Reply With Quote
Parker's a walking compendium of the logical fallacies. Wherever his argument falls down he thinks he scored a touchdown.
Look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Parker's a walking compendium of the logical fallacies. Wherever his argument falls down he thinks he scored a touchdown.
How do you explain the scoreboard then?
[Whispers in LnGrrrR's ear: "Hey man, pipe down....I'm just trying to get a rise out of this guy..."]Look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
What scoreboard?How do you explain the scoreboard then?
You're keeping score?
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...=oid%3A1111605
Fluoridation Under the Microscope
Local anti-fluoridation activists brought in heavy scientific reinforcements last week, with several Austin appearances by Paul Connett, professor emeritus of environmental chemistry at St. Lawrence University, director of the Fluoride Action Network, and co-author of the recently released The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green Publishing), in which he and two academic colleagues review the current science and ins utional politics of the use of fluoride in municipal water systems. Connett spoke briefly at last Thursday's City Council meeting – the council has thus far declined to take up the issue directly – and that night lectured an audience of about 40 people at the University of Texas' Thompson Conference Center, followed by a panel discussion.
Lone Star Sierra Club Clean Air Program Director Neil Carman introduced Connett as a longtime friend and "an environmental hero around the world" for his successful international work against toxic waste incineration. Connett began by citing John Lennon: "Life is what happens [to you] when you're busy making other plans." By that he meant not only the many years he's spent as an environmental researcher and activist, but the personal reversals in his own initial support of both incineration and fluoridation. He noted, "I'm fairly respectable now when it comes to fighting incinerators and promoting alternatives, but hardly respectable when it comes to fighting fluoridation." Waste incineration, it's true, is a more readily definable public enemy; by contrast, the anti-fluoridation campaigners must fight not only a half-century of official scientific and political consensus that fluoridation of public water supplies has reduced tooth decay but the long-entrenched (and partly accurate) public image of fluoride opponents as loony conspiracy theorists.
In his nearly two-hour discourse, Connett succeeded better at overturning the former than the latter, reviewing much of the scientific literature to show that, especially in the last decade, the consensus has shifted to reflect that the maximum Environmental Protection Agency-recommended level of fluoride (currently four parts per million, though most cities including Austin use much less) should certainly be lowered and, beyond that, that it's time to seriously consider jettisoning the practice altogether. Connett argued persuasively that fluoridation is a poor (uninformed and unmonitorable) medical practice, that there is now considerable evidence of potentially major health risks (especially among vulnerable populations), and even more telling, that the ac ulated evidence of fluoridation benefits is in fact quite weak. Indeed, Connett said, dental health correlates much more closely with family income than local fluoridation – presumably the subject of an entirely different public health campaign. Most European countries that once used fluoridation have abandoned the practice, and a 2006 study by the National Research Council called on the EPA to lower the recommended maximum. Connett demanded that the agency do its job.
Perhaps surprisingly, that call was echoed by panel member and LBJ School professor of environmental engineering David Eaton, who had accepted the evening's thankless task of responding to Connett. For his trouble, Eaton was basically used as a rhetorical punching bag by Connett, the other four panel members (all fluoridation opponents), and the audience. While willing to grant Connett's argument that fluoridation needs reconsideration, Eaton primarily questioned Connett's implication (which Connett denied implying) that there exist shadowy political and scientific "plots" (as Eaton put it) to enforce continuation of the practice. Eaton did endorse the call by the National Academy of Sciences for a lower maximum level and better research, and perhaps eventually a reversal in public policy; he even suggested the possibility of a mandamus lawsuit to force the EPA to act. (In the same vein, it makes sense for the city to do a truly substantive review of the current science, as recommended by the Environmental Board, and then on that basis make policy recommendations to City Council.)
Such a course would not be quick enough for this audience, whose members were not nearly as careful as Connett – who occasionally stopped just short of declaring that nearly all contemporary public health problems are rooted in fluoridation – to step back from more inflammatory arguments. Near the evening's end, Connett angrily rejected a suggestion that he was largely ignoring the strenuous political history of the U.S. fluoridation battle – and its roots in hysterical, anti-communist campaigns against any and all public health measures, the legacy of which we endure to this sorry electoral day. A few moments after Connett's dismissal, an audience member rose to declare that she had been blind to the sinister political implications of fluoridation until her eyes had been opened – by a John Birch Society video.
Alas, with enemies like these, fluoridation still doesn't need many friends.
lolan audience of about 40 people
lolHe [Paul Connett] noted, "I'm fairly respectable now when it comes to fighting incinerators and promoting alternatives, but hardly respectable when it comes to fighting fluoridation."
