Endovelicus Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Am I the only one who looks at 'Fukushima' and thinks it could be something Alex Salmond might say to our DED Minister? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686 - comments ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Essentially you have to counter propaganda Exaccerley! " toxic hazardous chemical" and "medicate the water supply" is pure propaganda as are some of the points in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 I never could understand the positive health aspects of adding a toxic hazardous chemical to the drinking supply of humans. Well right or wrong that becomes a controversial debating point. So it doesn't really work as a talking point. You'll get bogged down. So a much better way of debating this is to talk about whether one-size-fits-all solutions are ever the best approach. Or to make comparisons with whether it would be right to add vitamins or other food supplements to the water supply. Or to cut to the chase and talk about water purity. Essentially you have to counter propaganda (and people unknowingly influenced by propaganda) with concise talking points. It's what Obama would do It's then up to individuals to actually act as individuals and use their own judgement and make their own decisions about whether what the state says is correct and is in their best interests. In the case of water purity then buying a water/shower filter works for some (i.e. me) but not for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 Essentially you have to counter propaganda Exaccerley! " toxic hazardous chemical" and "medicate the water supply" is pure propaganda as are some of the points in this thread. I tend to look at both sides of the argument and then end it by using a bit judgement and asking myself do I need a known neurotoxin in my body, regardless of it's purported 'health' benefits. After that the decision about whether to consume tap water is relatively easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 There you go again. "Known neurotoxin" sounds *really* threatening and highly likely to frighten the ass of readers like other postulations you have made all throughout this thread. However it is completely meaningless without further qualifying it. You haven't qualified it because if you did, you know it wouldn't be anything like as dramatic or potentially threatening and would therefore not give any credence to your case. Many vitamins have the potential to be toxic whilst at the same time can be regarded as essential. It just depends, like half the stuff you've tried to frighten us with on this thread. Peace...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 "medicate the water supply" is pure propaganda If something were to be added to everybody's water in order to improve the health of some people then this would unarguably be an example of literally medicating the water supply. Irrespective of any of the other arguments around fluoride. The point here is not about the pros and cons of fluoride. It is about whether it would be proper to use the water supply as a mechanism or conduit for delivering mass treatments. And it would also about the right of people to be able to opt out of receiving this sorts of mass treatment in general. Water purity is an important issue. The water companies should be concerned with delivering a high quality premium product which is good to drink. Nothing else. Here on the IOM it often smells like a swimming pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Pongo, I'm not really talking about fluoride per se , there are pages and pages and pages elsewhere on MF on that subject. I'm just using it as an example of how careful selection of words by a poster will give the desired response in a majority of readers. "Medicating" is an example. Everyone will immediately think of medicine because you want them to think they are being drugged against their will as you know *nobody* wants that. Hence you get the repose you want whether it is factually, medically or scientifically correct or not. You will argue it is of course.Those with a scientific education will then counter argue points likely from proven fact derived from proper controlled research rather than the much simpler emotional response you elicited by telling everyone they were being drugged and so it goes on and on and on..... Virtual anything more technical than most readers come across in daily life suffer from this on all forums and when you throw in the obligatory troll or three we could be here a loooooong time. Edited to say, I think the water here is better tasting than anywhere else I can think of. Well it is up north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 Many vitamins have the potential to be toxic whilst at the same time can be regarded as essential. It just depends, like half the stuff you've tried to frighten us with on this thread. Now who's talking absolute, unqualified, scaremongering rubbish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Pongo, I'm not really talking about fluoride per se , there are pages and pages and pages elsewhere on MF on that subject. I'm just using it as an example of how careful selection of words by a poster will give the desired response in a majority of readers. "Medicating" is an example. Everyone will immediately think of medicine because you want them to think they are being drugged against their will as you know *nobody* wants that. Hence you get the repose you want whether it is factually, medically or scientifically correct or not. You will argue it is of course. Fluoride is added to water to 'treat' tooth decay. It is added specifically to cause a change in the body - it fits the 'definition' of a medicine, because that is what it is when it is added to water to target a bodily disease. You are the one guilty of wordsmithing if you try to state anything else. But then again you are the dentist that was in charge when the Island had the best teeth, then suddenly we went to having the worst teeth in the space of a year - and we never did get that raw data from the government to find out why - conspiracy - surely not!!! You think you know everything there is to know about fluoride because you used to be a dentist. During the course of our campaign, which ran for 5 long years, I purchased the book you dentists study from at college, and it contained a double page section on fluoride that was some 60 years out of date. So if that's what you're taught about fluoride then you can stick it, no wonder there are so many deluded people out there, but then again your profession put mercury in people's mouths up until very recently and probably still do in some places. This island had a very lucky escape with fluoride, despite