Reply With Quote
the guy gives an in-depth interview, the vid of which is LINKED IN THIS THREAD.
Thought you knew.
He blames the aluminum industry.
You read it?
What does it say? What convinces you it's right?
the guy gives an in-depth interview, the vid of which is LINKED IN THIS THREAD.
Thought you knew.
He blames the aluminum industry.
I dont have to think he's right to think its unreasonable for our govt to dose the public with anything on such a level.
I'm a reader. I won't watch an embedded youtube.
It's your godammed thread, Parker...if you can't recap in your own words, you haven't mastered the material and can't realistically vouch for its veracity.
check it at the 1:00 mark.
You can't recap it in your own words. Not surprised.
then why didnt you read my re-cap yet?
knife to a gun fight. for real.
After pointing at someone else's book you didn't read failed, you fell back on a linked interview you can't even summarize. Strong.
try checking in the first ten posts on this thread. you'll get the three vids and the summary there.
You think that's checkmate.
I'll just say this: you have pretty low standards for evidence.
You think a tossed king means something else.You think that's checkmate.
An almost none whatsoever when it comes to argument.
I didnt say it was conclusive. BUT: The guy worked at the BBC prior to the investigation, he is an award winning investigative reporter, and multiple people have lost jobs over this issue, some of which are interviewed in the vids. But I wouldnt expect you to know that.
This is what, the third or fourth time you've declared victory in this thread?
Insecure, much?
your standards for informing yourself on the issue prior to condemnation are lower
Your argument sucks. It deserves condemnation regardless of the background issues.
Actually, anyone arguing for:
1. such an expensive practice,
2. in a time of economic depression,
3. in the face of the data that has come back from European studies showing the practice is placebo at best (and also linked in this thread), and
4. in a nation which prides itself on individual liberties
without contradicting evidence is automatically subject to directed verdict (read: the burden is on the naysers; also read: that's you, WH).
WH, I know you understand you're fighting out of a huge hole on this issue. Maybe that's why I can't make a move without coming back to your attacks on this issue.
Strawman. I didn't argue for any of these.
This isn't a courtroom. It's a discussion board. There are no directed judgments here, and the evidence you submitted doesn't float the inferences you made.
How would you know? You were doing crosswords through direct.Strawman. I didn't argue for any of these.
This isn't a courtroom. It's a discussion board. There are no directed judgments here, and the evidence you submitted doesn't float the inferences you made.
Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation
Two published studies conducted by CDC reaffirm the benefits of community water fluoridation. Together, the studies continue to show that widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves money, both for families and the health care system. In fact, the economic analysis found that for larger communities of more than 20,000 people where it costs about 50 cents per person to fluoridate the water, every $1 invested in this preventive measure yields approximately $38 savings in dental treatment costs.
"An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation"1 presents the results of an economic analysis of water fluoridation under modern conditions of widespread availability of fluorides. Researchers from CDC and Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, found that under typical conditions, the annual per-person cost savings in fluoridated communities ranged from $16 in very small communities (<5,000) to nearly $19 for larger communities (>20,000). The analysis takes into account the costs of installing and maintaining necessary equipment and operating water plants, the expected effectiveness of fluoridation, estimates of expected cavities in non-fluoridated communities, treatment of cavities, and time lost visiting the dentist for treatment.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htmWestern Europe also uses fluoridated salt in lieu of fluoridating the water.Most countries in Europe have experienced substantial declines in cavities without the use of water fluoridation.[4] For example, in Finland and Germany, tooth decay rates remained stable or continued to decline after water fluoridation stopped. Fluoridation may be useful in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride.[16] The effectiveness of water fluoridation can vary according to cir stances such as whether preventive dental care is free.[54]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
The surgeon general also fully endorses the use of fluoridated water in prevention of cavities.
The burden is, and has been since post #1 in this quack conspiracy thread, on you to prove the surgeon general [or any other such reputable source] is either ignorant or lying.
sidebar: based on your posting history, I have little doubt that if this were 1950 that you would be dropping hints that fluoridated water is the work of communists.
"What about Flouride?"
Really put myself out there with that one...I can see how such a hard-line argumentative beginning to a thread would garner the burden right off...
again, man, will you guys give up already.
"These are not the arguments you are looking for..."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
