Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Slava]

Along with other provinces. It’s not as though Alberta is the only province with resources and none of them are keen to give the control and revenue away.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

Along with other provinces. It’s not as though Alberta is the only province with resources and none of them are keen to give the control and revenue away.

For sure. It's just that Alberta would be the most affected, and also the most angry about it.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah, I read those links and that’s all fine. But again, Kenney can win this referendum and literally nothing changes. It’s not like other governments are coming to run to the negotiating table for a guy with a 22% approval rating to get some leverage and change the constitution.

Kenney wins the referendum and nothing changes or Kenney loses the referendum and nothing changes.

I'd rather Kenney lose.

If he wins, it will be just another point to win about in his press conferences.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The first article suggests this is a risk of attempting to remove equalization: "The deal allowed provinces with natural resource endowments to keep those revenues and use them to run their own affairs." That the Feds might take natural resources revenues.

I dont think that's likely, because I'm pretty confident that if they did so Alberta would separate. It would just be too egregious a change to the deal of Federation.

While that particular scenario might be unlikely, the main point of the article is that equalization is just one part of the overall constitutional bargain. If you want to get you need to give.

[Lubicon]

Crap, didn’t read the voters card closely enough and assumed advance polls would be open today. It will be dicey whether I can make it to vote on Monday.��

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Crap, didn’t read the voters card closely enough and assumed advance polls would be open today. It will be dicey whether I can make it to vote on Monday.��

Order a mail in ballot. They courier it, so it should be here in a day or 2. Then drop it at a drop box, instead of mailing it in, to be really sure. Beats not voting. Unless you were voting for Farkas, in which case ignore this tip. Voting is for nerds.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Order a mail in ballot. They courier it, so it should be here in a day or 2. Then drop it at a drop box, instead of mailing it in, to be really sure. Beats not voting. Unless you were voting for Farkas, in which case ignore this tip. Voting is for nerds.

Done, thanks Fuzz. Also thought it would have been too late to do that.
One more vote for someone not named Farkas.

[CroFlames]

I think Gondek is shutting out the field in the unofficial CP poll, except the one guy voting Kevin J Johnston.

[Swift]

Received a pamphlet from the conservative "Time for Change" candidate Dan McLean in Ward 13 the other day. Are conservative voters easily scared? At least that's what the conservative strategists seem to think.

The section on why not to vote for Colley-Urquhart pictures her beside Nenshi. Not even a picture of them together. Just two pictures of them side by side (without even mentioning Nenshi). I mean I guess they were on the same council, but they're hardly of the same ilk. I suppose if you hate Nenshi, then apparently just the equating of them because they worked together should be enough to scare you off voting for her.

Unsworth meanwhile has "pro-union" and "academic" listed among his cons. LOL, "academic" is a scare word? By using that strategy, aren't you sending a particular message - "Hey, don't vote for that educated guy. Vote for me, the less smart guy". Unsworth is pictured with Gondek, this time actually together in the photo.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Swift

Unsworth meanwhile has "pro-union" and "academic" listed among his cons. LOL, "academic" is a scare word? By using that strategy, aren't you sending a particular message - "Hey, don't vote for that educated guy. Vote for me, the less smart guy". Unsworth is pictured with Gondek, this time actually together in the photo.

The anti-intellectualism movement continues on. Why would we be demonzing someone who put time and effort into earning an undergraduate degree from MRU and an MBA from Royal Roads? This is a 'con'?

The only ones getting conned are people who actually believe these things as 'cons'.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The anti-intellectualism movement continues on. Why would we be demonzing someone who put time and effort into earning an undergraduate degree from MRU and an MBA from Royal Roads? This is a 'con'?

The only ones getting conned are people who actually believe these things as 'cons'.

It is crazy times. People will believe a rando on FB instead of an expert in a specific field.

I saw a hilarious meme that was something along the lines of you can't even help your kid with their grade six math homework, but you become an expert virologist overnight. OK.

