Lxxx Posted May 24, 2012 Author 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. I get that you might be a dentist and that you would naturally be standing up for your indoctrination on the subject, but the fact remains that fluoride does not need to be in our drinking water. Our drinking water should be as pure as possible not treated with industrial chemicals for spurious reasons. If the public then want to use fluoridated toothpaste to address any dental issues then fine, but it's not a one size fits all subject so lets not treat it as one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 No I don't. If you think that then you are making assumptions I can only form any assumption from the words you choose to use. Medicating is an emotive term designed to lead readers to the end thought process you want. I was anti fluoridation btw and for the record pro nuclear power for many reasons. Whilst I wish there was an alternative, there isn't one that will work given our incessant increasing demand for energy. The reason for that incessant demand warrants a thread on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I get that you might be a dentist No I'm not. I earn my living in something completely unrelated to the health services. That doesn't mean I know nothing about it though. I'll tell you what is a neurotoxin though and low levels - mercury. Now where is the public likely to come into contact with that in an unfluoridated area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Medicating is an emotive term designed to lead readers to the end thought process you want. What term would you prefer was used to describe the addition of a compound to the water supply for dental health (ie medical) reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Its hardly up to me to suggest which words you should use but that doesn't stop me from voicing an opinion as to why I think you selected a certain emotive word in an emotive discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 No I don't. If you think that then you are making assumptions I can only form any assumption from the words you choose to use. Medicating is an emotive term designed to lead readers to the end thought process you want. I was anti fluoridation btw and for the record pro nuclear power for many reasons. Whilst I wish there was an alternative, there isn't one that will work given our incessant increasing demand for energy. The reason for that incessant demand warrants a thread on its own. Okay, so enlighten us on what evidence and arguments converted you from anti-fluoridation to pro-fluoridation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Its hardly up to me to suggest which words you should use but that doesn't stop me from voicing an opinion as to why I think you selected a certain emotive word in an emotive discussion. ... even though I have carefully and politely explained to you the use of that word. And even though I have not questioned in any way the wisdom or science of fluoride treatments. The only thing I have questioned here is the mechanism of delivery. It seems that your problem with the word 'medication' is that it is somehow too pointed, too accurate. You are in favour of treating the population with fluoride en masse and yet you do not want this to be described using language which normally applies to treatments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Pongo and Lxxx, you are completely wrong if you think I want fluoride in the water either in the past, now, or in the future. I have never been pro water fluoridation anywhere. Ever. Go and look up all my numerous posts on the subject elsewhere on this forum. I can understand the possibility of confusion as I haven't until now (post#92) said what I think about fluoride one way or the other as this debate was about a nuclear accident. The references to fluoride only came about because imo similar unscientific arguing techniques were being used and these points were just introduced as examples. Now what about nuclear power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 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. Wrong. The only high quality premium product the water companies are concerned about is their profit margin. At one time everybody in the country, rich and poor, had a share interest in the delivery of potable water. The appalling Thatcher creature took their shares away from the poor and gave them to well-off tory voters. The result is no national interest hence no national distribution system hence drought conditions in various areas of the country. Incidentally there is one size that fits all - it's XXXL.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha-acid Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 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. Wrong. The only high quality premium product the water companies are concerned about is their profit margin. At one time everybody in the country, rich and poor, had a share interest in the delivery of potable water. The appalling Thatcher creature took their shares away from the poor and gave them to well-off tory voters. The result is no national interest hence no national distribution system hence drought conditions in various areas of the country. Incidentally there is one size that fits all - it's XXXL.... What a load of rubbish. Water supply has always been local and up till a few years ago there has never been any "serious" talk of a national distribution system. The reason British Isles had plenty of rainfall due to it's Geographical position. But now Global has kicked in and changed the flow of the moist air over the British Isles, leading to the present drought conditions which will get even worse in years to come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 What a load of rubbish. Water supply has always been local and up till a few years ago there has never been any "serious" talk of a national distribution system. The reason British Isles had plenty of rainfall due to it's Geographical position. But now Global has kicked in and changed the flow of the moist air over the British Isles, leading to the present drought conditions which will get even worse in years to come What a load of rubbish. The days when the "local" supply was putting a bucket down a well are long gone. We have more water in the north than you could shake a stick at and droughts in the south. The obvious way to alleviate this is with a national distribution system. Because water supply is no longer a national resource and is now "a business" it will probably never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 Looks like things may be taking a turn for the worst....with political ramifications. Could be interesting. http://www.eutimes.net/2012/04/russia-stunned-after-japanese-plan-to-evacuate-40-million-revealed/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 http://www.eutimes.net/2012/04/russia-stunned-after-japanese-plan-to-evacuate-40-million-revealed/ Joke link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 http://www.eutimes.net/2012/04/russia-stunned-after-japanese-plan-to-evacuate-40-million-revealed/ Joke link. I'm on the move so haven't studied the link in detail. However I did just see a reference to PrisonPlanet which is a known CIA disinformation site so I'll reserve judgement on the link for now. That'll teach me for posting whilst out and about. Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 http://www.eutimes.net/2012/04/russia-stunned-after-japanese-plan-to-evacuate-40-million-revealed/ Joke link. I'm on the move so haven't studied the link in detail. However I did just see a reference to PrisonPlanet which is a known CIA disinformation site so I'll reserve judgement on the link for now. That'll teach me for posting whilst out and about. Oops. ''.... A known CIA disinformation site....'' LoL!!! If it's ''known'' why do they bother if they've been rumbled by you? You reallly should get out and about more, maybe one day you''ll see sense.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.