The industrial process adds a woo-on.
It joins the 9 protons. 10 + 10 + 10 = 30 / 10 = 3 -> HL3 confirmed.
3 Likes
HaHa, hilarious, I see BB has attracted the attention of the anti-fluoride brigade, those brave idjits that trot about to anyplace online that mentions their pet crusade. Hey maybe we can get some chemtrail discussions going if itâs a cloudy day tomorrow!
Bet thereâs a lot of crossover. Think of the convenience, if BB runs regular articles on fluoride, chemtrails, uhâŚtruth*? (ers)(is has ers)(Birth-Division((ers), jet fuel, Evil Vaccinators!/McCarthyism(ModernMcCarthyism), that group that believes the memory of fish pee can cure all ailments, whatever theyâre called, and⌠cryptozoologistssanszoologyâŚ
think of the hundreds of people who can just keep a regular account here instead of having to sign up every time their news aggregators direct then this way.
Weâre talking dozens of hours of work saved! Mentioning these topics regularly is a public service!
9 Likes
Conspiracy theorists and credulous idiots who donât understand the fundamentals of the scientific method. IOW people who should know better, but for our current society in the US that says âmy gut feeling is as valid of evidence as your repeatable verifiable fact.â
6 Likes
You never know, stack social might make some money then 
5 Likes
Usually both.
1 Like
4 Likes
Notice the can of âHUFFâ and paintmarks around his face⌠In a later season of this show, heâll be âon the newsâ with a subtitle of: âinhalant enthusiastâ.
1 Like
Nunavut is the Hawaii of Canada.
One of the most toxic wastes from mining is water. When a salt mine is filled with water you canât pump it out because brine -that delicious salty water that is so good for a sore throat, soaking chicken or making pickles - is considered a highly hazardous waste.
Should people know more about fluoride?
Yes.
Should they panic?
No.
7 Likes
Please, explain to us all, how two exactly identical particles can have different chemical, physiological, and toxicological properties?
Atomic memory.
5 Likes
Just to make it clear, Iâm not opposed to water fluorination, and I do believe that it works. I merely think itâs not the only viable route to a reasonable level of dental health, as evidenced by non-fluorinating countries that also do well in that regard.
2 Likes
I take it you donât have a Facebook account, and/or in-laws.
5 Likes
6 Likes
Maybe there was fluoride in it.
1 Like
Heâs just correct.
Itâs fine (if a little silly and insular) to be ignorant of the geography / political of the nearest neighbor to the north. But to be proud of that ignorance is weird.
Thereâs an important political difference between provinces and territories under the Canadian (and Australian) Federal system.
Maybe next time just thank the person for pointing out the error and learn something?
3 Likes
Anyone who is pro-fluoride-in-drinking-water and pro-labeling-GMO-foods fails the consistency test.
So far, based on the evidence, I think that fluoride in drinking water decreases the incidence of dental caries for populations that donât brush enough, but also increases the chances of certain kinds of cancers and frequently causes dental fluorosis.
I also think it should be the choice of the individual whether or not to be exposed to low levels of fluoride in their tap water. Anyone who doesnât think they get enough fluoride from brushing their teeth should be free to buy bottled water that contains fluoride.
Guys: freedom means exactly the freedom to make âwrongâ choices â because when you try to stop people from making âwrongâ choices you are imposing a specific perspective on what is ârightâ or âwrongâ rather than letting people choose that for themselves.
You can say, âwell, fluoridation is right based on SCIENCE!â* Thatâs not how science works. Science proceeds adversarially: âwhat reasons do I have to believe this claim is incorrect?â Taking the current tentative conclusions of science as gospel truth is a sort of scientific fundamentalism.
Read Murray Bookchin, left libertarian stalwart, on the subject of the exposure of human beings to chemicals mass-produced by industry and the possible ill-effects on health. TL;DR: modern science is based on reductionism, and reductive analyses have trouble coping with systems as complex as the human body or even soil. Even without any specific evidence uncovered by reductive methods, it may be wise to be suspicious of low-grade cumulative effects as a result from exposure to even low concentrations of toxic chemicals. Bookchin points out that if such conditions are widespread enough, they would slowly change what we consider to be the baseline of public health, allowing health generally to decline across one or more variables without anyone being able to see it (because the average used as a basis of comparison has moved as well).
But actually, thereâs at least some specific evidence that fluoridation causes harm: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562
Had I a child, I would consider buying bottled water for the child rather than chronically exposing the child to low concentrations of fluoride. And, of course, Iâd make sure the little bastard brushed his teeth.
This is a fascinating issue, as it cuts to the heart of the freedom/safety tradeoff. Usually, freedom/safety tradeoffs make conservatives go nuts in the safety directions. This (along with gun control) are two issues where liberals go nuts in the safety direction instead of conservatives. I intend to do a little more research to try to understand the scale of the efficacy w/r/t dental caries vs. the scale of the problems with developmental issues, dental fluorosis, and certain types of cancers.
*Which isnât even true! As I pointed out, fluoridation is a trade-off between cancer, fluorosis, and dental caries (again, assuming we have a population that doesnât brush their teeth very often in the first place). People should have the right to decide this trade-off for themselves.
1 Like
Also, welcome to Boing Boing!
3 Likes
Iâm trying to reconcile this belief with your libertarian philosophy.
People are too dumb to make good decisions. But they should be free to make those decisions anyway.
Why should people be free to make decisions if they are too dumb to make good decisions? Because freedom is good?
But how can we say freedom is good if it consistently achieves poor outcomes â so consistently that our most ardent advocates for freedom also believe that most people are dumb?
At some point, shouldnât we conclude either that people are not so dumb, or that freedom is actually a bad thing after all?
Also, what standards are we applying to decide most people are dumb? It seems to me that more than half of all people cannot be dumber than average by definition. I realize âhalf of all people are dumbâ does not have the same ring, but it does have the merit of being actually true (by tautology).
2 Likes
And in a society that lives together, people that make decisions that will harm others should stay the f**k indoors (anti-vaxxers and others herd-immunity attackers who have no medical reason to avoid vaccines).
Likewise â if you choose to not use fluoridated water, you should be the exception, not the rule. Thereâs plenty of unflouridated bottled water for you to guzzle. I donât know of one source of fluoridated water for those who like their dentifrice.
3 Likes
Just wondering⌠Is this piece from the Fluoride Action Network about there being basically no difference in tooth decay reduction in from fluoridated vs. unfluoridated supplies pseudoscience?