I'd like to know exactly where the NRC called on the EPA to lower the max. I skimmed the summary report as best as I could from a preview source and did not find it.Most European countries that once used fluoridation have abandoned the practice, and a 2006 study by the National Research Council called on the EPA to lower the recommended maximum. Connett demanded that the agency do its job.
The CDC states this:
lol...The NRC concluded that only three adverse health effects warranted consideration in developing regulatory standards for high levels of fluoride in drinking water—severe enamel fluorosis from exposure to these high levels between birth to 8 years of age, and the potential risk for bone fractures and the more severe forms of skeletal fluorosis after lifetime exposure. Severe skeletal fluorosis is a rare condition in the United States.....
more if you really want the truth:
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nrc_report.htm
lolAlas, with enemies like these, fluoridation still doesn't need many friends.
fyi, the author of this two-bit review, Michael King, is against fluoridation.
entertaining read though.
Fluoride in Water Linked to Lower IQ in Children
Is this the end of water fluoridation?
NEW YORK, Dec. 21, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence says a study pre-published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Ins ute of Environmental Health Sciences (online December 17, 2010).
Fluoride is added to 70% of U.S. public drinking water supplies.
According to Paul Connett, Ph.D., director of the Fluoride Action Network, "This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest because the authors have controlled for key confounding variables and in addition to correlating lowered IQ with levels of fluoride in the water, the authors found a correlation between lowered IQ and fluoride levels in children's blood. This brings us closer to a cause and effect relationship between fluoride exposure and brain damage in children."
"What is also striking is that the levels of the fluoride in the community where the lowered IQs were recorded were lower than the EPA's so-called 'safe' drinking water standard for fluoride of 4 ppm and far too close for comfort to the levels used in artificial fluoridation programs (0.7 – 1.2 ppm)," says Connett.
In this study, 512 children aged 8-13 years in two Chinese villages were studied and tested – Wamaio with an average of 2.47 mg/L water fluoride (range 0.57-4.50 mg/L) and Xinhuai averaging 0.36 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L).
The authors eliminated both lead exposure and iodine deficiency as possible causes for the lowered IQs. They also excluded any children who had a history of brain disease or head injury and none drank brick tea, known to contain high fluoride levels. Neither village is exposed to fluoride pollution from burning coal or other industrial sources.
About 28% of the children in the low-fluoride area scored as bright, normal or higher intelligence compared to only 8% in the "high" fluoride area of Wamaio.
In the high-fluoride city, 15% had scores indicating mental re ation and only 6% in the low-fluoride city.
The study authors write: "In this study we found a significant dose-response relation between fluoride level in serum and children's IQ."
In addition to this study, and the 23 other IQ studies, there have been over 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage (all the IQ and animal brain studies are listed in Appendix 1 in The Case Against Fluoride available online at http://fluoridealert.org/caseagainst...ppendices.html).
One of the earliest animal studies of fluoride's impact on the brain was published in the U.S. This study by Mullenix et. al (1995) led to the firing of the lead author by the Forsyth Dental Center. "This sent a clear message to other researchers in the U.S. that it was not good for their careers to look into the health effects of fluoride – particularly on the brain," says Connett.
Connett adds, "The result is that while the issue of fluoride's impact on IQ is being aggressively pursued around the world, practically no work has been done in the U.S. or other fluoridating countries to repeat their findings. Sadly, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."
When the National Research Council of the National Academies reviewed this topic in their 507-page report "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA's Standards" published in 2006, only 5 of the 24 IQ studies were available in English. Even so the panel found the link between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ both consistent and "plausible."
According to Tara Blank, Ph.D., the Science and Health Officer for the Fluoride Action Network, "This should be the study that finally ends water fluoridation. Millions of American children are being exposed unnecessarily to this neurotoxin on a daily basis. Who in their right minds would risk lowering their child's intelligence in order to reduce a small amount of tooth decay, for which the evidence is very weak." (see The Case Against Fluoride, Chelsea Green, October 2010)
MSM sourced. Classic.PR Newswire started out in 1954 as a vendor hired by companies and agencies to send out text press releases to the media. Today, PR Newswire is hired by corporations, public relations firms and non-governmental organizations to deliver news and multimedia content. Recipients include the media, consumers and investors who access the content via the Web, RSS, e-mail, satellite, equities terminals (such as Bloomberg and Reuters), and direct feeds into newsroom editorial systems. The headquarters are in Lower Manhattan, New York City.[1]
Public corporations in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and other nations, use PR Newswire as a method of reaching the investment and financial news community with important news and announcements, thus achieving the standard of "simultaneous disclosure" required by financial markets and regulatory agencies.
