What about flouride?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, 1. I never said that. Quote it. Now. Or label yourself a liar. No need to fill this thread with more [burps].Please, everyone knows that is what you meant.

Thanks for more hypocrisy -- you never linked where I allegedly argued the fluoride used in water supplies was not an industrial waste product.


2. I actually dont claim to know shit about SAWS water. I didnt say SAWS uses NaF. Quote me when I said I did. I SAID ITS SUSPICIOUS. Quote me. Now. Or label yourself a liar.You continuously spout off about NaF in the SAWS water supply after being told directly at least three times it is not used in the SAWS water supply.

Look, if you just want to confirm you are making up conspiracy theories based on your ignorance, mission accomplished.

Please answer this question with a yes or no:

Is NaF is used to fluoridate the SAWS water supply?

Yes or no.

[Parker2112]

You are not being forced to drink SAWS water. You shouldn't even have to study to know this.

just like pro-lifers claim there is no one forcing pregnant women to have the kid if they can give it up for adoption.

Remind me how that one came out.

With one fell swooping bumble here on constitutional law, you have managed to take out yourself, WH, and RG.

My hats off to you sir. :toast

[Winehole23]

HYPOCRITE, n. One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises.

[RandomGuy]

Quite honestly, I dont read 9/10ths of the shit you post. You like to hear yourself talk, but you spit out a lot of false assumptions, intolerably simple calculations passed off as real intelligence, and wordy beating around the bush because you enjoy the process.

This doesnt mean I have to take you seriously and read your garbage, I told you your cred with me is 0, and I dont engage your 9/10ths of the bullshit you spew.

You say that but all I read is "bla bla bla boo hoo bla"

I mean, I don't read 9/10ths of what you post.

[Parker2112]

Please, everyone knows that is what you meant.

Thanks for more hypocrisy -- you never linked where I allegedly argued the fluoride used in water supplies was not an industrial waste product.

You continuously spout off about NaF in the SAWS water supply after being told directly at least three times it is not used in the SAWS water supply.

Look, if you just want to confirm you are making up conspiracy theories based on your ignorance, mission accomplished.

Please answer this question with a yes or no:

Is NaF is used to fluoridate the SAWS water supply?

Yes or no.

everyone extracted that from my suspicion. I actually suspected that the timing was due to some larger scheme. Again, you lie.

Told by RG? After he started finishing my posts with his own drivel, I stopped reading his shit. I dont know shit about SAWS. I already said that. I said I was suspicious. Of that I claim guilt all day. If the answer is in RGs post, I will remain ignorant.

Answer this: How the fuck is it a conspiracy theory if there is still a debate going on? How are you settled when the authorities debating are not?

My advice: become comfortable with ambiguity. Not everything is settled. You cant nail down every loose end. If you try, you may experience heartache, and waste unnecessary time fighting losing battles.

[Parker2112]

You say that but all I read is "bla bla bla boo hoo bla"

I mean, I don't read 9/10ths of what you post.

now your getting it :toast

[Parker2112]

ButtHurt
An inappropriately strong negative emotional response from a perceived personal insult. Characterized by strong feelings of shame. Frequently associated with a cessation of communication and overt hostility towards the "aggressor."

[RandomGuy]

to be fair, thats not a simple question. How would any layman know the answer to this question? None on this forum even believes that the flouride used is a industrial waste product. proof positive that this subject matter is not an area of common knowledge.

Answer the question for me and then make the intended dump. but just know this: I aint no...


You claimed this, but no one prior to this post actually said they don't believe that an industrial waste product was in the water.

That is YOU making shit up about what others believe.

Chump asked you whether or not all the industrial waste was used or not.

Since the most likely answer "no" does not suit your theory, you ignored it.

[ChumpDumper]

everyone extracted that from my suspicion. I actually suspected that the timing was due to some larger scheme. Again, you lie.

Told by RG? After he started finishing my posts with his own drivel, I stopped reading his shit. I dont know shit about SAWS. I already said that. I said I was suspicious. Of that I claim guilt all day. If the answer is in RGs post, I will remain ignorant.

Answer this: How the fuck is it a conspiracy theory if there is still a debate going on? How are you settled when the authorities debating are not?

My advice: become comfortable with ambiguity. Not everything is settled. You cant nail down every loose end. If you try, you may experience heartache, and waste unnecessary time fighting losing battles.It was a yes or no question.

Please answer with a yes or no.

Is NaF is used to fluoridate the SAWS water supply?

Yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

So is all the waste fluoride put into the water supply?

Yes or no.

Waiting an answer to this question.

[RandomGuy]

Labeling something "industrial waste" does not make its presence in the human body in dilute amounts toxic, does it?


Still waiting on an answer to this question too.

For someone whose primary assertion on the subject is that the producers are trying to avoid court cases and injury torts, you suck at answering simple questions that would come up in any court.

[Parker2112]

that point was argued in the first five pages.

And I claimed ignorance. Why would I say definitively "no" when I dont know that to be the case? Or yes?

I know you refferred to some "invoice" at one point, but to me that was dead in the water because I wasnt claiming Toyota delivered NaF to SAWS, and you were presenting a strawman argument.

Which is also about the time you lost my readership.

[Parker2112]

It was a yes or no question.

Please answer with a yes or no.

Is NaF is used to fluoridate the SAWS water supply?

Yes or no.




And I claimed ignorance. Why would I say definitively "no" when I dont know that to be the case? Or yes?

[Winehole23]

I actually suspected that the timing was due to some larger scheme. Crackpot!


If the answer is in RGs post, I will remain ignorant.You got that right.

My advice: become comfortable with ambiguity. Not everything is settled. You cant nail down every loose end. If you try, you may experience heartache, and waste unnecessary time fighting losing battles.Crackpot to fence sitter in a single post.

Comedy gold.

[RandomGuy]

I proved corp motive. Easiest thing on gods green earth to know/prove/love.

Here is where you actively lied.

You have provided no proof of motive whatsoever, when asked repeately to do so.

Why do you have to lie to make your case?

[ChumpDumper]

You were told directly three times what was used to fluoridate SAWS water.

You were given a link to the information.

You aren't serious about educating yourself on this subject.

You want to remain ignorant and uneducated.

That's fine, but never expect to be taken seriously on this board.

Ever.

[Parker2112]

Parker2112 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=15267), Blake (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3460), RandomGuy (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1813), ChumpDumper (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=153), Winehole23 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14613)

4 on 1 and you guys are doing good to draw even. You guys should think about another hobby!

[Parker2112]

Here is where you actively lied.

You have provided no proof of motive whatsoever, when asked repeately to do so.

Why do you have to lie to make your case?

The motive was to avoid liability to members of the general public.

This is why i dont generally read your shit. You like to pull shit out of your ass and misrep the truth.

[ChumpDumper]

4 on 1 and you guys are doing good to draw even. You guys should think about another hobby!Well, you are ignorant of a lot of things. Being ignorant of the curbstomping you got wouldn't be a surprise.

I expect some pictures will be posted.

[Parker2112]

You were told directly three times what was used to fluoridate SAWS water.

You were given a link to the information.

You aren't serious about educating yourself on this subject.

You want to remain ignorant and uneducated.

That's fine, but never expect to be taken seriously on this board.

Ever.

You want so bad to take down my position and cant.

You want the three count, and the best you can do is the ol' circle jerk.

You want to readily dismiss all the cites I have presented but, that just isnt possible.

You want this to be dismissed as conspiracy, but the cites give it credibility.

Just dont expect to ever get the W here.

[Parker2112]

Well, you are ignorant of a lot of things. Being ignorant of the curbstomping you got wouldn't be a surprise.

I expect some pictures will be posted.

Curbstomping on the strawman bullshit you guys tied me to (Toyota sells SAWS NaF)?
:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Parker2112]

As my Great-Grandpa used to say: "Bitch, please.":lol

[Blake]

just like pro-lifers claim there is no one forcing pregnant women to have the kid if they can give it up for adoption.

Remind me how that one came out.

With one fell swooping bumble here on constitutional law, you have managed to take out yourself, WH, and RG.

My hats off to you sir. :toast

wtf? :lol

It's not like that at all and I don't really have any idea what you are talking about. How did that one come out?

[ChumpDumper]

You want so bad to take down my position and cant.What is your position?


You want the three count, and the best you can do is the ol' circle jerk.I showed pretty conclusively that you are ignorant and choose to remain so.


You want to readily dismiss all the cites I have presented but, that just isnt possible.The others did quite a good job of it. No need for me to pile on.


You want this to be dismissed as conspiracy, but the cites give it credibility.Not at all. They are pretty poor "cites."


Just dont expect to ever get the W here.I wouldn't expect you to admit defeat, although you did admit to being ignorant and expressed your intent to remain so.

That's really all I need.

[RandomGuy]

4 on 1 and you guys are doing good to draw even. You guys should think about another hobby!

You think the beat down you are getting here is "even"?


I have caught you lying, ignoring questions, being too lazy to read opposing argruments and sources, and the lamest crime of all, "declaring yourself the winner".

Seriously, that is one of *the* cardinal rules of the Internet. "Declaring yourself the winner in your own thread is just... lame.

Sad, man. Just, sad.

[ChumpDumper]

Curbstomping on the strawman bullshit you guys tied me to (Toyota sells SAWS NaF)?
:lmao:lmao:lmao
Toyota sell SAWS NaF (even though the contract is specifically for a compound that contains no sodium but SAWS gets NaF from Toyota through some shadowy intermediary whom we will never know because I know the process is not transparent because I haven't even bothered to read the web page that spells out exactly what the compound used is when it was spoon fed to me).

[Winehole23]

Which is also about the time you lost my readership. I wouldn't miss it. Doubt RG and CD would either.

[Parker2112]

What is your position?

I showed pretty conclusively that you are ignorant and choose to remain so.

The others did quite a good job of it. No need for me to pile on.

Not at all. They are pretty poor "cites."

I wouldn't expect you to admit defeat, although you did admit to being ignorant and expressed your intent to remain so.

That's really all I need.

Last one for the afternoon.

Position: fluoridation is 1. unconst, 2. ineffective, 3. puts sensitives at risk, 4. done without a full disclosure to public, and 5. unnecessary expense.

I am still suspicious about Toyota, but will consider myself uninformed here because I couldnt stomach any more of RGs misreps.

The quality of the cites: might want to call some reps from those 11 distinct federal employees unions and tell them that their reps are wasting dues on stupid petitions to congress. And that the professional scientists that are represented in that may want to reconsider their conclusions because you have decided that the position is without merit, laymans credentials be damned.





Ill wait. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

you did admit to being ignorant and expressed your intent to remain so.

That's really all I need.I won't wait for you to not be ignorant.

[Parker2112]

Originally Posted by Parker2112 http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4651716#post4651716)
Curbstomping on the strawman bullshit you guys tied me to (Toyota sells SAWS NaF)?
:lmao:lmao:lmao



Originally Posted by Parker2112
Toyota sell SAWS NaF (even though the contract is specifically for a compound that contains no sodium but SAWS gets NaF from Toyota through some shadowy intermediary whom we will never know because I know the process is not transparent because I haven't even bothered to read the web page that spells out exactly what the compound used is when it was spoon fed to me).


oh fuck.

fuck fuck fuggity fuck.

http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/6515/original/jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg?1248715819

[RandomGuy]

What is your position?

I don't think he really has one, either.

"look at this coincidence" becomes... "well, what I really meant was..."

"look at the iron clad science" becomes "these people agree with me"

"this shit it toxic" becomes "well of course when you dilute it, it isn't all that harmful"

"look at this expensive thing they are doing" becomes "well, since you pointed out it is less than .5% of their revenues"

:rolleyes

Given how badly conspira-boyz do when they have the nutz to make testable claims, is it really all that shocking that they stick to innuendo?

[Winehole23]

You first, Parker.

[Parker2112]

when the quote doesnt exist, just put it in a quote box labeled Parker2112!



