If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   "Why am I against fluoridated water? Because I don't know what I'm talking about"   (ericdsnider.com) divider line 321
    More: Amusing, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, American Public Health Association, Veterans Committee, health association, American Dental Association, fluoridation  
•       •       •

4061 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 May 2013 at 6:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



321 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-03 01:34:27 PM

badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!


So you're an anti-flouridation kook, too? Not surprising, I suppose, given all the other stuff you believe

badhatharry: I believe that if there was a birth certificate, Obama would have released it.


badhatharry: Global warming/climate change is a hoax.


badhatharry: There is a definite increase in autism. Even after removing mercury from the vaccines it is still increasing. ... I think it is a mix of genetics and environment and maybe even vaccines.


badhatharry: I do think that alien beings have visited Earth in the past and may still visit. There are many sightings by credible witnesses, including airline pilots and scientists. There are many references throughout history of flying craft before 1900.


badhatharry: I have seen a ghost. You would believe in them if you saw one.

 
2013-05-03 01:37:58 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.


Is that why it says right on it that it's from Fluoride Action Network? And you pulled it off an anti-fluoridation blog from San Diego? Because the WHO runs those things or something you farknut?

CPennypacker: Why are you wrong in every thread?


Because his entire worldview is apparently shaped by whatever dumb crap he can find on any random blog he can pull up in Google....
 
2013-05-03 01:39:34 PM

jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

Well no wonder you are uninformed. Sorry did not realize you are just stupid.

If you can't be bothered to read your own link and be able to quote a single relevant statement supporting your position, then you're not worth talking to.

Wow, so the data presented is not good enough for you? have you ever read a scientific paper? Like I said, I see the problem now. Once again, I did not realize your deficiencies.


Still didn't read your own paper?  Sorry, but you're the only person who doesn't understand how this works.  You make a statement, which is either a quote, or a paraphrase of something in the document, then if it warrants attention, I read the document and debate if necessary.  As it stands, you did little more than provide me with a result from lmgtfy.com.  If you're that lazy, or too stupid to understand your own link, what would make me believe that something within your link is worth reading?

You've had 3 chances now to provide a single statement from your link, and you cannot be bothered to do that little?
 
2013-05-03 01:41:05 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: My claim- there is no teakettle on mars fewer pirates means higher global temperature
Your claim- there is a teakettle on mars you need to prove that is an accurate comparison as coorelation does not always equal causation
BNCW's rebuttal - you need to prove that it doesn't
Everyone else *facepalm*

You're the one asking to prove the negative, not me.  Are you honestly this stupid, or just trolling?


Short version: "At the community level, the study strongly points to the importance of retaining and expanding the community fluoridation program as an effective preventive measure."

Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "

And yes, the authors are doing the proper controls.  Fluoridation is one of several variables with a statistically significant positive impact on dental health.

This paper was put right in front of you after you demanded data.  At least skimming it is the minimum courtesy after such a demand.

Right now, the simplest explanation for your behavior is that you're dimly aware that research is proving you to be grossly incorrect, so to try to save face you're pretending you can't read the research, presumably because you have to be at the gym in 26 minutes.
 
2013-05-03 01:41:58 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

Well no wonder you are uninformed. Sorry did not realize you are just stupid.

If you can't be bothered to read your own link and be able to quote a single relevant statement supporting your position, then you're not worth talking to.

Wow, so the data presented is not good enough for you? have you ever read a scientific paper? Like I said, I see the problem now. Once again, I did not realize your deficiencies.

Still didn't read your own paper?  Sorry, but you're the only person who doesn't understand how this works.  You make a statement, which is either a quote, or a paraphrase of something in the document, then if it warrants attention, I read the document and debate if necessary.  As it stands, you did little more than provide me with a result from lmgtfy.com.  If you're that lazy, or too stupid to understand your own link, what would make me believe that something within your link is worth reading?

