Hmmm. The author of the article has a PhD in environmental history, so a social science. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not actual hard science. Where people research and develop novel things.

I don't want to blow smoke anywhere near any asses. But does that article site one primary literature source? They're all articles or if it's an actual paper, it's an opinion piece. I'm not going through all of them because it reads like some crazy uncle on a conspiracy theory rant.

Are you a scientist? I know what I'm talking about, although I'm afraid you're not.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99688-w

There's an actual journal article (I know it's only Nature scientific reports, but it's a valid reference). I know it doesn't explicitly state it's not toxic, but:

"Thus, based on the evidence available on the topic, it is not possible to state neither any association or the lack of an association between F exposure and any neurological disorder."

Taken straight from their conclusion.

Obviously there's many more sources, and again, I'm happy to provide you with some of you'd like to enhance your knowledge on the subject.