add flouride to well water
Jan Philips
add flouride to the drinking water?
Bill Seurer
> I'm moving to a house that has a deep well. Is there a good way to
> add flouride to the drinking water?
You can get flouride drops and add them to a jug of water in the fridge.
Just drink from that.
v
Why would you want to. Have the kids brush with a flouridated
toothpaste. That is sufficient. It is not just nut cases that are
against flouridization, many physicians are also. You dose the entire
populace, including people who don't need it, just to "make sure" all
the children get it. Actually, there is such a thing as
over-flouridization, with negative effects.
This is not something I'd recommend at home; you could get a toxic
dose if your equipment got out of calibration.
-v.
Ermalina
Here's the text of the abstract:
: MMWR Recomm Rep 2001 Aug 17;50(RR-14):1-42
Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries
in the United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the decline in the
prevalence and severity of dental caries (i.e., tooth decay) in the
United States and other economically developed countries. When used
appropriately, fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and
controlling dental caries. All U.S. residents are likely exposed to some
degree to fluoride, which is available from multiple sources. Both
health-care professionals and the public have sought guidance on
selecting the best way to provide and receive fluoride. During the late
1990s, CDC convened a work group to develop recommendations for using
fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. This
report includes these recommendations, as well as a) critical analysis
of the scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of
fluoride modalities in preventing and controlling dental caries, b)
ordinal grading of the quality of the evidence, and c) assessment of the
strength of each recommendation. Because frequent exposure to small
amounts of fluoride each day will best reduce the risk for dental caries
in all age groups, the work group recommends that all persons drink
water with an optimal fluoride concentration and brush their teeth twice
daily with fluoride toothpaste. For persons at high risk for dental
caries, additional fluoride measures might be needed. Measured use of
fluoride modalities is particularly appropriate during the time of
anterior tooth enamel development (i.e., age <6 years). The
recommendations in this report guide dental and other health-care
providers, public health officials, policy makers, and the public in the
use of fluoride to achieve maximum protection against dental caries
while using resources efficiently and reducing the likelihood of enamel
fluorosis. The recommendations address public health and professional
practice, self-care, consumer product industries and health agencies,
and further research. Adoption of these recommendations could further
reduce dental caries in the United States and save public and private
resources.
Jan Philips
>Why would you want to.
My daughter is 5 and she's already had 4 cavities. I didn't have
flouridated water until I was 18 and I had more than my share of
cavities.
Bob G.
Jan Philips wrote:
Just contact your Dentist...get a prescription for Fluoride for your
child...quick simple and NOT expensive...AND SAVE....
Bob Griffiths
Jan Philips
>Just contact your Dentist...get a prescription for Fluoride for your
>child...quick simple and NOT expensive...AND SAVE....
Yes, I'll do that with her new dentist there.
Eric Lee Green
You can get a flouride rinse at the drugstore. This is an excellent
supplement to a flouride toothpaste. You also probably want to have your
child's "baby teeth" sealed and cut back on the sugary drinks between
meals. A dentist aquaintance said that drinking surgary drinks is not
the problem -- drinking sugary drinks between meals (esp. acidic ones)
is. Your kid will have to just learn to like dihydrogen monoxide (WATER)
between meals.
As for the naysayers, they have not a single paper published in a
reputable peer-reviewed journal supporting their position. The closest
they have managed is to get a paper published saying that teenagers
are embarassed if they've gotten too much flouride and have flouridosis
(slightly off-color spots on the teeth that are harder than normal
enamel). You'd think they'd be embarassed to state that a minor cosmetic
problem is of more import than having whole and intact teeth, but
(shrug). Nothing embarasses nutcases, alas. Especially nutcases trying to
sell bogus "treatments" for "flouride poisoning".
--
Eric Lee Green EMAIL: mailto:er...@badtux.org WEB: http://badtux.org
There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
- Mark Twain
nancyDrew
news:slrnajn2n...@badtux.org...
> In article <rcsmju8c1d9e2u12t...@4ax.com>, Jan Philips
ruminated:
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 01:55:11 GMT, v.viv...@verizon.net (v) wrote:
> >
> >>Why would you want to.
> >
> > My daughter is 5 and she's already had 4 cavities. I didn't have
> > flouridated water until I was 18 and I had more than my share of
> > cavities.
>
> You can get a flouride rinse at the drugstore. This is an excellent
> supplement to a flouride toothpaste.
Also by using the rinse rather than flouride in your water, you are putting
it where its needed instead of exposing your entire body to it.
Gary Slusser
"Jan Philips" <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote
> I'm moving to a house that has a deep well. Is there a good way to
> add flouride to the drinking water?
I strongly advise against this, you would be playing with your health
and that of your kids if any due to the only way I know of being with
the use of a solution feeder. There are many other ways to use fluoride
if you care to and toothpaste is one of the better ways IMO but.... see
my response to my Good Buddy Eric Lee Green (and Ermalina).
Gary
Quality Water Associates
Gary Slusser
Oh? I think you're very wrong so I went to see and lookie here:
http://tinyurl.com/rs2
Then try a few other sites here (other than the first one which you
(Emralina too) should have already looked at):
http://tinyurl.com/rs6
Gary
Quality Water Associates
v
<jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Why would you want to.
>
>My daughter is 5 and she's already had 4 cavities. I didn't have
>flouridated water until I was 18 and I had more than my share of
>cavities.
>
Those are reasons to learn good dental hygiene, and to use various
dental flouride products. Jumping right to "how do I flouridate my
well" is jumping to conclusions. The better Q might have been
something like "my child has been getting a lot of cavities; we have
well water, should we flouridate our well".
Or even "how do we get flouride to prevent cavities, when we have a
well". Doing the well is not the answer.
-v.
Neil Williams
"v" <v.viv...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3d3c5662...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:45:43 -0400, Jan Philips
> <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >My daughter is 5 and she's already had 4 cavities. I didn't have
> >flouridated water until I was 18 and I had more than my share of
> >cavities.
> >
> Those are reasons to learn good dental hygiene, and to use various
> dental flouride products. Jumping right to "how do I flouridate my
> well" is jumping to conclusions. The better Q might have been
> something like "my child has been getting a lot of cavities; we have
> well water, should we flouridate our well".
