What about flouride?

[ChumpDumper]

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.

your arrogance knows no bounds

hypocrite much?

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

1) What cons utional issue? No one is forced to drink the water.

2) The lack of transparency only exists in your mind because you choose to remain ignorant. If one chooses to wear a blindfold, one will not see through anything.

3) The expenses are as transparent as anything else you refuse to actually examine.

[Parker2112]

hypocrite much?

1) What cons utional issue? No one is forced to drink the water.

2) The lack of transparency only exists in your mind because you choose to remain ignorant. If one chooses to wear a blindfold, one will not see through anything.

3) The expenses are as transparent as anything else you refuse to actually examine.

1) Horse . all day every day. People need water. Municipalities provide that function. Many cant afford alternatives to public water.

If you use that public source to dose the masses who will no doubt use it, you remove the peoples right to make the ultimate decisions regarding their health and welfare. Of which they have a cons utional right to do so.

not even a straight faced argument.

2) Horse . What percentage of the public do you think knows that they are being dosed with fluoride from industrial waste?

As for the personal attack, keep it klassy, Chump.

3) Expenses are transparent true. But the reasons for the expense are not, as there is a dubious track record all things considered, and outside studies and data are not open to debate with our elected officials. So again you fall flat.

[Parker2112]

I could keep you hyenas at bay all day, but I think I will take Teyshas lead here.

[Winehole23]

Good riddance.

[Parker2112]

Ha!

[ChumpDumper]

1) Horse . all day every day. People need water. Municipalities provide that function. Many cant afford alternatives to public water.

Many can. And in SA they voted to have fluoride. That's pretty democratic tbh.

If you use that public source to dose the masses who will no doubt use it.

There is great doubt whether they will use it. Sorry.

2) Horse . What percentage of the public do you think knows that they are being dosed with fluoride from industrial waste?

You are asking if people are ignorant? I'm sure they are, but the knowledge of the sources of fluoride used in SAWS is quite transparent. It's on the internets. You didn't look it up. Turns out it was very easily found. Therefore it's clear you chose to remain ignorant on the topic so you could dream up your little conspiracy theory about Toyota's selling polishing slag to SAWS to dump in the water supply. Now you walked back a little from that -- your new theory is there are a couple of middlemen between Toyota and SAWS.

As for the personal attack, keep it klassy, Chump.

It's not an attack. You have proved your ignorance time and time again. Claiming someone is ignorant is not an attack. Claiming someone has chosen to remain ignorant is an opinion, but my claim is backed up by your arguments.

You also proved you are a hypocrite when it comes to personal attacks.

Keep it classy, indeed.

3) Expenses are transparent true. But the reasons for the expense are not, as there is a dubious track record all things considered, and outside studies and data are not open to debate with our elected officials. So again you fall flat.

There is plenty of justification of the expense. You choose remain ignorant of it, and start hand waving, posting stupid pictures and personally attacking people who provide evidence of justification.

[Winehole23]

I wonder what happened to all the "smoking guns." There used to be several. Now there is just a "valid debate."

[RandomGuy]

Implies nothing but suspiscion.

Well, let's see what we can do with "su ion" and see what a reasonable person might infer.

"Parker2112 moved into the neighborhood, then gerbil and ducktape sales ed. Coincidence?"

"Parker2112 moved next to a sheep farm, then the sheep got really skittish around people with gloves. Coincidence?"

"Parker2112 got himself a bigscreen TV and high-speed internet connection, then suddenly tissue paper and lube sales ed. Coincidence?"

What would be the reasonable inference to the above statements?

What would a good critical thinker conclude about what I was trying to say?

[Blake]

your arrogance knows no bounds

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?

[Blake]

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

you just justified the expense even if you aren't aware you did.

well done.

[RandomGuy]

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

Cons utional issue? Filter your water. The government isn't really forcing anyone to do anything. The policy is set at the local level.

Tranparency? SAWS had a public debate prior to it, and puts all the information about it on its website. I found a lot of larger city municipal water utilities that put the information right out there.

Lack of Justification of the expense.
As pointed out the expense was less than .5% of SAWS operating budget. Blake pointed out an economic study showing that for the wider economy avoiding expensive dental treatment more than justified the cost.

What exactly is your point then?

[Parker2112]

I wonder what happened to all the "smoking guns." There used to be several. Now there is just a "valid debate."

smoking guns = when you/yours were arguing that fluoride used was not industrial waste.

try and keep up.

[Parker2112]

Many can. And in SA they voted to have fluoride. That's pretty democratic tbh.

remind me how cons utional rights are affected by popular vote. Decent try. i guess.

[RandomGuy]

Now explain to me how a scientifically weak thesis [dilute levels of floride are toxic] will provide the basis for litigation?

[Parker2112]

You are asking if people are ignorant? I'm sure they are, but the knowledge of the sources of fluoride used in SAWS is quite transparent. .

Where was that fluoride coming from again?

[Winehole23]

smoking guns = when you/yours were arguing that fluoride used was not industrial waste.

I never argued that. Who did?

[Winehole23]

remind me how cons utional rights are affected by popular vote. Decent try. i guess.

What cons utional right? Please be specific.

[Parker2112]

There is plenty of justification of the expense.

Only if we throw out contrary findings and evidence. Of which there are multiple sources in this thread.

Nice brush off of the opposition though.

[RandomGuy]

smoking guns = when you/yours were arguing that fluoride used was not industrial waste.

try and keep up.

NaCl, table salt is an industrial waste that results from and is used in a variety of manufacturing processes.

Warm water is an "industrial waste" in some manufacturing processes.

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

[Blake]

remind me how cons utional rights are affected by popular vote. Decent try. i guess.

as has been asked on numerous occasions already, what part of the consitution are you referring to?

[Parker2112]

you just justified the expense even if you aren't aware you did.

well done.

I know the expense is justified in $. It avoids pollution, damages, illness, and extra burdens on the economy.

I know that it is not justified in sense. Cons utiona bars it, sensative populations undermine it at current levels, and the data doesnt support its actual utility.

This is complex. Maybe leave it to others.

[Parker2112]

NaCl, table salt is an industrial waste that results from and is used in a variety of manufacturing processes.

Warm water is an "industrial waste" in some manufacturing processes.

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

Then why were folks, including chump, arguing the fact?

[Blake]

Only if we throw out contrary findings and evidence. Of which there are multiple sources in this thread.

Nice brush off of the opposition though.

the contrary findings don't measure up to the official findings.

Why do you continue to brush off the surgeon general of the US among others?

[ChumpDumper]

remind me how cons utional rights are affected by popular vote. Decent try. i guess.

Hey, if it's actually uncons utional, there would have already been a lawsuit regarding it. Or is the opposition too poor to pay lawyers?

Where was that fluoride coming from again?

You already have been told, yet you still say it's Toyota.

Only if we throw out contrary findings and evidence. Of which there are multiple sources in this thread.

Nice brush off of the opposition though.

Nice additional hypocrisy from you.

[Parker2112]

as has been asked on numerous occasions already, what part of the consitution are you referring to?

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