What a douche.

[Parker2112]

I don't think he really has one, either.

"look at this coincidence" becomes... "well, what I really meant was..."

"look at the iron clad science" becomes "these people agree with me"

"this shit it toxic" becomes "well of course when you dilute it, it isn't all that harmful"

"look at this expensive thing they are doing" becomes "well, since you pointed out it is less than .5% of their revenues"

:rolleyes

Given how badly conspira-boyz do when they have the nutz to make testable claims, is it really all that shocking that they stick to innuendo?

RG, you made tons of assumptions, misdirections, and miscalculations from the word go.

And I will say, youre a good guy who means well, but you just run a few quarts short of operating level. The only problem: youre leaps of logic crammed into my mouth become offensive.

I challenged you for some quotes on the shit you claim, you couldnt come up with the shit because it doesnt exist.

And I would go through your posts to find the infractions at issue, but I dont want to get covered in the jizz of your masturbatory mental gymnastical feats of ignorance, and so....I wont.

[RandomGuy]

Position: fluoridation is
1. unconst,

Specific section of the constitution violated?

2. ineffective,

Proof?

3. puts sensitives at risk,

So?

4. done without a full disclosure to public, and

SAWS and other large municipal water utilities put it on their front web page. hell it's voted on in most places. What disclosure do you want?

5. unnecessary expense.

Blake posted a link to an economic study showing it saved far more than it costs. I posted information showing it cost less than .5% of SAWS revenue. Why should I care about less than half a penny out of every dollar spent on water?

(especially when that half penny saves me whole dollars in dental premiums)

[Blake]

Last one for the afternoon.

Position: fluoridation is 1. unconst, 2. ineffective, 3. puts sensitives at risk, 4. done without a full disclosure to public, and 5. unnecessary expense.

1. proven false
2. proven false
3. unproven
4. proven false
5. proven false by yourself


I am still suspicious about Toyota, but will consider myself uninformed here because I couldnt stomach any more of RGs misreps.

If you are claiming ignorance, why are you still claiming victory?


The quality of the cites: might want to call some reps from those 11 distinct federal employees unions and tell them that their reps are wasting dues on stupid petitions to congress. And that the professional scientists that are represented in that may want to reconsider their conclusions because you have decided that the position is without merit, laymans credentials be damned.

Do you believe all EPA employee union members are in 100% agreement on the fluoride issue?

I would definitely question why my union dues are being spent on Hirzy trying to protect me from fluoridated water.

[Blake]

http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/6515/original/jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg?1248715819

If Jesus exists, why did he put fluroide in the water?

[RandomGuy]

Still think this crap isnt industrial waste?

Provide one quote from anybody in this thread stating that the poster did not believe that certain forms of floride used in water was sourced from industrial waste.

If you can't, then you have made an assumption and put words in someone else's mouth.

Go on.

I'll wait.

[Parker2112]

Provide one quote from anybody in this thread stating that the poster did not believe that certain forms of floride used in water was sourced from industrial waste.

If you can't, then you have made an assumption and put words in someone else's mouth.

Go on.

I'll wait.

Actually, you fuggin' little maggot...

My position went from:

Parker2112: From a policy standpoint, It makes sense, for both policy makers and corps, to dilute poisonous waste products like flouride (see vid #3) to safe levels spread over the water supply nationwide rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry and ultimately the national economy.

and



Parker2112: It doesnt sound that damn threatening, right? Well true...at current levels, very little is seen in the way of side effects, other than flourosis. The other stuff is a bit overdramatic.

Its the bigger issue that needs addressing...like why we have this industrial waste product being dumped into our water when the science on both the benefits and the potential risks posed is disputed. And when you look at the origins of the practice, you find even more reason to doubt this practice.

So why do we do it? And why are more communities banning the practice? And why is there even a backlash when the practice comes under fire? Who has interests to protect here?


ON PAGE 2... to your summary of my position on page three of:


RG: Originally Posted by Parker2112 http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4564562#post4564562)

[Floride is really really bad for you and part of a secret government/sinister plot]

Fuck you trick. You twisted this whole shit plain and simple, with anti-conspiracy banter. That was the beginning of all of this. On the record. Eat a dick, RG, bad intent or none.
:flipoff

(Ive been waiting to use that.)

[LnGrrrR]

I still think the whole "Round Earth" thing should be looked at. I mean, some people dispute the idea of a Round Earth, saying we have a Flat Earth instead.

[LnGrrrR]

Parker, I don't see why you get so pissed off about us calling it a conspiracy, when you've admitted that

a) you haven't bothered to research the facts yourself

b) you you don't accept the evidence contra to your opinions.

Here's your argument style Parker.

1) Throw out random shit

2) Claim that opinions that disprove yours are done so by bgus science/scientists

3) State that unless you personally see the results you can't expect to trust them

4) ????

5) Claim victory

[Parker2112]

Parker, I don't see why you get so pissed off about us calling it a conspiracy, when you've admitted that

a) you haven't bothered to research the facts yourself

b) you you don't accept the evidence contra to your opinions.

Here's your argument style Parker.

1) Throw out random shit

2) Claim that opinions that disprove yours are done so by bgus science/scientists

3) State that unless you personally see the results you can't expect to trust them

4) ????

5) Claim victory

Im not really that mad. But that was a dick move by RG. But do you see the misrep above?

[LnGrrrR]

Im not really that mad. But that was a dick move by RG. But do you see the misrep above?

If there is a misrepresentation, it's because you do not honestly argue. You readily admit to lack of research and throwing out claims with no empirical verification on your part. Why should your opponents keep your arguments straight when you haven't done the basic research to verify?

The very example that you used a "fuck you" smiley, when you're not even that mad, is misrepresentation. You claim to be mad, but aren't.

[Parker2112]

2) Claim that opinions that disprove yours are done so by bgus science/scientists



never did this.

Also: do you see how lukewarm my position was from the beginning? Do you see how the shit got twisted?

I call that the flagrant flailings of a cocksucker.

Im just saying.

[LnGrrrR]

never did this.

Are you saying you've never intimated that some scientists are bribed/bought out?

[Parker2112]

If there is a misrepresentation, it's because you do not honestly argue. You readily admit to lack of research and throwing out claims with no empirical verification on your part. Why should your opponents keep your arguments straight when you haven't done the basic research to verify?

I never moved from my lukewarm stance. I didnt claim to know "the truth." I didnt need to verify, I wanted to discuss, and thats essentially what I did. RG took the shit and ran with the shit. And this was just the first instance...his shit was rank with misrep over the course of 15+ pages.

[Parker2112]

Are you saying you've never intimated that some scientists are bribed/bought out?

I did, and I still believe that. I believe professionals in every field are bought. I didnt say tons. But the example I used was the scientific body that is used by the right to undermine global warming. They are paid for those findings by oil cos.

[Blake]

4) ????

5) Claim victory

4) Admit to ignorance

5) Claim victory

[Parker2112]

If there is a misrepresentation, it's because you do not honestly argue. You readily admit to lack of research and throwing out claims with no empirical verification on your part. Why should your opponents keep your arguments straight when you haven't done the basic research to verify?

The very example that you used a "fuck you" smiley, when you're not even that mad, is misrepresentation. You claim to be mad, but aren't.

I mean that...fuck him. But I dont have to be mad to say fuck him. Its just that simple: fuck him. :flipoff


:)

[Parker2112]

4) Admit to ignorance

5) Claim victory

I won on some sub-issues with Winehole, including the constitutional component. I didnt win on fluoridation...

Go back and look for chess play...you will see nothing but sub-issues.

[LnGrrrR]

I did, and I still believe that. I believe professionals in every field are bought. I didnt say tons. But the example I used was the scientific body that is used by the right to undermine global warming. They are paid for those findings by oil cos.

So, let me get this straight.

You ask for evidence that runs counter to yours, right?

So, do you think that scientists who produce data that counters your flouride claims are raising legitimate arguments? Or are they all bought out?

[Parker2112]

So, let me get this straight.

You ask for evidence that runs counter to yours, right?

So, do you think that scientists who produce data that counters your flouride claims are raising legitimate arguments?

absolutely. My argument was simply that it wasnt a cut and dried conspiracy that could be dismissed. All I ever said was that it wasnt as easy as that.

Read my position from pg 2 bove. Same as at the end. And tell me: is that inconsistent with two sides to this issue?

[Blake]

I won on some sub-issues with Winehole, including the constitutional component. I didnt win on fluoridation...

Go back and look for chess play...you will see nothing but sub-issues.

You lost in spectacular fashion on the constitutional component.

I have not seen any issue or sub-issue you can lay any kind of claim of victory on.

[LnGrrrR]

absolutely. My argument was simply that it wasnt a cut and dried conspiracy that could be dismissed. All I ever said was that it wasnt as easy as that.

Read my position from pg 2 bove. Same as at the end. And tell me: is that inconsistent with two sides to this issue?

Ok, so let's say that the people who dismissed it as conspiracy were wrong. Now that they've produced evidence that shows that flouride has little to no harm on a person, what do you think about the issue? Do you agree with that data? If not, why not?

[Parker2112]

You lost in spectacular fashion on the constitutional component.

I have not seen any issue or sub-issue you can lay any kind of claim of victory on.

Im not going to reargue those right now. The point of this was to find where my stance was twisted from lukewarm fluoride questioner with some concerns to full blown conspiracy nut.

And RG was the dick in question. Which I knew already.

[Blake]

absolutely. My argument was simply that it wasnt a cut and dried conspiracy that could be dismissed. All I ever said was that it wasnt as easy as that.

Read my position from pg 2 bove. Same as at the end. And tell me: is that inconsistent with two sides to this issue?

Thanks to the evidence provided by actual entities providing actual research regarding people drinking fluoridated water over periods of time, it really is that cut and dried.

You are either too intellectually lazy to figure it out or you are purposely ignorant of these studies and real sources.

[Parker2112]

Ok, so let's say that the people who dismissed it as conspiracy were wrong. Now that they've produced evidence that shows that flouride has little to no harm on a person, what do you think about the issue? Do you agree with that data? If not, why not?

define a person.

as in normal person/normal immune/normal kidney function?

or a person as in anyone?

The data Ive seen is that fluoride is potentially harmful to diabetics, those with reduced kidney functions, infants and elderly.

Those outlier warrant more consideration in my book.

You disagree?

[Blake]

Im not going to reargue those right now. The point of this was to find where my stance was twisted from lukewarm fluoride questioner with some concerns to full blown conspiracy nut.

And RG was the dick in question. Which I knew already.

No need to reargue. It's practically a foregone conclusion you will just lose again in continued spectacular fashion.

[LnGrrrR]

define a person.

as in normal person/normal immune/normal kidney function?

or a person as in anyone?

The data Ive seen is that fluoride is potentially harmful to diabetics, those with reduced kidney functions, infants and elderly.

Those outlier warrant more consideration in my book.

You disagree?

We'll say that it doesn't affect the average person to any noticeable degree.

Since you are concerned that said flouride may be potentially harmful to some populations, do you have a suggestion as to what they should do with the flouride instead?

[Blake]

define a person.

as in normal person/normal immune/normal kidney function?

or a person as in anyone?

The data Ive seen is that fluoride is potentially harmful to diabetics, those with reduced kidney functions, infants and elderly.

Those outlier warrant more consideration in my book.

You disagree?

What data have you seen that directly shows that fluoridated water at levels of the EPA standard of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or less is harmful to diabetics, etc?

[Parker2112]

We'll say that it doesn't affect the average person to any noticeable degree.

Since you are concerned that said flouride may be potentially harmful to some populations, do you have a suggestion as to what they should do with the flouride instead?

it could be disposed of properly. or sent to fluoridate iran.

[Parker2112]

What data have you seen that directly shows that fluoridated water at levels of the EPA standard of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or less is harmful to diabetics, etc?

its in the thread.

[LnGrrrR]

it could be disposed of properly. or sent to fluoridate iran.

