Reply With Quote
The same group of people who fly planes into buildings. Not sure about your question. Your point is....?
1. Flouride is flouride. Chinese or not. I rather suspect the Chinese flouride in question meets the standard.all the BS about tap water? Regardless what you think about flouride, it doesnt bother you in the least that:
1. Chinese industry is shipping flouride straight into the public water supply? WTF? How is entrusting the public's health to chinese industrial standards ON A NATIONAL SCALE a conspiracy?
2. That our municipalities are spending millionson "treating" youngsters teeth, when they could easily make the choice to brush and get flouride treatments in most cases?
3. And even if there is only a small percentage of the population who has trouble with ingesting flouride (of which my little brother is one), why the are we forcing these folks to ingest that makes them sick?
Enjoy your preconceived notions,, and enjoy my simultaneous rhetorical/smiley
!
2. Perhaps our municipalities should abandon safety code inspections. I mean after all, if a homebuilder wants to make sure his home is safe, he can always hire one on his dime.
3. Eggs make my daughter sick. Shall we ban them as well?
You do realize that the process of flouridation often consists of removing flouride from the municipal water supply, right?
That little bon mot is compliments of a buddy who oversees the municipal water supply for a largish Southern CA municipality.
The same group of people who fly planes into buildings. Not sure about your question. Your point is....?
So science is bad?
No. But we should consider risks like rational adults, when making policy decisions.
This was a risk that most had not considered until very recently.
Since it is serious, and real, do you think we should blithely ignore it?
Is that what you are saying?
Hardware failsafes. Do you know how a modern nuclear reactor works? Or are you just buying into the culture of fear because someone is making a lot of noise?
"they are out to get us".
Sorry, not buying it. Have anything else for sale?
I am not intimately familiar with how reactors work, no.
I would hope there are such failsafes.
No one is making a lot of noise about this, it was something I ran across in my daily news trawl.
Quite honestly, I am sure that such attacks can be guarded against fairly effectively. I am also sure that the risks while mitigated, still exist. The question in the OP was an honest one. I really did want to know some information, and was hoping someone a bit more familiar could provide it.
As I have said before, I am not against nukes just to be against nukes, but *do* want the issue addressed comphrehensively and rationally.
In short, I am not buying into an irrational fear, as you seem to suggest.
I *am* buying into an honest look at the advantages and drawbacks.
Another drawback to nuclear reactors is that they could become self aware and then mistakenly think they were playing a game of chess and blow us all up.
Milk makes my wife and a friend of mine sick. I guess we should ban milk then as well.
head convinced everybody that "modern technology" was so advanced that there was no risk to drilling and piping in Alaska (or anywhere).
I'm sure his assurances are also good to 100s of nuclear plants, that McLiar/2008 said he wanted to build.
But even before looking at operational dangers, who's going to finance $10B/each, and who's going to insure for 10s of $Bs? The capital and insurance costs are significant.
France and Siemens know how to build nuclear plants and are an example for inexperienced US builders?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...tial-cost.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/bu...gewanted=print
Well, I have worked in water/wastewater and my wife oversees laboratory analyses for multiple municipalities and industrial en ies throughout Texas, so we both have some knowledge of the area.
Now on to these:
I dont trust the Chinese Industrial practices. Neither do these guys. They summarize Chinese infractions towards the end. Maybe you should reconsider where you put your faith.1. Flouride is flouride. Chinese or not. I rather suspect the Chinese flouride in question meets the standard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZRWvcvPo3o
Safety codes protect the public at large. Real Property changes hands. If you take out this safeguard, you diminish the transferability of real estate, which is a major economic driver for our economy. People wont buy/sell so readily. Liquidity in the market is key to our overall economic health, and people need to be able to trust building standards so they buy/sell realty, create/generate wealth, build personal equity etc.2. Perhaps our municipalities should abandon safety code inspections. I mean after all, if a homebuilder wants to make sure his home is safe, he can always hire one on his dime.
