LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThe same as the number of people who even mentioned the process?Originally Posted by SeriousSam
The same as the number of people who even mentioned the process?
erm, well i study in Glasgow Uni and we have some of the smartest guys/girls in here to do with anything dental and are well regarded as one of the most advanced dental people in the world.
i personally have not heard anything that petercook is on about, and to say that it will be ready in 5 years in laughable.
i do believe that one day, something like that will occur, just like how one day we will be able to live on the moon, but i don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
Dentist, and general teeth lover.
Nanobots could do it.
I think you mean me? Really? Such an unpleasant comment? Again? About me?
Of course you're a pillar of shining intellect and reason with such a charming way of saying things.
This is a point I was trying to make. Well put.
Might I suggest it was a poor choice of words considering the context, more so as the scientific process is hardly egalitarian. Authority figures play a large role, rightly or wrongly, in how theories progress.
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
Thesis development, yes. Accuracy of theory, no. If I'm an authority figure in geology, and I insist that the Earth is flat, is the Earth flat by virtue of me being an authority figure? Or am I just wrong?
It's not enough to have an 'expert' talk about something, they must be capable of demonstrating it, and earning the acceptance of their peers.
They can choose to stay in the UK where water is fluoridated not without reason, or they can go somewhere else where the water isn't fluoridated in that case (I'm trying not to sound like a BNP member here btw).
Seriously though, I can't believe this is even being debated, why trust anything anyone says if you're going to say that we've been wrongly fluoridating water for 50 years (or however long it is).
There's a reason we don't brush our teeth 8 times a day or eat toothpaste btw...
It's being debated because forced medication is unethical, and fluoride ingestion is toxic to mammals.
It's not forced though is it...
It is, if it's being dumped into the water supply.
You pay for the water supplied to you, so stop paying and get bottled water (which probably has more fluorine in it btw) or move somewhere else or collect rain, whatever.
On the other hand seeing as almost all of the sensible people agree with all the experts who are clearly right then you're in the minority so pretty much everyone would have to pay more in order to implement some sort of system where water supply is selectively fluoridated.
That's a dreadful argument. That's like introducing a law requiring all food sold to have fluoride mixed in, and saying it isn't forced on you because you can go catch your own rats for dinner (who're probably contaminated with the stuff anyway because it's in the food chain). Be serious.
Well it's logistically stupid to remove the fluoride from water, it's there naturally. Also all of this still goes against the fact that fluoride in the water supply is not dangerous.
We're not talking about natural trace levels of calcium fluoride. We're talking about sodium fluoride additives and pollutants.
You might want to read back further in the thread. It's well known that water fluoridation is not safe. As I already pointed out (and recently, directly to you), fluoride ingestion is toxic. Ignoring this is wilfully ignoring known medical data.
And whether it's toxic or totally safe is beside the point. Forced medication is wrong. And the only thing scarier than it going on, is sheep not even thinking about it, and bleating "government knows best!" when anyone opens their mouth about it.
The difference between calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride is nothing once in solution unless the sodium has a negative effect which seems unlikely.(can't tell if you were suggesting that, apologies if you weren't).
Natural levels are anywhere between 0.4mg/l and 1.5mg/l and fluoridation in water is supposed to be under 1mg/l. Also I'm afraid that on the subject of terrible arguments you can't just say "It's a fact, it is right" and then ignore the fact that a huge majority of people in the know (and don't play the "the experts are wrong" conspiracy theory game) think it's totally acceptable, worthwhile and effective.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote