What about flouride?

[Parker2112]

You very strongly implied it, and you know it.

You said, roughly:

"SAWS started putting flouride in its water right around the time the Toyota plant was built, coincidence? I don't think so.



You liked this idea so much you said it again:



The implication is pretty clear to any fair reading. You were attempting to link the two correlated activities as if they had a causal relation. The word "Chromedreams" pretty much states your implication that the NaF by-product from chrome manufacturing was being put into SAWS water.

Implies nothing but suspiscion. If there was an arrangement, it would be a very tenuated one, and RG nor myself would not be able to discover the details so handily. But evidently your not smart enough to realize that.

[Parker2112]

You cherry-picked sources to fit the prejudgment of the matter you probably acquired at infowars.
Funny, you've already claimed victory a number of times.
The most I am willing to say is that you've shown your proficiency at cutting and pasting...
...and leapt over the professional consensus in a single bound in one of the lamest appeals to authority I've ever seen here. Kudos!
I wonder why you believe yourself. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I had to go to work. When I came back, I saw that others posters were regulating you properly, and felt no need to interfere.
You had been ignoring it yourself until just now. The backpedalling that brought you to this point sure kicked up some dust, but that ought not haze anyone who read all the way through.

A couple of pages ago Blake pantsed you for posting two sources you mischaracterized as supporting you, when in fact they upheld the exact opposite conclusion. A couple of pages before that, you admitted you don't really read through your sources either but just throw them up on the wall to see what others will say. Not finding you or the quality of your evidence credible doesn't make me a non-reader. I read plenty. What I did read wasn't too convincing.

Project your own faults, much?

Again, you attack me, but cant touch the sources. You are still hurting over getting your weak attempts at critique smacked down so hard.

pobrecito indeed.

[Winehole23]

^^^awards himself he game ball again. Guess his previously self-awarded victories didn't take.

[Parker2112]

You are claiming that some harm is being done.

There you again, with the words in my mouth. My main arguments are: unnecessary cost, infringement of cons utional rights, and lack of disclosure.

I dont buy much harm outside of outlying sensative populations.

You suck at this, and your cred is still 0. Quote me otherwise. Or if all you can do is manufacture my conclusions and do battle dishonestly, then shut up

[RandomGuy]

Debunk this testimony to the US Senate.
I'm sure you're internet connection is all you need.

http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm

There we go.

A link to actual science, suitably sourced.

Lets start with the first citation from your good Doctor's testimony:

According to a study by the National Ins ute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America's children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1)

Study name (linked to a pdf file showing actual study):
Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations.

Overall, 23.5 percent of the children
had at least very mild fluorosis, and this percentage increased with increasing
water fluoride level. Only 5.7 percent of the children exhibited fluorosis higher than the very mild level.

The study did establish, unsurpsisingly, that higher water concentrations of floride in water did increase incidence of floridosis.

Not sure where the good doctor based his "66%" claim. The researched stated pretty clearly that only 23.5% of the children studied.

Further what was studied was simply floride levels in schools.

An important methodologic issue
was our use of the fluoride level of
school water to determine the child's
water fluoride status. This approach
assumes that the children were exposed
to the same fluoride level at
home as at school. While this may not
always be the case, the alternative of
trying to determine water fluoride
level from the residential histories was
seen as a less reliable method of determining
exposure to fluoride from
water. Using the residential data provides
only an indication of whether or
not that community was listed as being
optimally fluoridated in the 1985
Fluoridation Census (18), but not the
actual fluoride level.

Seems like the good doctor can't support his claim based on what I could read of the paper. Either he misunderstood or misrepresented what it said.

Onwards and upwards.

[RandomGuy]

There you again, with the words in my mouth. My main arguments are: unnecessary cost, infringement of cons utional rights, and lack of disclosure.

I dont buy much harm outside of outlying sensative populations.

You suck at this, and your cred is still 0. Quote me otherwise. Or if all you can do is manufacture my conclusions and do battle dishonestly, then shut up

You said "this is toxic".

What exactly did you mean?

[RandomGuy]

The next studies cited by the doctor in his testimony were both studies not subjected to peer-review, from what I saw. Good faith attempts, but hardly conclusive.

My time is up, but I will continue to go through the testimony's citations.

Honestly, the whole issue smells like pseudo-science.

If you are tyring to claim that the big, bad companies are trying to keep themselves from lawsuits, that claim is severely crimped by a lack of evidence that might stand up in court regarding the harmful effects of putting floride in drinking water.

[Parker2112]

Hirzey doesn't work directly in the field.

If you really preferred to defer to those working in the field, this thread would never have happened, much less go past several dozen pages.



The debate then is that there is a valid debate.

If you really preferred to defer to those working in the field, this would not be a debate.

iow, there is really no debate that this is not a debate.



Is it really surprising that there are scientists out there with differing view points?

Why are you dismissing the findings of the pro-fluoride scientists?

Why are you dismissing the view of the surgeon general of the United States?



If some researchers come up some direct connection between fluoridated water and disease, I would absolutely agree that it should be debated.

Until then, it's simply an opinon that it should be removed, even if it is from Nobel prize winner Arvid Carllson.

His opinion definitely carries great weight. Without any substantial research to back up his opinion, however, it's not enough to even open a real debate.

your arrogance knows no bounds

[Parker2112]

You said "this is toxic".

What exactly did you mean?

that is a given. You didnt know?

It must be promperly disposed of, and precautions must be taken or handlers get sick.

Are you implying otherwise?

[Parker2112]

^^^awards himself he game ball again. Guess his previously self-awarded victories didn't take.

guess for all your squirming you cant avoid the hurt inflicted following your half-hearted entrance.

[Winehole23]

Quite the contrary, I'm amused.

[TeyshaBlue]

Good God, Parker. While you might have a debatable point, your debating, such that it is, resembles the skills used by my 6 year old granddaughter getting caught redhanded doing something wrong. You've done all but throw a tantrum. You foist a statement, then spend 30 posts saying you didn't. Your obfuscation abilities are not quite what you think they are. Hiding behind the coward's skirts of inference and innuendo is not a viable method of discourse.
me, I can't believe I waded back into this.

[Parker2112]

it shows in your compulsive offense.

[RandomGuy]

Are you too dense to understand the scenario here?

[limited industry participants] selling to [municipalities NATION WIDE]

Do you understand this OPENS A NATIONAL MARKET TO A HANDFUL OF PARTIES!!!!??? WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAYING OUT OF POCKET TO DISPOSE OF WASTE?

Imagine taking you're household trash that you normally pay the city to dispose of, and now imagine it become marketable to tens of thousands of cities if not more. IMAGINE. And for sake of comparison, lets make it so that you are constantly under threat of litigation by anyone who is exposed to your trash, because the is toxic. Follow?

You are right about one thing: it wouldnt mean bankruptcy. It would mean higher prices to consumers of fertilizer and aluminum.

MAJOR EXCEPT THAT I WAS IMPLYING EARLIER, THAT WOULD BANKRUPT CORPS:
Massive public exposure and years of PI lawsuits. I understand you WERE too dense to carry out that line of thought.

Imagine, I can do. I can also imagine purple flying ponies.

Now explain to me how a scientifically weak thesis will provide the basis for litigation?

I looked at the underlying studies, and wasn't all that impressed by what I saw.

Quite frankly, the evidence suggests that the overall benefits to the economy far outweigh any potential harm. This is directly supported by numerous sources provided by Blake in the course of the thread.

[Parker2112]

Good God, Parker. While you might have a debatable point, your debating, such that it is, resembles the skills used by my 6 year old granddaughter getting caught redhanded doing something wrong. You've done all but throw a tantrum. You foist a statement, then spend 30 posts saying you didn't. Your obfuscation abilities are not quite what you think they are. Hiding behind the coward's skirts of inference and innuendo is not a viable method of discourse.
me, I can't believe I waded back into this.

I get irritated because: 1. RG has been throwing dishonest crap in the game. 2. Blake is so set on redemption he insits that he can debunk any source, even Nobel Prize winning scientists. 3. WHs pride is evidently so wounded he cant help himself but to continue his personal attacks on me, and 4. No one here is debating the issue, outside of the occasional post by RG that doesnt misrepresent the position of the subject entirely.

Honestly we should all find our way out. I give you this Teysha, based on that point alone you have more intelligence than the entire crew here including myself.

GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN!

[RandomGuy]

that is a given. You didnt know?

It must be promperly disposed of, and precautions must be taken or handlers get sick.

Are you implying otherwise?

Not at all. Concentrated chemicals of any sort can be dreadfully harmful.

I don't drink concentrated bleach either, but very dilute amounts used to disinfect water are quite beneficial to me, compared to the nasty brain-eating amoebas and worse in untreated water.

Are you claiming that all chemicals that are harmful in concentrated doses must be harmful in extremely dilute quan ies?

[Parker2112]

Quite frankly, the evidence suggests that the overall benefits to the economy far outweigh any potential harm.

I actually agree with this. It helps industry, and it means people dont get sick from polution, outside of the sensitive populations (which is what Ive said from day 1)

But that still doesnt help with 1. the cons utional issue, 2. the lack of transparency in the policy, and 3. the lack of justification for the expense

[Winehole23]

(burp)

[Parker2112]

Not at all. Concentrated chemicals of any sort can be dreadfully harmful.

I don't drink concentrated bleach either, but very dilute amounts used to disinfect water are quite beneficial to me, compared to the nasty brain-eating amoebas and worse in untreated water.

Are you claiming that all chemicals that are harmful in concentrated doses must be harmful in extremely dilute quan ies?

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?

[Parker2112]

(burp)

I could do with more of these and less of your usual-of-late.

[Winehole23]

You only wish.

[Winehole23]

Just keep ing that chicken, Ted.

[Parker2112]

preparation H works to reduce swelling in and around the anal sphincter caused by intense trauma to the end-zone, billy

[Winehole23]

The chicken died. I'm informing PETA.

[Parker2112]

anal fissure. go directly to jail. do not collect $200.