- Messages
- 1,701
Unless they have a mild stutter...But I don't think anyone is going to say we we have studies from two pack a day smokers that show a marked increase in cancer
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unless they have a mild stutter...But I don't think anyone is going to say we we have studies from two pack a day smokers that show a marked increase in cancer
Well there's not consensus within the NIH based on the most recent report.CDC
US Public Health Service
Department of Health and Human Services (which includes the NIH)
EPA
Literally all relevant federal scientific bodies maintain a recommended standard of at least 0.7mg/L. That is the current consensus.
There's enough consensus at the NIH that 0.7mg/L is still the HHS's official position.Well there's not consensus within the NIH based on the most recent report.
And the EPA currently says that levels below 4 mg per liter are safe when these studies show that it's not. The EPA is currently reconsidering their recommendations because of court order. They haven't appealed which seems to me that there's not exactly consensus within the EPA.
Look I realize it's not a thought report for a Fortune 100 company but an NIH report is actually pretty credible here.There's enough consensus at the NIH that 0.7mg/L is still the HHS's official position.
Go get the research and we can have this conversation again then. You don't have the research now. You just don't. That NIH report ain't it. And saying things like 1.5mg/L is "not much higher" than 0.7mg/L in this context is not helping your argument. Wait until actual relevant research is available and peer reviewed before you start recommending changes to public health policy.
It's not as fun when they like it, as yellowjacket evidently does...what a beat down. this has been fun in a sadistic way.
Well, when the goal is to be an irritant….It's not as fun when they like it, as yellowjacket evidently does...
This post is logically indistinguishable from RFK's anti-measles vaccine advocacy in Samoa, which led directly to the deaths of 83 people, most of whom were young children.Show me a scientific consensus that fluoridating water is safe. Its not there because the studies are still being done. The question is if we should keep doing it when there is a fair chance that its dangerous or we should stop until the studies are completed.
The goal is to educate and argue a policy position. I know some people get irritated when they are confronted with new ideas that conflict with their worldview but that's not my intent.Well, when the goal is to be an irritant….
I don't think we have too many NIH reports talking about the dangers of the measles vaccine but perhaps you can provide a link.This post is logically indistinguishable from RFK's anti-measles vaccine advocacy in Samoa, which led directly to the deaths of 83 people, most of whom were young children.
There's a scientific consensus that measles vaccines are safe. There's also a scientific consensus that fluoridation at the approved levels does not impact IQ. This is not hard. One outlier study does not disturb the scientific consensus any more than Jim Inhofe's snowball disturbs the consensus on climate change.I don't think we have too many NIH reports talking about the dangers of the measles vaccine but perhaps you can provide a link.
Is there really scientific consensus that fluoride at the approved level does not impact IQ? I know people on this thread have blithely asserted it but there appears to be a fair amount of questions within the scientific community. At this point its 50 outliers.There's a scientific consensus that measles vaccines are safe. There's also a scientific consensus that flouridation at the approved levels does not impact IQ. This is not hard. One outlier study does not disturb the scientific consensus any more than Jim Inhofe's snowball disturbs the consensus on climate change.
Sure. And 3% of global climate scientists dispute climate change. That has zero impact on the consensus.Is there really scientific consensus that fluoride at the approved level does not impact IQ? I know people on this thread have blithely asserted it but there appears to be a fair amount of questions within the scientific community. At this point its 50 outliers.
The goal is to educate and argue a policy position.
Maybe bigger font will help?Look I realize it's not a thought report for a Fortune 100 company but an NIH report is actually pretty credible here.
The links are on this thread and within the reports if you care to look at them. If you just don't believe the science, I don't think me finding those reports, again, is really going to do much for you.
Sure. And 3% of global climate scientists dispute climate change. That has zero impact on the consensus.
I can see it fine at the regular font but thank you. "Not enough data to determine...". Sounds to me like we don't know if .7 mg/L is safe or not. We do know with moderate confidence that 1.5mg/L is unsafe.Maybe bigger font will help?
"There were not enough data to determine if 0.7 mg/L of fluoride exposure in drinking water affected children's IQ," Christine Flowers, director of the Office of Communication at the National Institutes of Health, wrote in an email.
Since right now the data shows no risks and real benefits, why are you still beating this drum?I can see it fine at the regular font but thank you. "Not enough data to determine...". Sounds to me like we don't know if .7 mg/L is safe or not. We do know with moderate confidence that 1.5mg/L is unsafe.
Now that there is a legitimate question of safety, perhaps we should stop putting fluoride in the water until we know for sure if its safe. Or at least have the discussion of the trade-offs without dismissing the science.
Why are you asking me? I'm not the one arguing against the scientific consensus. You look it up.There feels like a little less consensus on fluoride. What percentage of scientists agree that fluoride is safe at its current level?
Because the data shows risks at higher levels, and there is no study of the risks at lower levels.Since right now the data shows no risks and real benefits, why are you still beating this drum?
What I'm saying is there doesn't seem to be a scientific consensus.Why are you asking me? I'm not the one arguing against the scientific consensus. You look it up.