Clearly, Seth, they haven't blogged about the arsenic test yet because they don't have as much free time as you do to type up verbose essays or cite flawed studies.
I mean, the Harvard study? The one predominantly conducted in China where fluoridated drinking water ISN'T ubiquitous? The one that mentions a "possibility" of an effect -- but did not actually conclude that there is an effect?
Must really chap your ass that those "misinformed journalists" are smarter than you are...
Oh! Silly me.
The Mercury probably hasn't blogged about the arsenic tests because the Oregonian is already tearing CWP's work down. Perhaps you should run over there and dazzle them with your insight and wit?
I can see your point from a "I don't anything added to my water" perspective -- but I'd recommend not using the slippery slope "what's the next thing to go into the tap" argument right after that.
That type of logical fallacy has been thrown around a lot in the gay marriage debate. I'd hate to hear "if we put fluoride in the water, that will lead to a man-on-dog weddings".
Not trying to be a dick -- like I said, I think you've got ground to stand on with the first part. I also appreciate you sharing the link. Just avoid the fallacy part. That'll make your argument stronger :)
"I'm not sure if that is a fact or not."
... love that line. Love it. Scientific illiteracy and the inability to fact-check in the era of Google.
I've heard that if say "Bloody mary" into a mirror three times, the moon landing was an inside job by false flag chemtrails to assassinate Kurt Cobain.
I'm not sure if that is a fact or not. But if it is that's messed up.
Portland's kids have a lower incidence of tooth decay than the statewide average? That's great! It sounds like Portland parents might be more fastidious about oral hygiene and what their kids consume than their statewide counterparts.
Think about how much those numbers will improve with fluoridated water!
Hmmm... TinFoil Hat Bukkake is underway.
Kinda seems like the scientific consensus is on the side of fluoridation -- which, as another commenter pointed out, has been prevalent in other cities for decades. You'd think there would be killing fields full of mangled, sparkly white-toothed corpses if this was such a threat.
Clearly this is a conspiracy on the part of Big Dental -- if they can make our teeth stronger, we won't have to visit the dentist as often and they won't make... as much... oh... Huh. That fell apart quickly.
"That's a strawman!"
Yes, it was. Good eye! You spotted the logical fallacy. It was funnier that way. Comedy is very useful as means of underscoring the already absurdity. See also: Dr Strangelove and our precious bodily fluids.
But you're right, dead horse floggers. We should all endeavor to treat this carnival with the sobriety our self-appointed guardians demand. Gimme another one.
"Fluoride is poison!"
EVERYTHING can be bad for you if taken in the wrong quantity... including water itself. I remind myself of this every time I drink from a fire hose.
The dosage makes the poison. I swim in chlorinated pool water. It doesn't bleach my skin. Why? Dosage. I've also been exposed to chlorine gas before and nearly choked. Why? Dosage. Hell, you can even overdose on vitamins. Believe it or not, we can quantify how much of something is dangerous.
"Everything natural is good and shouldn't be tampered with!"
I'll keep that in mind as type this with the help of my eyeglasses.
"A small group is deciding for the rest of us!"
Really? Because I'm pretty sure that's precisely what Clean Water Portland did.
This notion also underscores the importance of electing the representatives you want because we hired a small group to decide things for the rest of us. Much as I wish otherwise, I don't have time to sign off on new street lamps and zoning ordinances.
"I am butthurt because you're making fun of a serious topic!"
I'm sure Jay Leno gets the same Halmark cards after each dreadful topical monologue he delivers. Keep sending those tasteful missives!
First of all, this article asks the wrong question. It starts off on a faulty premise -- by assuming that supernatural phenomena exists and is the work of spirits, energy, aliens etc, you're already talking the wrong path to meaningful inquiry.
"Why Is Portland a Hotbed for Unexplained Phenomena?".
How about "Why do so many people in Portland believe in the paranormal?".
I'd wager for the same reasons so many people here believe in homeopathy, horoscopes and fluoride as a conspiracy. I've been on ghost hunts. I've chased UFOs. There's a lot more psychology, sociology and flat-out misinterpretation that takes place under heightened circumstances. It's not ignorance by any stretch, but it does go hand in hand with a poor understanding of the scientific method. And to be clear -- waving an EMF meter around a graveyard does not automatically qualify as scientific. Been there, done that.
When you start at your conclusion and work backwards, the tendency is to cherry-pick data to support your conclusions and see patterns that aren't really there. That method of investigation is as sloppy as this piece of journalism.
As for collecting evidence: we live in an age where virtually everyone is armed with a camera phone. If there were so many convincing cases of hauntings, alien encounters, hell, BIGFOOT... we'd have some decent photos or video by now. Thus far, nothing has passed scientific scrutiny.
As the maxim goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At such time that something convincing is submitted, tested and tested again, the scientific outlook will adapt.
Just because something is "unexplained" doesn't mean automatically make it "supernatural" in nature. That's a big jump, and one that has yet to be proven.
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |