Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob123
The day I read an epidemiological study that shows toxicity at the levels treated in Calgary's water is the day I will start believing any of these people. They may have credentials. I have a PhD. Does that make me able to refute evidence with no statistical backup?
I read some of your links. They provide little to no epidemiological evidence. Ashartus debunked (in a simple internet forum post) the anti-fluoride arguments.
Anti-fluoride people are very similar to the anti-vaccine types; they will spout anything as their "negative evidence' yet all the published, peer-reviewed literature, show a net public heatlh benefit to fluoridation of water. Where's the statistically-based refutation of the evidence?
The idiots on council who voted for removal are as dumb as you can get. Mayor Nenshi suggested perhaps this should be reviewed by a panel of experts who can objectively review the evidence, rather than a council who rely on internet garbage and crackpots to tell them their opinion. Why didn't the council let this panel present their findings before this decision? What are they so scared of? Perhaps that the epidemiological evidence doesn't provide the boogeyman they want?
Oh, and how about that horse's arse Jim Stevenson on why it shouldn't go to a plebiscite?
As opposed to your 12 kool-aid drinking colleagues deciding it instead? Genius. Jokes this good don't come along often.
And to whoever said it will get the pool smell out of the water - no it won't. That's the chlorination of the water that makes it smell that way. The chlorination which is a similar net public health benefit. Why don't we discuss removing that from the water supply too? It's probably bad for us!
|
So, why doesn't Jim Stevenson resign & say that the results of the election in his ward are invalid because not enough people voted? Talk about twisting around something to suit his point of view.