameters of the local environment. In these regions the incidence of dental fluorosis has a significant positive correlation with the concentration of fluoride in coal. The safety threshold of coal fluoride is estimated to be 190 mg/kg by the criterion of 0% incidence of dental fluorosis.

Keywords: China; Coal fluoride; Endemic fluorosis; Safety threshold.


Fluorine (F), the most electronegative and reactive of the halogens, is a common chemical element in the earth’s crust in combined form. F concentrations in rocks and soils are well documented, but data on the F concentration in coal are relatively limited.

1-4 Swaine reported the total F concentration in coal ranges from 20 to 500 mg/kg.

5 Statistical data indicate that the mean concentration of F in coal worldwide is 80 mg/kg, but in China it is 200 mg/kg.

6 In the mountainous areas of Southwest China, it is even higher— up to 3106 mg/kg in local coal.

7 Fluoride in coal can be released into the ambient environment as atmospheric F, waterborne F, and residue F during mining, handling, and combustion.

6-8 In Southwest China, F

            See also:


Understand the difference ↓

COAL- Steaming & Coking

End line


End line

Daishe Wu,a,b,c Baoshan Zheng,
a Xiuyi Tang, d Shehong Li, a Binbin Wang,
Mingshi Wang,a,b
Guiyang, China




See also ↓


See also ↓

Bone/joint problems-Fluorosis










Of the 400 children born every year in Mount Isa, about 11 %
according to the last blood lead study, have a blood lead
level in excess of the current acceptable guidelines.




“…There are about 400 children born every year in Mount Isa
and about 11 per cent of those children, according to the last blood lead
study, have a blood lead level in excess of the current acceptable guideline value…”

The Environmental Protection Agency states on their website that exposure to lead in water that is being consumed above the action level, or 15 parts per Billion, can result in delays in physical and mental development in children, anemia, and muscle problems. In adults, it can cause increases in blood pressure and, eventually with heavy exposure, the development of kidney problems or nerve disorders.









❝ … Most environmental scientists are afraid to take a public stand if it means appearing to challenge powerful corporations, governments or professions. They are afraid of what top officials in their organisation may think and do. They are aware of legislation which prohibits them from speaking to the media about their work without permission. They are afraid that they might be blocked from promotion, shunted to less interesting work, or even dismissed…


“As is normal, the solution to pollution is dilution.
You poison everyone a little bit rather than poison a few people a lot.
This way, people don’t know what’s going on.”





Westendorf’s research was based on knowledge
that fluoride ion is an enzyme inhibitor.

Westendorf’s Research – Silicofluorides…

Wesrendorf f


Full research paper → HERE  

The oral defense took place on 2/18/1975

A Foreword intended to place the Westendorf research in current context indicating why it is relevant to a wide range of contemporary health and behavioral problems has been prepared by Myron J. Coplan and Roger D. Masters whose credentials are also attached.

Foreword by

M J Coplan and R D Masters, April 2001

Second, Westendorf’s research was based on knowledge that fluoride ion is an enzyme inhibitor. Indeed, that feature of ingested fluoride seemed to offer multiple benefits. Knappwost believed that ingested fluoride, by inhibiting cholinesterase, could achieve both greater expression of total saliva and an increase in its fluoride content. The research of his student quite logically examined different forms of ingestible fluoride for their effect on several variants of cholinesterase, Westendorf’s results showed that fluoride in the form of the silicofluoride complex (SiF), as well as several other complexes, was a substantially more powerful inhibitor of cholinesterases than the simple fluoride ion released by sodium fluoride (NaF). This was simply an objective finding.

Third, to account for the more powerful inhibition effect of SiF, Westendorf studied the course of its fluoride release in fine detail. He found that under physiological conditions, dissociation was no more than 66% in the concentration range considered “optimum” for fluoridated water by United States health authorities. If the released fluoride came uniformly from all of the initially injected SiF, the molar concentration of the residual non-dissociated species would be the same as that of the injected SiF. It would follow that dilution of fluosilicic acid to a nominal 1 part per million of free fluoride in water at pH 7.4 induces each [SiF6]2- to release 4 fluorides to be replaced by hydroxyls. The partially dissociated residue would be the ion [SiF2(OH)4]2- which would then be present in the water at the same concentration as the originally introduced SiF. The biological consequences of ingesting such a species are probably not innocuous, with enzyme inhibition being only one of several possibilities.

