As a former resident of Queensland, I looked with interest at the third link provided in the question. The claims are extreme, so I believe it is valuable to address their claims directly, line by line.
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PUT IN THE WATER?
The three Fluoride chemicals that could be added to Queensland water supplies for fluoridation are Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, Sodium Silicofluoride or Sodium Fluoride.
I am going to take their word for that.
Hydrofluorosilicic Acid and Sodium Silicofluoride are collectively known as the Silicofluorides and are the chemicals used most in other Australian states fluoridation schemes.
I am going to take their word for that.
The two Silicofluorides chemicals used, are waste products of Phosphate fertilizer manufacture.
One of the fundamental concepts of Chemistry - one of the most important ideas that have advanced science - is that everything is made of atoms. It doesn't matter, chemically, where the atoms come from, they still react the same way. So, from a health perspective, that they are waste products of another process is irrelevant. [Reference: Year 8 high school science class.]
From a political standpoint that may be relevant, but that's not being argued here. From an emotional standpoint, we associate "waste" with "bad". If we replaced the emotive term "waste" with "recycled" suddenly it sounds positive!
They are industrial grade, not pharmaceutical grade products and can contain small residues of toxic heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury or lead.
The introduction of the phrase "pharmaceutical grade" here is a red herring. Most items we ingest are not pharmaceutical grade. The sugar you put in your coffee isn't pharmaceutical grade, and nor is the coffee itself. Why should the water be? The standard here should be "food grade", and the water coming from the tap (certainly in first world countries) is rigorously monitored and controlled. (I'd include a reference here, but it is dependent on your local government, so I can't give a universal answer. I have examined the regulations for a number of states here in Australia, and there are a huge number of pollutants tested for, including heavy metals.) Once the chemicals coming in are dissolved to 1 ppm (see other answer), the "small residues" are going to be diluted even further, making the issue of industrial versus food grade inputs irrelevant. It is the output that matters.
The two Silicofluoride compounds used DO NOT EVEN OCCUR IN NATURE, yet fluoridation promoters call fluoride "NATURAL”.
I will take their word for the fact that the compounds don't occur in nature. Not only is the "natural" argument irrelevant (as they later point out themselves), but the reagents used are irrelevant, as the flouride is no longer attached to the rest of the compound once it is in solution. [Reference: Year 11 high school Chemistry class]
I would, however, like citations for where flouridation promoters call it natural. Are they referring to the silicofluorides or to the idea of fluoride being dissolved in fresh water?
No toxicology studies have ever been performed on the Silicofluoride used in water fluoridation schemes. The only toxicology studies ever done, have been done on Pharmaceutical
grade Sodium Fluoride as is used in toothpaste.
Toxicology studies have been done on the fluoride dissolved in the drinking water (see other answer), which is where it is relevant.
Currently less than 5% of Queensland's population drinks fluoridated water.
I'll take their word for it, but irrelevant to the argument (except to explain why there is a motivation to start flouridating water.)
Sodium Fluoride is a waste product of Aluminium smelting and is the fluoridation chemical used in Queensland in Dalby, Mareeba, Moranbah and Townsville/ Thuringowah.
Again, the source of the chemical is irrelevant from a chemical/health perspective.
Freedom of Information reveals that water supply of Bamaga is fluoridated with a Silicofluoride and that Sodium Fluoride used in other Queensland areas is imported from China.
It would appear that most of the Queenslanders that are currently drinking fluoridated water are drinking water fluoridated with imported Chinese industry waste products, probably sourced as a waste product of the Chinese Aluminium smelting industry.
Certainly the source country is irrelevant for health effects. It is only relevant to trigger emotive patriotic and political concerns. Similarly, it doesn't matter how the information was obtained - citing "Freedom of Information" strikes an emotive chord that the government may be trying to otherwise hide something. I would like to see a cite of the request and the resulting data, to ensure we aren't being exploited by people putting in FoI requests where a regular request (or even web search!) would get the same information.
Water from rivers, creeks or dams does contain small amounts of natural fluoride. Levels of fluoride in SE Qld surface waters are usually only about 0.1 parts per million, or nine times less the amount of the Fluoride that Queensland Government plans on adding to Brisbane's water supply.
Okay, I'll take their word for that.
Fluoride occurs naturally in water when water flows though or over rocks and abrades rocks that contain Fluorspar, or Calcium Fluoride (Ca F2). Calcium fluoride is very insoluble. Water that contains natural Fluoride from abraded Fluorspar containing rocks also contains Calcium which can offer some protection from Fluoride. Fluoride binds with Calcium readily and Calcium is given as a treatment for Fluoride poisoning.
Most of this sounds plausible, and I confirmed that Calcium Flouride is very insoluble on Wikipedia, so no disagreements here. Note: they are straying awfully close to the "natural is good" fallacy that they themselves later attack.
Calcium Fluoride (the natural form of Fluoride) is not permitted to be added to any Australian water supply.
I would like a cite for that. I note that it has been approved for food by the EU. If there is such a restriction, is it just to avoid unnecessary mining? (5 Billion kg mined annually [Holleman, A. F.; Wiberg, E. "Inorganic Chemistry" Academic Press: San Diego, 2001. ISBN 0-12-352651-5., via Wikipedia]) Or concerns that there is a cost of extracting the Flouride with concentrated Sulphuric Acid (Wikipedia) before adding it to the water, thus defeating the purpose of using a "natural" source.
Groundwater as in bore water or well water can contain very high levels of "natural" fluoride and in parts of China, India and the Rift Valley, natural Fluoride has led to devastating health effects such as crippling Skeletal Fluorosis for millions of people. Arsenic, Lead and Mercury are also "natural". Natural does not necessarily mean good or desirable.
I believe all of this to be true. If anyone proposed to set flouride levels to the point they could trigger skeletal fluorosis, that would be terrible. Fortunately, I have seen no proposals to exceed the World Health Organization recommended maximum fluoride value at which fluorosis should be minimal [ref: Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton J, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y. Fluoride in Drinking-water [PDF]. World Health Organization; 2006. ISBN 92-4-156319-2. Guidelines and standards. p. 37–9. via Wikipedia].
The Silicofluoride compounds used for water fluoridation are very acidic and addition to water often entails addition of other chemicals such as soda ash to neutralize the acidity to prevent corrosion of water reticulation equipment. Appendix one of the 1999 NHMRC Review of water fluoridation was a questionaire for Councils which fluoridate and included a request for any evidence for Fluoride incompatibilities, such as enhanced corrosion or breakdown of gaskets or seals, in the water distribution network.
Okay. Someone asked a question. And?
The Queensland Government has said they would pay the setting up costs of fluoridation, but will not be paying for any recurrent and on going costs. Any Fluoride caused corrosion problems in water treatment plants or water reticulation systems would be to the future cost of Councils and ratepayers.
The Queensland Government is funded by tax-payers. The local council is funded by tax-payers. This isn't a health argument, it is an argument about which bucket of tax-payer money should be used within a political system, and therefore is not subject to scientific scrutiny.
In conclusion: there are a number of emotive arguments here, but no references, and some half-truths. I would look elsewhere for evidence that flouridation contains harmful components. It may be right that that the flouride is extracted from the output of other industrial processes, but that is both irrelevant (from a consumer health and safety perspective) and claimed without evidence here.