How so?

[Parker2112]

like any toxic waste product: in accordance with state and federal regs.

[LnGrrrR]

like any toxic waste product: in accordance with state and federal regs.

I'm assuming that they dispose of it RIGHT NOW in accordance with state and federal regs, which allow dispersal in a large enough water supply.

What NEW state and federal regs should be written to deal with flouride specifically? Is flouride harmful enough to be included with other more harmful chemicals regarding disposal?

[Parker2112]

I'm assuming that they dispose of it RIGHT NOW in accordance with state and federal regs, which allow dispersal in a large enough water supply.

What NEW state and federal regs should be written to deal with flouride specifically? Is flouride harmful enough to be included with other more harmful chemicals regarding disposal?

you need to watch the vid at post 1.

it is extremely toxic when concentrated. @ plants: Workers get sick, neighbors get sick, etc.

not so much at levels dosed in our water.

regs are in place, no need for new ones.

[LnGrrrR]

it could be disposed of properly. or sent to fluoridate iran.


like any toxic waste product: in accordance with state and federal regs.


you need to watch the vid at post 1.

it is extremely toxic when concentrated. @ plants: Workers get sick, neighbors get sick, etc.

not so much at levels dosed in our water.

regs are in place, no need for new ones.

Ok... so you said it could be disposed of properly according to regs, but then admit that it is already being disposed of according to regs.

You also admitted it's only extremely toxic in concentrated form, but that the dosage released into our water is negligible. Are you sticking by your claim that the negligible dosage still affects certain populations?

If so, how would you protect those populations?

[Parker2112]

Some people advocate to drop the levels or reevaluate the safety of the current levels set by EPA.

I would need more info to advocate either way based on science.

I dont need more info to believe, consistent with the libertarian party, that gov doesnt have the right to do this, good intent or not. And that is the crux of why all the science has been on a back burner for me. It comes down to constitutional protection from big govt in determining what medical treatment we want to undergo.

[Winehole23]

Who's forcing you to drink tap water?

[Winehole23]

Also, if counties and cities vote on it, either directly or through their representatives, how does that amount to a violation of rights? Voting is consent.

[LnGrrrR]

Some people advocate to drop the levels or reevaluate the safety of the current levels set by EPA.

And some people think they're ok, I'm sure. Did you post data that shows flouridation of water supplies at their current levels have significant (or even any) effects on these specific populations you're concerned about?


I would need more info to advocate either way based on science.

If you don't have the info to determine which side is right, how can you insult those who dismiss the argument off-hand? Perhaps the evidence is overwhelmingly lopsided towards those who believe the current levels aren't harmful.


I dont need more info to believe, consistent with the libertarian party, that gov doesnt have the right to do this, good intent or not. And that is the crux of why all the science has been on a back burner for me. It comes down to constitutional protection from big govt in determining what medical treatment we want to undergo.

If you don't care about the science behind it, why use arguments based on science?

Frankly, science DOES play into it. If these companies are releasing this waste into city supplies at levels too low to cause harm, then how are they violating anyone's liberties? If it has no significant medical effect, then you can't claim it's a medical treatment you're subject to.

[Parker2112]

Dealt with already. My argument is solid and I am sold. For lower classes, to which water is necessary for life and household function, it is impossible to presume anything but public water will be used. They are forced, just like women who are forced to carry to term are in effect forced, to conform to outside influence, against the guarantees in the const. And those Constitutional rights cant be voted away.

[Parker2112]

If you don't care about the science behind it, why use arguments based on science?



I dont think I ever did. I argued the science but never argued based on science. I DID argue about the uniformity of the scientific views.

[LnGrrrR]

I dont think I ever did. I argued the science but never argued based on science. I DID argue about the uniformity of the scientific views.

Arguing the science would lead one to think that it's related to your argument. And there is probably uniformity on the issues because the data backs up those who find no harm in the current system.

[Winehole23]

My argument is solid and I am sold. I thought you weren't selling anything.

Did you fall off the fence?

[Winehole23]

Maybe you just couldn't handle the ambiguity anymore.

[Parker2112]

Arguing the science would lead one to think that it's related to your argument. And there is probably uniformity on the issues because the data backs up those who find no harm in the current system.

My bad. I argue too much. Remind me to argue about that whole flat earth thing later.

[Parker2112]

I thought you weren't selling anything.

Did you fall off the fence?

I am sold. Doesnt say Im selling. You are kind of a twat.

[Parker2112]

Maybe you just couldn't handle the ambiguity anymore.

constitutional rights are pretty clear here. The ambiguity ivolves the science.

[Winehole23]

For lower classes, to which water is necessary for life and household function, it is impossible to presume anything but public water will be used. Impossible you say. What do people drink where there is no municipal/county source? Are there no lower classes in the country?

[Winehole23]

constitutional rights are pretty clear here. Great, then show us the parade to the courthouse.

Such a clear violation of rights must have piqued the interest of some greedy trial lawyer by now.

[Winehole23]

I am sold. Doesnt say Im selling. Ok. You bought something then.

If you're not selling it to us, what is this thread for?

[Parker2112]

Great, then show us the parade to the courthouse.

Such a clear violation of rights must have piqued the interest of some greedy trial lawyer by now.

This is the hole in my theory. I do intend to follow up on this. Dont assume to know what the hold up is on defending these rights. Where the EPA has set safe limits, it becomes administrative. Tackling the problem through agency enforecemnt bodies is not easy. However, we do see division within the EPA. I dont know why it hasnt been pursued, but unlike the science angle, the legal angle intrigues me, so I'll check it out.

[Blake]

its in the thread.

what page?

[Parker2112]

what page?

:lol

[Winehole23]

It's buried on page one.

[Winehole23]

On page two, Parker calls the affected population "pussies."

[Parker2112]

On page two, Parker calls the affected population "pussies."

check the sarcasm. Its there. Making fun of Chumps lack of sympathy. We had a laugh.

[Parker2112]

On page two, Parker calls the affected population "pussies."

stretch things a little more and you might begin to look like...
http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cameltoe.jpg

[Parker2112]

WH did you watch the vid?

[Winehole23]

check the sarcasm. Its there. Making fun of Chumps lack of sympathy. We had a laugh.Actually, it looks more like he was making fun of yours.

[Parker2112]

WH did you watch the vid?

[Winehole23]

WH did you watch the vid?No.

[Blake]

what page?


:lol

no surprise.

[Blake]

This is the hole in my theory. I do intend to follow up on this. Dont assume to know what the hold up is on defending these rights. Where the EPA has set safe limits, it becomes administrative. Tackling the problem through agency enforecemnt bodies is not easy. However, we do see division within the EPA. I dont know why it hasnt been pursued, but unlike the science angle, the legal angle intrigues me, so I'll check it out.

It's already been explained to you why it hasn't been pursued.

No surprise you ignore it and would rather post more jpegs.

[Parker2112]

It's already been explained to you why it hasn't been pursued.

No surprise you ignore it and would rather post more jpegs.

what page?

[Parker2112]

OK, so how many cancer cases have been attributed to fluoridated water?


I dont know, honestly it sounds like only pussies are affected.

or little babies.

his skepticism was already apparent. The babies makes this clear sarcasm. You left that part out. will your twatulence know no boundaries?

[Winehole23]

It's a twenty page thread. You posted a large number of links. Requesting a page number isn't unreasonable.

[Winehole23]

his skepticism was already apparent. The babies makes this clear sarcasm. You left that part out. will your twatulence know no boundaries?You suggested you were responding to CD's insensitivity when in fact he was responding to your sarcasm. Misrepresent yourself much?

[Parker2112]

It's a twenty page thread. You posted a large number of links. Requesting a page number isn't unreasonable.

if that is the case, then doing the search isnt either. to me it boils down to the age old question: "Who wants to know?"

[Parker2112]

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4564629#post4564629)

OK, so how many cancer cases have been attributed to fluoridated water?

skepticism.

twatulence.

[Winehole23]

I didn't think it was possible for you to get more incoherent, but you just did.

[Parker2112]

whatever, magilla.

[LnGrrrR]

So, as I see it, Parker is mad because people dismissed the concerns without evidence. But the evidence seems to say that fluoride is of no big concern. At the levels recommended by the EPA, it seems to cause no harm. I haven't even seen any ironclad proof that it causes harm to specific populations such as the elderly or children.

Given all of the above... What exactly is Parker arguing about?

[Blake]

what page?

page 19:


right to privacy encompasses the right to decide medical treatment. Study.


You are not being forced to drink SAWS water. You shouldn't even have to study to know this.

[Blake]

if that is the case, then doing the search isnt either. to me it boils down to the age old question: "Who wants to know?"

Apparently not you.

You'd rather dance.

[Parker2112]

So, as I see it, Parker is mad because people dismissed the concerns without evidence. But the evidence seems to say that fluoride is of no big concern. At the levels recommended by the EPA, it seems to cause no harm. I haven't even seen any ironclad proof that it causes harm to specific populations such as the elderly or children.

Given all of the above... What exactly is Parker arguing about?

did you or did you not say you were voting libertarian in the next prez election? You tell me what its about newbie.

[Blake]

did you or did you not say you were voting libertarian in the next prez election? You tell me what its about newbie.

your meltdown is getting worse by the post.

[Parker2112]

your meltdown is getting worse by the post.

thats a commonly held view by libertarians, dumbass. Its on many written party platforms.

[Parker2112]

xP7IPDfC3yg

summary

[Winehole23]

thats a commonly held view by libertarians, dumbass. Its on many written party platforms.Another lame appeal to authority. Par for the course.

[LnGrrrR]

did you or did you not say you were voting libertarian in the next prez election? You tell me what its about newbie.

What "it's" about? For one thing, I don't think the fluoridization of water, which is considered harmless by a majority of scientists who have studied it, is really as important as, say, a President claiming the right to assassinate US citizens, and then barring them from bringing a suit to court by using the state secrets privilege.

But I'm the crazy one here, I guess. I'm the "newbie".

[LnGrrrR]

xP7IPDfC3yg

summary

You can't sum it up yourself?

[LnGrrrR]

right to privacy encompasses the right to decide medical treatment. Study.

There's no "medical treatment" involved if it has no significant health effects, right?

[Parker2112]

Another lame appeal to authority. Par for the course.

Lng claimed to lean libertarian. I am just checking his "liberty card."

None of your concern.

[Parker2112]

What "it's" about? For one thing, I don't think the fluoridization of water, which is considered harmless by a majority of scientists who have studied it, is really as important as, say, a President claiming the right to assassinate US citizens, and then barring them from bringing a suit to court by using the state secrets privilege.

But I'm the crazy one here, I guess. I'm the "newbie".

Libertarians believe in reigning in big govt spending and control. This issue definitely fits the bill. I just thought since you claimed some sympathy to the cause, the fluoride issue would hit the same nerve it does with most libertarians.

[Parker2112]

What "it's" about? For one thing, I don't think the fluoridization of water, which is considered harmless by a majority of scientists who have studied it, is really as important as, say, a President claiming the right to assassinate US citizens, and then barring them from bringing a suit to court by using the state secrets privilege.

Man, the one place Boutons and I disagree: 95% of the time Faith in govt is faith misplaced. This is the type of crap govt is good for.

[Parker2112]

You can't sum it up yourself?

it pretty much touches on most everything I touched on earlier. The purpose is actually to confirm that these issues are commonly in dispute.

[Parker2112]

There's no "medical treatment" involved if it has no significant health effects, right?

tell that to the kids developing fluorosis.

[Parker2112]

WH: something that you should know. The vid in post 1 is not produced by anyone associated with infowars. It was just linked from infowars page. Now watch it, magilla.

