So, let me get this straight.
You ask for evidence that runs counter to yours, right?
So, do you think that scientists who produce data that counters your flouride claims are raising legitimate arguments? Or are they all bought out?
absolutely. My argument was simply that it wasnt a cut and dried conspiracy that could be dismissed. All I ever said was that it wasnt as easy as that.
Read my position from pg 2 bove. Same as at the end. And tell me: is that inconsistent with two sides to this issue?
You lost in spectacular fashion on the cons utional component.
I have not seen any issue or sub-issue you can lay any kind of claim of victory on.
Ok, so let's say that the people who dismissed it as conspiracy were wrong. Now that they've produced evidence that shows that flouride has little to no harm on a person, what do you think about the issue? Do you agree with that data? If not, why not?
Im not going to reargue those right now. The point of this was to find where my stance was twisted from lukewarm fluoride questioner with some concerns to full blown conspiracy nut.
And RG was the in question. Which I knew already.
Thanks to the evidence provided by actual en ies providing actual research regarding people drinking fluoridated water over periods of time, it really is that cut and dried.
You are either too intellectually lazy to figure it out or you are purposely ignorant of these studies and real sources.
define a person.
as in normal person/normal immune/normal kidney function?
or a person as in anyone?
The data Ive seen is that fluoride is potentially harmful to diabetics, those with reduced kidney functions, infants and elderly.
Those outlier warrant more consideration in my book.
You disagree?
No need to reargue. It's practically a foregone conclusion you will just lose again in continued spectacular fashion.
We'll say that it doesn't affect the average person to any noticeable degree.
Since you are concerned that said flouride may be potentially harmful to some populations, do you have a suggestion as to what they should do with the flouride instead?
What data have you seen that directly shows that fluoridated water at levels of the EPA standard of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or less is harmful to diabetics, etc?
it could be disposed of properly. or sent to fluoridate iran.
its in the thread.
How so?
like any toxic waste product: in accordance with state and federal regs.
I'm assuming that they dispose of it RIGHT NOW in accordance with state and federal regs, which allow dispersal in a large enough water supply.
What NEW state and federal regs should be written to deal with flouride specifically? Is flouride harmful enough to be included with other more harmful chemicals regarding disposal?
you need to watch the vid at post 1.
it is extremely toxic when concentrated. @ plants: Workers get sick, neighbors get sick, etc.
not so much at levels dosed in our water.
regs are in place, no need for new ones.
Ok... so you said it could be disposed of properly according to regs, but then admit that it is already being disposed of according to regs.
You also admitted it's only extremely toxic in concentrated form, but that the dosage released into our water is negligible. Are you sticking by your claim that the negligible dosage still affects certain populations?
If so, how would you protect those populations?
Some people advocate to drop the levels or reevaluate the safety of the current levels set by EPA.
I would need more info to advocate either way based on science.
I dont need more info to believe, consistent with the libertarian party, that gov doesnt have the right to do this, good intent or not. And that is the crux of why all the science has been on a back burner for me. It comes down to cons utional protection from big govt in determining what medical treatment we want to undergo.
Who's forcing you to drink tap water?
Also, if counties and cities vote on it, either directly or through their representatives, how does that amount to a violation of rights? Voting is consent.
And some people think they're ok, I'm sure. Did you post data that shows flouridation of water supplies at their current levels have significant (or even any) effects on these specific populations you're concerned about?
If you don't have the info to determine which side is right, how can you insult those who dismiss the argument off-hand? Perhaps the evidence is overwhelmingly lopsided towards those who believe the current levels aren't harmful.
If you don't care about the science behind it, why use arguments based on science?
Frankly, science DOES play into it. If these companies are releasing this waste into city supplies at levels too low to cause harm, then how are they violating anyone's liberties? If it has no significant medical effect, then you can't claim it's a medical treatment you're subject to.
Dealt with already. My argument is solid and I am sold. For lower classes, to which water is necessary for life and household function, it is impossible to presume anything but public water will be used. They are forced, just like women who are forced to carry to term are in effect forced, to conform to outside influence, against the guarantees in the const. And those Cons utional rights cant be voted away.
I dont think I ever did. I argued the science but never argued based on science. I DID argue about the uniformity of the scientific views.
Arguing the science would lead one to think that it's related to your argument. And there is probably uniformity on the issues because the data backs up those who find no harm in the current system.
I thought you weren't selling anything.
Did you fall off the fence?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