Headquartered in New York, PR Newswire has offices in 14 countries and sends news to outlets in 135 countries. The company has several brands and services that include ProfNet, eWatch, MEDIAtlas, MultiVu, U.S. Newswire, Vintage Filings, MediaRoom and MediaSense. It also has agreements with global news agencies such as Bloomberg, the Associated Press, Dow Jones and Thomson Reuters to send information directly to newsrooms worldwide. PR Newswire is also partner with the African Press Organization. PR Newswire is a subsidiary of United Business Media Limited of London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Business_MediaUnited Business Media (LSE: UBM) is a business providing business information services principally to the technology, healthcare, media, automotive and financial services industries. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a cons uent of the FTSE 250 Index.
ibid.
I guess Parker ain't allergic to the MSM no more.
In this case, it flattered his prejudices and that was enough to descry the "awakening" of our media masters. Haw, haw, haw.
No matter how you chalk it up, this is the only cite that matters, bubba.a study pre-published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Ins ute of Environmental Health Sciences (online December 17, 2010).
You can find the pre-published study right here:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/f...%2Fehp.1003171
Better hide yo kids....
Background: Animal studies show that brain fluoride levels increase with increasing exposure to fluoride. Human studies have indicated an association between high levels of drinking-water fluoride and lower intelligence. Data on the association between serum fluoride and children’s intelligence quotient (IQ) are limited.
Objective: This study was conducted to assess the relationship between serum fluoride and children’s IQ.
Methods: We collected blood samples from 512 children aged 8-13 years from two villages (Wamiao and Xinhuai) in China. We also used minitype fluoride ion selective electrode and Combined Raven’s Test for Rural China (CRT-RC) to measure serum fluoride and children’s IQ.
Results: In Wamiao, the mean (± SD) concentration of fluoride in serum was 0.081± 0.019 mg/L, and average children’s IQ was 92.02 ± 13.00; in Xinhuai, fluoride concentration was 0.041 ± 0.009 mg/L and average IQ was 100.41 ± 13.21. The regression coefficients between serum fluoride and children’s IQ were –0.163 (p = 0.015) in Wiamiao, and 0.054 (p = 0.362) in Xinhuai. Serum fluoride levels were negatively associated with IQ after adjusted for age and sex, the ORs for IQ < 80 across groups with serum fluoride measuring < 0.05, 0.05–0.08, > 0.08 mg/L were 1, 2.22 (95% confidence interval: 1.42–3.47), and 2.48 (95% confidence interval: 1.85–3.32) (p for trend < 0.001) respectively. IQ was not related to family income and parent’s education level. There was a significant positive relation between serum fluoride and drinking-water fluoride.
Conclusions: The results indicated that fluoride in drinking water was highly correlated with serum fluoride, and higher fluoride exposure may affect intelligence among children.
So now you're standing on one study that suggests tap water makes children dumber, and gloating. Have fun with that.
I could have guessed...I am too damn smart to be subjected to anything that doesn't agree with my opinions. You expect me to give these scientists any credit for their work in the field? You must be kidding...my ego don't bow down to no scientist... these scientists
Parker standing on the authority of academic consensus: priceless.
(Classic handwaving technique.)
I dont need to stand on anything. Your dismissal of those in the field says enough for me.
Even if the study is flawed...Even if the conclusion is faulty... Your still an arrogant bas . You sit on your ass and claim superiority over folks putting in time and energy.
Time for bed, keep up the good work.
You need a new schtick. Last time I checked, claiming others are arrogant is arrogance itself.I dont need to stand on anything. Your dismissal of those in the field says enough for me.
Even if the study is flawed...Even if the conclusion is faulty... Your still an arrogant bas . You sit on your ass and claim superiority over folks putting in time and energy.
Time for bed, keep up the good work.
Discounting someone's opinions =/= superiority
Of course, you show arrogance to the extreme in other ways, for instance, by assuming everyone is all wrong but the few people you read who are right.
I dont assume that everything I read is right. I express the stuff so it can be discussed, not accepted. Honestly I dont give a damn if you believe anything that I present, but lets just say I try to set a place at the table for it.
And otherwise, when it comes to bringing the fringy stuff to the table, I meet resistance with resistance. So if WH is being a , I will continually point that out. If thats a move as well, oh well...
Oh you mean like you do with Chemtrails?I dont need to stand on anything. Your dismissal of those in the field says enough for me.
Even if the study is flawed...Even if the conclusion is faulty... Your still an arrogant bas . You sit on your ass and claim superiority over folks putting in time and energy.
Time for bed, keep up the good work.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