all the government protagonists and other idots on here banging on about the wonders of fluoride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 Pongo, I'm not really talking about fluoride per se , there are pages and pages and pages elsewhere on MF on that subject. I'm just using it as an example of how careful selection of words by a poster will give the desired response in a majority of readers. "Medicating" is an example. Everyone will immediately think of medicine because you want them to think they are being drugged against their will as you know *nobody* wants that. Hence you get the repose you want whether it is factually, medically or scientifically correct or not. You will argue it is of course. Fluoride is added to water to 'treat' tooth decay. It is added specifically to cause a change in the body - it fits the 'definition' of a medicine, because that is what it is when it is added to water to target a bodily disease. You are the one guilty of wordsmithing if you try to state anything else. But then again you are the dentist that was in charge when the Island had the best teeth, then suddenly we went to having the worst teeth in the space of a year - and we never did get that raw data from the government to find out why - conspiracy - surely not!!! You think you know everything there is to know about fluoride because you used to be a dentist. During the course of our campaign, which ran for 5 long years, I purchased the book you dentists study from at college, and it contained a double page section on fluoride that was some 60 years out of date. So if that's what you're taught about fluoride then you can stick it, no wonder there are so many deluded people out there, but then again your profession put mercury in people's mouths up until very recently and probably still do in some places. This island had a very lucky escape with fluoride, despite all the government protagonists and other idots on here banging on about the wonders of fluoride. +1. The arguments for fluoridation are hopelessly out of date as study after study shows it does not have a significant enough effect to substantiate using it in our water supplies. Moreso the side effects are numerous and anyone who cares to do their own research instead of listening to government propaganda can make their own minds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 "Medicating" is an example. Everyone will immediately think of medicine because you want them to think they are being drugged against their will No I don't. If you think that then you are making assumptions. I am arguing that the water supply should not be used as a conduit for delivering fluoride. Just the same as it should not be used as a mechanism for delivering anything else. In this context fluoride is a dental (ie medical) treatment and therefore the use of the word medicate is appropriate. This is not about whether fluoride is a useful treatment. It is about the mechanism of delivery and the right to opt out and / or to control the dose effectively. Hence you get the repose you want whether it is factually, medically or scientifically correct or not. You will argue it is of course.Those with a scientific education will then counter argue points likely from proven fact derived from proper controlled research rather than the much simpler emotional response you elicited by telling everyone they were being drugged and so it goes on and on and on..... I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of fluoride and this is nothing to do with trying to imply that people are being "drugged" as you quaintly put it. I simply don't believe that anything other than water should be deliberately delivered via the water supply ( - accepting obviously the technical and geological considerations here). People should have a choice whether they receive it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 "Medicating" is an example. Everyone will immediately think of medicine because you want them to think they are being drugged against their will No I don't. If you think that then you are making assumptions. I am arguing that the water supply should not be used as a conduit for delivering fluoride. Just the same as it should not be used as a mechanism for delivering anything else. In this context fluoride is a dental (ie medical) treatment and therefore the use of the word medicate is appropriate. This is not about whether fluoride is a useful treatment. It is about the mechanism of delivery and the right to opt out and / or to control the dose effectively. Hence you get the repose you want whether it is factually, medically or scientifically correct or not. You will argue it is of course.Those with a scientific education will then counter argue points likely from proven fact derived from proper controlled research rather than the much simpler emotional response you elicited by telling everyone they were being drugged and so it goes on and on and on..... I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of fluoride and this is nothing to do with trying to imply that people are being "drugged" as you quaintly put it. I simply don't believe that anything other than water should be deliberately delivered via the water supply ( - accepting obviously the technical and geological considerations here). People should have a choice whether they receive it or not. Very true. But this goes right to the heart of the nanny state society we live in. If you hand over personal responsibility for something, whether that be the water we drink, food we eat, education we receive, etc... based on what someone else deems to be appropriate then you cease being an individual and move towards being just another 'drone' for want of a better word. I filter my water as I don't want 'medicating' I want my thirst replenishing and I'll address my dental issues separately thankyouverymuch. Similarly you could take this principle across other areas of your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Now who's talking absolute, unqualified, scaremongering rubbish? Not me. Vit A is a dietary requirement yet toxic in high doses. I just used that as an example to show that your unqualified assertion that fluoride is a neurotoxin (with the implication caused by the lack of qualification of amount that it is a neurotoxin at any level) isn't true. It is only true at very high doses. However I said it depends, you didn't ! How is that scaremongering rubbish? It's definitely not an absolute or an unqualified statement as I said it depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Fluoride is added to water to 'treat' tooth decay I see you prefer 'treat' to prevent. As for the rest of your post and its assertions at least 50% is totally inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.