Point 2: Response by Paul Melters to the first comment on Point 2 by Steve Slott, DDS
on August 29, 2013

Steve Slott

I see you responded to ONE point out of 5. Let's examine your response - truthfully, and in detail.

SLOTT: Ok, I did access the 36 year old report you seem so desperate to have evaluated. Here is the URL I repeatedly asked you to provide:


a) No, you did NOT ask me repeatedly for THIS URL. You asked me repeatedly for the URL to the 1991 table showing that TOTAL intake was up to 6.6 mg/day in fluoridated areas. You kept asking for it, even after I had given it to you more than 5(!) times. Can you ever stop distorting the truth??

b) I am not desperate to have anything evaluated by you. I am simply calling you on your BS.

c) This papers was quoted by me as a response to your statement which is listed as #2 in my 5 points. Specifically, you had written:

SLOTT: " 'absurdities such as your own ridiculous attempt to extrapolate "10-20 mg/day for at least 10 years" into being the "same" as "2.5 -5 mg for 40-80 years" is an excellent example of how antifluoridationists claim "science" to support their position. '"

BTW - you still haven't explained that one. Just what is absurd and ridiculous?

Now, to continue. You write:

SLOTT: Here is the entire paragraph, in its proper context, as found on page 372:

"Also a retention of 2 mg per day would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 years based on an accumulation of 10,000 ppm in bone ash. However, these new estimates for fluoride in food are questionable; consequently, so are their implications. The values are suspect because of analytical problems. The diffusion method of Singer and Armstrong (1969a) was used with a colorimetric reagents, and false high values are obtained with this technique (Taves 1966).


You are quoting out of context.

This paragraph and the preceding ones are about the increasing TOTAL fluoride intake from food - the issue you are trying to avoid so desperately and clumsily – and what it might mean to dental and skeletal fluorosis.

THIS is the context:

"Recent studies indicate that the total intake of fluoride is as high as 3 mg/day rather than the earlier figure of 1.5 mg/day, primarily because of increases in the estimated levels of fluoride in foods (Spencer et al., 1970). Balance data presented by Spencer also suggest a higher retention by bone, nearly 2 mg/day rather than the 0.2 mg/day indicated earlier...The fluoride intake from food in the fluoridated communities was found to range from 1.6-3.4 mg/day (av. 2.6) while that from nonfluoridated cities was 0.8-1.0 mg (av. 0.9)...The second article reports average fluoride intake from diets used in balance studies in a fluoridated city over a 6-yr period as 2.0 mg/day.

These findings are important because, if valid, they might represent a shift in intake that could lead to dental fluorosis in fluoridated communities. Also, a retention of 2 mg/day would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 yr, based on an accumulation of 10,000 ppm fluoride in bone ash. However, these new estimates for fluoride in food are questionable; consequently, so are their implications. The values are suspect because of analytical problems. The diffusion method of Singer and Armstrong (1969a) was used with a colorimetric reagent and false high values are obtained with this technique (Taves, 1966)."

SO - the question was whether the estimates for fluoride are accurate. (That is no longer a concern, as we know that TOTAL intake is even higher than the amounts questioned here). NOBODY is questioning if a retention of 2 mg/day would cause skeletal fluorosis after 40 years. THAT is the point you argued about.

EVERYBODY should know that 50% of ingested/absorbed fluoride is retained by adults, more so by children. THAT's why there is a MCL for fluoride in water of 4 ppm. If you drink one litre of water at 4 ppm every day - you are taking in 4 mg every day -> retention of 2 mg/day. Is there something here you don't understand?? Do you not understand the concept of linear fluoride intake? That fluoride effects are cumulative?

Back to your nonsense:

SLOTT: "Okay, so, first, they are speaking of fluoride retention, not intake. Second, as noted, the new estimates for fluoride in food are questionable, consequently, so are their implications. Third, they provide no reference on where this estimate for skeletal fluorosis was derived. Fourth, this is a 36 year old report."


Total nonsense. First - see above for retention vs intake. Second - TOTAL intake for food is much higher now than cited in this report. I have provided you with the evidence already - see above. Hey, even YOU cited higher intake estimates (although you changed them constantly!). Third: You are making a total fool out of yourself. The "estimates" for skeletal fluorosis are established scientific facts, in place all over the world in regulations to protect workers, or citizens from excessive fluoride intake. In the US the data is mainly based on Hodge. What do you think the US MCL is based on??? Fourth - what does the age of the report have to with anything, except the TOTAL fluoride intake is now even higher? Are you really this dense? On the other hand, you and your dentist friends keep using Dean's data to show fluoride benefits, which is over 70 years old!

Further, you write:

SLOTT: So, let's go to something just a tad bit more up to date:

"In skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates progressively in the bone over many
years. Early symptoms include stiffness and pain in the joints. Crippling skeletal fluorosis is associated with osteosclerosis, calcification of tendons and ligaments, and bone deformities. There is an elevated risk of skeletal effects at fluoride intakes above 6 mg/day. These intake levels occur in many areas of the world because of naturally high fluoride levels in the groundwater, notably in the Rift Valley of East Africa and in China.”

PM RESPONSE: Do you realize that this is total agreement with what I originally said? Intake of 6 mgs/day = retention of 3 mg/day. I have shown you evidence that intake is up to 6.6 mg/day in US optimally fluoridated areas. So, we're not talking about the Rift Valley or China here. These intake levels are occurring now. In the US.

However, I am glad YOU are citing this document, as it disproves your own statement and silly IOM quotes that there are no adverse health effects below 10 mg/day. I wonder what you will say next??

Further, you write:

SLOTT: "Several of the more recent reviews on the safety of fluoride intake have discussed skeletal fluorosis, which is extremely rare in the United States. Epidemiological studies in the U.S. of communities with naturally occurring fluoride in the water 3.3 to 8 times the amount in optimally adjusted water supplies found no evidence of skeletal fluorosis. Pages 45-47 of the 1991 Department of Health and Human Services document Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks discusses the topic of skeletal fluorosis topic in more detail and provides references. Only 5 cases of skeletal fluorosis have ever been reported in the U.S. In these cases, the total fluoride intake was 15 to 20 mg./fluoride per day for 20 years.

PM RESPONSE: Again, Stage 3 skeletal fluorosis. Is there something you don't understand here? It appears to me that you are very much at a loss when it comes to this issue.

BTW, this is the SAME 1991 document you had sooo much trouble finding earlier...you know, the one with the table showing TOTAL intake being up to 6.6 mg/day in optimally fluoridated areas. I guess you have found it now?? Do you still want to dispute it as being "bogus" science?

You are quite the fraud. You copy and paste info as it fits your agenda, without any real understanding of the matter.

Why don't you list the 3 stages of skeletal fluorosis and how they are manifested, so that all readers can understand? At least it will show us that you actually understand the disease on a most basic
level. And then perhaps you can also provide us with any safety studies which have actually looked at Stages 1 and 2 of skeletal fluorosis in relation to water fluoridation, and failed to find them?

Boy, I wonder how you will respond to the other 4 points...