Fluoride Action Network

Wichita: An Open Letter to Dr. Bill Maas and Wichitans for Healthy Teeth

Source: By Wichitans Opposed to Fluoridation | October 20th, 2012
Location: United States, Kansas

The following is an open letter to Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, and their guest, Dr. Bill Maas. WFHT solicited questions from the public prior to Dr. Maas’ public appearance and discussion on October 16. This letter is our response to that request, submitted October 16 at 6:15am. The questions are as yet unanswered by WHFT or Dr. Bill Maas.

Per your request for questions for former Centers for Disease Control employee, Dr. William Maas, now working with PEW to promote fluoridation in many cities in the country, including Wichita, which will face a fluoridation referendum on Nov 6:

    1. Those opposed to fluoridation are blocked from commenting or asking questions on pro-fluoridation webpages owned by Wichitans for Healthy Teeth. We are also blocked from the Pew Foundation’s Twitter Page. If the truth is on your side, why do you block us? You should welcome the opportunity to explain how we are wrong.
    2. Matt Jacob, Pew’s Fluoridation PR person advises fluoridationists to frame the issue based on teeth. He says framing fluoridation on Harms and Risks will not give you a win. Will you sign a statement saying fluoridation will not harm any Wichita resident in any way?
    3. How did Pew get involved with promoting fluoridation. Who or what organizations lobbied them for their financial support and how did you come to work for Pew? How much has Pew spent on fluoridation country-wide? What is Pew’s budget for fluoridation promotion?
    4. How much is being spent in Wichita to get a Yes vote on fluoridation? Residents are getting multiple mailings of slick campaign literature.
    5. Do you have any evidence that low-income Wichita residents are fluoride-deficient?
    6. Do you endorse the use of Dental Therapists in Kansas as are working in rural Alaska where residents were pulling out their own teeth because no dentist would work or live there. Dental Therapists need only a couple of years training to work as well as dentists, doing simple fillings and extractions. They could work in areas and mouths where dentists refuse to go and would be more affordable and accept Medicaid (80% of dentists don’t). Since more people are dentist-deficient and none are fluoride-deficient, Dental Therapists seems to be a more suitable solution to the dental-care crisis of Untreated tooth decay and makes more sense than spending millions of tax payers dollars on building and maintaining fluoridation systems.
    7. Since you are a consultant to Pew, are you still paid by the CDC
    8. Will you share with voters that the CDC says fluoride benefits teeth by topical application, not by swallowing it, and that the amount of ingested fluoride emerging from salvia to bathe teeth topically with fluoride is too low to have any beneficial effect.

CDC quotes: “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…” and

“The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”


“Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low — approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas (27). This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity.”

  1. Since the CDC’s name is often invoked to prove fluoridation’s safety, will you share with voters that the CDC says, “It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe” and that CDC does not do any original fluoridation research.
  2. We understand that fluoridation chemicals are now purchased from Mexico and China. How can we trust China, especially, to deliver non-contaminated fluoridation chemicals since they have a poor record on quality control.
  3. Will you warn kidney patients and diabetics (who are prone to kidney disease) that fluoride might be harmful to them? The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation and the American Dental Association admits in its “Fluoridation Facts” booklet (page 27) that people with kidney disease could be harmed by fluoride because their kidneys may not properly filter out fluoride from the body. As you know, there is no dispute that too much fluoride can damage bones as well as teeth.
  4. Since fluoride is in virtually all foods and beverages, especially high in tea and ocean fish, and absorbed and involuntarily swallowed from dental products, are you concerned that some Wichitans may be fluoride-overdosed and develop dental or skeletal fluorosis if fluoridation is implemented in Wichita? The CDC says that up to 60% of US 12-15 year olds are affected with dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth – with 3.6% of it moderate/severe. As you know, these children have never been studied to see if fluoride has damaged their bones with skeletal fluorosis.
  5. When fluoridation began in the 1940?s, it was accepted that the collateral damage would be that 10% would develop mild dental fluorosis (white spots on teeth). That was before fluoridated toothpaste and other products were sold. And now fluoridated water is used to make many products on store shelves. What percentage of Wichita children will develop dental fluorosis if fluoridation is voted in and how severe will it be for some of them?
  6. The and other health, government and dental groups, including Colgate, now advise parents that, if they want to avoid dental fluorosis in their babies new teeth, they shouldn’t mix fluoridated water into infant formula. Will you share that information with Wichita residents before the vote?
  7. What other cities has Pew targeted for fluoridation promotion? What other city councils have Pew members lobbied to pass fluoridation laws?