Or maybe even - "should I talk to my dentist"?
--Neil
Gary Slusser
"Ermalina" <ermalin...@yahoo.com> wrote> v wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:59:02 -0400, Jan Philips
> > <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm moving to a house that has a deep well. Is there a good way to
> > >add flouride to the drinking water?
> >
> > Why would you want to. Have the kids brush with a flouridated
> > toothpaste. That is sufficient. It is not just nut cases that are
> > against flouridization, many physicians are also. You dose the
entire
> > populace, including people who don't need it, just to "make sure"
all
> > the children get it. Actually, there is such a thing as
> > over-flouridization, with negative effects.
> >
> > This is not something I'd recommend at home; you could get a toxic
> > dose if your equipment got out of calibration.
> >
> > -v.
>
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis
t_uids=11521913&dopt=Abstract
I thought Eric was wrong but I didn't realize just how wrong! I went
looking and found tons of articles saying it's not a good thing we are
doing to ourselves. And Ermalina, the URL below is quite interesting:
Gary
Quality Water Associates
Bill Seurer
> Oh? I think you're very wrong so I went to see and lookie here:
> http://tinyurl.com/rs2
>
> Then try a few other sites here (other than the first one which you
> (Emralina too) should have already looked at):
> http://tinyurl.com/rs6
There are scores of web sites that claim that we never landed on the
moon too. A web site's existance is meaningless unless it was put up by
a reputable person or group.
Jan Philips
wrote:
>You can get a flouride rinse at the drugstore.
That's probably the best solution.
> You also probably want to have your
>child's "baby teeth" sealed
They are going to seal her perm teeth as soon as they start coming in.
>and cut back on the sugary drinks between meals.
She rarely does that but she eats a lot of candy.
> Your kid will have to just learn to like dihydrogen monoxide (WATER)
>between meals.
Thats what I do.
Jan Philips
<egoti...@fluffmail.xom> wrote:
>Also by using the rinse rather than flouride in your water, you are putting
>it where its needed instead of exposing your entire body to it.
Yes, that sounds like the best thing to do. Since this last dentist
visit last week, she has gotten conscious about brushing, finally.
Jan Philips
wrote:
>> sell bogus "treatments" for "flouride poisoning".
>
>Oh? I think you're very wrong so I went to see and lookie here:
>http://tinyurl.com/rs2
That doesn't sound like a bona fide scientific journal to me.
Jan Philips
>Those are reasons to learn good dental hygiene, and to use various
>dental flouride products. Jumping right to "how do I flouridate my
>well" is jumping to conclusions. The better Q might have been
>something like "my child has been getting a lot of cavities; we have
>well water, should we flouridate our well".
You're exactly right. I should have addressed the problem to be
solved than only one possible solution.
Ermalina
I must admit that I was [perhaps naively] unaware of the extent of
controversy over fluoride intake. Whew.
Gary that link -- BTW, stop abusing tinyurl.com, the direct URL wasn't
very long ;-) -- spurred me to do a PubMed search and I found that the
peer-reviewed literature, at least at first glance, reflects the
controversy and the incomplete knowledge of the several proposed
longterm effects (good and bad) of various intake levels of fluoride at
various ages. Here's the link to PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
I used "fluoridation AND risk" as a search argument.
The links you provided and the PubMed results, though not enough to make
me change my own fluoride habits, would make me proceed with more
caution and deliberation in the OP's position as the mother of a young
child.
Eric Lee Green
>> reputable peer-reviewed journal supporting their position. The closest
>> they have managed is to get a paper published saying that teenagers
>> are embarassed if they've gotten too much flouride and have
> flouridosis
>> (slightly off-color spots on the teeth that are harder than normal
>> enamel). You'd think they'd be embarassed to state that a minor
> cosmetic
>> problem is of more import than having whole and intact teeth, but
>> (shrug). Nothing embarasses nutcases, alas. Especially nutcases trying
> to
>> sell bogus "treatments" for "flouride poisoning".
>
> Oh? I think you're very wrong so I went to see and lookie here:
> http://tinyurl.com/rs2
Err, that's not JAMA or Science or some reputable journal. Just from
looking at the table of contents, most of the content appears to
be typical nutcake. I'd no more accept them as an authority than I
would accept the monthly magazine of the American Nazi Party as
the authority on Judaism.
> Then try a few other sites here (other than the first one which you
> (Emralina too) should have already looked at):
> http://tinyurl.com/rs6
What part of *REPUTABLE PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL* do you not get?
Any nut-case can form a "journal" and publish anything and everything.
Getting something that follows scientific methodology to a great
enough extent that it can get into JAMA or Science, on the other hand,
is an accomplishment that tends to indicate that the research has
some value.
--
Neil Williams
news:3D3CDD27...@kctc.net...
> I must admit that I was [perhaps naively] unaware of the extent of
> controversy over fluoride intake. Whew.
Dentists seem to share the confusion. One dentist prescribed
fluoride drops (oral) for our 4-year old. About six months
later we switched dentists and the new one said not to do the
drops, and gave us a fluoride treatment toothpaste (prescription)
instead. We don't have any fluoride in our drinking water either.
--Neil
Ermalina
To get a complete list of articles on fluoridation in "JAMA" or
"Science" (perhaps not the "best" choice of journals on this subject but
. . . .), go to PubMed at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
and use the following search argument:
fluoridation AND ("JAMA" [JOUR] OR "Science" [JOUR])
Here's an example from JAMA. I chose it because the abstract is
available:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1640574&dopt=Abstract
1: JAMA 1992 Aug 12;268(6):746-8
Comment in:
JAMA. 1992 Aug 12;268(6):781-2.
JAMA. 1993 Apr 28;269(16):2087.
Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah's elderly population.
Danielson C, Lyon JL, Egger M, Goodenough GK.
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt
Lake City
84132.
OBJECTIVE--To test the effect of water fluoridated to 1 ppm on the
incidence of
hip fractures in the elderly. DESIGN--Ecological cohort. SETTING--The
incidence
of femoral neck fractures in patients 65 years of age or older was
compared in
three communities in Utah, one with and two without water fluoridated to
1 ppm.
