If you see the world in terms of Left & Right, you really aren’t seeing the world

[Parker2112]

Would you be shocked to know that a buddy of mine who oversee's the water treatment of a large SoCal city also thinks you're full of ? You see, his city also does not treat their water with NaF.

There. That's two examples where you are demonstrably incorrect.

To be clear: Do they treat at all?

[TeyshaBlue]

To be clear: Do they treat at all?

Yes in one plant and no in another. Different water sources. Neither use NaF.

[Parker2112]

That's alot of assumptions in one post.

I'm sure that what RG meant is that the scientific community, at large, is relatively immune to corruption. You can't bribe the entire scientific community.

As well, Occam's Razor (I doubt you're familiar with the concept) would lead one to believe that, just perhaps, the entire scientific community isn't being bribed.

Then maybe these guys are honest:

Letter of Concern to EPA Administrator, from the unions, current as of today, along with several other letters to confirm their history of opposition which stands as of 2010.

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...idesummary.htm

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...epa.a.2005.htm

With like this floating around, I have a hard time buying the winholes of the world honestly. Internet research is only just so good. And its not as though mine is any better, but the issue is disputed, and you guys claim it is cut and dried. So again you guys are on the losing end here.

[Parker2112]

Yes in one plant and no in another. Different water sources. Neither use NaF.

Do you know what they are treating with in the one?

[TeyshaBlue]

Do you know what they are treating with in the one?

I'll fire him another email and ask him.

[Parker2112]

I'll fire him another email and ask him.

My wife asked around at two water plants in central texas and it was NaF.

[Blake]

Then maybe these guys are honest:


With like this floating around, I have a hard time buying the winholes of the world honestly. Internet research is only just so good. And its not as though mine is any better, but the issue is disputed, and you guys claim it is cut and dried. So again you guys are on the losing end here.

Those guys might honestly think they are right.

[LnGrrrR]

Then maybe these guys are honest:

You don't think scientists can honestly differ on the results of a test, and the interpretations of those results?

Here's a hint: Two people can think results mean different things, and both are being "honest".

With like this floating around, I have a hard time buying the winholes of the world honestly. Internet research is only just so good. And its not as though mine is any better, but the issue is disputed, and you guys claim it is cut and dried. So again you guys are on the losing end here.

Because, for all intents and purposes, it is cut and dried. Are you aware you're asking people to DISPROVE something, without making a valid PROOF of it yourself?

As far as dismissing the argument... well, people do that when you don't make valid and cogent arguments in favor of something. If I told you that I could turn sand into ice cream, would you believe me? Do you need to research the principles of atomic bonding and molecular formation in order to tell me I'm full of ?

[Parker2112]

You don't think scientists can honestly differ on the results of a test, and the interpretations of those results?

Here's a hint: Two people can think results mean different things, and both are being "honest".




Because, for all intents and purposes, it is cut and dried. Are you aware you're asking people to DISPROVE something, without making a valid PROOF of it yourself?

As far as dismissing the argument... well, people do that when you don't make valid and cogent arguments in favor of something. If I told you that I could turn sand into ice cream, would you believe me? Do you need to research the principles of atomic bonding and molecular formation in order to tell me I'm full of ?

You realize that for all the damage you claim was inflicted on the claims, no one ever addressed this?

We cant. None of us. Unless we have the capability to run long term scientific studies, at major expense, we are standing here in a circle jerk.

Admit your limitations.

You guys really believe you can "prove" what federal scientists are divided over? And yet you have been claiming to "know" that its all bull . Really take a look at the bull within this approach.

[Winehole23]

My wife asked around at two water plants in central texas and it was NaF.

You've got your wife toting water around for you too. Poor thing.

Tell me: if your wife and all of us have to vet all your sources, what exactly do you do around here besides fling on the wall and admire it?

[Parker2112]

You don't think scientists can honestly differ on the results of a test, and the interpretations of those results?

Here's a hint: Two people can think results mean different things, and both are being "honest".




Because, for all intents and purposes, it is cut and dried. Are you aware you're asking people to DISPROVE something, without making a valid PROOF of it yourself?

As far as dismissing the argument... well, people do that when you don't make valid and cogent arguments in favor of something. If I told you that I could turn sand into ice cream, would you believe me? Do you need to research the principles of atomic bonding and molecular formation in order to tell me I'm full of ?

I can stand on the Professional Unions assertions all day. You guys cant even knock me off that single source. And nor has anyone tried.

[TeyshaBlue]

My wife asked around at two water plants in central texas and it was NaF.

Really? Which ones?

[Parker2112]

You've got your wife toting water around for you too. Poor thing.

If it's your wife and all of us who have to vet all your sources, what exactly do you do around here besides fling on the wall and admire it?

My wife is an environmental lab manager. She oversees water quality for much of central texas. The guys she asked are co-workers.