You've had 3 chances now to provide a single statement from your link, and you cannot be bothered to do that little?


Oooh I am running out of chances with you? how scary!
 
2013-05-03 01:43:44 PM

Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.


Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!
 
2013-05-03 01:44:34 PM
 
2013-05-03 01:48:58 PM

skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.

Is that why it says right on it that it's from Fluoride Action Network? And you pulled it off an anti-fluoridation blog from San Diego? Because the WHO runs those things or something you farknut?


Where'd the data come from, you farking retard?

chimp_ninja: Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "


Oh, now let me do the exact same thing that you people have been doing: "that doesn't mean that there isn't some other variable creating these results.  Prove to me that there isn't!"  Something tells me that the standards of proof are going to flip flop again.
 
2013-05-03 01:49:25 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Still didn't read your own paper? Sorry, but you're the only person who doesn't understand how this works. You make a statement, which is either a quote, or a paraphrase of something in the document, then if it warrants attention, I read the document and debate if necessary. As it stands, you did little more than provide me with a result from lmgtfy.com. If you're that lazy, or too stupid to understand your own link, what would make me believe that something within your link is worth reading?

You've had 3 chances now to provide a single statement from your link, and you cannot be bothered to do that little?


And from the other paper that you're dickishly refusing to read:

Short version: "The results of this study support existing work suggesting water fluoridation together with the use of fluoridated dentifrice provides improved caries prevention over the use of fluoridated dentifrice alone."

Long version: "The data suggests when detection criteria are set at level of caries into dentine there are clear differences between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations (p < 0.0001). However, if the detection threshold is changed to white spot lesion level these differences are reduced but still significant (p < 0.0001). The data sets were comparable between the two scoring techniques, particularly at a threshold of caries into dentine with both techniques (clinical and photographic scoring) demonstrating significant differences between fluoridated Newcastle and non-fluoridated Manchester (p < 0.0001). Data from repeat clinical caries examinations were available for 47 subjects. Weighted Kappa statistics for comparison of ICDAS tooth surface scores were generated at a surface level and showed excellent agreement (weighted Kappa = 0.80) [47]. A similar comparison on 50 subjects was made for ICDAS photographic scores and produced good agreement (weighted Kappa = 0.74)."

Two cities with very similar demographics (age, gender, economics, insurance, etc.), one fluorinated, one not.  They interviewed people about dietary and brushing habits, and they were very similar.  And yet, the people in the city with fluoridated water had much better dental outcomes.

There are many, many studies like this.  You're just not willing to read them.
 
2013-05-03 01:50:40 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.

Is that why it says right on it that it's from Fluoride Action Network? And you pulled it off an anti-fluoridation blog from San Diego? Because the WHO runs those things or something you farknut?

Where'd the data come from, you farking retard?

chimp_ninja: Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "

Oh, now let me do the exact same thing that you people have been doing: "that doesn't mean that there isn't some other variable creating these results.  Prove to me that there isn't!"  Something tells me that the standards of proof are going to flip flop again.


When you are challenging decades of scientific consensus then it is up to YOU to prove your point, and posting links to conspiracy blogs and calling people stupid is falling far short of that mark. You are embarassing yourself. Go take a nap.
 
2013-05-03 01:52:17 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: chimp_ninja: Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "

Oh, now let me do the exact same thing that you people have been doing: "that doesn't mean that there isn't some other variable creating these results. Prove to me that there isn't!" Something tells me that the standards of proof are going to flip flop again.


I think you don't understand what you're reading.  Hint: Peer-reviewed scientific journals require the appropriate controls.  The paper includes the expected multi-variable analysis.

If you were just uninformed, I'd be happy to have that discussion.  But you're proving to be an aggressively and willfully ignorant dick.
 
2013-05-03 01:52:43 PM

jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

Well no wonder you are uninformed. Sorry did not realize you are just stupid.

If you can't be bothered to read your own link and be able to quote a single relevant statement supporting your position, then you're not worth talking to.

