Comments for Collide-a-Scape

Comment on Is Portland Anti-Science? by Krissalee85

Krissalee85 — Sat, 25 May 2013 18:57:00 +0000

Exactly! If people arguing for fluoride here actually had a scientific mindset, they would find numerous studies showing that there is in fact a difference in natural and unnatural fluoride and the benefits of hydrofluorosilicic acid are null, while the disadvantages of it are significant. All people have to do is google hydrofluorosilicic acid. It is much easier to simply trust what the ADA and CDC tell us though.

Comment on Is Portland Anti-Science? by Krissalee85

Krissalee85 — Sat, 25 May 2013 18:49:00 +0000

What do you make of this study? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901113000087

Comment on Is Portland Anti-Science? by jh

jh — Sat, 25 May 2013 18:38:00 +0000

Krissalee –

You don’t need to state it any other way.

Where a compound comes from is irrelevant. Sodium chloride is sodium chloride whether its from the sea, industrial waste, or interstellar space. If you can make a case that there are toxic impurities remaining from some industrial process, then, yes, you potentially have a legit health concern. But “natural” sodium fluoride (mined from where and processed how?) can also have toxic impurities.

I’m sure most of the vitamins added to breakfast cereal aren’t “natural” either. It doesn’t matter.

Comment on Is Portland Anti-Science? by jh

jh — Sat, 25 May 2013 03:42:00 +0000

True, a “dose” is an absolute amount so “dosage” depends on how much you consume. But health effects of chemicals are calibrated by concentration and EPA water standards are set by concentration:

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm

Comment on Is Portland Anti-Science? by kdk33

kdk33 — Fri, 24 May 2013 19:27:00 +0000

Liberals drink water in bottles from “pure natural springs with minerals & stuff”. Homeless people can’t afford bottled water. Toothless homeless people are less dangerous than than the biting kind. Portland likes their homeless people harmless.

It all makes sense.

Comment on Is Portland Anti-Science? by kdk33

kdk33 — Fri, 24 May 2013 19:11:00 +0000

Are you serious?

Can you do math?

Comment on Is Portland Anti-Science? by jh

jh — Fri, 24 May 2013 11:58:00 +0000

Oh, man. I just took my first-ever tour of Grist. What a hoot.

Comment on Is Portland Anti-Science? by jh

jh — Fri, 24 May 2013 11:22:00 +0000

“The fact that many of these folks believe they are mentally superior beings simply because they don’t subscribe to religious faith makes them that much more irritating. ”

Ooo! Don’t leave Seattle out just because they have fluorine in their water!

Comment on The Forces that Narrow the Climate Debate by jh

jh — Fri, 24 May 2013 02:22:00 +0000

kdk33,

Good considerations, but I still think it’s misleading.

ONE: I hadn’t considered that possibility, but here’s why I don’t think it’s right. I think Smith is comparing between burned / not burned. If he is comparing between burned w/ Keystone / burned without Keystone, then the impact of Keystone should be negative since a pipeline is a more HC-efficient form of transport than rail or truck.

TWO: OK, perhaps 40K jobs is precision jargon. But the piece is aimed at a general audience so jargon should be clarified and put into the context of every-day language. Not doing that is misleading. OK, politicians do it all the time. But that doesn’t make it right or useful or honest.

Comment on Is Portland Anti-Science? by Rabah Rahil

Rabah Rahil — Fri, 24 May 2013 00:19:00 +0000

I keep seeing “studies show” what studies? Can I see some empirical evidence to support this claim? If it is such a no brainer, and people are “anti-science” if you believe ingesting fluoride is bad or at the very least has no effect on their dental health, then where are the “scientific” studies that show this?