Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
You are right in saying there are tons of scientists on both sides of the debate.
|
That's not what I said, and you're missing the point. Again.
A few scientists doesn't equal tons of scientists. And scientists publishing to a "journal" with an ideological axe to grind don't get their opinions counted, because they aren't actually doing science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
So if there isn't a consensus, why are we adding this stuff to the water? Seems irresponsible....
|
A consensus is overturned with good sciene, not simply because some some scientists disagree for some reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
Well, obviously these people without sufficient training, knowledge etc. are making an impact
|
That's an issue with people and governance, not the science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
, because many government/health institutions, including the EPA, have come out and recommended lowering fluoride concentrations in drinking water.
|
You'll just pick whatever argument is convenient won't you?
There's a large difference between finding the right level of something and "OMG!! It's TOXIC WASTE!"
And there's a large difference between "let's reevaluate the acceptable levels based on new science" which is reasonable and "I found a point that supports my bias, I'll use that" which is what you're doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
This to me shows alot of this work has atleast some merit. I think in time water fluoridation will be a giant embarrassment for the government.
|
Of course that's what you think, because your reasoning is backwards. It's why you fall victim to so many conspiracy theories.