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)
9. Are you really simply cutting and pasting a webpage onto your post?
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:44 PM
Dec 2011

Is it ok for the population of suffer from an epidemic of dental fluorosis because "most cases are mild"?

Advocating for a treatment against dental caries is not a bad thing, but there is a whole host of documented negative effects, and ethical issues surrounding this matter. It is preferable to read articles, instead of engaging in egregious cut-n-pasting, because then we will then be able to sanely discuss the pros and cons of this matter.

I already mentioned a number of technical issues surrounding the introduction of a drug into the drinking water, and for some reason you have chosen to ignore them. The link you posted is a site where zeroth-order information is provided, as it seems to be geared to assuaging the fears a concerned parent may have, but it has within it indications of the problems that I am alluding to. For instance, it suggests that people ensure that "only a pea-sized amount of toothpaste be used when brushing the teeth," so I ask you: Why is such a toxic substance being included in substances (water, tooth paste) that have privileged routes of entry into the human body? It is 100% likely that a child will take a liking for the sweet, minty toothpaste, thusly increasing his/her chances for low level poisoning with this ion. If it is such a safe substance, why the advice that only a pea-sized amount be used?

Furthermore, and since you raise the topic of epidemiology,
a. The article I posted found that fluorosis is mostly found in areas where the poor and minorities predominate. What's going on there?
b. You claim, via this webpage you seem to like so much, that most cases of dental fluorosis are mild. Without any knowledge of the distribution of the data, statements like these are nearly useless. What is the standard deviation, for instance? What about the outliers, what do their mouths look like?
c. Fluorosis appears to be a symptom of other issues associated with flouride poisoning. I am actually curious about these other issues.

Skepticism is not be a banner under which contrarian positions are shouted down via peer pressure nor intimidation.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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 #9