31–40 of 73 posts
Ugh. I hate to think of all of the "I told you so's" from the misguided people in Portland who continually vote against fluoridating the water with no actual scientific basis for doing so.
I think science articles should be banned from HN. The userbase is clearly not educated well enough to deal with the issues. It only produces comments from armchair scientists conjuring up whatever pet theory they can explain away the results with. Comments like the classic freshman stats quote "correlation does not equal causation", or the standard response starting with "Judging from the abstract", or the always in…
Correlation link only at this point. From the abstract: > Overall state water fluoridation prevalence (not distinguishing between fluoridation types) was also significantly positively correlated with state prevalence of ADHD for all but one year examined. [...] The relationship between fluoride exposure and ADHD warrants future study. Still, it will be interesting to see what more comes out of this.
Ugh. I hate to think of all of the "I told you so's" from the misguided people in Portland who continually vote against fluoridating the water with no actual scientific basis for doing so.
Whoops. I guess I'm uninformed on this one, but I thought the whole "Flouridation is bad" thing had some basis in truth? There have been a few other articles about it on HN. Any chance I can get a more elaborate correction?
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/the-sanest-arguments...
I think science articles should be banned from HN. The userbase is clearly not educated well enough to deal with the issues. It only produces comments from armchair scientists conjuring up whatever pet theory they can explain away the results with. Comments like the classic freshman stats quote "correlation does not equal causation", or the standard response starting with "Judging from the abstract", or the always in…
I think science articles should be banned from HN. The userbase is clearly not educated well enough to deal with the issues. It only produces comments from armchair scientists conjuring up whatever pet theory they can explain away the results with. Comments like the classic freshman stats quote "correlation does not equal causation", or the standard response starting with "Judging from the abstract", or the always in…
I think you're unfair there. If you want to see a diversity of opinions, that's exactly what we have--the fact that you disagree with one side or the other is quite your own problem.
Hearsay/conspiracy theory... but I heard that fluoride doesn't help your teeth and that a general increase in hygiene occurred the same time that fluoride. I also heard that it is a byproduct of processing aluminium and they coaxed the government to put it into water rather than disposing of it responsibly.
Pure bullshit. Fluoride (F-) is a weak base. Dental plaque produces acid (H+) which is one cause of tooth decay. F- + H+ HF. The Fluoride neutralizes some of the acid to reduce tooth decay.
Ugh. I hate to think of all of the "I told you so's" from the misguided people in Portland who continually vote against fluoridating the water with no actual scientific basis for doing so.
So you're saying that science says we should treat all drugs as being safe unless proven to be harmful?
The "truthiness" factor of anything published in Newsweek lies somewhere between Mother Goose and the Brothers Grimm.