PATIENTS--All patients with hip fractures who were 65 years of age and
older
over a 7-year period in the three communities, excluding (1) those with
revisions of hip fractures, (2) those in whom the hip fracture was
anything but
a first diagnosis, (3) those in whom metastatic disease was present, or
(4)
those in whom the fracture was a second fracture (n = 246). OUTCOME
MEASURE--Rate of hospital discharge for hip fracture. RESULTS--The
relative risk
for hip fracture for women in the fluoridated area was 1.27 (95%
confidence
interval [CI] = 1.08 to 1.46) and for men was 1.41 (95% CI = 1.00 to
1.81)
relative to the nonfluoridated areas. CONCLUSIONS--We found a small but
significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men and women
exposed
to artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm, suggesting that low levels of
fluoride may
increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.
PMID: 1640574 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Jan Philips
wrote:
>Err, that's not JAMA or Science or some reputable journal. Just from
>looking at the table of contents, most of the content appears to
>be typical nutcake.
I'm getting off topic, but I agree. A scientific paper on the subject
would be in a general mainstreem dental or medical journal. A
"journal" about a single issue raises a red flag that they've already
got their mind made up and are trying to justify their belief. (i.e.
pseudoscience).
Gary Slusser
"Bill Seurer" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote
Well Bill that just shows you didn't look at many of those sites in the
2nd URL. The cause of that may be that you think you don't have a
problem with fluoride or that there is no problem with the use of it by
others. Suit yourself but I know you don't know me any more than you can
learn about me from my posts here so consider anything I say as
meaningless if you choose to, but I know you're no authority on me or
the subject.
As an example, for many years I've been telling folks here and other
where that the use of copper tubing for potable water is very
questionable and depends on the quality of the water run thru it. Now I
can't recall you specifically saying I was meaningless in that instance
but.... the NSF just outlawed copper when the water run thru it has a pH
of less than 6.5. If you want to know why look it up, but just maybe
some of those meaningless folks and sites they put up may know something
you don't.
Gary
Quality Water Associates
Gary Slusser
"Jan Philips" <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
>
> >> sell bogus "treatments" for "flouride poisoning".
> >
> >Oh? I think you're very wrong so I went to see and lookie here:
> >http://tinyurl.com/rs2
>
> That doesn't sound like a bona fide scientific journal to me.
Pooh pooh it if you want but check out many of the other sites in the
2nd URL and you may be better informed, but again, it's your choice as a
mom.
BTW, I sell all types of water treatment equipment as an independent
dealer and I have never been asked for any type of equipment to
remove/reduce fluoride nor have I ever proposed any.
Gary
Quality Water Associates
Gary Slusser
"Ermalina" <ermalin...@kctc.net> wrote
You me and it appears millions of others.
> Gary that link -- BTW, stop abusing tinyurl.com, the direct URL wasn't
> very long ;-) -- spurred me to do a PubMed search and I found that the
> peer-reviewed literature, at least at first glance, reflects the
> controversy and the incomplete knowledge of the several proposed
> longterm effects (good and bad) of various intake levels of fluoride
at
> various ages. Here's the link to PubMed:
I use them, not "abuse". I have their link on my browser tool bar and
it's very useful.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
>
> I used "fluoridation AND risk" as a search argument.
>
> The links you provided and the PubMed results, though not enough to
make
> me change my own fluoride habits, would make me proceed with more
> caution and deliberation in the OP's position as the mother of a young
> child.
I would think many like moms should while limiting the sugar and candy
and other things that attack the teeth of their offspring while making
sure they know how and do brush correctly. Regardless of what my new
Good Buddy Bill thinks. I see my other one comments later....
Eric Lee Green
> OBJECTIVE--To test the effect of water fluoridated to 1 ppm on the
> incidence of
> hip fractures in the elderly. DESIGN--Ecological cohort. SETTING--The
> incidence
> of femoral neck fractures in patients 65 years of age or older was
> compared in
> three communities in Utah, one with and two without water fluoridated to
> 1 ppm.
I haven't read the paper so will not attempt to poke holes in it. All
I'll note is that three communities in Utah is not a very large sample,
and that there could be a variety of reasons why a given result
occurs, which may or may not have been controlled for in the study.
(For example, if two communities were located in rugged terrain while
one community was located in a flood plain, you would expect more falls,
and thus more fractures, in the two communities located in rugged
terrain).
Most single studies are only suggestive, not conclusive. In general it
takes multiple large long-term studies with many, many tests for
extraneous factors before you can gain any real conclusion about
subtle epidemiological phenomenon.
Controlling for external factors is especially important because
there are so many external factors. Correlation != causation. For
example, most swimming pool drownings happen in the summer. There is
a very large correlation between summer and swimming pool drownings. This
does not, however, mean that summer CAUSES swimming pool drownings.
This little snippet from Statistics 101 courtesy of a long-retired
professor at University of Louisiana-Lafayette (he was not retired
at the time though :-).
Jan Philips
wrote:
>Pooh pooh it if you want but check out many of the other sites in the
>2nd URL
I cheked out the first one and that was enough.
Gary Slusser
"Jan Philips" <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
>
> >Pooh pooh it if you want but check out many of the other sites in the
> >2nd URL
>
> I cheked out the first one and that was enough.
For years the medical community in general pooh poohed the plecebo
effect but I read today that now many doctors agencies etc. are seeing
actual proof and there are numerous studies being done now since some
have been done proving the effect and the need for more studies. Until
some kooks got the right ear the ywere kooks. The same thing happened
with DDT, our water quality, chlorine in our drinking water, certain
chemicals in our food, water and air. MTBE in our gasoline. Long run out
landslides that the scientific community said were impossible and
couldn't occur as they looked at pictures proving they had. Bacteria and
other forms of life in the deep oceans that couldn't be there until they
actually saw them on video. I could go on but I think you think I'm
meaningless like my new Good Buddy Bill so we'll see as time goes by
what the EPA does with arsenic and fluoride in our supposedly potable
water.
