POINT 4: Response by Paul Melters to Steve Slott from a previous date - August 29, 2013

Steve Slott had written:

#4 Below is the out-of-context quotes and the third party "source" from which you copy/pasted them, in regard to the 1977 and 1991 reports. Once again, as I’ve made clear to you before, provide proper cites for the reports you wish to reference and I will gladly look at the information in its entire and proper context. Cites found on third party antifluoridationist websites are frequently not reliable and are insufficient references. Although I was able to find the 1977 report in entirety, the “cite” you pulled off of this website for the 1991 report is totally inadequate. 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. 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.

“1977 "... 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 food. (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. ... These findings are important . . . 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." [phase 3 Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis] Drinking Water and Health, Safe Drinking Water Committee, National Academy of Sciences, NAS/NRC, 1977 p. 371-372
Fluorine Excretion and Balances in Adult Men -- intake @4-14 mg/day, absorption =94% -- 40% retained Trace Elements In Human and Animal Nutrition, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (1987) p.378
1991 Estimated daily fluoride intake, adults in optimally fluoridated area: up to 6.6 mg/day .. in areas with 2 to 4 ppm fluoride in water: up to 7+ mg/day. Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, Department of Health and Human Services, February 1991 p17”


----http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/790453/replies?c=374

PM RESPONSE:

#4) I think you spew so much nonsense that you have trouble remembering what you write.

Here are the two references I used. They are clearly listed in my post above, and all previous ones for that matter.

Drinking Water and Health, Safe Drinking Water Committee, National Academy of Sciences, NAS/NRC, 1977 p. 372 - Available for FREE via the NAP website. http://www.nap.edu/

You even provided a link to it:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1780&page=372

AND

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 readers like Steve Slott:
http://tinyurl.com/ofsdku6


You just cited YOURSELF form this same report in your response above, now you claim AGAIN that it is totally inadequate? AND that I took it from somewhere else???

Is there something wrong with the URLs above???? What part of the above cite do you not understand or can get to?????

Are you crazy??

No, you want to distract again, now claiming that I took the info from somewhere else, trying to make a strawman argument. Why? Because once again, your distortion of facts has been exposed. You have tried this before and failed. You will fail again.

You are so pathetic. Luckily, the reader, by following the thread, can clearly see who is full of BS here.

I'm going to stay on your case and will call you out whenever I can. You are full of deceit.

Paul.