Skip to main content

View Diary: Who wants fluoride in their beer? (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can you provide a PubMed link to research? (3+ / 0-)

    Your response is needlessly hostile. Just like you, I am interested in all parts of the body, and in the health of my kids and myself.

    Are you going to help me educate myself, or are you trying to beat me into submission?

    I am a scientist, btw.

    Your "research" link is to an advocacy group. And unlike say Sierra Club or UCS, I've never heard of them, have no idea about their quality, agenda or track record.

    The tone and visuals of the website do not instil confidence in the above, either.

    I tried to search in the website's "database", and only got hype and filtered links-to-links-to-links - but no scientific article that I can read on my own start to finish (I'm pretty proficient at that, thank you very much) without someone pre-editing it and screaming bloody murder in my eyes before allowing me to see the heavily edited portions they chose for me.

    This is why I liked the PubMed link in that other comment. It is simple, direct, unbiased and refers to a neutral and reputable research database (one directly maintained by our tax dollars, in fact).

    Can you provide a link like that?

    Thank you.

    •  Assaf -- if you haven't looked into it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Assaf

      nearly all the online information on fluoride is from advocacy groups who exist due to their hostility to fluoride. They mislead a lot of people and love to prop up those few apparently credible scientists who oppose fluoridation.

      In the tobacco and global warming fields, such groups are routinely identified and rightfully ignored -- and the so-called experts that testify against scientific consensus and deny tobacco causes cancer or that CO2 is unrelated to global warming are ridiculed and rejected.

      When it comes to fluoridation, however, the tables are turned. Suddenly, the exceptions to wide-spread public health acceptance of fluoridation are the ALEC-like conspiracy freaks and the few outliers are truth-talkers.

      It's almost surreal.  

      I've worked with fluoride in water since the early 1980s. When the Internet became available, I started using it for research and learning. With nearly every scientific topic, it's useful and relatively easy to find primary sources that are authoritative and reliable.

      Not so with fluoride.  Probably 80 percent or more of the links provided by searches for fluoride-related topics, on the first dozen or so pages of Google returns, are from anti-fluoridation advocacy groups.  It's difficult and exasperating for even knowledgeable scientists to wade through. I'm not surprised so many are misled.  In my view, there is a conspiracy surrounding fluoridation in water, but the conspiracy is on the "anti" side, not the "pro" side. One sees the same arguments, the same distortions, the same outright lies against community water fluoridation on dozens and dozens of websites.  Coincidence?  Not likely.

      I drink Portland's water. Have for decades. But I don't live in Portland city limits so I don't get a vote on this matter (my community's water is supplied by the Portland Water Bureau).  I've watched this situation unfold and it's been sad to see the same old lies be used by the anti-fluoridation hacks.  What's been amazing is to see the Birchers' lies from the 1960s be picked up and adopted by the left in Portland.

      It's sad. And I have little doubt Portland's water will continue to be non-fluoridated (except for low concentrations of fluoride that are naturally occurring in the Columbia South Shore well field).

    •  Pub med is just abstracts (0+ / 0-)

      Useless as far as finding out the methodology and other parameters of a study. Full text or it is just an opinion.

      And I know you don't want me to go to my usually freely accessible medical sources since they are from Europe and the science there has not been infected with corporate money too.

      •  You can often reach the full articles (0+ / 0-)

        via a simple Google search after getting the title.

        There is no such thing as "European" vs. "American" science nowadays. It is pretty much a globalized community, give or take regional nuances. And the funding mechanisms are similar to the American ones too (i.e., mostly central government, for better or worse).

        You'd be hard-pressed to find major scientific questions, on which the scientific consensus in Europe and North America (or at any other continent, for that matter) is different nowadays.

        Oh, and no: a highly-cited peer reviewed broad study published in a leading medical journal is not "just an opinion." Even if you get to read only the abstract.

        Saying that is traveling down the path of the anti-science crowd. What would you say to a Creationist or global-warming denier who would call that science "just an opinion"?

        I think the fluoridation debate would be much more useful if it wasn't overrun with conspiracy-theory rhetoric and advocacy. Unfortunately your diary endorses some of that rhetoric. Definitely not up to par per your usual diary quality ;(

        Agree to disagree?

        •  Except US science is hidden behind pay walls (0+ / 0-)

          Free science or it didn't happen AFAIC.

          •  Nature, Elsevier, Springer all European publishers (0+ / 0-)

            and all a huge part of the paywall problem. Oxford University Press, too.

            Just like science itself, the issue of journal paywalls is global.

            In fact, one of the best tools to counter this ugly publisher rent-seeking is American!

            arxiv.org was conceived, and is hosted by, Cornell University. It has become the standard venue for publishing in many important fields, mostly physics. Not only is it open, public and free; it also does away with downsides of the peer-review process (and there are many), while still guaranteeing a certain level of quality. Check it out.

            Really, you are climbing on the wrong tree with this "European vs. American science" thing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site