Just like the Federal Professionals Union, she doesnt like the at all.

But Im sure you know better than she. What do you do again Winehole?

[Blake]

You guys really believe you can "prove" what federal scientists are divided over?

What federal scientists are against fluoridation?

[Parker2112]

Really? Which ones?

Georgetown and one other near Waco I think.

[Parker2112]

What federal scientists are against fluoridation?

its linked above. but once again:
Letter of Concern to EPA Administrator, from the unions, current as of today, along with several other letters to confirm their history of opposition which stands as of 2010.

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...idesummary.htm

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...epa.a.2005.htm

[Parker2112]

Its not as cut and dried as you all would like to believe.

[LnGrrrR]

You guys really believe you can "prove" what federal scientists are divided over? And yet you have been claiming to "know" that its all bull . Really take a look at the bull within this approach.

Your worldview is in serious error if you don't take the word of anyone without confirming it for yourself.

Tell me Parker, how about the movement of the solar system? Have you personally flown into space to observe it? If not, how can you be sure we really revolve around the sun?

If I provide you a link to the Flat-Earth society, would you claim to "know" that they are wrong? How can you know if you haven't done the research yourself?

[Parker2112]

Your worldview is in serious error if you don't take the word of anyone without confirming it for yourself.

Tell me Parker, how about the movement of the solar system? Have you personally flown into space to observe it? If not, how can you be sure we really revolve around the sun?

If I provide you a link to the Flat-Earth society, would you claim to "know" that they are wrong? How can you know if you haven't done the research yourself?

If you cant bank Federal Scientists Union on Fluoride, who can you trust?

[Blake]

its linked above. but once again:
Letter of Concern to EPA Administrator, from the unions, current as of today, along with several other letters to confirm their history of opposition which stands as of 2010.

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...idesummary.htm

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...epa.a.2005.htm

One of the glaring anti fluoride references listed from that link was J Colquhoun and his book "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation".

Why We Have Not Changed Our Minds about the
Safety and Efficacy of Water Fluoridation:
A Response to John Colquhoun
Ernest Newbrun, D.M.D., Ph.D.
Herschel Horowitz, D.D.S., M.P.H.
In 1997, the journal Perspectives in Biology and Medicine published an opinion piece, "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation," by John Colquhoun [1]. Although the journal's stated purpose is to convey new ideas or stimulate original thought in biological and medical sciences, Colquhoun presented no new data. His paper rehashed earlier criticisms of water fluoridation, using selective and highly biased citations of the scientific and nonscientific literature [2-10].

Colquhoun, who died in March 1999, was a dental officer in New Zealand during the 1970s and early 1980s. His writings display blatant bias in evaluating the published literature on fluoridation, criticizing any study supporting fluoridation for poor design (e.g. non-blind examinations, non-random selection of subjects and communities), while ignoring gross defects in the methods used in studies that found no caries reduction in fluoridated communities. He was the Editor of Fluoride, a magazine published by the International Society for Fluoride Research, for which he was also the Treasurer. Despite its propitious le, Fluoride is primarily a vehicle for printing articles that decry the benefits of communal water fluoridation (13 of Colquhoun's 73 citations are from this anti-fluoride publication). Colquhoun's paper is in the same genre.........

http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/newbrun.html

that's one down.

Do you have any other specific names or or you going to keep up the same strawman motif?

[Parker2112]

Your worldview is in serious error if you don't take the word of anyone without confirming it for yourself.

Tell me Parker, how about the movement of the solar system? Have you personally flown into space to observe it? If not, how can you be sure we really revolve around the sun?

If I provide you a link to the Flat-Earth society, would you claim to "know" that they are wrong? How can you know if you haven't done the research yourself?

I challenge you to prove the Earth is round without relying on the word of anyone.

[Blake]

If you cant bank Federal Scientists Union on Fluoride, who can you trust?

Just curious sidebar: what is your opinion of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"?

[MannyIsGod]

Of course you do.

You cannot be objective; but then neither can I.

Suffice it to say, if a metric were devised, every post from every member evaluated for open minded, fair-handedness, a conclusion might be able to be drawn, with the bias skewing from one side more than the other. However, that misses the point.

How about "both sides ARE guilty" as opposed to "both sides are EQUALLY guilty"?

I'm not too sure neither of us can be objective. Why? Because we have views of a certain nature? Why would that preclude us from coming to an objective viewpoint?

In any event, your revised statement is much better, IMO. Of late, I've wondered how much both sides do equally muddy the waters. I don't think its simplys afe to assume its equal.

[LnGrrrR]

I challenge you to prove the Earth is round without relying on the word of anyone.

That's kinda my point.

[Blake]

I challenge you to prove the Earth is round without relying on the word of anyone.

I don't believe the word of the sources you have been using.