71–80 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any links?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation... TLDR: most of Europe
>“The consumer has turned the definition [of healthy] upside down,” she says. “If it is non-GMO, natural, or organic, but high in sodium and high in sugar and fat, it’s okay.” True and important to note when you're grocery shopping. Organic, natural, non-GMO do not mean that thing you're holding in your hand is actually good for you.
I wish someone would start a no-added-sugar movement. I have a sweet tooth, but the amount of sugar added to even fruit products disgusts me. Dried mango without sugar costs 2x. Raisin bran does not need more sugar. That's the point of the raisins! I like creamer in my coffee, but I cut it with milk.
Other words like "natural" and "organic" have suffered a similar bastardization fate where these words mean nothing anymore (look at this Gatorade bottle for example: "Naturally flavored with other natural flavors". http://cdn-jpg.thedailymeal.net/sites/default/files/u58340/o... What??)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love that this is the state of public discourse even on hacker news. Just accuse something of being like anti-vax and the down votes follow. No critical thought required.
Actually, people aren't listening to your anti-fluoride woo because they're well aware of the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The peer reviewed studies were not created by that website. That page just lists the links to studies that were published in peer reviewed journals. I'm not sure how any of this relates to vaccines, since we are talking about fluoride. But anytime you want to know if something is true or not, the only way I know of is to dig deeper for more information.
Does the site list ALL studies regarding fluoride in water, or just hand select the ones that come to the 'right' conclusions?
One thing to keep in mind while digging in, we know there is a financial incentive behind pro-fluoridation studies (it is expensive for business to dispose of it). As far as I know, there isn't much financial incentive in being against fluoridation, save for some boutique toothpaste brands that would probably lack the resources to conduct peer reviewed studies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comments seem to do more than "question". You appear to be actively against it. Therefore, "anti-fluoride" seems fitting.
Ah, I see. I shall call you "Big Fluoride" then, if that's the game we're playing.
If you must dispute water fluoridation on Hacker News, do so by making careful, factual, respectful comments.
The site guidelines specifically ask you not to call names. That includes both calling each other names as well as calling each others' arguments names (e.g. "woo").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation... TLDR: most of Europe
You said they stopped it because there was no benefit. Do you have a source for that claim? Wikipedia (not a source) doesn't give reasons for the discontinuation of flouride.
>“The consumer has turned the definition [of healthy] upside down,” she says. “If it is non-GMO, natural, or organic, but high in sodium and high in sugar and fat, it’s okay.” True and important to note when you're grocery shopping. Organic, natural, non-GMO do not mean that thing you're holding in your hand is actually good for you.
When I moved here ~12 years ago one of the things that surprised me the most was how comfortable companies were at flat out deceptive marketing. The lesson I learned very quickly was to assume any claim made on any package by any company was unsubstantiated and usually a lie. What I took away from this is that as a consumer you have to be very engaged in evaluating your food choices. Unfortunately most people aren't,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm... "the field itself relies mainly on mathematical models, not sociological categories" - I'll have to disagree. Especially with behavioural economics. I also disagree that free markets are the same thing as capitalism, as does Benjamin Tucker.
>I also disagree that free markets are the same thing as capitalism, as does Benjamin Tucker. Please never phrase your opinion like this ever again. Whatever interest I had in knowing what Benjamin Tucker said about this issue, I've lost due to your smugly phrased sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I also disagree that free markets are the same thing as capitalism, as does Benjamin Tucker. Please never phrase your opinion like this ever again. Whatever interest I had in knowing what Benjamin Tucker said about this issue, I've lost due to your smugly phrased sentence.
I guess you are not open to more information about economics then. You may be surprised on how smug and condescending your own comments appear :)
Even though I claim to speak with authority because of my PhD, I don't consider that condescending or smug, and a person is free to judge that my education is worthless if they like. But throwing out names of very obscure people in place of an actual argument is objectively smug and rude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you are not open to more information about economics then. You may be surprised on how smug and condescending your own comments appear :)
I would be more than happy to hear more information, if only you would provide some. I have no idea who Benjamin Tucker was and how he is relevant. Even though I claim to speak with authority because of my PhD, I don't consider that condescending or smug, and a person is free to judge that my education is worthless if they like. But throwing out names of very obscure people in place of an actual argument is objective…
