Further letters from our friend Steven and my reply.

Steven

Your statement my personal opinion is unqualified and irrelevant only confirms my opinion that those pressing for fluoridation are all of the same arrogant nature.

I've seen so many letters world wide from you I can't believe you are the dentist you purport to be.

Why don't you start your own blog in opposition to mine and many others rather than writing to someone in your opinion is unqualified to have one.

Bill





Steve Slott has left a new comment on your post "More correspondence":

1. Bill, you fail to understand the concept of concentration level. The contaminants in drinking water at the tap cannot exceed EPA mandated maximum allowable concentration levels under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation....no matter how many "thousand of tonnes" are put into the water each year. Fluoridated water easily meets all of these quality certification requirements.

2. Water fluoridation prevents dental decay in entire populations, not simply "for a few families",

3. Your personal opinion as to the best manner of preventing dental decay is unqualified and irrelevant.

4. The narrow vision of antifluoridationists constantly leads them to believe that advocation for water fluoridation is done in place of educating on, and advocating for, all other means of dental decay prevention. Yes, obviously, too much sugar is detrimental to oral and overall health. The fact that you realize this is clear evidence that the massive efforts to educate the public on the dangers of excessive sugar consumption have had a positive impact. However, advocating for one preventive measure does not preclude advocating for, and educating on, all other viable means. Getting sugar consumption under control is not going to happen in the short term. In the meantime, we can't simply stick our heads in the sand and disregard the devastation caused by untreated dental decay.

5. Fluoridation simply raises the level of existing fluoride ions in water, by a minuscule level to the point where maximum benefit will occur with no adverse effects. The fluoride ions added are identical to those which humans have always consumed in water. Fluoridation simply ensures that we receive maximum benefit while so doing, with no adverse effects.

You are certainly welcome to your personal opinion as to the prudence of adding these fluoride ions. However, it is in direct contradiction with the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of science and healthcare.

6. You may certainly believe in whomever you choose. However in choosing to believe the relatively small handful of respected scientists, worldwide, who oppose fluoridation, you are choosing to disregard the opinions of over 150 of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world, as well as that of those such as the past 5 US Surgeons General, the Deans of the Harvard schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health, and the Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water.

Steven D. Slott, DDS


Chris

1. How you deem you would be "looked upon" if you illegally placed contaminants into a public water system, is obviously meaningless, and irrelevant to water fluoridation.

2. Your personal diagnosis of "fluorosis" in your grandchildren is unqualified and meaningless. If your grandchildren have been diagnosed to have dental fluorosis, by a qualified, licensed dental professional, any such fluorosis which required "cosmetic surgery" would be at the level of moderate/severe, which does not occur attributable to optimally fluoridated water. This level of dental fluorosis occurs attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste, or exposure to high levels of environment or well-water fluoride during the teeth developing years of 0-8.

Your hypocrisy is clearly evident by your expression of "concern" with barely detectable mild dental fluorosis while callously disregarding the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, anf life-threatening infections, directly resultant of untreated dental decay which can be, and is prevented by water fluoridation.

3. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that mild dental fluorosis is "an outward indication of deeper damage within the skeleton and other body organs." If you care to belabor this point then provide such evidence, properly cited.

4. That which is apalling is the callous disregard for truth, honesty, and accuracy by antifluoridationists who believe they can put forth any unsubstantiated claims they please and then demand that they be disproven. Science does not work that way. If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimally fluoridated water, then produce it, properly cited.

5. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly contradict your personal opinion that "it ain't helping little kiddies' teeth". I will be glad to cite as many as you would reasonably care to read.

Steven D. Slott, DDS