Gary Slusser
"Jan Philips" <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote
So lets discuss your topic of adding fluoride to your well water. Do you
know anything about how that would be done? Do you know anything about
any potential problems if you did that? Do you know anything as to the
potential problems with the equipment used to do that? Do you know of
any potential health problems if that equipment malfunctioned or you,
the home owner, messed up the strength of the solution? Will you do the
required mixing of soultion in an exact manner and on a timely basis?
Will you respect the opinions of the dealer willing to assume a fairly
high risk to do this for you or sell you the equipment to do this?
Gary
Quality Water Associates
Gary Slusser
> > OBJECTIVE--To test the effect of water fluoridated to 1 ppm on the
> > incidence of
> > hip fractures in the elderly. DESIGN--Ecological cohort.
SETTING--The
> > incidence
> > of femoral neck fractures in patients 65 years of age or older was
> > compared in
> > three communities in Utah, one with and two without water
fluoridated to
> > 1 ppm.
>
> I haven't read the paper so will not attempt to poke holes in it.
Then why continue to put forth any opinions on the subject and what are
those and your original opinions based on?
> All
> I'll note is that three communities in Utah is not a very large
sample,
> and that there could be a variety of reasons why a given result
> occurs, which may or may not have been controlled for in the study.
> (For example, if two communities were located in rugged terrain while
> one community was located in a flood plain, you would expect more
falls,
> and thus more fractures, in the two communities located in rugged
> terrain).
>
> Most single studies are only suggestive, not conclusive. In general it
> takes multiple large long-term studies with many, many tests for
> extraneous factors before you can gain any real conclusion about
> subtle epidemiological phenomenon.
>
> Controlling for external factors is especially important because
> there are so many external factors. Correlation != causation. For
> example, most swimming pool drownings happen in the summer. There is
> a very large correlation between summer and swimming pool drownings.
This
> does not, however, mean that summer CAUSES swimming pool drownings.
>
> This little snippet from Statistics 101 courtesy of a long-retired
> professor at University of Louisiana-Lafayette (he was not retired
> at the time though :-).
Agreed, but you didn't read the other papers or sites either and then
you simply jabber on about nothing concerning the subject.
Gary Slusser
You can distract all you want Eric but you're wrong. You made a comment
you can't support. Do you know that most of the rest of the world has
stopped adding fluoride to their water, or why? My wife is from South
Africa and mentioned that they banned the practice there many years ago
along with fluoride toothpaste and me being me I was skeptical so I went
looking again. I've just apologized to her.
I went to the site you mention reading only the TOC and then continue to
run off at the mouth about "nutcake" and "nut-case". I found the article
below on that site, it's only one of many. Look for WEAKENED BONES and
read a bit from there on down and let us hear your opinions of that
"nutcake" and those he references. You may then want to start the
article from the top. Jan may want to join you.
Eric Lee Green
>
> "Jan Philips" <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Pooh pooh it if you want but check out many of the other sites in the
>> >2nd URL
>>
>> I cheked out the first one and that was enough.
>
> For years the medical community in general pooh poohed the plecebo
> effect
Huh? Where did you get your medical degree? Even old Doc Sawbones
in Sunset Louisiana knew about the placebo effect, hell, half the pills
he prescribed were placebos, "Doctor doctor it hurts give me a pill to
cure it!" "Here you go, take your scrip next door and they'll fill it."
The whole point of a double-blind experiment is to deal with placebo
effects and their close relative, expectancy effects (where the expectancies
of the observers color their observations). None of this is new or
exciting. The ground-breaking research in the area was complete to pretty
much everybody's satisfaction by the mid 60's. Basically, any experiment
done today which is not a double-blind experiment is widely considered
by the research community to be bogus nonsense done to justify a grant
or to justify a cause, not as something that extends the body of knowledge.
The people taking the data should not know anything about the experiment
or what its originators hope to prove, because otherwise they can either
color the perceptions of the subjects in a way that will taint the data,
or can themselves taint the data trying to "prove" osomething.
> some kooks got the right ear the ywere kooks. The same thing happened
Nonsense. The placebo effect has been known for decades, probably
centuries. Knowledge of observer expectancy effects are relatively
more recent, but the groundbreaking research that came out of the late
50's and early 60's was swiftly replicated and by the mid 70's was
quite uncontroversial.
> with DDT, our water quality, chlorine in our drinking water, certain
> chemicals in our food, water and air. MTBE in our gasoline. Long run out
> landslides that the scientific community said were impossible and
> couldn't occur as they looked at pictures proving they had. Bacteria and
> other forms of life in the deep oceans that couldn't be there until they
> actually saw them on video. I could go on but I think you think I'm
> meaningless like my new Good Buddy Bill so we'll see as time goes by
> what the EPA does with arsenic and fluoride in our supposedly potable
> water.
What puzzles me is why, if all these things were so evil, we aren't
falling dead left and right. Now, DDT, for example, has some nasty
side effects on birds and other egg-laying critters that justify
banning it. But there's been no evidence that shows it has any
significant effect on humans. As for long run out landslides, I don't
know of any scientist who would say they are impossible, and bacteria
in the deep oceans had long been speculated about by scientists but we
simply had no way of going down and checking it out. Nobody
pooh-poohed the notion of there being bacteria at the bottom of the
ocean -- after all, scientists have known about anaerobic bacteria for
years.
Methinks you've fallen under the spell of quacks, who are always quick
to point out to people who, they say, were unfairly criticized despite
being right. The problem was, most of those people were criticized for
reasons OTHER than being right. Such as Giordano Bruno, who is a
typical poster child for the quacks as someone who was "executed for
the crime of being right about the Earth going around the sun". The
basic problem with that statement is that Bruno was executed for
practicing theology, rather than because he was right about the
Copernican universe. The notion that the Earth went around the Sun was
relatively uncontroversial by the time Bruno was burned. The Jesuit
astronomers had verified Galileo's observations years before. Bruno
was not executed for that. He was executed for advocating
philosophical theories that blended mystical Neoplatonism and
pantheism. He believed that the universe is infinite, that God is the
universal world-soul, and that all particular material things are
manifestations of the one infinite principle. None of this had a thing
to do with the notion of the Earth going around the sun, but had a lot
to do with running afoul of a state religion that stated that God is a
holy trinity with Jesus as his son. Even then, he most likely would
have been released like Galileo if he'd consented to renouncing his
pantheistic nonsense. But Bruno refused to do so. The guy was a jerk,
frankly, a nutcase who'd already been run out of at least two other
countries, and I think it's telling that the quacks and frauds are
quick to hold him up as an example of someone "unfairly persecuted".
--
Eric Lee Green
> fluoridated to 1ppm ]
>>
>> I haven't read the paper so will not attempt to poke holes in it.
>
> Then why continue to put forth any opinions on the subject and what are
> those and your original opinions based on?
Ah. I had a run-in with the quacks on another newsgroup. In that case, I
*DID* read the papers that the quacks put forth. A single master's-level
course in research methodology was enough background for me to poke
so many holes in these quack's "research" that anybody with any sense
would have gone screaming for cover for being found out as a fraud. That,
alas, did not stop the quacks, who after all had money or pride
at stake. The victims of the quacks insisted up and down that the frauds
had "saved their lives" with bogus "chelation therapies" and other such
nonsense (nevermind that these victims admitted that they STILL weren't
well, years after the quacks had started "treating" them), and the
quacks themselves, of course, were quick to accuse me of practicing
"modern scientific methodology hostile of holistic practices". In
other words, of practicing science rather than quackery.
That pretty much cured me of the desire to read and decipher yet more
quack papers. After all, if the victims of the quacks prefer to be
victimized, the quacks themselves rant and rave about how scientific
methodology is "hostile of holistic practices", and other such
nonsense of that nature, why bother? Most people can tell a quack when you
point it out to them without needing a line-by-line dissection of where
a paper failed to obtain a sufficiently representative sample, or where
observations were done without following double-blind protocol, or where
extraneous factors were not properly correlated for and statistically
accounted for in the results... doing all that extra work thus isn't
necessary just to point out that a quack is a quack.
--
Bill Seurer
> For years the medical community in general pooh poohed the plecebo
> effect but I read today that now many doctors agencies etc. are seeing
> actual proof and there are numerous studies being done now since some
> have been done proving the effect and the need for more studies.
You have that backwards. For years everyone assumed the placebo effect
was real. Some recent studies are showing the opposite.
Gary Slusser
"Bill Seurer" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote
Sorry but no I don't have it backwards. Go look it up if you doubt it.
Gary Slusser
And everything changes except a closed mind.
v
wrote:
>Huh? Where did you get your medical degree?...<much diatribe cut>
From the same cereal box you got yours out of, no doubt.
I also thought flouride was a no-brainer, until I happened to have a
talk with the MD who was Director of Public Health in the county I
lived in. No, he was not raving about mega death from corruption of
our sacred body fluids. He pointed out to me as follows:
1) Flouride for prevention of tooth decay is of significant good only
for small children.
2) Small children don't drink much tap water; the overwhelming
percentage of tap water is not drank (or is nthat 'drunken'?) by
anyone.
3) Thus medicating our tap water to reach a small target population is
very inefficient, especially when there are other, established ways to
provide flouride to those specific persons for whom it is appropriate.
The dosage must be kept low to avoid over-medicating heavy users, thus
it will be ineffectively low for light users.
4) There are some proven negatives to over-flouridization which are
cosmetic; there are other concerns about even low doses causing health
problems (as, brittle bones in the elderly). Just because there has
not yet been definitice "proof" of the bad effects (they have not been
definitively dis-proved either) is not enough justification to risk
them, ***when there are other alternate methods*** of supplying this
medication, that reach only the targeted individual, AND where the
dosage can be more specifically controlled.
BTW, our pediatrician did not think that flouridization of public
water was needed, either.
Lastly, the vested interests of the chemical industry should not be
ignored. I am *not* claiming an evil conspiracy, their families drink
the water also. But the interests in selling another chemical and
another set if calibrated injector pumps, can color one's opinion.
Why is Eric Lee so adamant about flouride? He can have his opinion
without attacking everyone else who doesn't share it.
-v.
Gary Slusser
Yeah yeah and we don't see people dying immediately from swallowing
water with fluoride in it. Or smoking a cigarette. Or after sex with
someone with AIDS or HIV. The same applies to multitudes of other things
that we now know are dangerous to humans and have changed our thinking
on to the point of banning them because of the overall damage they do
us. Banning copper tubing for potable water use with water of less than
6.5 pH just occurred within the last few months. From what I've read in
the last few days, fluoride should be next. I believe the AWWA and EPA
are looking into it as we speak.
Scientists had said for a hundred years that long run out landslides
couldn't be and there was no way there could be life on the bottom of
deep oceans while they said that earth/soil was a good water filter. As
they are still saying that 24" of undisturbed soil to the high water
mark of the water table provides adequate filtration for
microbiologicals from septic systems. That has stood for 50ą years now.
Although we found out about 25 years ago that life (much more than just
bacteria) does exist on the ocean bottoms. We also learned the
means/causes for long runout landslides after proving they exist. And we
learned that nothing we pour on or bury in the ground goes away; or is
filtered. We've also learned that the 24" requirement for septic systems
is not sufficient filtration and in some cases 48" isn't either. They
haven't informed the general population yet or changed the standard for
septic tank installation either but they have decided to blame the
problems with bacteria contaminated well water on well construction. And
now we have a lot of a new regulations to insure better well
construction. Brilliant. You were or are part of that scientific crowd?
Jan Philips
wrote:
>For years the medical community in general pooh poohed the plecebo
>effect but I read today that now many doctors agencies etc. are seeing
>actual proof and there are numerous studies being done now since some
The latest I've seen on that is that placebos don't actually work,
people just think they do.
Jan Philips
wrote:
>Methinks you've fallen under the spell of quacks, who are always quick
>to point out to people who, they say, were unfairly criticized despite
>being right. ...
You're probably well aware that this is typical thinking of crackpots
(that they compare themselves with people like that.)
Jan Philips
wrote:
>Sorry but no I don't have it backwards. Go look it up if you doubt it.
"... Hrobjartsson and Peter C. Gotzsche. Their meta-study of 114
studies involving placebos found "little evidence in general that
placebos had powerful clinical effects...[and]...compared with no
treatment, placebo had no significant effect on binary outcomes,
regardless of whether these outcomes were subjective or objective. "
FDR
"Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:P2q%8.400$Fl.3...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
Funny, but our dentist just recommended we use a higher dosage fluoride
toothpaste.
John
A recent study just showed that a placebo/fake surgery worked better
than actual knee surgery.
Ermalina
The issue remains unsettled.
In matters of science -- though medicine is only ARGUABLY, reluctantly,
and recently "scientific" -- go to the PRIMARY publications, not the
regurgitations of a philosophy instructor at a city college. "skepdic"
my ass!!! ;-)
One would be hard-pressed to find a more mainstream (or prestigious, for
that matter) scientific publication than "Science," the flagship
publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science).
http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11498597&dopt=Abstract
Science 2001 Aug 10;293(5532):1164-6
Expectation and dopamine release: mechanism of the placebo effect in
Parkinson's disease.
de la Fuente-Fernandez R, Ruth TJ, Sossi V, Schulzer M, Calne DB,
Stoessl AJ.
Neurodegenerative Disorders Centre, TRIUMF, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 2B5.
The power of placebos has long been recognized for improving numerous
medical conditions such as Parkinson's disease (PD). Little is known,
however, about the mechanism underlying the placebo effect. Using the
ability of endogenous dopamine to compete for [11C]raclopride binding as
measured by positron emission tomography, we provide in vivo evidence
for substantial release of endogenous dopamine in the striatum of PD
patients in response to placebo. Our findings indicate that the placebo
effect in PD is powerful and is mediated through activation of the
damaged nigrostriatal dopamine system.
http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11834781&dopt=Abstract
Science 2002 Mar 1;295(5560):1737-40
Placebo and opioid analgesia-- imaging a shared neuronal network.
Petrovic P, Kalso E, Petersson KM, Ingvar M.
Cognitive Neurophysiology Research Group, Department of Clinical
Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm 171 76, Sweden., Pain
Clinic, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Helsinki
University Hospital, Finland.
It has been suggested that placebo analgesia involves both higher order
cognitive networks and endogenous opioid systems. The rostral anterior
cingulate cortex (rACC) and the brainstem are implicated in opioid
analgesia, suggesting a similar role for these structures in placebo
analgesia. Using positron emission tomography, we confirmed that both
opioid and placebo analgesia are associated with increased activity in
the rACC. We also observed a covariation between the activity in the
rACC and the brainstem during both opioid and placebo analgesia, but not
during the pain-only condition. These findings indicate a related neural
mechanism in placebo and opioid analgesia.
Ermalina
Here's the abstract of the study to which John refers.
http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12110735&dopt=Abstract
N Engl J Med 2002 Jul 11;347(2):81-8
Comment in:
N Engl J Med. 2002 Jul 11;347(2):132-3.
N Engl J Med. 2002 Jul 11;347(2):137-9.
A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the
knee.
Moseley JB, O'Malley K, Petersen NJ, Menke TJ, Brody BA, Kuykendall DH,
Hollingsworth JC, Ashton CM, Wray NP.
Houston Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine,
Houston, TX 77030, USA.
BACKGROUND: Many patients report symptomatic relief after undergoing
arthroscopy of the knee for osteoarthritis, but it is unclear how the
procedure achieves this result. We conducted a randomized,
placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of arthroscopy for
osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: A total of 180 patients with
osteoarthritis of the knee were randomly assigned to receive
arthroscopic debridement, arthroscopic lavage, or placebo surgery.
Patients in the placebo group received skin incisions and underwent a
simulated debridement without insertion of the arthroscope. Patients and
assessors of outcome were blinded to the treatment-group assignment.
Outcomes were assessed at multiple points over a 24-month period with
the use of five self-reported scores--three on scales for pain and two
on scales for function--and one objective test of walking and stair
climbing. A total of 165 patients completed the trial. RESULTS: At no
point did either of the intervention groups report less pain or better f
function than the placebo group. For example, mean (+/-SD) scores on the
Knee-Specific Pain Scale (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating
more severe pain) were similar in the placebo, lavage, and debridement
groups: 48.9+/-21.9, 54.8+/-19.8, and 51.7+/-22.4, respectively, at one
year (P=0.14 for the comparison between placebo and lavage; P=0.51 for
the comparison between placebo and debridement) and 51.6+/-23.7,
53.7+/-23.7, and 51.4+/-23.2, respectively, at two years (P=0.64 and
P=0.96, respectively). Furthermore, the 95 percent confidence intervals
for the differences between the placebo group and the intervention
groups exclude any clinically meaningful difference. CONCLUSIONS: In
this controlled trial involving patients with osteoarthritis of the
knee, the outcomes after arthroscopic lavage or arthroscopic debridement
were no better than those after a placebo procedure.
Gary Slusser
"Jan Philips" <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote
The latest newspaper article that I read was on Tuesday and it says a
lot of those people are in the medical field.
Neil Williams
> you can't support. Do you know that most of the rest of the world has
> stopped adding fluoride to their water, or why? My wife is from South
> Africa and mentioned that they banned the practice there many years ago
> along with fluoride toothpaste and me being me I was skeptical so I went
> looking again. I've just apologized to her.
South Africa is perhaps not the best example. Their president or
whatever doesn't even believe HIV causes AIDS.
--Neil
Jan Philips
>A recent study just showed that a placebo/fake surgery worked better
>than actual knee surgery.
Are the patient themselves reporting on pain, mobility, etc?
Jan Philips
<ermalin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Here's the abstract of the study to which John refers.
Yes, but it disagrees with what he said (that placebo worked better):
"CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled trial involving patients with
osteoarthritis of the knee, the outcomes after arthroscopic lavage or
arthroscopic debridement were no better than those after a placebo
procedure."
That means that the surgery didn't help, not that the placebo did.
John
What I had read in the NY Times was an article that interviewed the
doctors that actually conducted the study, and they said that the
placebo surgery improved the problem knee more often than the real
surgery.
