Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And how would you know that living in DC and preaching your nonsense?
I'm pretty sure that all those self-less government servants raking in 6-7 figures in DC don't frequent the stores frequented by the proles, not speaking of them having cutting edge water filtration systems eliminating all that public good from their drinking water.
Nothing about living in Washington, D.C. disqualifies one from giving a good opinion.
I live in Utah which is a rock rib conservative area. It is not the liberal bastion that you undoubtedly believe that D.C. is. About ten years ago, the water supply here was fluoridated. Opponents of fluoridation had prevented it for about forty years. You know what? There hasn't been a single report of anyone being harmed as a result of it. As a result, its disappeared here as an issue. Small wonder huh? When that is balanced against the benefits that have been established by fluoridation it shows how silly opposition to fluoridation really is.
And how would you know that living in DC and preaching your nonsense?
I'm pretty sure that all those self-less government servants raking in 6-7 figures in DC don't frequent the stores frequented by the proles, not speaking of them having cutting edge water filtration systems eliminating all that public good from their drinking water.
You're "pretty sure?" The stuff you're "completely sure" of is 100% nonsense so "pretty sure" is pretty lame.
The President of the United States drinks DC tap water. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. As pointed out in many an earlier posts, anyone who wants to avoid fluoride can easily do so. Just shut up and do what you want. We aren't going to stop putting fluoride in the municipal water because you don't like it.
Nothing about living in Washington, D.C. disqualifies one from giving a good opinion.
You replied to my post about dental care items one could realistically purchase at a generic box store Since you claimed it to be nonsense, you should have some prole shopping experience to make those allegations. Again, it's so totally irrelevant to the subject, I wonder why science&government enthusiasts in this thread get distracted by insignificant details.
Quote:
I live in Utah which is a rock rib conservative area. It is not the liberal bastion that you undoubtedly believe that D.C. is.
Liberal vs conservative is not an issue here so please. Government (or corporate for that matter) bureaucracy doesn't have party colors, republicans, democrats or constitutionalists they all must produce escalating amounts of public good to cling to their comfortable chairs. They must create jobs for themselves by inventing and solving/preventing imminent threats of all sorts, everything else is quite secondary.
Quote:
About ten years ago, the water supply here was fluoridated. Opponents of fluoridation had prevented it for about forty years. You know what? There hasn't been a single report of anyone being harmed as a result of it.
It's a perfect example of a straw man argument. Nobody claimed that people drop dead after drinking fluoridated water. Personally, I didn't even claim it produces long term health side-effects. Forgive me for questioning efficacy of fluoridation and claiming that there are more effective ways to generate public good.
Quote:
As a result, its disappeared here as an issue. Small wonder huh? When that is balanced against the benefits that have been established by fluoridation it shows how silly opposition to fluoridation really is.
I guess it's the perfect timing for evaluation of "public health benefits" for your specific Utah town. Stop Googling and demand full disclosure from your public servants.
You're "pretty sure?" The stuff you're "completely sure" of is 100% nonsense so "pretty sure" is pretty lame.
Considering paranoid state of the national security "The President of the United States drinks DC tap water" is highly unlikely.
Quote:
If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. As pointed out in many an earlier posts, anyone who wants to avoid fluoride can easily do so. Just shut up and do what you want. We aren't going to stop putting fluoride in the municipal water because you don't like it.
"Can easily do so" is an obvious nonsense since most people must find work. Jobs are concentrated in the fluoridated cities and towns, avoiding fluoridated water introduces significant inconvenience and it costs pretty penny.
BTW, who are "we"? Mania of grandeur allows you to speak for other people?
That is exactly what they did! It was the entire purpose of the study!
Since you do not see that, the discussion is over. That study blows your entire argument out of the water - fluoridated or not.
But let's go over your study.
Remoteness and SES were assessed using national area-based indices. The rural, remote, and metropolitan areas (RRMA) classification was used to determine the remoteness of the location in which a child lived.30 For this analysis, possible classifications of residence were metropolitan, rural, or remote. Area-based SES was assigned using the socioeconomic indices for areas (SEIFA) index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage (IRSD), which is computed from a selection of 20 indicators of SES obtained from the Australian Census of Population and Housing
In other words, they assigned some SES number to each location and correlated that number with fluoridation and dental health of children residing there. "The SES of the area in which the child lived" has a questionable value, I think it's obvious why. Why not to track social background of the kids directly? It would be so much more straightforward than coming up with this SES mambo jumbo.
Considering fairly insignificant health benefits of fluoridation in this study "Although water fluoridation was associated with a substantial 29% reduction in deciduous caries experience and a 32% reduction in permanent caries experience" and questionable SES methods, this study definitely doesn't blow my entire argument. Class, diets, habits are far more important than fluorides. But since class, diets and habits are much harder (or sacrilegious) to tackle let's just patch everything up with fluorides.
Banning phosphoric acid in soft drinks alone would overshadow any alleged benefits of fluorides, but apparently public servants don't want to endanger their landing pads in the corporate world.
When I said the dentists are happy... I was referring to how they would always have work to do. More people with dental issues means more $$ for dentists. It's a conversation we've had with our own dentists and orthodontists.
Remoteness and SES were assessed using national area-based indices. The rural, remote, and metropolitan areas (RRMA) classification was used to determine the remoteness of the location in which a child lived.30 For this analysis, possible classifications of residence were metropolitan, rural, or remote. Area-based SES was assigned using the socioeconomic indices for areas (SEIFA) index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage (IRSD), which is computed from a selection of 20 indicators of SES obtained from the Australian Census of Population and Housing
In other words, they assigned some SES number to each location and correlated that number with fluoridation and dental health of children residing there. "The SES of the area in which the child lived" has a questionable value, I think it's obvious why. Why not to track social background of the kids directly? It would be so much more straightforward than coming up with this SES mambo jumbo.
Considering fairly insignificant health benefits of fluoridation in this study "Although water fluoridation was associated with a substantial 29% reduction in deciduous caries experience and a 32% reduction in permanent caries experience" and questionable SES methods, this study definitely doesn't blow my entire argument. Class, diets, habits are far more important than fluorides. But since class, diets and habits are much harder (or sacrilegious) to tackle let's just patch everything up with fluorides.
Banning phosphoric acid in soft drinks alone would overshadow any alleged benefits of fluorides, but apparently public servants don't want to endanger their landing pads in the corporate world.
You are just digging yourself a deeper hole. Since you do not understand the science, you really are not able to critique it.
Quote:
That's what I claimed - "extra efforts" and expense, nothing more nothing less.
So it is all right for those who want fluoride, but live in areas where it is not in the water, to have to go to "extra efforts" to get it, but it is not all right to have to go to "extra efforts" to avoid it. I see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More people with dental issues means more $$ for dentists. It's a conversation we've had with our own dentists and orthodontists.