Wow, so the data presented is not good enough for you? have you ever read a scientific paper? Like I said, I see the problem now. Once again, I did not realize your deficiencies.

Still didn't read your own paper?  Sorry, but you're the only person who doesn't understand how this works.  You make a statement, which is either a quote, or a paraphrase of something in the document, then if it warrants attention, I read the document and debate if necessary.  As it stands, you did little more than provide me with a result from lmgtfy.com.  If you're that lazy, or too stupid to understand your own link, what would make me believe that something within your link is worth reading?

You've had 3 chances now to provide a single statement from your link, and you cannot be bothered to do that little?


Oooh I am running out of chances with you? how scary!


Anyway....
"This study found that those children living in communities with fluoridated municipal water supplies experience substantially lower mean DMFT scores. This has special importance in Nevada where attempts to expand the fluoridation program to counties other than Clark County have met with considerable resistance."
"Overall this study found that older adolescents, those of racial groups, those who live in non-fluroidated areas, and those without dental insurance all experienced higher mean DMFT scores in all years included in this report." See, factors associated with increased caries prevalence.
"Findings from this study should aid in two ways. At the community level, the study strongly points to the importance of retaining and expanding the community fluoridation program as an effective preventive measure. At the individual level the study identifies the need for more targeted efforts to reach children early with a focus on females, Hispanics and Blacks, and uninsured children."
If you cannot see how this relates to the limited graph you showed (and you did not provide a direct link to WHO, that would be nice to see), I cannot help you, dude.
 
2013-05-03 01:54:31 PM

chimp_ninja: BraveNewCheneyWorld: chimp_ninja: Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "

Oh, now let me do the exact same thing that you people have been doing: "that doesn't mean that there isn't some other variable creating these results. Prove to me that there isn't!" Something tells me that the standards of proof are going to flip flop again.

I think you don't understand what you're reading.  Hint: Peer-reviewed scientific journals require the appropriate controls.  The paper includes the expected multi-variable analysis.

If you were just uninformed, I'd be happy to have that discussion.  But you're proving to be an aggressively and willfully ignorant dick.


I am fairly sure he doesn't know what a p value is.
 
2013-05-03 01:57:59 PM

jrodr018: If you were just uninformed, I'd be happy to have that discussion.  But you're proving to be an aggressively and willfully ignorant dick.

I am fairly sure he doesn't know what a p value is.


I'd say the average is between a pint and a quart.
 
2013-05-03 02:04:58 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.

Is that why it says right on it that it's from Fluoride Action Network? And you pulled it off an anti-fluoridation blog from San Diego? Because the WHO runs those things or something you farknut?

Where'd the data come from, you farking retard?


We don't know. We do know that the Fluoride Action Network, an anti-fluoridation organization says it comes from the World Health Organization. But we don't actually have any evidence of that.

SO what we have here is you being provided with direct links to multiple primary sources, and you responding by quoting some blog which uses a graph it got from some organization who claims they got data from the WHO  So that's not even secondary or tertiary sources.

So yeah, tell us more about how he's the retard.
 
2013-05-03 02:05:17 PM

jrodr018: If you cannot see how this relates to the limited graph you showed (and you did not provide a direct link to WHO, that would be nice to see), I cannot help you, dude.


BraveNewCheneyWorld seems to be at the unfortunate intersection of Confident and Wrong, keeping his eyes closed and yelling louder to defend a scientifically untenable point.  He's likely so wrong that he is unable to detect how wrong he is.  Not uncommon with crackpots of various persuasions.

If you're ever at a major scientific meeting with broad scope (ACS, APS, MRS, etc.) keep an eye out for a session where crackpots are herded by the organizers.  They're generally at the least appealing day/time, in the smallest room, and entirely designed to let the conference organizers avoid angry phone calls and emails from dues-paying crackpots who claim oppression.  Cold fusion, perpetual motion machines, etc. all get lumped together under some coded session title like "Other means of Energy Production".