If you are implying that flouride is a required safety measure for citizens, please explain. Im not convinced of that myself. Other countries do great without it.
1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water . This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.These two things are incomparable. There is no one forcing your daughter to ingest eggs. Thats the whole point.3. Eggs make my daughter sick. Shall we ban them as well?
If the eggs made your daughter sick, and the govt forced her to eat eggs every day, wouldnt you be opposed to it? Especially if she could get her protien/nutrition from other sources?
We dont need flouride so why do we administer en masse? I think I know, but I will close with this:
Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)
a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)
b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)
c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm, #8.
no they are not out to get us. They are out to get for themselves. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand that the more crises we face (real or fabricated) the larger the govt can grow, the more lucrative govt positions become, the more power govt can usurp, the more our liberties will suffer?
please read above. no one puts milk in the tap water.
science is great. BUT, science isnt 100% reliable, can be manipulated with $ (just look at all the conservative think-tank studies on climate change), and BOTTOM LINE: Science can be used to rile the herd into the next pasture just as well as fabricated military intelligence can.
I think you are confusing bureaucratic and social inertia with sinister ulterior motives that you have provided no evidence for.
Do you have some evidence as to motive on the part of someone that I have not seen?
you are confirming my thoughts on flouridation. we input unnecessary medication into the water supply at great expense, and then spend even more to remove that unnecessary chemical from the water supply, only to input it again.
Sounds like a of a way to spend money, considering we didnt have to put it in in the first place (see quote above re Western Europe).
No, science can't be used quite so easily. The problem with the assertion that "science can be manipulated", is that ultimately science seeks rather objective truths. Those truths, unlike intelligence estimates can be verified and tested.
You are vastly oversimplifying both things, making bad comparisons, and using false dilemmas based on a cynical worldview and little evidence.
wrong thread. There is evidence on the flouride thread in the form of links, provided to those interested. The flouridation is 1. a way to dispurse toxic byproducts of certain industrial processes (eg fertilizer manufacturing) without creating polluted hot spots, and 2. helps to mitigate the expense to the industrial actors.
This is done under the guise of healthy teeth, even though topical application is far better way to ensure healthy teeth, and ingesting the flouride hasnt really shown to be effective at all. It actually boils down to accomodating otherwise toxic activities by spreading the toxic byproduct over the entire population at levels that are not harmful. Boils down to $. But, that doesnt help sensative portion of the population, nor does it help children of uneducated moms who use flouridated water to make formula. Nor do municipalities educate on this:
Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).
Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm
...only if the person funding the science wants an objective result. Scientists are not above $. They must eat too. This assertion is far too broad and assumes that every scientist has altruistic intentions.
Boutons is pretty close to the truth here. Some of the big corporations do spend a good mint on security experts for trade secrets, or due to law. (A company has to be doing "due diligence" when it comes to security; if they get hacked and their employees' names come out, and their security was old, they could be held liable.
Let's say this: corporations will often hire IT security guys, but they're certainly not thrilled with it. IT security doesn't provide any visible, tangible benefits to the company; if the IT is doing their job well, then there should be limited to no penetration. This means a security manager has to sell themselves by saying, "Well, X amt of companies had IT losses related to security in the Y amt of dollars, and I can (kinda) guarantee you I can prevent that."
see above.
I think the bad comparisons are comparing banning things that public can avoid ingesting with ceasing things the public is forced to ingest. If you cant see that, I cant help you really. But I think you can.
Strawman logical fallacies simply reinforce my belief that people who generally believe the way you do are incapable of thinking about reality in a rational, logical manner. It is one of the main reasons why I am deeply skeptical of "conservative" policy solutions.
Thanks for making my point for me.
the dilemma is expense, and liberty. It doesnt need to be any more than that. Freedom to be free from forced ingestion of potentially harmful "medication"
nothing false about it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