Westendorf’s visualized course of SiF dissociation, based on actual experimental evidence, is materially at odds with the dissociation route assumed by US EPA and CDC, based on theory. In judging the reliability of the theoretical approach and claims of health safety presented by these government agencies, one should be aware that both the nature of the complicated mixture called “fluosilicic acid” and the course of its dissociation upon dilution remain unresolved despite nearly a century of research. Two recent documents demonstrate this. In the first, an expert in the recovery of fluoride in phosphate rock processing, addressing a group of his peers at a 1999 International Fertilizer Association (a) meeting held in the former USSR, said:

“The chemical formula of fluosilicic acid is H2SiF6. However, things are not as simple as that due to the fact that rarely is fluosilicic acid present as pure H2SiF6. . . There are well reported references to the existence of H2SiF6 SiF4. . . Hereon in this presentation, FSA [fluosilicic acid] means a mixture of HF, H2SiF6 and H2SiF6 SiF4.”

This is a highly significant statement coming from someone who ought to know the subject under discussion. It means that a key intermediate dissociation product postulated by CDC and EPA theories to be transient species only fleetingly after SiF is introduced into the water at the water plant, may be present in concentrated fluosilicic acid before dissociation begins. Such a starting condition would cast serious doubt on the postulated theoretical equations predicting “virtually 100%” dissociation that supposedly “guarantee” no adverse health effects from undissociated SiF residues in drinking water treated with these compounds.

Equally important is a letter (b) dated March 15, 2001, written by the Director of the EPA Water Supply and Water Resources Division, which concludes with the statement:

“In January, representatives from the [EPA] Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Office of Science and Technology and Ground Water and Drinking Water met to discuss a number of water related issues including Fluoridation. Several fluoride chemistry related research needs were identified including; (1) accurate and precise values for the stability constants of mixed fluorohydroxo complexes with aluminum (III), iron (III) and other metal cations likely to be found under drinking water conditions and (2) a kinetic model for the dissociation and hydrolysis of fluosilicates and stepwise equilibrium constants for the partial hydrolysis products.”

In plain English, senior EPA research staff now believe their staff needs to go back to the lab for at least another year or two to find out if the EPA’s longstanding confidence in the “virtually total” dissociation of SiFs may have been misplaced. Whatever the outcome may be of their new study of SiF dissociation, it is clear the EPA does not intend to perform animal tests to ascertain health effects of chronic ingestion of SiF treated water under controlled conditions.

Animal experiments according to accepted toxicology testing protocols would be the logical way to examine health effects of enzyme inhibition by SiF that Westendorf observed at the cellular level. Three published reports bearing directly on this matter should be noted. In the early 1930s, the Ohio agriculture department wanted to develop a replacement for bone meal as a source of calcium and phosphorus in the feed ration of farm animals. Natural “rock phosphate,” comprising largely calcium phosphate, was a candidate, but it was known to carry about 2 to 5% of fluoride bound in some chemical form. Thus it was necessary to study possible adverse health effects due to ingestion of fluoride from several sources.

A report (c) issued in 1935 compared health effects primarily from calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride, and rock phosphate. Highly significant for present purposes was one small experiment that included sodium fluosilicate. With equal dosage and equal amounts of fluoride retained, rats fed sodium fluosilicate excreted three times as much non-retained fluoride in urine as rats fed sodium fluoride, who eliminated more fluoride in feces. Apparently about three times as much fluoride had crossed the gut/blood membrane into the bloodstream from SiF than from NaF. A second report, this one by the US PHS, (d) was published about ten years after water fluoridation had begun. The study compared the time, starting from the date of fluoridation either with sodium fluosilicate or sodium fluoride, for urinary fluoride level to reach equilibrium with ingested fluoride from fluoridated water. The study populations were boys and men. There were two noteworthy results. First, for either fluoridating agent, urine fluoride levels in older males reached equilibrium with ingested fluoride levels sooner than in younger males. The longer time for young males can be accounted for by the fact that the weight of the older males was essentially constant, while the younger males were adding bone mass over the several years of the experiment. The bodies of younger males were therefore providing a time-related increase in storage compartment capacity for ingested fluoride.