They're fun to sit in on, because the audience inevitably fills up with crackpots, and you get to witness good crackpot-on-crackpot verbal sparring.  "Why would anyone build your zero-point energy harvesting machine when my low-energy nuclear reactor runs on inexpensive nickel!"  "Well, because I've also invented an engine that uses water as the fuel which will couple to it to drive costs down to pennies per Exajoule!" "Both of you are wrong, because you're stuck in the outdated paradigm that energy has to be conserved!"  Etc.
 
2013-05-03 02:17:56 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where'd the data come from, you farking retard?


Not really sure, buddy. See, your bullshiat graph from the Fluoride Action Network (not the WHO as you previously lied to everyone about) doesn't properly cite the data it's using and there are multiple DMFT sets at the site provided.

Seems like you're the one who posted the bullshiat graph from Fluoride Action Network (not the WHO as you previously lied to everyone about) so I guess I'll just wait for you to enlighten us all.
 
2013-05-03 02:24:58 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: We don't know. We do know that the Fluoride Action Network, an anti-fluoridation organization says it comes from the World Health Organization. But we don't actually have any evidence of that.


No, it definitely does. It's probably the regional DMFT data sets and it's entirely, completely and perfectly accurate..... to the point of being useless.

It's not that the graph is wrong. Even ignoring the fact that the dipshiat lied about the source even though it says right on it that it's from a crackpot conspiracy group, it doesn't imply anything at all other than the possibility that something other than water fluoridation led to the big decline in the 1970s in tooth decay in industrialized nations.

The problem for Captain Derpenstein there is that what actually correlates well with the big decline in industrialized nations starting in the 70s is.... wait for it....

The introduction of fluoridated toothpaste.

In fact, the one data set that actually tracks fluoridated and non-fluoridated DMFT numbers is Ireland and the DMFT index goes down consistently with the introduction of fluoride.

Which brings us to the argument about whether or not, with the widespread availability of fluoridated toothpaste water fluoridation is of any practical value any more... but that's a whole other thing.
 
2013-05-03 02:32:33 PM

Cretony38: Decades of peer review" so if its such a convincing argument why are they constantly studying it?


*plonk*
 
2013-05-03 02:39:48 PM

heypete: It's always amusing to point out that potassium-40 is radioactive and is the largest source of radiation for the average person.


For the average person, I think it's roughly tied for third. As I recall the traces from natural radon and 1950s fallout legacy are higher, and cosmic background is comparable (ranging from higher in the mountains to lower by the shore).
 
2013-05-03 02:43:02 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!


You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.
 
2013-05-03 02:44:48 PM

Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.


Its not poisonous at the levels they add to municipal water. You can tell this by all of the people not poisoned over the past few decades. There's people being not poisoned all over the place.
 
2013-05-03 02:54:07 PM

Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.


"Distraction effort"? No. I'm just mocking you. The whole "go read the dictionary" bit is so wonderfully simpleminded that it is actually a fairly good troll, but I've seen no reason to take anything you say seriously. Don't feel bad - I don't generally engage with creationists, either
 
2013-05-03 02:56:49 PM

heypete: Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...

No, my position is to say "a dictionary definition does not tell the whole story and it's silly to rely on just the dictionary in the face of extensive scientific studies that say that it is beneficial".

Would I want to breathe pure fluorine gas? Certainly not. It is, as you point out, poisonous. There's a lot of things that, if taken to excess, are poisonous or harmful but can be beneficial in smaller quantities. Iron, for example, is necessary for hemoglobin in the blood, but if you ingesting excessive iron can cause failure of the liver, heart, and pancreas. Same thing with antibiotics (which are effectively poison) and other medicines. Drinking too much water can be dangerous to your health.

Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that adding fluoride compounds to drinking water improves dental health with extremely rare side effects. National and international public health agencies composed of scientists, doctors, dentists, and other experts recommend doing so.