[Blake]

xP7IPDfC3yg

summary

from Dan Stockin's website:


Our goal at The Lillie Center Inc. is to stop water fluoridation permanently -- through educating the public, research, working with the media, and most of all, by relying on God to help us end this harmful practice. If you would like to help us, any ideas, media contacts or opportunities, legal assistance, or financial contributions that you can offer are sincerely appreciated. Contributions are not tax-deductible charitable gifts, as we’re not a non-profit. We’re simply a small firm that feels led of God to participate in this work.

http://www.thelilliecenter.com/water_fluoridation_1.html

I'm curious why he wouldn't go non-profit.

[Blake]

tell that to the kids developing fluorosis.

what kids? where?

[Parker2112]

what kids? Where?

oh fuck. Read man! Page 1!!!!!

[Blake]

oh fuck. Read man! Page 1!!!!!

oh fuck! Page 1 was almost 2 months ago!!!!!!

oh fuck the one kid picture you posted from Jersey got fluorosis from eating too many multivitamins!!!


This patient, as a child, used to eat his Chewable multi-vitamins with fluoride, like candy.

http://www.cent4dent.com/html/treatment/fluorosis.html

oh fuckity fuck you are a huge dumbfuck.

[Parker2112]

oh fuck! Page 1 was almost 2 months ago!!!!!!

.

Thats what Ive been telling you bastards for days.

FFUUCCKKK!!!!!!

[Parker2112]

just looking at things...maybe we need to take it down a notch.

[Blake]

Thats what Ive been telling you bastards for days.

FFUUCCKKK!!!!!!

that's why I ask for page numbers!!!!!!!!

oh fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Winehole23]

WH: something that you should know. The vid in post 1 is not produced by anyone associated with infowars. It was just linked from infowars page. Now watch it, magilla.No thanks, I'll pass.

[Parker2112]

that's why I ask for page numbers!!!!!!!!

oh fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok. Ill try to work with you from here on out. in good faith.

Watch the vids.

[Parker2112]

No thanks, I'll pass.

suite yourself sweetie.

[Blake]

ok. Ill try to work with you from here on out. in good faith.

Watch the vids.

mighty kind of you considering Ive been working in good faith with you from post 1.

Is there anything new in the vids that you haven't already stated after 20+ pages?

[Winehole23]

suite yourself sweetie.Sit on a fork and spin.

[Wild Cobra]

Sit on a fork and spin.
See why I left this topic? He just doesn't get it, does he.

I often disagree with people here, but Parker gets so far fetched. I usually understand others viewpoints, but I cannot believe he is so mouse-like.

[Parker2112]

mighty kind of you considering Ive been working in good faith with you from post 1.

Is there anything new in the vids that you haven't already stated after 20+ pages?

YES. Absolutely. In depth history of the industry lobby, and the litigation that prompted, and the ties to asbestos industry as well. Id be interested to see what holes youu can poke in that if you do.

You've done far better than anyone else on this board for that type of thing thus far. Im actually impressed, and to tell you the truth, Im learning a thing or two.

If they arent worth the watch, I'll give you your money back.

[Parker2112]

Sit on a fork and spin.

Ouch.

[Parker2112]

See why I left this topic? He just doesn't get it, does he.

I often disagree with people here, but Parker gets so far fetched. I usually understand others viewpoints, but I cannot believe he is so mouse-like.

WC, stop kissin ass. You should be against this just on the big govt angle alone.

Some conservative you are. You disappoint.

[Parker2112]

This is a classic too. We havent even touched on the shit coming from China.

nZRWvcvPo3o

[Wild Cobra]

WC, stop kissin ass. You should be against this just on the big govt angle alone.

Some conservative you are. You disappoint.
Not from the way you portray it. Get a little realism in your act.

[Winehole23]

You already posted that one, parker.

[Winehole23]

WC, stop kissin ass. You should be against this just on the big govt angle alone.What big government angle? Local governments make the call.

[Winehole23]

You're the one arguing for a top down judicial solution.

[ChumpDumper]

So Toyota sold chrome polishing slag to Flintstone vitamins?

[Blake]

YES. Absolutely. In depth history of the industry lobby, and the litigation that prompted, and the ties to asbestos industry as well. Id be interested to see what holes youu can poke in that if you do.


eh. I looked up history of lobbying, came across Alcoa and it's ties to fluoride production but still don't see anything menacing.

Several websites try to compare the history of asbestos to what's going on currently with fluoride.

Asbestos was used in a large number of different ways from fire proofing to break pads. The danger with asbestos is when it breaks up into powder and gets inhaled. Even the tiniest amount of asbestos is dangerous.

Fluorine is naturally found in water supplies. If it's really that dangerous at any level, then we should be de-fluoridating all of our waters of even the natural fluorine.

[RandomGuy]

Then people are going to get sick, and start asking why we put the shit in the water in the first place. especially when they realize that other countries that dont flouridate enjoy the same levels of dental health as us.

Here's another claim you have assigned some weight to, and repeated it several times.

Repeat after me:

Correlation is not causality.

Correlation is not causality.

Correlation is not causality.

You have obviously taken that bit from an anti-flouride website and absorbed this factoid into your thick skull as if it means anything.

Here is what someone with some health critical thinking skills would ask when presented with a fact that contravenes accepted science:


Given: studies on the effect of floride on cavities are very conclusive as to the benefits of floride in preventing cavities.
Given: in countries without floridated water, the numbers of cavities is dropping, just as it is in the countries with floridated water.
One would wonder then, what WAS causing the reduction in cavities.

1) In the countries with increased dental health, and no floridated water, what other sources of flouride are these people exposed to?

2) In the countries with increased dental health, and no floridated water, are there some other factors that would explain the reduction?

Turns out, unsurprisingly, that it is a combination of the two. Europeans don't drink tap water. Therefore if you want to get cavity preventing floride to teeth you have to find some other route.

What do the Europeans do? They put it in table salt. That's right, they put it in the salt.

The big bad governments over there force everybody who has any salt in their diet to consume flouride. DUN DUN DUN!

If you had bothered to subject the claims of the anti-floride crusaders to a modicum of skepticism you wouldn't have fallen for the standard pseudo-science quackery of presenting correlation as causation.

[Parker2112]

What big government angle? Local governments make the call.

Any govt stepping on your const rights is too big, fed state or local.

[Parker2112]

You're the one arguing for a top down judicial solution.

Fuck this twisted misrep. A judicial solution would ensure protection from the bottom up.

again, twatish.

[Parker2112]

eh. I looked up history of lobbying, came across Alcoa and it's ties to fluoride production but still don't see anything menacing.

Several websites try to compare the history of asbestos to what's going on currently with fluoride.

Asbestos was used in a large number of different ways from fire proofing to break pads. The danger with asbestos is when it breaks up into powder and gets inhaled. Even the tiniest amount of asbestos is dangerous.

Fluorine is naturally found in water supplies. If it's really that dangerous at any level, then we should be de-fluoridating all of our waters of even the natural fluorine.

Did you watch the vids?

The comparison is not in the toxicity, but in the lobbyist who pushed both, and who had knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, and the comparison is that the same SINISTER LOBBYIST (not product) who misled the public pushed both, thereby tying fluoride to the same shadowy/lying advocate.

[Parker2112]

Here's another claim you have assigned some weight to, and repeated it several times.

Repeat after me:

Correlation is not causality.

Correlation is not causality.

Correlation is not causality.

You have obviously taken that bit from an anti-flouride website and absorbed this factoid into your thick skull as if it means anything.

Here is what someone with some health critical thinking skills would ask when presented with a fact that contravenes accepted science:

Given: studies on the effect of floride on cavities are very conclusive as to the benefits of floride in preventing cavities.
Given: in countries without floridated water, the numbers of cavities is dropping, just as it is in the countries with floridated water.
One would wonder then, what WAS causing the reduction in cavities.

1) In the countries with increased dental health, and no floridated water, what other sources of flouride are these people exposed to?

2) In the countries with increased dental health, and no floridated water, are there some other factors that would explain the reduction?

Turns out, unsurprisingly, that it is a combination of the two. Europeans don't drink tap water. Therefore if you want to get cavity preventing floride to teeth you have to find some other route.

What do the Europeans do? They put it in table salt. That's right, they put it in the salt.

The big bad governments over there force everybody who has any salt in their diet to consume flouride. DUN DUN DUN!

[THIS IS A LIE AND/OR MISREP!!!! WHAT DO YOU KNOW... RG LIES!!! NOT ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES DO THIS, ONLY ABOUT HALF DO!!! RG YOU ARE A LIAR!!! KINDLY FUCK OFF!!! THANKS!!!!]
:stfu
If you had bothered to subject the claims of the anti-floride crusaders to a modicum of skepticism you wouldn't have fallen for the standard pseudo-science quackery of presenting correlation as causation.

Did you read my last quote of your misrepresented bullshit? And thats not the only one...there were more than several. Your cred is shit. Fuck off RG.

:flipoff

[Parker2112]

Once more for emphasis:


Originally Posted by RandomGuy http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4651769#post4651769)

Provide one quote from anybody in this thread stating that the poster did not believe that certain forms of floride used in water was sourced from industrial waste.

If you can't, then you have made an assumption and put words in someone else's mouth.

Go on.

I'll wait.

Actually, you fuggin' little maggot...

My position went from:





Parker2112: From a policy standpoint, It makes sense, for both policy makers and corps, to dilute poisonous waste products like flouride (see vid #3) to safe levels spread over the water supply nationwide rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry and ultimately the national economy.













and














Parker2112: It doesnt sound that damn threatening, right? Well true...at current levels, very little is seen in the way of side effects, other than flourosis. The other stuff is a bit overdramatic.

Its the bigger issue that needs addressing...like why we have this industrial waste product being dumped into our water when the science on both the benefits and the potential risks posed is disputed. And when you look at the origins of the practice, you find even more reason to doubt this practice.

So why do we do it? And why are more communities banning the practice? And why is there even a backlash when the practice comes under fire? Who has interests to protect here?










ON PAGE 2... to your summary of my position on page three of:





RG: Originally Posted by Parker2112 http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4564562#post4564562)

[Floride is really really bad for you and part of a secret government/sinister plot]










Fuck you trick. You twisted this whole shit plain and simple, with anti-conspiracy banter. That was the beginning of all of this. On the record. Eat a dick, RG, bad intent or none.
:flipoff

[RandomGuy]

Yet the public isnt made privy to the policy decisions.


San Antonio municapal website showing transparency about flouride:
http://www.saws.org/our_water/fluoride.shtml

Austin municipal website showing transparency about flouride:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/water/fluoride.htm

Dever municipal website showing transparency about flouride:
http://www.denverwater.org/WaterQuality/WaterSafety/FactsAboutFluoride/

New York State website showing transparency about flouride:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/prevention/dental/fluoridation/benefits.htm

Seems fairly transparent to me.

[Winehole23]

Any govt stepping on your const rights is too big, fed state or local.Except, there is no Constitutional issue here.

[Winehole23]

Fuck this twisted misrep. A judicial solution would ensure protection from the bottom up.You're the one who's twisted like a pretzel.

The federal government is the top of the scale, localities are the bottom. You'd have the federal government overturn local determinations of the public good, based not on the science, but a completely novel judicial interpretation of the constitution. That's a top down solution in search of a problem.

[RandomGuy]

If you read more about it, you'll find that this stems from better dental care, flouride tootpaste, and access to dentists most likely explains the drop...not flouridated water.


I take it back then.

Here is where you correctly addressed a potential cause.

Of course, all of those things are present in the US as well.

The question then becomes a bit more reasonable.

How much would cavities increase, if we completely stopped flouridating water?

I suppose the answer would be:

The people with the least access to regular dental care, who don't brush their teeth regularly will experience the greatest rise.

[RandomGuy]

In the diminished doses it seems that this practice of fluoridation can still harm infants, diabetics, and those with kidney problems. Are you saying these sensitive populations should not be considered in what the dose should be?

Actually, the doses that are of concern tend to be higher than what is in the water.

Infants, diabetics, and those with kidney problems should be considered.

The overall benefits to society still far outweigh harm to smaller sub-segments, especially when it is fairly easy to remove and reduce flouride in tapwater in such cases.