Gary Slusser
"Neil Williams" <chie...@cox.net> wrote
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote
> >
> > You can distract all you want Eric but you're wrong. You made a
comment
> > you can't support. Do you know that most of the rest of the world
has
> > stopped adding fluoride to their water, or why? My wife is from
South
> > Africa and mentioned that they banned the practice there many years
ago
> > along with fluoride toothpaste and me being me I was skeptical so I
went
> > looking again. I've just apologized to her.
>
> South Africa is perhaps not the best example. Their president or
> whatever doesn't even believe HIV causes AIDS.
>
> --Neil
You need a better source of information, there's been at least two
different presidents since the ban. You sound like a small minded guy
there Neil. Try New Zealand, Australia and many many other countries and
see if they use fluoride in their water. Then see if you can find out
why not. Then try the US and see if you can figure out why we still do.
Jan Philips
>> "CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled trial involving patients with
>> osteoarthritis of the knee, the outcomes after arthroscopic lavage or
>> arthroscopic debridement were no better than those after a placebo
>> procedure."
>>
>> That means that the surgery didn't help, not that the placebo did.
>
>What I had read in the NY Times was an article that interviewed the
>doctors that actually conducted the study, and they said that the
>placebo surgery improved the problem knee more often than the real
>surgery.
Perhaps the NYT writer didn't understand it. The above is a direct
quote from the original abstract, saying that the surgery was no
better than placebo. Also it is possible that a larger precentage did
report improvement with the placebo simply because of the statistical
testing procedure, and the difference was probably not statistically
significant.
Now, people report improvements from placebos, when they do absolutely
nothing. If you look at medications, you may see that 30% got
"better" with the placebo and 50% got better with the medication. But
(1) most things get better on their own with time and (2) If people
don't know that they're getting the placebo, they expect the treatment
to make them better, and that's what they tend to report.
With medications you also often hear "the side effects were similar to
a placebo". If a person takes what he thinks is a medicine and gets a
headache afterwards, he reports that the medicine caused it - even it
was a inactive placebo.
Salesmen and others know about this expectation. (I could elaborate.)
Doctors use it too, without inactive placebos. My first wife got
better after taking an antibotic. Then every time she had a virus,
she wanted that antibiotic. The doctor knew as well as I do that
antibiotics do nothing for viruses, but he said "if it helps you...".
John
Jan Philips wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:34:09 -0400, John <Jo...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> >> "CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled trial involving patients with
> >> osteoarthritis of the knee, the outcomes after arthroscopic lavage or
> >> arthroscopic debridement were no better than those after a placebo
> >> procedure."
> >>
> >> That means that the surgery didn't help, not that the placebo did.
> >
> >What I had read in the NY Times was an article that interviewed the
> >doctors that actually conducted the study, and they said that the
> >placebo surgery improved the problem knee more often than the real
> >surgery.
>
> Perhaps the NYT writer didn't understand it. The above is a direct
> quote from the original abstract, saying that the surgery was no
> better than placebo. Also it is possible that a larger precentage did
> report improvement with the placebo simply because of the statistical
> testing procedure, and the difference was probably not statistically
> significant.
>
> Now, people report improvements from placebos, when they do absolutely
> nothing.
Of course. That is the point. The placebo does nothing, but the person
feels improvement. So, the person improved on his own or healed
himself. No one is saying that the placebo is what is doing the curing.
But in the article, the writer wasn't interpreting the study, the
doctors who did the study were the ones being interviewed and stating
that more patients with the placebo surgery showed improvement than with
the real surgery.
> If you look at medications, you may see that 30% got
> "better" with the placebo and 50% got better with the medication. But
> (1) most things get better on their own with time and (2) If people
> don't know that they're getting the placebo, they expect the treatment
> to make them better, and that's what they tend to report.
Yup. That is what the placebo effect is. I am not sure what you are
trying to prove here.
Jan Philips
>Of course. That is the point. The placebo does nothing, but the person
>feels improvement. So, the person improved on his own or healed
>himself.
Or they just think they did, subjectively. Pain is subjective. Or it
got bettter by itself, as most things do. Now it is possible that the
real surgery actually did damage in this case and therefore the
placebo had better results. If they expected the surgery to work,
they may think it worked when it didn't.
Jan Philips
<ermalin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>One would be hard-pressed to find a more mainstream (or prestigious, for
>that matter) scientific publication than "Science," the flagship
>publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science).
Not everything in "Science" is right. Here's a current case where
they wrongly published something:
==============
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 26 Jul 02 Washington, DC
1. BUBBLE FUSION: THE BUBBLE SEEMS TO HAVE COLLAPSED. In March,
against the advice of physicists, Science published an article by
Taleyarkan et al. claiming to get fusion out of sonoluminescence
(WN 1 Mar 02). Two experienced nuclear physicists, D. Shapira
and M.J. Saltmarsh, using better neutron detection in the same
apparatus, said there was no evidence of fusion. Science refused
to hold up publication of the Taleyarkan paper until the Shapira
and Saltmarsh findings could accompany it, or even add a note
warning that there were contrary results. Not to worry! The
Shapira and Saltmarsh paper is about to come out in Physical
Review Letters, and is expected to directly refute the Taleyarkan
et al. paper. And in this week's Nature, a letter by Didenko and
Suslick seemed to rule out bubble fusion entirely. Reactions of
gases trapped inside bubbles soak up so much energy that bubble
temperatures could never get close to the threshold for fusion.
...
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
Opinions are the authors and are not necessarily shared by the
University or the American Physical Society, but they should be.
Ermalina
So post citations and associated abstracts of ANY refutations to EITHER
of the 2 papers on "placebo effect".
Try to stay "on point."
Ermalina
and, BTW, how would YOU judge which position on "bubble fusion" is
supported by the evidence and physical theory?
Curl(R) >> 0 , where R is your "logic" vector. ;-)
Jan Philips
<ermalin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So post citations and associated abstracts of ANY refutations to EITHER
>of the 2 papers on "placebo effect".
"Is the Placebo Powerless? An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing
Placebo with No Treatment," The New England Journal of Medicine, May
24, 2001 (Vol. 344, No. 21).