Are you suggesting that I disregard scientific results which are based on decades of study, leading experts from around the world, and national and international public health agencies because of a dictionary definition?


No. Except you all failed to cite even one study so far. Which one of the decades of studies convinced you so completely that somehow you can't remember it but you attack Anyone who asks any questions? What is fluoride anyway?
 
2013-05-03 02:58:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation#Use_thr o ughout_the_world

http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

i fully expect this to pass, sadly. and if you motherfarkers keep quoting strangelove im gonna post a picture of obama and bush riding on a farking drone sucking each other off.
 
2013-05-03 03:02:12 PM

knowless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation#Use_thr o ughout_the_world

http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

i fully expect this to pass, sadly. and if you motherfarkers keep quoting strangelove im gonna post a picture of obama and bush riding on a farking drone sucking each other off.


THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK

DUN DUN DUHHHHHHHHHNNNNALALALALALALALA
 
2013-05-03 03:09:07 PM
The world is flat. Here's a link to a blog that parses data from a reliable source and shows that world, in fact, exists. This proves that the world is and has always been, as I have asserted, flat. It is now, in my mind, up to you to cite numerous scientific studies proving your assertion that the world is round despite the fact that it is me challenging well known and generally accepted scientific facts that have remained unchanged for centuries. Get to work, dumbass.

Why are you so stupid? You keep doing this mental dance that makes you ignore anything that looks like it challenges mainstream scientific fact. If only you could see how wrong you are. Stop projecting.
 
2013-05-03 03:09:46 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.

"Distraction effort"? No. I'm just mocking you. The whole "go read the dictionary" bit is so wonderfully simpleminded that it is actually a fairly good troll, but I've seen no reason to take anything you say seriously. Don't feel bad - I don't generally engage with creationists, either


So simple you cant even just read the definition? You are a sad failure at a grown up discussion. Just keep eating what your fed.
 
2013-05-03 03:11:04 PM

heypete: Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...

No, my position is to say "a dictionary definition does not tell the whole story and it's silly to rely on just the dictionary in the face of extensive scientific studies that say that it is beneficial".

Would I want to breathe pure fluorine gas? Certainly not. It is, as you point out, poisonous. There's a lot of things that, if taken to excess, are poisonous or harmful but can be beneficial in smaller quantities. Iron, for example, is necessary for hemoglobin in the blood, but if you ingesting excessive iron can cause failure of the liver, heart, and pancreas. Same thing with antibiotics (which are effectively poison) and other medicines. Drinking too much water can be dangerous to your health.

Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that adding fluoride compounds to drinking water improves dental health with extremely rare side effects. National and international public health agencies composed of scientists, doctors, dentists, and other experts recommend doing so.

Are you suggesting that I disregard *scientific results which are based on decades of study, leading experts from around the world, and national and international public health agencies because of a dictionary definition?


*Citation please?
 
2013-05-03 03:12:04 PM

Cretony38: Except you all failed to cite even one study so far.


Several studies have been cited by other posters in this thread. You should probably read them.

Which dictionary was it that convinced you so completely that you feel the need to question decades of scientific research and recommendations by national and international public health bodies composed of experts?
 
2013-05-03 03:13:55 PM
lol, the dumb farker wont let me post to his blog.
 
2013-05-03 03:27:15 PM

Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.

"Distraction effort"? No. I'm just mocking you. The whole "go read the dictionary" bit is so wonderfully simpleminded that it is actually a fairly good troll, but I've seen no reason to take anything you say seriously. Don't feel bad - I don't generally engage with creationists, either

So simple you cant even just read the definition? You are a sad failure at a grown up discussion. Just keep eating what your fed.


What my fed what?
 
2013-05-03 03:37:08 PM

Cretony38: *Citation please?


Scroll up slightly.  About to here.  Or any of the dozens of comments following it.