A more important finding was that for the younger males it took longer for their urine level of fluoride to reach equilibrium with ingested water fluoride from SiF than from NaF. Apparently in growing boys SiF fluoride must have been metabolizing differently from NaF fluoride.

A third relevant study (e), conducted around the same time as Westendorf’s research, involved feeding water treated with the same fluosilicic acid used to fluoridate the local water supply to squirrel monkeys for up to 14 months. Morphological and cytochemical effects were reported for the liver, kidney, and nervous system due to ingestion of 1-5 ppm of fluoride in water. Although the study did not compare results from exposure to NaF, the report emphasizes the fact that the kidneys of monkeys ingesting SiF treated drinking water “Éshowed significant cytochemical changes, especially in the animals on 5 PPM fluoride intake in their drinking water.”

The report later observes that work by others in the 1940s and 1950s “Éshowed that fluoride has an inhibitive effect on the activity of succinate dehydrogenase. These studies indicate that under the effect of fluoride intake, a serious metabolic distress may develop in the kidneys.” In concluding, the report notes that “Earlier, some workers had also indicated that inorganic fluorides have a strongly adverse effect on the activity of some enzymes and of these, mitochondrial enzymes, acid and alkaline phosphatases and ATP-utilizing enzymes and aldolase may be the most affected (Batenburg & Van den Bergh, 1972; Katz & Tenenhouse, 1973).”

This study of squirrel monkeys is a rare (possibly singular) American experiment with SiF. If the research team had known that Westendorf was finding greater effects of silicofluoride than sodium fluoride on enzyme activity at virtually the same moment, the U.S. study might have taken a different turn. In any case, two of these three American experiments compared effects from NaF and SiF, and both found that SiF and NaF do not produce the same effect. Moreover, all three studies found the strongest adverse clinical effect of silicofluoride in the kidney. But damage to the kidney is hardly the only possible health effect of ingested SiF.

“Life” involves an incalculable number of chemically active molecules initiating, continuing and terminating a bewildering variety of chemical events. Throughout this panoply of events and in every organ where they occur, various enzymes play crucial roles. A particularly important example is the quenching by enzymes of muscle stimulation induced by the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh), an ester comprising the acetyl moiety bound by an oxygen bridge to the choline molecule. The principal “quenching” enzyme, acetylycholinesterase (AChE), comes in several variations and the ACh/Ache dyads operate in numerous ways in many organs. Related enzymes called pseudocholinesterases are found in serum and include the butyrylcholinesterases.

At latest count over 7,000 enzymes have been detected and catalogued, (f) and there is no reason to suppose that the effect of SiF is limited only to a sub-class. In any event, one would be hard put to identify a more important enzyme subclass than “esterases,” which cleave molecules called “esters” at the right time and place in the healthy organism. While a great deal is known about many of the ways these enzymes function, there are still large knowledge gaps to be filled. To do just that, an extensive survey of contemporary knowledge about cholinesterases has recently been published (g) by an employee of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances in EPA’s Health Effects Division. The published article carries this disclaimer:

“Although this article was written as part of the author’s official duties as an EPA scientist, the opinions and conclusions expressed in it are his alone, and do not reflect the position of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Dementi’s review deserves a great deal of attention, so one wonders why it was not published as official work of the EPA. The EPA has acknowledged (h) that it has no data on health effects of the SiFs, shown by Westendorf to be a significant cholinesterase inhibitor and being added to the diets of 140 million people at the rate of 200,000 tons a year. The many different biochemical responses this dosage can be expected to elicit may well support a recently published (l) hypothesis proposing an explanation for Fibromyalgia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It is not at all unlikely that chronic ingestion of SiF treated water also bears on ADD/ADHD, teen violence, and even some of the ambiguities associated with Gulf War Syndrome.

Common sense suggests that wide-spread, albeit clinically vague, adverse health effects should be expected when a strong enzyme inhibitor is added to the daily diets of over half of US residents, as would be the case given the results of the research work described herein. With millions of people suffering from one or another poorly understood condition with likely roots in environmental toxins, it is time to re-examine entrenched governmental doctrines in the light of Westendorf’s research which, while 30 years old, has received little or no attention heretofore.