[TapeToTape]

The fluoridation report for the City of Calgary. It is well worth reading. My stance is no on fluoridation, but it is an objective report.

For me the sections on cognitive effects are more important than dental cavities, with some studies linking fluoride levels to lower IQs.

"New evidence has emerged on potential cognitive effects of fluoride, arising from fluoride ingestion by pregnant women +/- fluoride intake from water consumed by infants. Recent National Institutes of Health funding decisions in the U.S., and corresponding new research funding decisions in Australia highlight that funding agencies and leading researchers in these two peer countries acknowledge the need to actively study/invest in understanding any potential cognitive effects."

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by TapeToTape

The fluoridation report for the City of Calgary. It is well worth reading. My stance is no on fluoridation, but it is an objective report.

For me the sections on cognitive effects are more important than dental cavities, with some studies linking fluoride levels to lower IQs.

"New evidence has emerged on potential cognitive effects of fluoride, arising from fluoride ingestion by pregnant women +/- fluoride intake from water consumed by infants. Recent National Institutes of Health funding decisions in the U.S., and corresponding new research funding decisions in Australia highlight that funding agencies and leading researchers in these two peer countries acknowledge the need to actively study/invest in understanding any potential cognitive effects."

Extremely curious that your quoted section is one of the few in the report without any citations.

[Ashartus]

Back when fluoridation was removed from Calgary water I dug into some of the studies on cognitive effects from fluoride. For a lot of those studies the "low dose control" group had higher concentrations of fluoride in their water than what was being added to Calgary water. I haven't kept up on the latest studies though. Certainly worth continuing to study and if necessary adjust levels (current fluoridation levels in Canada are lower than they used to be), but it is quite common for substances like fluoride to be beneficial at lower concentrations and have negative effects at higher concentrations. The goal is to optimize the concentration.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Extremely curious that your quoted section is one of the few in the report without any citations.

It’s all well linked if you read the section on cognition

Page 19 of report

https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/x...=2&isAllowed=y

The above link is to the Canadian research on the subject.

I think one flaw is that they didn’t take parental IQ and compare it to child IQ and didn’t consider Spousal education. They did adjust for all the other usual confounding variables that ruin studies like income of the parents.

It also address ashartus’ concerns around concentration being in the normal Canadian ranges.

Another question I have is if you ignored the long tails of the graph and just did the IQ comparison on the cluster of results do they still hold.

[GGG]

Links to some criticism of the study

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...q-in-children/

http://americanfluoridationsociety.o...udy-2019-1.pdf

And the authors response to some of the criticism of the study

https://www.nature.com/articles/s413...?proof=tNature

And a follow up using the Canadian and Mexican studies to establish a safe fluoride level

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....31.20221374v1

[#-3]

This all seems like a perfect case study on why politicians need to grow some balls, and not buck their responsibilities off on the electorate.

I generally consider myself pretty well informed about a lot of things, but I don't actually have any real knowledge to contribute beyond trusting a few specific experts that I would consider my primary thought leaders. I know of very few people I actually trust who are against it, I understand that it is naturally occurring in most water sources at like 3x the levels we are talking about. But beyond that, I feel elected officials should be appointed a qualified individual to listed to experts and make this choice for us

All of that said, I'm unconvinced by the no side, fairly trusting of the yes side, and voted yes.

[calf]

I had fluoridated water for most of my life growing up in Calgary and suffered no cognitive effects or brain damage. I also didn't get any brain damage.


I did get more cavities when they took it out. Time to out it back in.

[malcolmk14]

My dad at thanksgiving hilariously said to my sister and I, “you grew up with pretty good teeth, why do they need to put fluoride in the water?” Yeah, dad, we grew up with good teeth because there was fluoride in the water until we were in our mid 20’s!

[Torture]

Originally Posted by calf

I had fluoridated water for most of my life growing up in Calgary and suffered no cognitive effects or brain damage. I also didn't get any brain damage.

Are you sure about that?