Several of the big bad utilities that put floride in their water actually put these concerns directly in the links I provided, by the way.

Not that you are interested in reading anything that might harm your conspiracy theory.

[RandomGuy]

Once more for emphasis:



Actually, you fuggin' little maggot...

My position went from:


Parker2112: From a policy standpoint, It makes sense, for both policy makers and corps, to dilute poisonous waste products like flouride (see vid #3) to safe levels spread over the water supply nationwide rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry and ultimately the national economy.


ON PAGE 2... to your summary of my position on page three of:


Fuck you trick. You twisted this whole shit plain and simple, with anti-conspiracy banter. That was the beginning of all of this. On the record. Eat a dick, RG, bad intent or none.
:flipoff

You seem to have twisted yourself.

The statement that "rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry" is exactly the definition of a conspiracy theory.

You started the thread with a conspiracy theory, and have repeated that conspiracy theory throughout.

To wit (just from the first 15 pages or so, i stopped after that)


are "they" just trying to keep the aluminum industry from being exposed to crippling, neverending civil action from those in and around the plants that would otherwise be dumping this waste into waste ponds in and around their facilities?


And was this initially a means of diminishing the claims of workers who were exposed to the wastes daily and who devloped numerous lung diseases and cancers but couldn't collect because the science was concealed from public view, thus allowing them to continue dumping into the water, AND keeping sick, dying plant workers from recovering?

it was continually pushed on San Antonio until they relented. Interesting. Whos doing the pushing? And without public support, why?


why put toxic crap, chemicals that are known to cause disease and degradation of the human body into the water supply if the science on benefits is disputed?

[you can't see the] forest for the trees

they would never admit to putting harmful waste into water. But here, they do admit to the origin of the stuff.

None on this forum even believes that the flouride used is a industrial waste product. proof positive that this subject matter is not an area of common knowledge


flouridation of SA water started just prior to Toyota's commitment to open the plant there. co-in-se-dink?

ensuring economic vaibility of a plant by ensuring profitable/affordable disposal of toxic wastes = nothing to do with science

I dont know why motive keeps coming up.

lets just say corporations stay out of court, CEOs keep jobs. Shareholders are happy. Employees stay employed. Contracts get paid. Local residents dont get sick. Corps avoid bankruptcy. Fertilizer gets made. Crops yield.

who can really ever certify the quality of Chinese products? Lies Lies Lies

ensuring economic vaibility of a plant by ensuring profitable/affordable disposal of toxic wastes = nothing to do with science

take a look at the history of flouridation. Take a look at its origins, at who initially advocated for dosing the public, and who funded those lobbyists. Its not hard to find at all.

Industry can turn a profit and fund the scrubbing requirements. And only the weakest/youngest will get sick. But the process needs to be transparent. Just like Iraq, govt knows best....
This is why your water is dosed.

lets just say corporations stay out of court, CEOs keep jobs. Shareholders are happy. Employees stay employed. Contracts get paid. Local residents dont get sick. Corps avoid bankruptcy.

If the point was to keep the business profitable, an arangement so simple would defeat the whole purpose.

Do I knowthat sodium flouride waste is emitted from that plant? yes.
Does it make me suspicious about the timing? yes.

the motive behind most corporate strategies is $. They lobby municipalities to dose for what? $. They entice paid professionals to advocate for the practice how? $. They stand to lose what if lobbyists dont return results? $. Lobbyists actually won, and everyone is happy because of what? $. whats new.

People are getting dosed so that corps avoid bankruptcy.

I dont have to believe the conspiracy...

Its a given that taking a pollutant and turning it into a profitable product is motive enough on the one side.
What is municipal motive for buying? That is the killer. I waited long enough, I guess.

[the motivation to surpress data that flouride is dangerous is to avoid] Massive public exposure and years of PI lawsuits.

as it was pollution litigation that drove industry to lobby for fluoridation.

Any corp producing toxic waste can potentially go b/r with enough liability.

I HAD SUSPICION ABOUT THE SUSPICIOUS NATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES


I get it.

You think there is a sinister plot on the part of some big money interest.

I don't think that statement is at all a misrepresentation of your position, espeically given the pages and pages of restatement of just precisely that.

The fact that you want to cloak your irrational, unproven beliefs, in some manner that you think makes you sound like the height of rationality is your business.

I ain't buying your brand of bullshit though, so stop asking me to.

[Parker2112]

You seem to have twisted yourself.

The statement that "rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry" is exactly the definition of a conspiracy theory.

You started the thread with a conspiracy theory, and have repeated that conspiracy theory throughout.

To wit (just from the first 15 pages or so, i stopped after that)




I get it.

You think there is a sinister plot on the part of some big money interest.

I don't think that statement is at all a misrepresentation of your position, espeically given the pages and pages of restatement of just precisely that.

The fact that you want to cloak your irrational, unproven beliefs, in some manner that you think makes you sound like the height of rationality is your business.

I ain't buying your brand of bullshit though, so stop asking me to.

You see, Blake came in a skeptic just like you. But he refrained from twisting words, twisting opponents views, dropping unfavorable facts, burying lies within half-page posts, etc.

You need to take a fucking lesson. You fed shit into the system, and we got shit out. When it was just me and chump we had a frank discussion, that was open and the one goal was discussing the topic truthfully.

The minute you dropped in with the quote from above, things swayed due to your complete mischaracterization of my position, your demonization of any opposition, and most important your lack of honesty. Read above.

You need to think twice next time you want to sway the conversation with dishonesty. That shit can blow up in your face.

And if you want to keep going, I will start pulling your bullshit posts apart and show you for the dishonest bum you are.

If you want to play the game dirty, dont get mad when you get the fucking hose in the face.

[Blake]

Did you watch the vids?

The comparison is not in the toxicity, but in the lobbyist who pushed both, and who had knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, and the comparison is that the same SINISTER LOBBYIST (not product) who misled the public pushed both, thereby tying fluoride to the same shadowy/lying advocate.

the difference being that today knowledge of asbestos and fluoride is so much more accessible.

We can all easily find the levels at which fluoride is considered dangerous and it what forms.

The research is there if you are willing to look for it instead of watching biased youtube videos.

[RandomGuy]

The material you have provided so far has failed to rise to any modicum standard of proof.

1) If floridation is really unconstitutional,


what constitutional principle (remember to cite the specific constitutional section that applies and how it is generally applied under commonly accepted jurisprudence) is violated?

2) You have said you have provided proof that flouride in water is ineffective,

but I can readily cite studies showing that flouride, including some studies you yourself have put forth, shows it is. The fact that other countries without flouridated water experience reductions in cavities does NOT provide a sufficient level of proof that flouridating water is ineffective, merely that there is the potential of reducing cavities other than flouridating water.

3) Flouridation of water puts senstives at risk?


So? Is this risk mitagated by education and making sure that health professionals understand this risk and can help such people take steps to reduce this risk?

4) Is done without full disclosure to the public.


It would seem to me that showing disclosure in a website, and indeed holding actual public votes on the issue debunks this fairly well.

5) Unnecessary expense.


Something of a value judgement again. SAWS charges 9 cents a gallon for water, and .5% of that is the cost of flouridation.
That comes out to $ 0.00045 per gallon of water, to effectively reduce an entire population's tendency to expensive dental treatment. Four and a half ten thousandths of a dollar. One twentieth of a penny.

Unnnecesary? possibily. expensive? no.

If you have anything further to provide, either directly showing motive of the conspiracy you so obviously believe or of any of the actual provable things you have claimed, I'm still game.

Dick or not, I am your audience.

Convince me.



Position: fluoridation is
1. unconst,
2. ineffective,
3. puts sensitives at risk,
4. done without a full disclosure to public, and
5. unnecessary expense.

[Parker2112]

The material you have provided so far has failed to rise to any modicum standard of proof.

1) If floridation is really unconstitutional,

what constitutional principle (remember to cite the specific constitutional section that applies and how it is generally applied under commonly accepted jurisprudence) is violated?
2) You have said you have provided proof that flouride in water is ineffective,

but I can readily cite studies showing that flouride, including some studies you yourself have put forth, shows it is. The fact that other countries without flouridated water experience reductions in cavities does NOT provide a sufficient level of proof that flouridating water is ineffective, merely that there is the potential of reducing cavities other than flouridating water.
3) Flouridation of water puts senstives at risk?

So? Is this risk mitagated by education and making sure that health professionals understand this risk and can help such people take steps to reduce this risk?
4) Is done without full disclosure to the public.

It would seem to me that showing disclosure in a website, and indeed holding actual public votes on the issue debunks this fairly well.
5) Unnecessary expense.

Something of a value judgement again. SAWS charges 9 cents a gallon for water, and .5% of that is the cost of flouridation.
That comes out to $ 0.00045 per gallon of water, to effectively reduce an entire population's tendency to expensive dental treatment. Four and a half ten thousandths of a dollar. One twentieth of a penny.

Unnnecesary? possibily. expensive? no.
If you have anything further to provide, either directly showing motive of the conspiracy you so obviously believe or of any of the actual provable things you have claimed, I'm still game.

Dick or not, I am your audience.

Convince me.

Next time I want my stuff remixed, I'll let you know DJ RG. Dont hold your breath.

[Winehole23]

:lol at Parker calling direct quotations and repetition of his own bullet points a remix.

[Parker2112]

lol at Parker calling direct quotations and repetition of his own bullet point a remix.

Chopping and Screwing a bit yourself WH? The above post isnt what I was referring to. post 659. But Im about 99% sure you already knew that.

[Winehole23]

What did I misrepresent, counselor? Please be specific, if you can.

[Parker2112]

The above post isnt what I was referring to. post 659. But Im about 99% sure you already knew that.

[Winehole23]

You refuse to be specific. How unsurprising.

[RandomGuy]

Next time I want my stuff remixed, I'll let you know DJ RG. Dont hold your breath.

So what you are saying is that you don't have any proof to support your direct assertions?

Fill me on on the "constiutionality" issue at least.

[RandomGuy]

You see, Blake came in a skeptic just like you. But he refrained from twisting words, twisting opponents views, dropping unfavorable facts, burying lies within half-page posts, etc.

You need to take a fucking lesson. You fed shit into the system, and we got shit out. When it was just me and chump we had a frank discussion, that was open and the one goal was discussing the topic truthfully.

The minute you dropped in with the quote from above, things swayed due to your complete mischaracterization of my position, your demonization of any opposition, and most important your lack of honesty. Read above.

You need to think twice next time you want to sway the conversation with dishonesty. That shit can blow up in your face.

And if you want to keep going, I will start pulling your bullshit posts apart and show you for the dishonest bum you are.

If you want to play the game dirty, dont get mad when you get the fucking hose in the face.

Meh.

I readily admit I am wrong, and I have been in a couple of places here.

You have yet to admit to your own ignorance when it comes to your repeated claims of NaF as a flouridating agent in water.

Your own research that you yourself posted noted that the silicate version of flouride is what is being primarily used.

When it comes to your civil conversation with Chump, he started asking you questions that you refused to answer, then you got all snotty, like some cheese-eating high school smart ass who gets huffy when his teacher actually has the nuts to ask him a question based on the assigned reading.

You then spent several pages strutting about saying "look at me, I won" in an even more juvenile display of one-upmanship.

Bottom line is that you have repeated refused to answer basic questions and provide proof when repeatedly asked.

I don't mind fully giving as good as I get, and you have done little to merit my respect.

[RandomGuy]

majority of the hexafluorosilicic acid is converted to aluminium fluoride and cryolite.[4] These materials are central to the conversion of aluminium ore into aluminium metal.

Interesting.

One of Parker's main claims is that the big bad companies use the water supply to dispose of H2SiF6, because they don't want to worry about disposing of this chemical.

The above quote though, seems to indicate that the "majority" of this chemical is actually used to make aluminum, and not actually disposed of.

