Chinese fluoride is a homeland security matter
To the Editor: Cumberland Times-News
February 28, 2010 – The Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland Inc. was formed in 1960 as a grass roots network of citizens with a 50-year-old mission to educate the public of the complete fraud of the practice called water fluoridation. Recently, it has come to my attention in an engineering report for the cityof Boulder, Colo., that they did an evaluation of fluoridation chemicals and sources and found that much of the fluoride chemicals used for water
fluoridation are now coming out of China with arsenic and lead levels of 50 and 40 milligrams respectively per bag and non-existent regulatory monitoring of the salt or acid compounds from these imports. This type of trade from a country with a track record of lead paint on toys to antifreeze in cough syrup medicine is completely unacceptable.
Only after I asked for the certificate of analysis from Solvay fluorides through Univar USA, which is the chemical supplier for the Frostburg Water Plant, did I receive the certificate of analysis from Shanghai Mintchem Development Co., LTD., the Chinese manufacture of the sodium fluoride.
The material safety data sheets from Solvay fluorides shows that a teaspoon amount of 5 grams of sodium fluoride can be fatal to an average size man of 70kg.
In toxicological information section, chronic toxicity by oral route may cause skeletal and dental fluorosis, thyroid, testes, kidney, liver, ambiguous carcinogenic and mutagenic effects, fetotoxic and fertility effects.
I have asked now for two years for the Frostburg Mayor and Council to put in the water bill for area residence the ADA warning to not to use fluoridated water when making infant formula, but to no avail.
I have showed them the 2003 sixth edition PDR special warning section for Luride (sodium fluoride in pill form) that children under the age of six should not be taking the same equivalent dose that municipalities add to the drinking water. I asked them why they would continue this practice when the PDR states that not even a dentist or doctor should be administering this equivalent dose to a child under the age of 6.
I have explained to them that the warning label on fluoride toothpaste states, that if you swallow more than a pea size amount of paste or .25 milligrams of fluoride, which is the equivalent dose of 8 ounces of fluoridated water, you should contact the poison control center immediately.
We can no longer trust our local governments to do the right thing for its citizens. I find it so ironic that the same federal government that is demanding small communities under the clean water act, like Mount Savage to join to the Frostburg Regional water supply, because of an overt concern over possible ground water contamination, then allows this toxic waste byproduct from China to enter this country and be added to this same regional water supply. Are we insane?
Bernard W. Miltenberger
The fluoridation of drinking water has been traced to the aluminum industry and the deception tied to their disposing of toxic waste. I will give you several links so you can educate yourselves on The Fluoride Deception and how to protect you families. But before I do, please keep reading.
Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride’s benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.
Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses attainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:
a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (1-4)
b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (5)
c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fractures. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (6)
d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.” Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (7-10)
e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteo dystrophy. (11-13)
Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (14-36) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, “The magnitude of [fluoridation’s] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance.” (26)
Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:
“Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion.” (37)
Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (38, 39)
* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.
1. National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p. 173-188.
2. Varner JA, et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride and Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity.Brain Research. 784: 284-298.
3. Lin Fa-Fu, et al. (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter. Vol. 7. No. 3.
4. Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94; 198-199.
5. NRC (2006). p. 189-224.
6. NRC (2006). p. 107-148.
7. National Toxicology Program. (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
8. Hoover RN, et al. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. US Public Health Service. Appendix E & F.
9. Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health Environ. Health Service: 1- 17.
10. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8.
11. Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: E Johansen, DR Taves, TO Olsen, Eds. Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.
12. Ittel TH, et al. (1992). Effect of fluoride on aluminum-induced bone disease in rats with renal failure. Kidney International 41: 1340-1348.
13. Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:433-487
14. Colquhoun J. (1985). Influence of social class and fluoridation on child dental health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41.
15. Diesendorf M. (1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature. 322: 125-129.
16. Gray AS. (1987). Fluoridation: Time For A New Base Line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association. 53: 763-5.
17. Kelly M, Bruerd B. (1987). The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American Populations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 47:94-97.
18. Hildebolt CF, et al. (1989). Caries prevalences among geochemical regions of Missouri. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:79-92.
19. Hileman B. (1989). New Studies Cast Doubt on Fluoridation Benefits. Chemical and Engineering News. May 8.
20. Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. J. Dent. Res 69, (Special edition), 723-727.
21. Yiamouyiannis JA. (1990). Water Fluoridation and Tooth decay: Results from the 1986-87 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren. Fluoride. 23: 55-67.
22. Barnes GP, et al. (1992). Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of head start children. Public Health Reports 107: 167-73.
23. Domoto P, et al. (1996). The estimation of caries prevalence in small areas. Journal of Dental Research 75:1947-56.
24. Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying Water Fluoride Concentrations. J Pub Health Dent. 57(3): 136-143.
25. Colquhoun J. (1997). Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41: 29-44.
26. Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
27. Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5.
28. Kunzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Bruhmann S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-9.
29. Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. (2000). Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two Low-Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation. Caries Research 34: 462-468.
30. Burt BA, et al. (2000). The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. J Dent Res. 79(2):761-9.
31. Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.
32. Shiboski CH, et al. (2003). The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 63(1):38-46.
33. Armfield JM, Spencer AJ. (2004) Consumption of nonpublic water: implications for children’s caries experience. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 32:283-296.
34. Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.
35. Online at:
36. Online at:
37: Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.
38: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis–United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2002. MMWR 54:1-43.
39: Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-2
Information taken from the Fluoride Action Network at http://fluoridealert.org/faq/