There are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the benefits of water fluoridation.  It's one of the most cost-effective public health programs ever devised.
 
2013-05-03 03:39:12 PM

heypete: Cretony38: Except you all failed to cite even one study so far.

Several studies have been cited by other posters in this thread. You should probably read them.

Which dictionary was it that convinced you so completely that you feel the need to question decades of scientific research and recommendations by national and international public health bodies composed of experts?


Yet YOU, heyPete cannot cite even one, the irrefutable data that drives you vigilantly to fight any questions for this most precious of theories. All I asked of you was to define the very word of what you hold to be the most sanctimonious of truths. I NEVER even said it was wrong to put in drinking water. I only asked what was it and why are you so convinced? realizing my audience here I suggested the simplest of reference which somehow is too much to ask of you. Did you need me to spell out dictionary.com for you?
 
2013-05-03 03:48:31 PM

chimp_ninja: jrodr018: If you cannot see how this relates to the limited graph you showed (and you did not provide a direct link to WHO, that would be nice to see), I cannot help you, dude.

BraveNewCheneyWorld seems to be at the unfortunate intersection of Confident and Wrong, keeping his eyes closed and yelling louder to defend a scientifically untenable point.  He's likely so wrong that he is unable to detect how wrong he is.  Not uncommon with crackpots of various persuasions.

If you're ever at a major scientific meeting with broad scope (ACS, APS, MRS, etc.) keep an eye out for a session where crackpots are herded by the organizers.  They're generally at the least appealing day/time, in the smallest room, and entirely designed to let the conference organizers avoid angry phone calls and emails from dues-paying crackpots who claim oppression.  Cold fusion, perpetual motion machines, etc. all get lumped together under some coded session title like "Other means of Energy Production".

They're fun to sit in on, because the audience inevitably fills up with crackpots, and you get to witness good crackpot-on-crackpot verbal sparring.  "Why would anyone build your zero-point energy harvesting machine when my low-energy nuclear reactor runs on inexpensive nickel!"  "Well, because I've also invented an engine that uses water as the fuel which will couple to it to drive costs down to pennies per Exajoule!" "Both of you are wrong, because you're stuck in the outdated paradigm that energy has to be conserved!"  Etc.


Agreed on all points. This is why the scientific method should be mandatory in high school. I bet we'd see less crackpots around.
 
2013-05-03 03:49:15 PM

Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...


Cretony38: I NEVER even said it was wrong to put in drinking water. I only asked what was it and why are you so convinced?


Oops.

Also, are you a Creationist?  Because every time you use the "Just Asking Questions" runaround you owe them a small royalty.
 
2013-05-03 03:50:55 PM

chimp_ninja: Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...

Cretony38: I NEVER even said it was wrong to put in drinking water. I only asked what was it and why are you so convinced?

Oops.

Also, are you a Creationist?  Because every time you use the "Just Asking Questions" runaround you owe them a small royalty.


He's a troll. JAQing off is what they do
 
2013-05-03 03:57:36 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.

"Distraction effort"? No. I'm just mocking you. The whole "go read the dictionary" bit is so wonderfully simpleminded that it is actually a fairly good troll, but I've seen no reason to take anything you say seriously. Don't feel bad - I don't generally engage with creationists, either

So simple you cant even just read the definition? You are a sad failure at a grown up discussion. Just keep eating what your fed.

What my fed what?


You're obviously satisfied with all the info you need to make an informed decision on this subject and somehow know more than the people who make reference their business. All I asked is that we agree on the definition of this substance is that you seem to love so much.
 
2013-05-03 04:01:24 PM

Cretony38: You're obviously satisfied with all the info you need to make an informed decision on this subject and somehow know more than the people who make reference their business. All I asked is that we agree on the definition of this substance is that you seem to love so much.


api.ning.com
 
2013-05-03 04:03:24 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: You're obviously satisfied with all the info you need to make an informed decision on this subject and somehow know more than the people who make reference their business. All I asked is that we agree on the definition of this substance is that you seem to love so much.