Not sure where the claims that the aluminum industry would want to dispose of the chemical feedstock it needs to make aluminum in the first place comes from. Probably a missing piece of the chemical puzzle here. Seems like putting it into water means that there is more competition for one of the base materials they use in their manufacturing process.

[RandomGuy]

the additive [NaF] is a carcinogen (which you know as well as I there is no way to test the effects).

The effects would be pretty easy to test.

One would simply have to start culling cancer data from cities and areas before and after flourinated water was introduced.

I find it amazing that so few attempts have been made in that area, despite the large numbers of people who are interested in this, and believe that flouride in the water is so bad.

I searched and was not able to really come up with much at all, beyond two rather flawed, but very oft-cited studies.

[CosmicCowboy]

The effects would be pretty easy to test.

One would simply have to start culling cancer data from cities and areas before and after flourinated water was introduced.



It's really NOT that easy. You simply can't isolate that as the only possible causative factor during the same time frame. Attempting to do so is flawed logic.

[RandomGuy]

the additive [NaF] is a carcinogen (which you know as well as I there is no way to test the effects).

The effects would be pretty easy to test.

One would simply have to start culling cancer data from cities and areas before and after flourinated water was introduced.

I find it amazing that so few attempts have been made in that area, despite the large numbers of people who are interested in this, and believe that flouride in the water is so bad.

I searched and was not able to really come up with much at all, beyond two rather flawed, but very oft-cited studies that have NEVER been subjected to peer-review that I know of.

This, weighed against rather solid scientific studies that show the benefits of flouride in terms of dental health, and there isn't much of a case.

Further, the lack of scientific data such as this poses a huge problem to the "the chemical producers are trying to keep from getting sued" schtick.

If there isn't any science to support potential litigation, then how are we to believe that the companies are trying to avoid lawsuits?

What lawsuits?

If any money-grubbing tort lawyer worth his NaF smelled even the vaguest HINT that his would be profitable, why has it not been done?

[RandomGuy]

It's really NOT that easy. You simply can't isolate that as the only possible causative factor during the same time frame. Attempting to do so is flawed logic.

You can actually start isolating and controlling for potential other causes.

That is what scientists do all the time. You gather data, then apply as rigorous a set of reasonable questions at that data to slowly weed out any confounding factors, until you have either proved or disproved your null hypothesis.

Peer-reviewed science, in this regard, functions to further test conclusions by applying more sets of eyes to data to see if it really supports a conclusion.

That is the height of logic.

Not really sure what you mean here.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf

Interesting bit here:


The ability of fluoride to enter the brain is enhanced by its ability to form a lipid-soluble complex with aluminium. Aluminofluoride complexes are able to stimulate guanine nucleotide binding proteins (G proteins) and can produce pharmacological and toxicological effects in animal and human cells, tissues and organs

One of the things they are currently looking into regarding Alzheimers is exposure to aluminum. I would wonder, therefore, if there is some link.

The two fairly decent studies listed as part of this:
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm

Are two studies cited as 11 and 12:

11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)

12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995).

With the above quoted section coming from the latter.

Personally though, I am generally dubious of Chinese-produced research. They have some serious problems with scientific research (have to find the Economist issue on that)

That said, here is a seemingly decent scientific website:
International Society for Fluoride Research Inc
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/

Seems like, if someone *cough* *cough* were broadly interested in actual science, this would be a good place to start to make a case. Although my attempts to find a bit more solid stuff was not successful.

[Winehole23]

See why I left this topic? He just doesn't get it, does he.WELL, YOU CAME BACK. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

WELL, YOU CAME BACK. :lol
Just for a wise ass remark.

[Parker2112]

Just for a wise ass remark.

I absolutely get it. When you piss enough folks off with elaborate end-zone dances, they put a Buddy Ryan style target on you.

[boutons_deux]

"lipid-soluble complex with aluminium"


hmm, could be why there is recommendation to consume Omega-3 (a lipid) as preventative/retardant for brain plaque.

[Bender]

this thread is growing like a monster... I've kept out of it mostly. However, I don't want the govt' putting fluoride in my drinking water. I don't drink tap water, I drink bottled water, and also have a reverse osmosis system under my sink.

I think people should be given simple, clean water, not water with whatever crap the gov't decides is best for us... No telling what they'll decide to put in it next...

oh, and I think the thread title is misspelled...

[boutons_deux]

harmless municipal water is a privilege, not a right.

-- WC

"I drink bottled water"

... which is sometimes nothing but bottled municipal water, or not spring water, or not mountain water, and 10K times more expensive.

[Parker2112]

this thread is growing like a monster... I've kept out of it mostly. However, I don't want the govt' putting fluoride in my drinking water. I don't drink tap water, I drink bottled water, and also have a reverse osmosis system under my sink.

I think people should be given simple, clean water, not water with whatever crap the gov't decides is best for us... No telling what they'll decide to put in it next...

oh, and I think the thread title is misspelled...

good call all around:toast

[Yonivore]

this thread is growing like a monster... I've kept out of it mostly. However, I don't want the govt' putting fluoride in my drinking water. I don't drink tap water, I drink bottled water,...
Which is usually the tap water from some metropolitan water system.


...and also have a reverse osmosis system under my sink.

I think people should be given simple, clean water, not water with whatever crap the gov't decides is best for us... No telling what they'll decide to put in it next...

oh, and I think the thread title is misspelled...
Funny think about water, it is an excellent medium for bacteria, viruses, and other organic pathogens. I don't have an opinion on fluoride but, for the most part, the "crap" introduced by government into the water supply is intended to deliver pathogen-free water at your spigot.

[Winehole23]

People should fear processed foods, not the tap water. Food safety is totally underhyped. People die from complications related to eating all the time.

[Wild Cobra]

I absolutely get it. When you piss enough folks off with elaborate end-zone dances, they put a Buddy Ryan style target on you.
Not quite.

I disagree with a lot of people here, but you don't even deserve much of a response any more in my opinion.

You are way out there, authoritarian, yet claim to be libertarian?

I don't want to waste time to give you much of a response any more. I'll keep my responses short, until you show at least a room temperature IQ.

My God...

Boutons is way more intelligent than you!

[Wild Cobra]

People should fear processed foods, not the tap water. Food safety is totally underhyped. People die from complications related to eating all the time.
It's not a safety issue that bothers me about processed foods, it's the abundance of safety protocols that pisses me off.

I want natural food, without the enzymes being killed off during processing! I believe part of our ever growing unhealthy state in the USA is that many good, natural parts of food are killed during processing.

[Bender]

"I drink bottled water"

... which is sometimes nothing but bottled municipal water, or not spring water, or not mountain water, and 10K times more expensive.
yes, city water, but run thru reverse osmosis filtration, then bottled, hopefully with the crap removed, including fluoride...

Funny think about water, it is an excellent medium for bacteria, viruses, and other organic pathogens. I don't have an opinion on fluoride but, for the most part, the "crap" introduced by government into the water supply is intended to deliver pathogen-free water at your spigot.
when I say crap, I am specifically referring to fluoride. I appreciate the removal of bacteria and other bad stuff...

[LnGrrrR]

It's not a safety issue that bothers me about processed foods, it's the abundance of safety protocols that pisses me off.

I want natural food, without the enzymes being killed off during processing! I believe part of our ever growing unhealthy state in the USA is that many good, natural parts of food are killed during processing.

Alot of people feel the way you do, and have started "raw" stores and things of that nature. Might want to look that up, pretty interesting.

[Stringer_Bell]

It's not a safety issue that bothers me about processed foods, it's the abundance of safety protocols that pisses me off.

I want natural food, without the enzymes being killed off during processing! I believe part of our ever growing unhealthy state in the USA is that many good, natural parts of food are killed during processing.

The whole reason for "processesing" is because the foods are MASS-PRODUCED. They NEED safety regulations because so many people work in those plants and so many things are made in those plants, that contamination levels need to be cut down as much as possible. Go to an organic food store, don't make it sound like food processing plants that fuck over migrant workers are the victim. Also, Watch Food Inc. - excellent documentary on how government (both GOP/Liberal) and corruption has fucked up our food supply.

I don't understand the logic in keeping fluoride in the water supply, so poor kids can have better teeth? That's what I remember selling it as when I was younger, and I just don't think it's needed at all. Give the cleanest, purest water out of the faucet - make it simple! Otherwise, it's like the government saying - "if you can't take care of your teeth, we'll do it for you." Now THAT is straight up scary. I don't drink regular tap water and I know plenty of people that don't use it for anything other than boiling.

[ChumpDumper]

Boiling concentrates the fluoride btw.

[RandomGuy]

I don't understand the logic in keeping fluoride in the water supply, so poor kids can have better teeth? That's what I remember selling it as when I was younger, and I just don't think it's needed at all.

The protection extends to anybody who drinks the water.

As noted before in the thread, the yearly cost to SAWS to treat the ENTIRE output of their water system and protect something on the order of 2.1+ million people is about $700,000. Almost exactly 30 cents per year per person.

Given that dental work can cost hundreds of dollars, if not more, it doesn't take many prevented cavities for the treatment to have paid for itself economically. Indeed, there was reference to just such an analysis earlier that seemed to support his conclusion.

The benefits are greatest to those with the least access to dental care though.

[Winehole23]

The benefits are greatest to those with the least access to dental care though.Victims of official solicitude, according to some.

[Stringer_Bell]

Boiling concentrates the fluoride btw.

oh, oh fuck. :depressed


The benefits are greatest to those with the least access to dental care though.

So, basically it's an entitlement program for those without comprehensive dental coverage? Someone get WC, DarrinS, and Yoni in here! What else can we do in the city for $700,000 a year?

[Parker2112]

oh, oh fuck. :depressed



So, basically it's an entitlement program for those without comprehensive dental coverage? Someone get WC, DarrinS, and Yoni in here! What else can we do in the city for $700,000 a year?

They wont touch because Fox News has yet to carry any stories on fluoridation.

[Wild Cobra]

oh, oh fuck. :depressed



So, basically it's an entitlement program for those without comprehensive dental coverage? Someone get WC, DarrinS, and Yoni in here! What else can we do in the city for $700,000 a year?
I never thought about it that much. I do know that fluorine also binds up some heavy metals. The end purpose? Maybe it isn't needed and should be eliminated. Still, the cost eventually plays into water rates so I wouldn't call it a subsidy, entitlement, or the likes. The extra cost is so little per unit of water, I'm not going to bother complaining.

If you want me to be against such a thing, this is leading the right direction. Utilities become quasi government entities since they are usually monopolies, and some are government entities. I am a solid believer or downsizing the government, and maybe this is one place to reduce the ever reaching power of the government. I won't bother with the local control issues unless I think they out of bounds, but the federal government, they should not be a part of this issue if they are, beyond setting EPA standards for maximum levels.

[Winehole23]

I won't bother with the local control issues unless I think they out of bounds, but the federal government, they should not be a part of this issue if they are, beyond setting EPA standards for maximum levels.The localities generally decide, but your vigilance against the steady enlargement of the federal government is noted here too, where it is not really needed.

Welcome back to the thread.

[Parker2112]

I never thought about it that much. I do know that fluorine also binds up some heavy metals. The end purpose? Maybe it isn't needed and should be eliminated. Still, the cost eventually plays into water rates so I wouldn't call it a subsidy, entitlement, or the likes. The extra cost is so little per unit of water, I'm not going to bother complaining.



And yet in a down economy, how many new jobs could be created nationwide if this practice was eliminated?

[Parker2112]

The localities generally decide, but your vigilance against the steady enlargement of the federal government is noted here too, where it is not really needed.

Welcome back to the thread.

Vigilence? Not in the least. WC is only conservative when it means railing against the "enemy."

If this practice came from the direction of the Obama admin, he would be all over it.

This is the problem with "conservatives" these days...they've lost their bearings other than knowing who they oppose.

[Wild Cobra]

And yet in a down economy, how many new jobs could be created nationwide if this practice was eliminated?
You lost me. how would new jobs be created by eliminating the practice of fluoridating water? I would ask, how many would be lost?

