hmm, could be why there is recommendation to consume Omega-3 (a lipid) as preventative/re ant for brain plaque.
this thread is growing like a monster... I've kept out of it mostly. However, I don't want the govt' putting fluoride in my drinking water. I don't drink tap water, I drink bottled water, and also have a reverse osmosis system under my sink.
I think people should be given simple, clean water, not water with whatever crap the gov't decides is best for us... No telling what they'll decide to put in it next...
oh, and I think the thread le is misspelled...
harmless municipal water is a privilege, not a right.
-- WC
"I drink bottled water"
... which is sometimes nothing but bottled municipal water, or not spring water, or not mountain water, and 10K times more expensive.
good call all around
Which is usually the tap water from some metropolitan water system.
Funny think about water, it is an excellent medium for bacteria, viruses, and other organic pathogens. I don't have an opinion on fluoride but, for the most part, the "crap" introduced by government into the water supply is intended to deliver pathogen-free water at your spigot.
People should fear processed foods, not the tap water. Food safety is totally underhyped. People die from complications related to eating all the time.
Not quite.
I disagree with a lot of people here, but you don't even deserve much of a response any more in my opinion.
You are way out there, authoritarian, yet claim to be libertarian?
I don't want to waste time to give you much of a response any more. I'll keep my responses short, until you show at least a room temperature IQ.
My God...
Boutons is way more intelligent than you!
It's not a safety issue that bothers me about processed foods, it's the abundance of safety protocols that pisses me off.
I want natural food, without the enzymes being killed off during processing! I believe part of our ever growing unhealthy state in the USA is that many good, natural parts of food are killed during processing.
"I drink bottled water"yes, city water, but run thru reverse osmosis filtration, then bottled, hopefully with the crap removed, including fluoride...... which is sometimes nothing but bottled municipal water, or not spring water, or not mountain water, and 10K times more expensive.
when I say crap, I am specifically referring to fluoride. I appreciate the removal of bacteria and other bad stuff...Funny think about water, it is an excellent medium for bacteria, viruses, and other organic pathogens. I don't have an opinion on fluoride but, for the most part, the "crap" introduced by government into the water supply is intended to deliver pathogen-free water at your spigot.
Alot of people feel the way you do, and have started "raw" stores and things of that nature. Might want to look that up, pretty interesting.
The whole reason for "processesing" is because the foods are MASS-PRODUCED. They NEED safety regulations because so many people work in those plants and so many things are made in those plants, that contamination levels need to be cut down as much as possible. Go to an organic food store, don't make it sound like food processing plants that over migrant workers are the victim. Also, Watch Food Inc. - excellent do entary on how government (both GOP/Liberal) and corruption has ed up our food supply.
I don't understand the logic in keeping fluoride in the water supply, so poor kids can have better teeth? That's what I remember selling it as when I was younger, and I just don't think it's needed at all. Give the cleanest, purest water out of the faucet - make it simple! Otherwise, it's like the government saying - "if you can't take care of your teeth, we'll do it for you." Now THAT is straight up scary. I don't drink regular tap water and I know plenty of people that don't use it for anything other than boiling.
Boiling concentrates the fluoride btw.
The protection extends to anybody who drinks the water.
As noted before in the thread, the yearly cost to SAWS to treat the ENTIRE output of their water system and protect something on the order of 2.1+ million people is about $700,000. Almost exactly 30 cents per year per person.
Given that dental work can cost hundreds of dollars, if not more, it doesn't take many prevented cavities for the treatment to have paid for itself economically. Indeed, there was reference to just such an analysis earlier that seemed to support his conclusion.
The benefits are greatest to those with the least access to dental care though.
Victims of official solicitude, according to some.The benefits are greatest to those with the least access to dental care though.
oh, oh .
So, basically it's an en lement program for those without comprehensive dental coverage? Someone get WC, DarrinS, and Yoni in here! What else can we do in the city for $700,000 a year?
They wont touch because Fox News has yet to carry any stories on fluoridation.oh, oh .
So, basically it's an en lement program for those without comprehensive dental coverage? Someone get WC, DarrinS, and Yoni in here! What else can we do in the city for $700,000 a year?
I never thought about it that much. I do know that fluorine also binds up some heavy metals. The end purpose? Maybe it isn't needed and should be eliminated. Still, the cost eventually plays into water rates so I wouldn't call it a subsidy, en lement, or the likes. The extra cost is so little per unit of water, I'm not going to bother complaining.oh, oh .
So, basically it's an en lement program for those without comprehensive dental coverage? Someone get WC, DarrinS, and Yoni in here! What else can we do in the city for $700,000 a year?
If you want me to be against such a thing, this is leading the right direction. Utilities become quasi government en ies since they are usually monopolies, and some are government en ies. I am a solid believer or downsizing the government, and maybe this is one place to reduce the ever reaching power of the government. I won't bother with the local control issues unless I think they out of bounds, but the federal government, they should not be a part of this issue if they are, beyond setting EPA standards for maximum levels.
The localities generally decide, but your vigilance against the steady enlargement of the federal government is noted here too, where it is not really needed.
Welcome back to the thread.
And yet in a down economy, how many new jobs could be created nationwide if this practice was eliminated?
Vigilence? Not in the least. WC is only conservative when it means railing against the "enemy."
If this practice came from the direction of the Obama admin, he would be all over it.
This is the problem with "conservatives" these days...they've lost their bearings other than knowing who they oppose.
You lost me. how would new jobs be created by eliminating the practice of fluoridating water? I would ask, how many would be lost?
I've been hearing (in one ear and out the other) issues about fluoridated water for over 20 years. Every time I ever paid attention to it, I never gave a hoot. Like any other implemented government program, it's next to impossible to get rid of it once it's formed. It's a program that is very cheap in the scheme of things, and I'm not scared by it. It's too small an issue for me to care about. It has nothing to do with partisanship. Just a speck of sand in a sandbox.
San Antonio is so strange about fluoride in its water.
Has Alamo Heights ever added fluoride?
I believe they voted to a few years ago, but reversed themselves before actually going through with it. There is a fair amount of fluoride in aquifer water naturally, so people can be afraid about that I guess.
a true conservative wouldnt be caught dead saying this.
And you know if Obama had done it, you would have him in a dentist hat with the joker smile in your sig.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
