Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience

Boston_Chemist

(256 posts)

30. 23% with Fluorosis? More like nearly 40%. Did you even read the CDC study?

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 02:17 PM

Dec 2011

And, is 23% an acceptable rate?

Dental fluorosis is a symptom of further poisoning, actually. So the problem isn't merely cosmetic. I am completely befuddled as to why anyone would continue to advocate fluoridation of water. Various European countries have eliminated the practice, there is ample evidence from studies that it damages various organs and tissues in the human body, and no one seems to be willing to acknowledge the source of the Fluoride ion that gets mixed into the water supplies.

People here like to rail against the idiot freepers that continue to vote against their self interest, due to a delusional mindset encouraged by whatever corporate interests appear to be paying for the GOP's bills at the time. This, of course, is an ironic stance in some of you.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Youtube scientist C0nc0rdance addresses the pseudo-science against flouridation of drinking water. [View all] MarkCharles Dec 2011 OP

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