[api.ning.com image 534x413]


I see at least someone checked my source for the flat earth theory
 
2013-05-03 04:09:58 PM

Cretony38: Yet YOU, heyPete cannot cite even one, the irrefutable data that drives you vigilantly to fight any questions for this most precious of theories. All I asked of you was to define the very word of what you hold to be the most sanctimonious of truths. I NEVER even said it was wrong to put in drinking water. I only asked what was it and why are you so convinced? realizing my audience here I suggested the simplest of reference which somehow is too much to ask of you. Did you need me to spell out dictionary.com for you?


How about these two studies which were cited earlier? How about the Centers for Disease Control? The CDC has whole sections dedicated to that topic.

These scientific studies, endorsed by national and international public health authorities and experts, clearly show that fluoridation of water improves dental health with essentially no side effects. There is no doubt that in sufficient concentrations fluoride and other fluorine-containing chemicals can be harmful, but when present in relatively low concentrations it serves to improve dental health.

The ball's in your court now. So far, you haven't really brought up any real evidence to back up your position other than saying "look at the dictionary definitions of fluorine and fluoride". That doesn't really cut it. Can you show any evidence from any credible peer-reviewed scientific studies? Any statements and policies from respected national or international public health authorities?

Put simply, the burden of proof is on you to support your assertions that fluoridation of water is a bad thing.
 
2013-05-03 04:14:39 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: What, exactly, do you think your chart proves, of anything?

Why are you wrong in every thread? I can predict your position on any issue by imagining the stupidest possible interpretation of what is being discussed.

So your response is to pretend you're even dumber than usual and resort to the usual projection shtick?

Looks to me like fluoride is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay.  What are your mental gymnastics telling you?

[sdsdw.org image 596x433]


Has anybody found a direct link to WHO for this graph? Admittedly my google-fu is week. I did find this though:

http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/the-cavities-in-the- an ti-fluoride-movement-further-proof-never-to-take-evidence-at-face-valu e/
 
2013-05-03 04:15:16 PM
Damn it, *weak. Preview, preview!
 
2013-05-03 04:24:40 PM

jrodr018: Has anybody found a direct link to WHO for this graph?


No, and you won't. He lied. It says right on it that it comes from the conspiracy theorist group Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The only data set the WHO has that even mentions fluoridated vs non is a set for Ireland over time.
 
2013-05-03 04:27:28 PM

skozlaw: jrodr018: Has anybody found a direct link to WHO for this graph?

No, and you won't. He lied. It says right on it that it comes from the conspiracy theorist group Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The only data set the WHO has that even mentions fluoridated vs non is a set for Ireland over time.


It figures. I was just assuming that he was presenting data out of ignorance, not outright malice. Benefit of the doubt and all that. Thanks!
 
2013-05-03 04:33:43 PM

poot_rootbeer: Cretony38: The fact remains Fluoride is a toxic compound, an industrial by product that is to toxic to be dumped into a landfill. And was used in pest control. So are these facts incorrect?

"Fluoride" is "a compound" = false

You're already not off to a good start there.


Not sure your start is so good, either.  Fluorine is an element, not a compound, but if you put pure fluorine in your water it would probably eat your face off.  Fluoride is an ion, and is always present in a compound, such as sodium fluoride or stannous fluoride (early Crest).  So I would say your correction = false.
 
2013-05-03 04:42:09 PM

BSABSVR: Cretony38: Decades of peer review" so if its such a convincing argument why are they constantly studying it?

*plonk*


Aha!  A new meme to go with "Evolution is just a theory!!"
 
