Reply With Quote
that's why I ask for page numbers!!!!!!!!
oh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just looking at things...maybe we need to take it down a notch.
that's why I ask for page numbers!!!!!!!!
oh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No thanks, I'll pass.
ok. Ill try to work with you from here on out. in good faith.
Watch the vids.
suite yourself sweetie.
mighty kind of you considering Ive been working in good faith with you from post 1.
Is there anything new in the vids that you haven't already stated after 20+ pages?
Sit on a fork and spin.
See why I left this topic? He just doesn't get it, does he.
I often disagree with people here, but Parker gets so far fetched. I usually understand others viewpoints, but I cannot believe he is so mouse-like.
YES. Absolutely. In depth history of the industry lobby, and the litigation that prompted, and the ties to asbestos industry as well. Id be interested to see what holes youu can poke in that if you do.
You've done far better than anyone else on this board for that type of thing thus far. Im actually impressed, and to tell you the truth, Im learning a thing or two.
If they arent worth the watch, I'll give you your money back.
WC, stop kissin ass. You should be against this just on the big govt angle alone.
Some conservative you are. You disappoint.
This is a classic too. We havent even touched on the coming from China.
Not from the way you portray it. Get a little realism in your act.
You already posted that one, parker.
What big government angle? Local governments make the call.
You're the one arguing for a top down judicial solution.
So Toyota sold chrome polishing slag to Flintstone vitamins?
eh. I looked up history of lobbying, came across Alcoa and it's ties to fluoride production but still don't see anything menacing.
Several websites try to compare the history of asbestos to what's going on currently with fluoride.
Asbestos was used in a large number of different ways from fire proofing to break pads. The danger with asbestos is when it breaks up into powder and gets inhaled. Even the tiniest amount of asbestos is dangerous.
Fluorine is naturally found in water supplies. If it's really that dangerous at any level, then we should be de-fluoridating all of our waters of even the natural fluorine.
Here's another claim you have assigned some weight to, and repeated it several times.
Repeat after me:
Correlation is not causality.
Correlation is not causality.
Correlation is not causality.
You have obviously taken that bit from an anti-flouride website and absorbed this factoid into your thick skull as if it means anything.
Here is what someone with some health critical thinking skills would ask when presented with a fact that contravenes accepted science:
Given: studies on the effect of floride on cavities are very conclusive as to the benefits of floride in preventing cavities.One would wonder then, what WAS causing the reduction in cavities.
Given: in countries without floridated water, the numbers of cavities is dropping, just as it is in the countries with floridated water.
1) In the countries with increased dental health, and no floridated water, what other sources of flouride are these people exposed to?
2) In the countries with increased dental health, and no floridated water, are there some other factors that would explain the reduction?
Turns out, unsurprisingly, that it is a combination of the two. Europeans don't drink tap water. Therefore if you want to get cavity preventing floride to teeth you have to find some other route.
What do the Europeans do? They put it in table salt. That's right, they put it in the salt.
The big bad governments over there force everybody who has any salt in their diet to consume flouride. DUN DUN DUN!
If you had bothered to subject the claims of the anti-floride crusaders to a modi of skepticism you wouldn't have fallen for the standard pseudo-science quackery of presenting correlation as causation.
Any govt stepping on your const rights is too big, fed state or local.
this twisted misrep. A judicial solution would ensure protection from the bottom up.
again, ish.
Did you watch the vids?
The comparison is not in the toxicity, but in the lobbyist who pushed both, and who had knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, and the comparison is that the same SINISTER LOBBYIST (not product) who misled the public pushed both, thereby tying fluoride to the same shadowy/lying advocate.
Did you read my last quote of your misrepresented bull ? And thats not the only one...there were more than several. Your cred is . off RG.Here's another claim you have assigned some weight to, and repeated it several times.
Repeat after me:
Correlation is not causality.
Correlation is not causality.
Correlation is not causality.
You have obviously taken that bit from an anti-flouride website and absorbed this factoid into your thick skull as if it means anything.
Here is what someone with some health critical thinking skills would ask when presented with a fact that contravenes accepted science:
Given: studies on the effect of floride on cavities are very conclusive as to the benefits of floride in preventing cavities.One would wonder then, what WAS causing the reduction in cavities.
Given: in countries without floridated water, the numbers of cavities is dropping, just as it is in the countries with floridated water.
1) In the countries with increased dental health, and no floridated water, what other sources of flouride are these people exposed to?
2) In the countries with increased dental health, and no floridated water, are there some other factors that would explain the reduction?
Turns out, unsurprisingly, that it is a combination of the two. Europeans don't drink tap water. Therefore if you want to get cavity preventing floride to teeth you have to find some other route.
What do the Europeans do? They put it in table salt. That's right, they put it in the salt.
The big bad governments over there force everybody who has any salt in their diet to consume flouride. DUN DUN DUN!
[THIS IS A LIE AND/OR MISREP!!!! WHAT DO YOU KNOW... RG LIES!!! NOT ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES DO THIS, ONLY ABOUT HALF DO!!! RG YOU ARE A LIAR!!! KINDLY OFF!!! THANKS!!!!]
If you had bothered to subject the claims of the anti-floride crusaders to a modi of skepticism you wouldn't have fallen for the standard pseudo-science quackery of presenting correlation as causation.
Once more for emphasis:
Actually, you fuggin' little maggot...Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Provide one quote from anybody in this thread stating that the poster did not believe that certain forms of floride used in water was sourced from industrial waste.
If you can't, then you have made an assumption and put words in someone else's mouth.
Go on.
I'll wait.
My position went from:
andParker2112: From a policy standpoint, It makes sense, for both policy makers and corps, to dilute poisonous waste products like flouride (see vid #3) to safe levels spread over the water supply nationwide rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry and ultimately the national economy.
Parker2112: It doesnt sound that damn threatening, right? Well true...at current levels, very little is seen in the way of side effects, other than flourosis. The other stuff is a bit overdramatic.
Its the bigger issue that needs addressing...like why we have this industrial waste product being dumped into our water when the science on both the benefits and the potential risks posed is disputed. And when you look at the origins of the practice, you find even more reason to doubt this practice.
So why do we do it? And why are more communities banning the practice? And why is there even a backlash when the practice comes under fire? Who has interests to protect here?
ON PAGE 2... to your summary of my position on page three of:
RG: Originally Posted by Parker2112
[Floride is really really bad for you and part of a secret government/sinister plot]
you trick. You twisted this whole plain and simple, with anti-conspiracy banter. That was the beginning of all of this. On the record. Eat a , RG, bad intent or none.
San Antonio municapal website showing transparency about flouride:
http://www.saws.org/our_water/fluoride.shtml
Austin municipal website showing transparency about flouride:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/water/fluoride.htm
Dever municipal website showing transparency about flouride:
http://www.denverwater.org/WaterQual...AboutFluoride/
New York State website showing transparency about flouride:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/preven...n/benefits.htm
Seems fairly transparent to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
