Scientific illiteracy in GD

my very first thought was "What do cows farting methane have to do with the Ozone layer?"

If the inhaler product releases CFCs or other known hazardous chemicals that hurt the Ozone layer, they should be taken off
the market. The real issue is the cost of the replacement inhalers that don't hurt the Ozone layer.

;-)

We're mining low grade ore, fer shur.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5193980

:wtf:

I just cannot twist my mind into the shape required for the above
to make sense ...

:crazy:

They seriously think the way to stop an effect of global warming is desalinating the water, and pumping it uphill onto the land to - ??? Somewhere it won't drain back downhill into the ocean, anyway. Never mind the energy required, I'm not sure if these people have a grip on gravity ...

Since it didn't seem to get debunked last time, it seems to be spreading. :banghead:

I didn't, but that would explain all the stupid, innattentive people in America compared to Europe where they banned water Fluoridation years ago.

Does anyone know why we fluoridate the water for the Public Water supply?

(That's why there's a http://www.fluoridealert.org/toothpaste.html">poison warning on every tube of fluoride toothpaste.)

Sad to say, one reason we fluoridate our water was to keep the Manhattan Project a secret. (Yes, I'm serious.)
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/the_fluoride_deception_how_a_nuclear
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wastenot414.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/deepwater.htm

Nowadays, fluoridation gives the Florida phosphate industry a way to dispose of their toxic waste. (No, really!) They sell it to cities to put into drinking water! (How cool is that!?)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

I know it all sounds like paranoid ravings. If you're interested, the National Academies of Science recently produced a whole book, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards in short, the committee decided that the appropriate level of fluoride in drinking water is 0ppm.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

Here's the chapter that deals with neurotoxicity, "Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects"
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=205


"Why wasn't this front page news?" I hear you ask. Would it surprise you to learn that politics played a role? http://www.google.com/search?q="national+academies+of+science"+fluoride">Read some coverage of the report.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=second-thoughts-on-fluoride
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS108377+02-Jan-2008+PRN20080102

Talking about bad science, think about this for a moment. The reason for putting "fluoride" into the drinking water is to strengthen teeth. (Right?) There's some evidence that suggests that topical application of fluoride to teeth may have a beneficial effect. However, when you ingest fluoride, it travels to every part of your body. Do you suppose it has no effect on the rest of your bones? Studies suggest a positive correlation between fluoride levels and bone fractures:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/bone/fracture/epi.html
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/12/802

In the Wikipedia site on fluoridation they point out that the Soviet Union dropped fluoridation at the time of its dissolution. Why the Soviet Unions did so is NOT stated but it was more to cut cost of water processing then any other reason (and the Soviet Union adopted fluoridation to reduce its medical costs, with the collapse of the Soviet Union cost 5-10 years down the road became unimportant as opposed to cost TODAY, this lead to a lack of long term maintenance as opposed to day to day maintenance). East Germany seems to have dropped fluoridation at the same time, but more to reflect its merger with West Germany than any other reason. West Germany's drop in fluoridation in 1970 is more complex,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

Fluoridated salt is advocated here:
http://www.fluoridationcenter.org/papers/1999/saltflfach011.htm

A pro-fluoridation site (They are hard to find given the overwhelming number of people who keep posting the same anti-fluoridation comments over and over again on the net, trying to find a pro-fluoridation site on the net was like trying to find a site that did NOT call Rachel Carson "A silent Spring" false in its statement that DDT caused thinness of bird's eggshell and thus killed off birds, you will find hundreds of sites saying that statement was false before you find a site that says it is true AND THEN PROVIDE THE FACTS THAT SHOWS IT TO BE TRUE, this is one of the bad sides of the net, having to dig through all the trash to come up with something true, having to go hundreds of opinions before you find someone who sites a study or facts and references that study or fact. Many anti-fluoride sites states facts and studies but these are all based on high concentration of Fluoridation and no comments when it comes to water that has fluoride in it naturally):
http://www.bracesinfo.com/gendent/fluoride.htm

The main problem with Fluoride in water has been known for years, but the problems only exist when fluoride exists in water in excess of known limits. These excessive numbers only exists in water naturally and must be removed in such cases. When fluoride is ADDED to water the Fluoride number does not even come close to the fluoride numbers that causes problems. I will not post any of the anti-fluoridation sites (They are all over the net, they are easy to find) but to point out most such sites takes the known dangers of Fluoride and saying these are the results of fluoridation, when fluoridation does NOT produce any Fluoride numbers known to cause such problems.

As to your question, the American Dental Association has a policy of adopting polices that help people's dental health and will make comments about dental health. Fluoridation appears to be an inexpensive way to help people' dental health, especially in a country that does NOT have national health insurance. Most of the countries that have dropped fluoridation have National Health Insurance that includes Dental Health, and had such care for decades before fluoridation was dropped. Thus the whole issue is resolved with improve Dental care (More Dental Care, less need for fluoridation). The problem is that the US does NOT have National Health Insurance and thus no access to regular dental care. Without regular dental care, the advantages of fluoridation is clear and overwhelming, with national health insurance the advantages tend to disappear for dental care takes over much of the work expected of fluoridation and thus the advantages become less clear.

Thus my point the main reason the US has fluoridation is that it is cheaper then adopting National Health Insurance that includes Dental Care.

Here's a well written paper by a member of the NAS committee:
http://www2.binghamton.edu/psychology/people/faculty/robert-isaacson.html
http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~isaacson/fluoride.html

I pacifies the pitchforks and torches crowd?

I thought that's what the High Fructose Corn Syrup and television was for... Couch Potatoes don't take to the streets and topple noxious political systems.

:shrug:

There are many charges about http://www.google.com/search?q=fluoride+mind+control">fluoride and mind control. Personally, I think fluoridation is mostly done with good intentions.