131–140 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the government pay for it? The companies that produced these PFAS and let it pollute our country should be taxed heavily to pay for it.
I strongly suspect that those companies’ net worth isn’t enough to pay for the cleanup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flouride doesn't need conspiracy theories to be considered dangerous. That debate is definitely going on and has no consensus as evidenced by the fact that some cities are still removing flouride from their water and some are adding it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195894/
There is no evidence that fluoride is remotely dangerous in reasonable quantities, only in ridiculous quantities that are impossible to reach under normal circumstances.
This is the internet and you could be a Phd whose researched flouride your entire life but the internet, and some very respectable sources at that, just straight up disagree with you.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34597567/#:~:text=Excess%20a....
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's mostly replaced things like pipe dope for threaded joints for air and water lines.
Yeah, sorry that was a statement guessing the cause, not a query
I advised people I know not to buy non stick pans for a very long time. It's not an easy task though
How many years of your life would you give up to save you the trouble of cleaning sticky pans every day? Asking seriously. I don't know how many I'd give, but it's definitely greater than 0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no evidence that fluoride is remotely dangerous in reasonable quantities, only in ridiculous quantities that are impossible to reach under normal circumstances.
> There is no evidence that fluoride is remotely dangerous in reasonable quantities, only in ridiculous quantities that are impossible to reach under normal circumstances. This is the internet and you could be a Phd whose researched flouride your entire life but the internet, and some very respectable sources at that, just straight up disagree with you. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34597567/#:~:text=Excess%20a...…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to understand dose-dependency on the relationship between fluoride and IQ. Why do we have to put fluoride in the drinking water to "protect kids' teeth"? Wouldn't it be better to simply provide toothpaste and toothbrushes for free to school-age children?
Because putting fluoride in water leads to demonstrably better outcomes than just expecting parents to get kids to brush their teeth. Fluoride has no empirical impact on anything other than positive health outcomes. It would be dumb not to use it. If you are worried about what's in your water a reverse osmosis system will remove things much more harmful than fluoride and you can get rid of your horrible fluoride whil…
I don't understand your holier-than-thou tone about fluoride. Sadly, the fluoride stuff is still up for discussion. Why is it a "taboo" to discuss this? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-020-0973-8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no evidence that fluoride is remotely dangerous in reasonable quantities, only in ridiculous quantities that are impossible to reach under normal circumstances. This is the internet and you could be a Phd whose researched flouride your entire life but the internet, and some very respectable sources at that, just straight up disagree with you. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34597567/#:~:text=Excess%20a...…
At least those three particular papers do not appear to.
> In November 2019, the National Toxicology Program released a draft report on fluoride concluding that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard.
I advised people I know not to buy non stick pans for a very long time. It's not an easy task though
How many years of your life would you give up to save you the trouble of cleaning sticky pans every day? Asking seriously. I don't know how many I'd give, but it's definitely greater than 0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't what the article says. It isn't even evaluation of other people's research, let alone novel research in itself. It's a "perspective" article commenting on human behavior. Meanwhile researchers who have conducted proper meta-analyses of the literature have come to a negative conclusion on this topic: In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not…
There have been a lot of studies done, dose-response studies too. It gets ignored in the US because of left-right polarization. Here are a few below. Believe what you want I guess but this is basically overwhelming evidence to me. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-children... https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/08/20/fluoride-an... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18695947/ https://pubmed.ncbi…
That said, let's note please that these are all associational, rather than cause-and-effect findings. The matter should definitely be explored further - but in my book I would need significant evidence of a causative relationship to check the "overwhelming evidence" box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that we can't eat fish normally is something that all Americans should be mad as hell about. CEOs of chemical plants and their families should be forced to live within 1 mile of one of their plants. Things would get cleaned up right away. I have a friend who loved sushi and she ate it at least once a week, if not more. Her daughter was born in the bottom 1% of size, so they took a blood test and her blood wa…
They would probably just have reverse osmosis filters installed for their entire house.
Even in cities with good water, it makes sense to filter heavily and remineralize at home. This ended up helping me in myriads of ways due to natural disasters causing boil orders, finding out about chemical spills in the area that affected water supplies, etc. No worries at my home, thanks to significant filtration.