(Read Westendorf’s thesis)

Notes and Credits

NOTE 1. The following English language text, translated from the German in which it was written by Dr. Johannes Westendorf, (Toxicology Department, Eppendorf-Hamburg University Hospital) was submitted to him in March 2001 for his comments with a series of questions. This was his response.

“With respect to my thesis I finished this kind of work in 1976, when I changed to the Medical faculty, where I still am. After my thesis I continued the work on fluoride for another year and we especially worked on the stability of hexafluoro complexes of silicon and iron. We used radioactive isotopes, such as F-18 and Si-31 . . . when we analyzed the electrophoretic mobility. In the presence of silicon and iron, fluoride ions showed a different mobility compared to fluoride [ion] itself. Unfortunately I have no access to these old experiments and we did not publish it.

. . . During hydrolysis we got a continuous shifting of the mobility, indicating that the different forms of hydrolysis with 2-6 fluorine at the Si are present at the same time, ending up at the more stable form of Si(OH)4F2. If we increased the pH to 9 and higher, a total hydrolysis occurs.

…In answering your final paragraph I can say:

1) The English translation of my thesis is excellent.

2) I have no evidence from others that contradict to my old findings.

3) Your idea of the enzyme inhibition by the complex could be right, however slight changes in the pH, caused by the hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicate, would also result in an increased inhibition of acetylcholinesterase. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the toxicology of hexafluorosilicate should be investigated because it may be different from simple fluoride.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you. Johannes Westendorf”

NOTE II. Although the main body of the Westendorf thesis was not published in a circulating journal as such, three short articles based on this work were. Copies of the two most relevant ones appear at the end of the English text of the full thesis.

CREDITS: The thesis was called to our attention and photocopied from the document on file in the archives at the University of Hamburg by Peter Meiers (Weissenburgerstr. 28, D-66113 Saarbrucken; the translation was prepared by Jakob von Moltke (Dartmouth College); final proof editing was done by Myron Coplan with the aid of Norman Mancuso.


a) Smith, PA. “History of Fluorine Recovery Processes”: Paper delivered at the IFA Technical Sub-Committee and Committee Meeting in Novgorord, Russia; Sept 15-17, 1999 (

b) Gutierrez, SB. (signed by Thurnau RC); Letter from the Director of the US EPA National Risk Management Laboratory to Roger D. Masters, dated March 15, 2001.

c) Kick CH, et al. “Fluorine in Animal Nutrition”; Bulletin 558, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station; Wooster, Ohio; November 1935; pp 1-77.

d) Zipkin, I et al. “Urinary Fluoride Levels Associated with Use of Fluoridated Water”; Pub Hlth Rpts 71 PP 767-772; 1956.

e) Manocha SL, et al. “Cytochemical response of kidney, liver and nervous system to fluoride ions in drinking water”; Histochemical Journal, 7 (1975); 343-355.

f) On February 7, 2001, the Brookhaven Registry of Enzymes listed 7,164 enzymes on their web-site,

g) Dementi, B. “Cholinesterase Literature Review and Comment”; Pesticides, People and Nature; 1 (2); 59-126; 1999.

h) Letter to the Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, US House Committee on Science, from EPA Assistant Administrator J. Charles Fox, June 23, 1999.

i) Laylander, J. “A Nutrient/Toxin Interaction Theory of the Etiology and Pathogenesis of Chronic Pain-Fatigue Syndromes: Parts I & II,” Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; 5(1), 67-126, 1999.

Synopsis of Foreword Authors’ Relevant Professional History

Roger D. Masters, Ph.D., is President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus at Dartmouth College. For the last 30 years, he has studied the implications of modern biological science in understanding human behavior. He serves as editor of the “Biology and Social Life” section of Social Science Information (an international journal published at the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme in Paris) and member of the Council of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. He is a published expert in the history of Renaissance politics, especially the contribution of Niccolo Machiavelli.