[Wild Cobra]

Vigilence? Not in the least. WC is only conservative when it means railing against the "enemy."

If this practice came from the direction of the Obama admin, he would be all over it.

This is the problem with "conservatives" these days...they've lost their bearings other than knowing who they oppose.
I've been hearing (in one ear and out the other) issues about fluoridated water for over 20 years. Every time I ever paid attention to it, I never gave a hoot. Like any other implemented government program, it's next to impossible to get rid of it once it's formed. It's a program that is very cheap in the scheme of things, and I'm not scared by it. It's too small an issue for me to care about. It has nothing to do with partisanship. Just a speck of sand in a sandbox.

[doobs]

San Antonio is so strange about fluoride in its water.

Has Alamo Heights ever added fluoride?

[ChumpDumper]

San Antonio is so strange about fluoride in its water.

Has Alamo Heights ever added fluoride?I believe they voted to a few years ago, but reversed themselves before actually going through with it. There is a fair amount of fluoride in aquifer water naturally, so people can be afraid about that I guess.

[Parker2112]

I've been hearing (in one ear and out the other) issues about fluoridated water for over 20 years. Every time I ever paid attention to it, I never gave a hoot. Like any other implemented government program, it's next to impossible to get rid of it once it's formed. It's a program that is very cheap in the scheme of things, and I'm not scared by it. It's too small an issue for me to care about. It has nothing to do with partisanship. Just a speck of sand in a sandbox.

a true conservative wouldnt be caught dead saying this.

And you know if Obama had done it, you would have him in a dentist hat with the joker smile in your sig.

[LnGrrrR]

a true conservative wouldnt be caught dead saying this.

And you know if Obama had done it, you would have him in a dentist hat with the joker smile in your sig.

Look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. :lol

[Winehole23]

Parker's a walking compendium of the logical fallacies. Wherever his argument falls down he thinks he scored a touchdown.

[Parker2112]

Parker's a walking compendium of the logical fallacies. Wherever his argument falls down he thinks he scored a touchdown.

How do you explain the scoreboard then? :lol

[Parker2112]

Look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. :lol

[Whispers in LnGrrrR's ear: "Hey man, pipe down....I'm just trying to get a rise out of this guy..."]

[Winehole23]

How do you explain the scoreboard then? :lolWhat scoreboard?

[Winehole23]

You're keeping score? :lol

[Parker2112]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A1111605

Fluoridation Under the Microscope

Local anti-fluoridation activists brought in heavy scientific reinforcements last week, with several Austin appearances by Paul Connett, professor emeritus of environmental chemistry at St. Lawrence University, director of the Fluoride Action Network, and co-author of the recently released The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green Publish­ing), in which he and two academic colleagues review the current science and institutional politics of the use of fluoride in municipal water systems. Connett spoke briefly at last Thursday's City Council meeting – the council has thus far declined to take up the issue directly – and that night lectured an audience of about 40 people at the Univer­sity of Texas' Thompson Conference Center, followed by a panel discussion.

Lone Star Sierra Club Clean Air Program Director Neil Carman introduced Connett as a longtime friend and "an environmental hero around the world" for his successful international work against toxic waste incineration. Connett began by citing John Lennon: "Life is what happens [to you] when you're busy making other plans." By that he meant not only the many years he's spent as an environmental researcher and activist, but the personal reversals in his own initial support of both incineration and fluoridation. He noted, "I'm fairly respectable now when it comes to fighting incinerators and promoting alternatives, but hardly respectable when it comes to fighting fluoridation." Waste incineration, it's true, is a more readily definable public enemy; by contrast, the anti-fluoridation campaigners must fight not only a half-century of official scientific and political consensus that fluoridation of public water supplies has reduced tooth decay but the long-entrenched (and partly accurate) public image of fluoride opponents as loony conspiracy theorists.

In his nearly two-hour discourse, Connett succeeded better at overturning the former than the latter, reviewing much of the scientific literature to show that, especially in the last decade, the consensus has shifted to reflect that the maximum Environmental Protection Agency-recommended level of fluoride (currently four parts per million, though most cities including Austin use much less) should certainly be lowered and, beyond that, that it's time to seriously consider jettisoning the practice altogether. Connett argued persuasively that fluoridation is a poor (uninformed and unmonitorable) medical practice, that there is now considerable evidence of potentially major health risks (especially among vulnerable populations), and even more telling, that the accumulated evidence of fluoridation benefits is in fact quite weak. Indeed, Connett said, dental health correlates much more closely with family income than local fluoridation – presumably the subject of an entirely different public health campaign. Most European countries that once used fluoridation have abandoned the practice, and a 2006 study by the National Research Council called on the EPA to lower the recommended maximum. Connett demanded that the agency do its job.

Perhaps surprisingly, that call was echoed by panel member and LBJ School professor of environmental engineering David Eaton, who had accepted the evening's thankless task of responding to Connett. For his trouble, Eaton was basically used as a rhetorical punching bag by Connett, the other four panel members (all fluoridation opponents), and the audience. While willing to grant Connett's argument that fluoridation needs reconsideration, Eaton primarily questioned Connett's implication (which Connett denied implying) that there exist shadowy political and scientific "plots" (as Eaton put it) to enforce continuation of the practice. Eaton did endorse the call by the National Acade­my of Sciences for a lower maximum level and better research, and perhaps eventually a reversal in public policy; he even suggested the possibility of a mandamus lawsuit to force the EPA to act. (In the same vein, it makes sense for the city to do a truly substantive review of the current science, as recommended by the Environmental Board, and then on that basis make policy recommendations to City Council.)

Such a course would not be quick enough for this audience, whose members were not nearly as careful as Connett – who occasionally stopped just short of declaring that nearly all contemporary public health problems are rooted in fluoridation – to step back from more inflammatory arguments. Near the evening's end, Connett angrily rejected a suggestion that he was largely ignoring the strenuous political history of the U.S. fluoridation battle – and its roots in hysterical, anti-communist campaigns against any and all public health measures, the legacy of which we endure to this sorry electoral day. A few moments after Connett's dismissal, an audience member rose to declare that she had been blind to the sinister political implications of fluoridation until her eyes had been opened – by a John Birch Society video.

Alas, with enemies like these, fluoridation still doesn't need many friends.

[Blake]

an audience of about 40 people

lol


He [Paul Connett] noted, "I'm fairly respectable now when it comes to fighting incinerators and promoting alternatives, but hardly respectable when it comes to fighting fluoridation."

lol


Most European countries that once used fluoridation have abandoned the practice, and a 2006 study by the National Research Council called on the EPA to lower the recommended maximum. Connett demanded that the agency do its job.


I'd like to know exactly where the NRC called on the EPA to lower the max. I skimmed the summary report as best as I could from a preview source and did not find it.

The CDC states this:


...The NRC concluded that only three adverse health effects warranted consideration in developing regulatory standards for high levels of fluoride in drinking water—severe enamel fluorosis from exposure to these high levels between birth to 8 years of age, and the potential risk for bone fractures and the more severe forms of skeletal fluorosis after lifetime exposure. Severe skeletal fluorosis is a rare condition in the United States.....

more if you really want the truth:

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nrc_report.htm

lol


Alas, with enemies like these, fluoridation still doesn't need many friends.

lol


fyi, the author of this two-bit review, Michael King, is against fluoridation.

entertaining read though. :tu

[Parker2112]

Fluoride in Water Linked to Lower IQ in Children

Is this the end of water fluoridation?

NEW YORK, Dec. 21, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence says a study pre-published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (online December 17, 2010).

Fluoride is added to 70% of U.S. public drinking water supplies.

According to Paul Connett, Ph.D., director of the Fluoride Action Network, "This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest because the authors have controlled for key confounding variables and in addition to correlating lowered IQ with levels of fluoride in the water, the authors found a correlation between lowered IQ and fluoride levels in children's blood. This brings us closer to a cause and effect relationship between fluoride exposure and brain damage in children."

"What is also striking is that the levels of the fluoride in the community where the lowered IQs were recorded were lower than the EPA's so-called 'safe' drinking water standard for fluoride of 4 ppm and far too close for comfort to the levels used in artificial fluoridation programs (0.7 – 1.2 ppm)," says Connett.

In this study, 512 children aged 8-13 years in two Chinese villages were studied and tested – Wamaio with an average of 2.47 mg/L water fluoride (range 0.57-4.50 mg/L) and Xinhuai averaging 0.36 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L).

The authors eliminated both lead exposure and iodine deficiency as possible causes for the lowered IQs. They also excluded any children who had a history of brain disease or head injury and none drank brick tea, known to contain high fluoride levels. Neither village is exposed to fluoride pollution from burning coal or other industrial sources.
About 28% of the children in the low-fluoride area scored as bright, normal or higher intelligence compared to only 8% in the "high" fluoride area of Wamaio.

In the high-fluoride city, 15% had scores indicating mental retardation and only 6% in the low-fluoride city.

The study authors write: "In this study we found a significant dose-response relation between fluoride level in serum and children's IQ."

In addition to this study, and the 23 other IQ studies, there have been over 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage (all the IQ and animal brain studies are listed in Appendix 1 in The Case Against Fluoride available online at http://fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride.appendices.html).

One of the earliest animal studies of fluoride's impact on the brain was published in the U.S. This study by Mullenix et. al (1995) led to the firing of the lead author by the Forsyth Dental Center. "This sent a clear message to other researchers in the U.S. that it was not good for their careers to look into the health effects of fluoride – particularly on the brain," says Connett.

Connett adds, "The result is that while the issue of fluoride's impact on IQ is being aggressively pursued around the world, practically no work has been done in the U.S. or other fluoridating countries to repeat their findings. Sadly, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."

When the National Research Council of the National Academies reviewed this topic in their 507-page report "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA's Standards" published in 2006, only 5 of the 24 IQ studies were available in English. Even so the panel found the link between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ both consistent and "plausible."

According to Tara Blank, Ph.D., the Science and Health Officer for the Fluoride Action Network, "This should be the study that finally ends water fluoridation. Millions of American children are being exposed unnecessarily to this neurotoxin on a daily basis. Who in their right minds would risk lowering their child's intelligence in order to reduce a small amount of tooth decay, for which the evidence is very weak." (see The Case Against Fluoride, Chelsea Green, October 2010)

[Winehole23]

PR Newswire started out in 1954 as a vendor hired by companies and agencies to send out text press releases to the media. Today, PR Newswire is hired by corporations, public relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations) firms and non-governmental organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organizations) to deliver news and multimedia content. Recipients include the media, consumers and investors who access the content via the Web (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web), RSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS), e-mail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail), satellite, equities terminals (such as Bloomberg and Reuters), and direct feeds into newsroom editorial systems. The headquarters are in Lower Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Manhattan), New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_Newswire#cite_note-0)
Public corporations in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and other nations, use PR Newswire as a method of reaching the investment and financial news community with important news and announcements, thus achieving the standard of "simultaneous disclosure" required by financial markets and regulatory agencies.
Headquartered in New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York), PR Newswire has offices in 14 countries and sends news to outlets in 135 countries. The company has several brands and services that include ProfNet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProfNet), eWatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWatch), MEDIAtlas, MultiVu, U.S. Newswire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Newswire), Vintage Filings, MediaRoom and MediaSense. It also has agreements with global news agencies such as Bloomberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.), the Associated Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press), Dow Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones) and Thomson Reuters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_Reuters) to send information directly to newsrooms worldwide. PR Newswire is also partner with the African Press Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Press_Organization). PR Newswire is a subsidiary of United Business Media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Business_Media) Limited of London.
MSM sourced. Classic.

