Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Boston_Chemist

(256 posts)
5. Yes, I am quite aware of those studies.
Reply to TZ (Reply #4)
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:30 PM
Dec 2011

You can be as rhetorically skeptical as you please, no one will ever stop you from concatenating words in whatever way you please. But you have not, and will not, address the issue of uncontrollability of the dosage of fluoride in municipal water supplies. As I said, mixing is a tricky business, and perhaps you can expound for whomever is reading this as to how uniform mixing is achieved at the city level. Perhaps you can even teach me, but I doubt that very much.

And, while you are at it, could you also explain to all interested as to how the fact that different people are affected differently by the same dosage? There are millions of people exposed to a theoretically uniform concentration of F(-) in the supply (and I do mean theoretically), and each has a somewhat unique sensitivity to this drug.

Another issue, also related to concentration, is that of the non-uniformity of the water supply system, in the regions that are between the households, and the main water reservoirs (where fluoridation occurs). This, like each person's sensitivity, has not been controlled for due to its nearly unsurmountable complexity.

I suppose you can't scramble an omelet without also breaking a few eggs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis

And, from a CDC study on the topic (citation taken from the wiki article):
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm

"Enamel Fluorosis

Very mild or greater enamel fluorosis was observed in 23% of persons aged 6--39 years (Table 23, Figure 18). The prevalence of fluorosis was lowest among persons aged 20--39 years (Figure 18). Non-Hispanic blacks had higher proportions of very mild and mild fluorosis than did non-Hispanic white participants (Figure 19). Posterior teeth were more affected by enamel fluorosis than were anterior teeth (Figure 20). A nine percentage point increase in the prevalence of very mild or greater fluorosis was observed among children and adolescents aged 6--19 years when data from 1999--2002 were compared with those from the NIDR 1986--1987 survey of school children (from 22.8% in 1986--1987 to 32% in 1999--2002) (18). "

Oh My Lack of God uriel1972 Dec 2011 #1
There are some here on DU! Odin2005 Dec 2011 #2
What is wrong with plain old water? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #3
So you aren't aware TZ Dec 2011 #4
Yes, I am quite aware of those studies. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #5
Please don't bother to get all the facts about Dental Fluorosis, nor bother to listen to the .. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #6
Information, in brochure format, is a way of spoonfeeding people. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #7
I get it, you don't argue from epidemiological grounds, you argue based upon MarkCharles Dec 2011 #8
Are you really simply cutting and pasting a webpage onto your post? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #9
epidemic of fluorosis? TZ Dec 2011 #19
Read my previous posts. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #22
I do know a bit about dilutions TZ Dec 2011 #17
I was expecting this sort of fallacy, sooner or later. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #23
Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #10
You don't seem skeptical enough. nt. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #11
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #12
Government calls for the reduction of fluoride levels by nearly 50% Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #13
Yes, they did. Do you understand their rationale? laconicsax Dec 2011 #14
Oh, I thought it had to do with the toxicity of the ion itself. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #15
Depends on the Mercury. laconicsax Dec 2011 #16
What is it with the english language that makes it so difficult for some to understand it? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #21
You brought up Mercury. If you don't like the results, you have only yourself to blame. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #24
Your posts in these threads have a distinctive lack of content in them. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #25
Ooh! Another term you don't seem to know the meaning of. laconicsax Dec 2011 #26
There goes your bad English comprehension - again. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #27
And how many conferences on water fluoridation are there? laconicsax Dec 2011 #29
23% with Fluorosis? More like nearly 40%. Did you even read the CDC study? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #30
So why do YOU think you're arguing against the consensus? laconicsax Dec 2011 #31
What is the European consensus on Fluoridation? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #32
And what makes the US different. laconicsax Dec 2011 #33
I am not here to educate you or entertain your conspiracy theories. n.t. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #34
Then why are you here? laconicsax Dec 2011 #35
You actually appear to be ignoring any and all data. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #36
I see you can't take what you dish out. laconicsax Dec 2011 #37
It's all good, so long as you stop believing this "Fluoridation is Good" nonsense. n.t. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #38
You've yet to show that it IS nonsense. laconicsax Dec 2011 #39
Hmm. HuckleB Dec 2011 #40
Be nice. Our water isn't fluoridated--our PBFs are safe. laconicsax Dec 2011 #42
Yup. HuckleB Dec 2011 #43
You've made some statements in this post. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #51
A chemist not understanding doses? TZ Dec 2011 #18
Fluorine is not the same as Mercury. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #20
A couple of hints for you: Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #28
Pssssssst. HuckleB Dec 2011 #41
You have to love the 2nd comment there! n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #44
It is a beauty! -eom- HuckleB Dec 2011 #45
Let me repost that foul-mouthed "thing of beauty": Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #46
Wooosh! laconicsax Dec 2011 #47
And, again with your posts that lack any content. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #49
Of course I am. What else would I be doing in a skeptics group? laconicsax Dec 2011 #50
Yes, what are you doing in a skeptics group? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #52
Pro-Fluoridation crankery is also an issue. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #48
Locking EvolveOrConvolve Dec 2011 #53
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»Youtube scientist C0nc0rd...»Reply #5