HOME SLOTT JOHNSON PERROTT BILLY BUDD
Point #1: Response by Paul Melters to Steve Slott, DDS
September 2, 2013
Here is my first response to your latest post.
I will address each point separately, as time permits.
You write about Point #1:
1. SLOTT: "#1 Estimates of fluoride intake among U.S. and Canadian adults have ranged from <1.0 mg fluoride per day in nonfluoridated areas to 1--3 mg fluoride per day in fluoridated areas."
---Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States.
PM RESPONSE: Three comments here:
a) You were asked to provide a reference for the following statement:
1) Slott: "The total daily intake of fluoride from all sources is estimated by the CDC to be in the range of 1.5 ppm to 2.8 ppm".
Because I questioned those numbers I asked you to provide the SPECIFIC reference to the CDC site where this statement can be found. I also reminded you - again - that intake is not measured in ppm, concentration is.
You are now providing a reference to a CDC document that lists different intake numbers, specifically "1--3 mg". So I presume the CDC document stating the 1.5 to 2.8 figures - that you earlier insisted upon - does not exist.
b) These 1-3 mg/day figures are the same intake figures that were cited earlier by myself from the 1977 NRC/NAS document. At that point you called those figures and implications "questionable" and "36 years old". I guess when they come from the CDC dentists, they are okay?
c) I supplied you with a clear reference and link to a 1991 table and report showing that daily total fluoride intake was up to 6.6 mg/day in optimally fluoridated areas. This was not the first time I supplied you with this citation/link. It was at least the 5th time (and I have supplied it at least 6 more times since, on this and other forums!).
At one point, on another forum, you insisted that you couldn't find the document. Then you couldn't find the page number. It was then that I provided you with a Google link directly to the document.
Yet you claim - again - that this link "for the 1991 report is totally inadequate" and that I "failed to provide proper cites...and have no idea as to how to obtain the information in its proper and complete context, from its original source."
You further wrote:
"Assumedly the reason you are unable to properly cite these reports is because you obviously have not read the reports, have no idea of how to access them, and have no understanding whatsoever of their meaning."
Hm... Once again - is there something NOT acceptable with the complete cite/link I provided? Here it is, now for the umteenth time, EXACTLY as provided before.
Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, Department of Health and Human Services, February 1991 p17 (table 11).
Available for FREE via Google Books/Diane Publishing - wow! - with page numbers! - and the US Government:http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/.
Special link for Google-challenged reader Steve Slott:
Please do enlighten me and other readers - what is not acceptable about this citation? Does the link not work for you, perhaps?
You further accused me of getting this cite off a "third party website". You have done this before, on another forum, except at that time that you listed a different "antifluoridationist" website I allegedly "pulled" the citations from:
As it turned out, that was the website of the US Department of Health & Human Services, which had posted an excellent letter from somebody requesting more information on safety studies (which don't exist). All citations were properly done and entirely reliable. It was a wonderful letter, and I encourage all readers to check it out.
However, your "third party website" claims didn't make sense then and don't make sense now, as the direct link above had always been provided.
Slott: "I encourage any readers who desire to see the type of misleading tactics utilized by antifluoridationists such as Paul, to access the link I posted below the following quote in order to see from where he has obtained these out-of-context quotes for which he can produce no acceptable reference."
Well Steve Slott - judging from the links above it appears that the only person who has distorted the truth here, and used misleading tactics - to put it mildly - is you.