[Winehole23]

United Business Media (LSE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stock_Exchange): UBM (http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-news/stocks/prices-search/stock-prices-search.html?nameCode=UBM)) is a business providing business information services principally to the technology, healthcare, media, automotive and financial services industries. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stock_Exchange) and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_250_Index).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Business_Media

[Winehole23]

The Company was founded in 1918 as United Newspapers.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Business_Media#cite_note-history-1) It acquired PR Newswire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_Newswire) in 1982.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Business_Media#cite_note-history-1)ibid.

[Winehole23]

I guess Parker ain't allergic to the MSM no more.

[Winehole23]

In this case, it flattered his prejudices and that was enough to descry the "awakening" of our media masters. Haw, haw, haw.

[Parker2112]

a study pre-published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (online December 17, 2010).

No matter how you chalk it up, this is the only cite that matters, bubba.

[Parker2112]

You can find the pre-published study right here:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.128 9%2Fehp.1003171




Background: Animal studies show that brain fluoride levels increase with increasing exposure to fluoride. Human studies have indicated an association between high levels of drinking-water fluoride and lower intelligence. Data on the association between serum fluoride and children’s intelligence quotient (IQ) are limited.

Objective: This study was conducted to assess the relationship between serum fluoride and children’s IQ.

Methods: We collected blood samples from 512 children aged 8-13 years from two villages (Wamiao and Xinhuai) in China. We also used minitype fluoride ion selective electrode and Combined Raven’s Test for Rural China (CRT-RC) to measure serum fluoride and children’s IQ.

Results: In Wamiao, the mean (± SD) concentration of fluoride in serum was 0.081± 0.019 mg/L, and average children’s IQ was 92.02 ± 13.00; in Xinhuai, fluoride concentration was 0.041 ± 0.009 mg/L and average IQ was 100.41 ± 13.21. The regression coefficients between serum fluoride and children’s IQ were –0.163 (p = 0.015) in Wiamiao, and 0.054 (p = 0.362) in Xinhuai. Serum fluoride levels were negatively associated with IQ after adjusted for age and sex, the ORs for IQ < 80 across groups with serum fluoride measuring < 0.05, 0.05–0.08, > 0.08 mg/L were 1, 2.22 (95% confidence interval: 1.42–3.47), and 2.48 (95% confidence interval: 1.85–3.32) (p for trend < 0.001) respectively. IQ was not related to family income and parent’s education level. There was a significant positive relation between serum fluoride and drinking-water fluoride.

Conclusions: The results indicated that fluoride in drinking water was highly correlated with serum fluoride, and higher fluoride exposure may affect intelligence among children.

Better hide yo kids....

[Winehole23]

No matter how you chalk it up, this is the only cite that matters, bubba.So now you're standing on one study that suggests tap water makes children dumber, and gloating. Have fun with that.

[Parker2112]

I am too damn smart to be subjected to anything that doesn't agree with my opinions. You expect me to give these scientists any credit for their work in the field? You must be kidding...my ego don't bow down to no scientist...fuck these scientists :ihit

I could have guessed...:grim:

[Winehole23]

Parker standing on the authority of academic consensus: priceless.

[Winehole23]

(Classic handwaving technique.)

[Parker2112]

I dont need to stand on anything. Your dismissal of those in the field says enough for me.

Even if the study is flawed...Even if the conclusion is faulty... Your still an arrogant bastard. You sit on your ass and claim superiority over folks putting in time and energy.

Time for bed, keep up the good work. :tu

[LnGrrrR]

I dont need to stand on anything. Your dismissal of those in the field says enough for me.

Even if the study is flawed...Even if the conclusion is faulty... Your still an arrogant bastard. You sit on your ass and claim superiority over folks putting in time and energy.

Time for bed, keep up the good work. :tu

You need a new schtick. Last time I checked, claiming others are arrogant is arrogance itself.

Discounting someone's opinions =/= superiority

Of course, you show arrogance to the extreme in other ways, for instance, by assuming everyone is all wrong but the few people you read who are right.

[Parker2112]

You need a new schtick. Last time I checked, claiming others are arrogant is arrogance itself.

Discounting someone's opinions =/= superiority

Of course, you show arrogance to the extreme in other ways, for instance, by assuming everyone is all wrong but the few people you read who are right.

I dont assume that everything I read is right. I express the stuff so it can be discussed, not accepted. Honestly I dont give a damn if you believe anything that I present, but lets just say I try to set a place at the table for it.

And otherwise, when it comes to bringing the fringy stuff to the table, I meet resistance with resistance. So if WH is being a dick, I will continually point that out. If thats a dick move as well, oh well...

[Blake]

Connett adds, "The result is that while the issue of fluoride's impact on IQ is being aggressively pursued around the world, practically no work has been done in the U.S. or other fluoridating countries to repeat their findings. Sadly, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



He [Paul Connett] noted, "I'm hardly respectable when it comes to fighting fluoridation."


lol

[MannyIsGod]

I dont need to stand on anything. Your dismissal of those in the field says enough for me.

Even if the study is flawed...Even if the conclusion is faulty... Your still an arrogant bastard. You sit on your ass and claim superiority over folks putting in time and energy.

Time for bed, keep up the good work. :tu

Oh you mean like you do with Chemtrails?

[Blake]

You can find the pre-published study right here:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.128 9%2Fehp.1003171



Better hide yo kids....

Did they also look at the educational systems between the two villages when looking at the IQ scores?

or were the systems, teachers and learning environments 100% identical?

[Blake]

I dont need to stand on anything. Your dismissal of those in the field says enough for me.


I've been dismissing Paul Connett, your apparent go-to source, for some time now.

[Wild Cobra]

Parker, does this sum it up?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Unholy_three.png

[TeyshaBlue]

Parker, does this sum it up?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Unholy_three.png

This is probably closer.
http://www.timecube.com/TheWisestHuman_newimg_GeneRayCube.jpg
http://www.timecube.com/
:lol

[LnGrrrR]

I dont assume that everything I read is right. I express the stuff so it can be discussed, not accepted. Honestly I dont give a damn if you believe anything that I present, but lets just say I try to set a place at the table for it.

That's completely the opposite of what you do. When people bring up evidence that counters what you say, you question the sources, or use some other form of fallacy to discount what they have to say

[Winehole23]

Better hide yo kids....ADiB-v_8sZw

[RandomGuy]

I guess it is time for our annual foray into floride.

Yay.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

flouride is teh devil!

[RandomGuy]

You can find the pre-published study right here:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.128 9%2Fehp.1003171



Better hide yo kids....


This paper has been withdrawn.

Following Ahead of Print publication EHP learned that many of the data had been published in a previous paper (Xiang et al. 2003. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94), in violation of EHP's policy regarding the use of previously published material in original Research Articles. Consequently, the paper was withdrawn by EHP on 10 January 2011.

ROFL Withdrawn for plagiarism.

Whoops.

[Parker2112]

KENS 5
November 22, 2011
San Antonio: Added to our drinking water: a chemical 'more toxic than lead?'
By Joe Conger
(See original article) (http://www.kens5.com/news/More-toxic-than-lead--134366538.html)

Through the lips and past the gums, and into the stomach in seconds.
It’s a drink of water, plus a little hydrofluorosilicic acid: a chemical so corrosive and toxic, it carries a warning label. Since 2002, the city has been injecting it into the water supply, in an effort to stem tooth decay.
“The one, clear, proven way of keeping people’s teeth healthier, reducing decay is community water fluoridation,” said Dr. Maria Lopez-Howell, a San Antonio dentist and spokeswoman for the American Dental Association.
The American Dental Association says studies dating back to the 1940’s show a correlation between high concentrations of fluoride and a lack of cavities.

“We know that it continues to work, with anywhere from a 20 to 40 percent reduction in tooth decay,” added Lopez-Howell.
The ADA’s stance on fluoridated water hasn’t changed. But what has changed in the last 9 years is the growth of research which says ingesting fluoride may be harming, rather than helping.

"It accumulates in your bones and other places as well,” said Dr. Griffin Cole, an Austin dentist and opponent of fluoridated water.
Cole won’t use fluoride in his dental office.

"No fluoride. I don't have any fluoridated toothpaste in the office. I don't do any fluoride treatments, never have. I don't recommend it. I openly tell my patients that,” said Cole.

Cole says despite the lack of fluoride, there’s been no increase in cavities in his patients.

"Drinking water with fluoride in it does not have any benefit to the teeth, whatsoever,” he said.

And San Antonio’s Metro-Health department studies appear to back that up.
After 9 years and $3 million of adding fluoride, research shows tooth decay hasn’t dropped among the poorest of Bexar County’s children it has only increased—up 13 percent this year.

One out of two children in the Head Start program who were checked for cavities had some last year.

Also on the increase is fluorosis—or staining of the teeth. Drink a lot of fluoridated water, and you run the risk of these permanent splotches.

In fact, fluorosis is up 41 percent across the nation.

It’s so prevalent, the Centers for Disease Control warns parents NOT to mix baby formula with fluoridated water—a warning that is at-odds with the ADA.

“Our diet is such that we need everything we can do to prevent tooth decay. The bad news is that you may have some white spots on your teeth. The good news is that you won’t have any cavities,” said Dr. Lopez-Howell.

But recent studies from the CDC report there’s no clear evidence that adding fluoride to water does anything. And even one of the ADA’s own researchers has concluded that fluoride--at best—works when it is applied topically to teeth.

In 2006, the National Academy of Science reported that even at low levels, ingesting fluoride increases bone fractures and contributes to diabetes, brittle bones and thyroid dysfunction.

Dr. Laura Pressley says she learned that the hard way.

"About ten years ago I was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism,” said Pressley.

With the diagnosis, she began taking a regimen of drugs to control it.
Thyroid disease isn’t something that runs in her family, so Pressley investigated.

"I do have fluorosis in my teeth, and the white discoloration and I knew I grew up with fluoride in my tap water as a child,” she said.

As a chemist, Pressley says her research pointed to fluoride. So, she took it out. All of it--through water filters and a change in diet.

And she says when fluoride disappeared, so did her symptoms.

"I was on migraine medication, I was on allergy medication, and I was on thyroid medication. I take no medications at all. And that is shocking, because I was on so much three years ago,” said Pressley.

“This compound that the city is adding is many more times toxic than lead. It’s nearly as toxic as arsenic,” said a fluoride opponent, who signed up to speak at a City of Austin committee hearing.

The city is considering a warning label on its water bill, so that residents know the hazards associated with fluoride consumption.

It’s a first step, they say, in joining the 250 communities that have stopped fluoridation completely.

“Let’s get the warning on our label on our city bill, and let’s just get it out of the water. It’s time,” added Cole.

[Parker2112]

Whoops.

Indeed.

:toast

[Blake]

This forum needs more Parker2112.

[Parker2112]

This forum needs more Parker2112.

Its dead as a doornail around here. :toast

[Agloco]

This is probably closer.
http://www.timecube.com/TheWisestHuman_newimg_GeneRayCube.jpg
http://www.timecube.com/
:lol

:lmao

Wtf is that Teysha? That probably the most non-sensical rambling I've seen.

[JoeChalupa]

I think that woman on the Crest commercial with the super white teeth is hot.
http://i40.tinypic.com/14dh5rc.jpg

[Parker2112]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/idUS127920+24-Jul-2012+PRN20120724
Stop ingesting fluoride. Stop the distribution to your kids.

[ChumpDumper]

lol disguised as news

[Parker2112]

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.128 9%2Fehp.1104912


Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was -0.45 (95% CI -0.56 to -0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low fluoride areas.

[Parker2112]

Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.

[Parker2112]

:rollinWhy do you hate children, Chump?

[ChumpDumper]

:rollinWhy do you hate children, Chump?:rollinWhy do you rape children, Parker2112?

[Parker2112]

drunk Chump?

[ChumpDumper]

drunk Chump?Haven't even started tbh. Not my fault you didn't go all in with your straw man.

[ChumpDumper]

Fake news stories lying about real studies don't do much for me.

lol defeat

[ChumpDumper]

They deliberately left out the part that most of the high levels found in these studies exist in absolutely no place that fluoridates their water supply.