After undergraduate studies at Harvard (where his instructors included Henry Kissinger), he served in the US Army before graduate studies at the University of Chicago. Despite his work in other areas, he retained a strong professional interest in military and international affairs. In addition to writing The Nation is Burdened: American Foreign Policy in a Changing World (Knopf, 1967), he served as US Cultural Attache to France. Among his many other books are The Political Philosophy of Rousseau (Princeton, 1968), The Nature of Politics (Yale, 1989), Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of Power (Notre Dame Press, 1996) and Fortune is a River: Leonardo da Vinci and Niccolo Machiavelli’s Magnificent Dream to Change the Course of Florentine History (Free Press, 1998). Before turning to issues of environmental pollution, health and behavior, he also published widely on the effectiveness of leaders’ nonverbal behavior on television (working with colleagues on experiments in France and Germany as well as in the US).

Among many other publications on biological factors in human behavior, he was co-editor (with Michael T McGuire) of The Neurotransmitter Revolution, Serotonin, Social Behavior and the Law (Southern Illinois University Press, 1994); senior author (with Brian Hone and Anil Doshi) of “Environmental Pollution, Neurotoxicity, and Criminal Violence,” in J. Rose, ed., Aspects of Environmental Toxicity (London: Gordon & Breach, 1998), pp. 13-45; and co-author (with MJ Coplan) of “Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity,” International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56: 435-449 (July-August 1999) as well as of other publications.

In addition to an earlier teaching position in political science at Yale, he served as US Cultural Attache to France, Fellow of the Hastings Center, Chair of the Executive Committee of the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research (a foundation specialized in linking biology to the study and practice of law), a visiting professor at Yale Law School and Vermont Law School, and a consultant to Upjohn Corp, to the Commissioner of Corrections of Vermont, and to several agencies of the Federal Government. As a result of these varied professional activities, Dr. Masters has had extensive experience applying new scientific research in biology of human behavior to the establishment of successful government policies.

Myron J. Coplan, PE is a consultant in chemical engineering and chemical sciences, doing business at “Intellequity” after retirement in 1987 as Vice President and General Manager of the Albany International Co. Membrane Development Venture. The fruits of this latter activity include a product line of membranes now used by a major multi-national company to supply a market for industrial gases measured in the $ billions.

Coplan’s working career started during WWII first as a civilian employee of the US War Department and then as a production chemist for a firm supplying the military with two crucial commodities: DDT, without which the S. Pacific campaign might not have been successful, and a wire insulating chemical, without which the US Navy’s capacity to deal with disastrous convoy damage by Nazi mines might not have been achieved. He was one of the few civilians deferred throughout WWII for his critical occupation status.

Post WWII, while pursuing his own advanced degree studies, Coplan headed an academic chemical engineering department, supervising doctoral research of others. This was followed by a 37-year relationship with an independent consulting and r/d firm specializing in material sciences (chemistry, polymer systems, statistical analysis, physics, fluid dynamics, statistical mechanics, etc.) which eventually became the central research laboratory of a large multinational corporation.

Coplan is recognized in American Men of Science, holds 32 patents, is a member of several professional organizations and has published many technical papers. He authored a series of bench-mark articles on mathematical probability statistics and wrote a manual on statistical quality control for internal corporate use. He also personally carried out a wide range of laboratory research and engineering tasks and supervised the work of as many as 35 other professionals of many disciplines. He has been consulted by research staffs and corporate executives from some of the world’s largest corporations. To mention only one example, over about ten years he had 28 assignments from GE.

His services were also engaged by NASA, USDA, EPA, Interior Dept, Post Office Dept and several other government agencies, including virtually every branch of the DOD. In these assignments, Coplan was cleared on a “need-to-know” high level security basis several times for consulting and research work in such diverse fields as “decoy” chaff used to frustrate radar-tracked anti-aircraft fire to protective measures for ground-troops at risk of exposure to chemical, biological and nuclear attack.

In due course, Coplan’s activities became more focused on the interests of the large company which in 1972 had acquired the firm he had joined in 1951. After 1972, he took on the corporate mission of identifying and exploiting science-based new business opportunities, including direct management of scientific entrepreneurial r/d for new products and technologies. He became Senior Corporate Scientist and then Vice President and General Manager of a membrane development venture that eventually licensed his patented inventions to other large corporations. Membrane treatment of phosphate waste pond waters was among the applications studied. Coplan, therefore, has first-hand knowledge of the processes from which the principal water fluoridating agents (the silicofluorides) are derived.

Full research paper → HERE