2013-05-03 05:06:12 PM

heypete: Cretony38: Yet YOU, heyPete cannot cite even one, the irrefutable data that drives you vigilantly to fight any questions for this most precious of theories. All I asked of you was to define the very word of what you hold to be the most sanctimonious of truths. I NEVER even said it was wrong to put in drinking water. I only asked what was it and why are you so convinced? realizing my audience here I suggested the simplest of reference which somehow is too much to ask of you. Did you need me to spell out dictionary.com for you?

How about these two studies which were cited earlier? How about the Centers for Disease Control? The CDC has whole sections dedicated to that topic.

These scientific studies, endorsed by national and international public health authorities and experts, clearly show that fluoridation of water improves dental health with essentially no side effects. There is no doubt that in sufficient concentrations fluoride and other fluorine-containing chemicals can be harmful, but when present in relatively low concentrations it serves to improve dental health.

The ball's in your court now. So far, you haven't really brought up any real evidence to back up your position other than saying "look at the dictionary definitions of fluorine and fluoride". That doesn't really cut it. Can you show any evidence from any credible peer-reviewed scientific studies? Any statements and policies from respected national or international public health authorities?

Put simply, the burden of proof is on you to support your assertions that fluoridation of water is a bad thing.


Again you're clueless heypete. That's all I ever said was "look it up" I never stated a position on how little of this substance is safe in drinking water. But it's clearly poison in anything I've read including the dictionary. No matter how small the amount it's origin & uses do not change that it is a toxic substance.  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/questions.html You go ahead put it in your mouth everyday, I will use it to kill pests & vermin.
 
2013-05-03 05:14:36 PM

Cretony38: heypete: Cretony38: Yet YOU, heyPete cannot cite even one, the irrefutable data that drives you vigilantly to fight any questions for this most precious of theories. All I asked of you was to define the very word of what you hold to be the most sanctimonious of truths. I NEVER even said it was wrong to put in drinking water. I only asked what was it and why are you so convinced? realizing my audience here I suggested the simplest of reference which somehow is too much to ask of you. Did you need me to spell out dictionary.com for you?

How about these two studies which were cited earlier? How about the Centers for Disease Control? The CDC has whole sections dedicated to that topic.

These scientific studies, endorsed by national and international public health authorities and experts, clearly show that fluoridation of water improves dental health with essentially no side effects. There is no doubt that in sufficient concentrations fluoride and other fluorine-containing chemicals can be harmful, but when present in relatively low concentrations it serves to improve dental health.

The ball's in your court now. So far, you haven't really brought up any real evidence to back up your position other than saying "look at the dictionary definitions of fluorine and fluoride". That doesn't really cut it. Can you show any evidence from any credible peer-reviewed scientific studies? Any statements and policies from respected national or international public health authorities?

Put simply, the burden of proof is on you to support your assertions that fluoridation of water is a bad thing.

Again you're clueless heypete. That's all I ever said was "look it up" I never stated a position on how little of this substance is safe in drinking water. But it's clearly poison in anything I've read including the dictionary. No matter how small the amount it's origin & uses do not change that it is a toxic substance.  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/questions.html You go ah ...


Agreed! Although I will use it for both things! From your link:
I thought fluoride was good for me, so why should I be concerned about getting too much of it?The amount of fluoride the public is exposed to has increased over the last several decades since the introduction of drinking water fluoridation and consumer dental products (such as fluoride toothpaste and mouth rinses). This has led to a large decline in the prevalence of tooth decay, but has also been accompanied by a modest increase in dental fluorosis, a condition that can cause effects ranging from barely visible lacey white markings, to more severe staining or pitting of the tooth's enamel. While the proper levels of fluoride provide important benefits to dental health, the majority of the US population is not exposed to excessive levels. However, fluoride exposure is too high for some children, particularly those who live in areas that has high naturally occurring fluoride in their drinking water, which are in excess of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended fluoridation levels.

Have a good weekend!
 
2013-05-03 05:17:59 PM

jrodr018: Has anybody found a direct link to WHO for this graph?



I've hunted high and low. I don't think there is one.
 
Displayed 50 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report