Goodbye.
Jan Philips
<ermalin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>and, BTW, how would YOU judge which position on "bubble fusion" is
>supported by the evidence and physical theory?
One group makes unsubstantiated claims for it, all the others he
mentioned refuted it. I think it is clear that bubble fusion is
unsupported.
Goodbye.
Ermalina
That article, a meta-analysis, did NOT deal with the findings of EITHER
of the two "Science" articles. Frankly, I doubt you've even read the
abstract, let alone the NEJM article you "cite".
You're showing yourself to be merely a recalcitrant TWIT. ;-)
Ermalina
You have NO idea what you're talking about. LOL. What an IMBECILE -- you
give "twits" a bad name. ;-)
Gary Slusser
"Jan Philips" <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote
Can you say the same concerning many countries having stopped the
addition of fluoride to their water? And is the one 'group' with
unsubstantiated claims on that subject the US?
Eric Lee Green
> Can you say the same concerning many countries having stopped the
> addition of fluoride to their water? And is the one 'group' with
Hey Gary, we need to hook you up with that chick with the hard-on about
CCA wood, the two of you can compare horror stories about the evils of
toxins :-).
Gary Slusser
Yeah good buddy, leave it to you to distract with your dumb comments.
But I notice more and more CCA wooden playground stuff being replaced
with non toxic wood and recycled plastic stuff. I guess you somehow see
a large negative to that while many others see good.
Here's an e-mail I got from a probable friend of yours and my reply.
> Gary,
>
> I think the newsgroups have made you a bit defensive....
Possibly you're right.
> I have no opinion on fluoridating water or not, and if you read my
> message (below) again you'll see that it was strictly concerning
> S.A. as not being a paragon of medical science. And my wording
> was actually quite mild and somewhat tongue in cheek.
With no opinion on the subject, I wonder why the comment in a debate on
the subject. I saw a personal attack on me as the only reason but
medical science isn't what is driving SA where ever they think they're
going in relation to their AIDS/HIV or other problems. There's a bit of
centuries old tribal thinking and practices along with the possibility
of the government being more than a bit disingenuous to it's subjects.
> There have been numerous articles and radio shows concerning
> the South African government's rather curious stance
> on HIV and AIDS, and that's all I was referring to. The S.A.
> President I was referring to is Thabo Mbeki. You may be
> either unaware of the topic, or you dispute the facts, but either
> way there's no reason to get upset at me for mentioning it. If
> you're interested, here is an article from the BBC:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1948371.stm.
Knowing of the type of folks that make up the SA government now and
lately, we don't wonder why they do or don't do anything. Zimbabwe is
even worse. My wife's family are still in SA, including her two
daughters, their husbands and children. And her ancestors were born in
Zimbabwe and SA while she lived in Zim from age 2 until age 22. She only
left SA 3 years ago and has a mother, sister, BIL, brother and their
kids along with other family and friends still there. Plus a number of
long time family friends there and in the US and PA especially. Along
with her son. So I believe I am somewhat informed of the goings on in
SA, and some other countries in the area, wouldn't you say?
> I'll ignore the unwarranted personal attack on me as being "small
> minded" as I know you're usually a decent and helpful individual
> from your posts on water quality and water conditioning equipment.
Personal attack! BS. If I believe you saying you have no opinion on
fluoride, then there was no need or reason for you to go off subject as
you say here. You also made that comment after I mentioned my wife being
from SA and them banning fluoride many years ago. So I think I'm totally
on target when I responded to your comment and in the defensive manner I
did.
The fact is that most countries in the world have banned the stuff after
using it for many years and most of the replies in that thread were
against so much as listening to anything negative about fluoride in our
water and any problems that it is thought to create. And it was me that
started saying there was something wrong with doing it. You certainly
didn't say anything to support my side of the issue (with that comment)
and what you did say supported the other side.
You should also realize that Eric and Jan haven't said a word about all
the other countries that have banned it or why, along with why the US
hasn't banned it, or why not.
BTW, you may want to learn not to draw attention to yourself when
someone is debating/fighting or otherwise passionately involved in a
debate or argument unless you're willing to risk at least the accidental
bloodied nose caused by your being too close to the action.
> --Neil
Eric Lee Green
>
> "Eric Lee Green" <er...@badtux.org> wrote
>> Gary Slusser ruminated:
>> > Can you say the same concerning many countries having stopped the
>> > addition of fluoride to their water? And is the one 'group' with
>>
>> Hey Gary, we need to hook you up with that chick with the hard-on
> about
>> CCA wood, the two of you can compare horror stories about the evils of
>> toxins :-).
>
Hey guy, give it a rest. A USENET conversation isn't some kind of
macho spitting contest to score a "win" or whatever. You're getting as
tedious as Deborah Barre (the chick with the hard-on about CCA wood)
or that gal Jan Drew over on the sci.med.dentistry newsgroup who
claims that she was poisoned by her amalgam fillings and that being
chelated by a quack is "curing" her (strangely enough, it's been
several years now and she STILL isn't "cured", gosh, think some people
are just professional hypochondriacs?!). Oh, and I forgot about toxic
mold (the same old mold that's been around since the dinosaurs roamed
the earth, but now suddenly it's home killer #1, LOL!). And heck,
chlordane. Nevermind that the stuff hasn't been used for pest control
in close to 15 years, you still find people stepping forward and
claiming that chlordane fumes in their home is making them sick.
With all these professional hypochondriacs moaning and bemoaning the
evils of all these substances, you can't blame a guy for being
skeptical about claims that commonly-used substance X normally
included in our drinking water is poison. Whoops, I forgot, there's
folks who say that ordinary chlorination is poisoning our youth, hmm,
time for me to invest in antibiotic companies that cure dysentary and
other water-borne diseases, methinks. Oh no, antibiotics are poison
too, moan some sayers of doom! Maybe we ought to all just live in
caves and eat wild-grown natural foods. Oops, toxic mold, toxic mold!
Sorry, gotta run, gotta find me some clear dry desert somewhere safe
from "killer mold" and make sure that my distilled water wasn't
condensed in aluminum pipes in the distillation unit (causes
Alzheimer's! right sure, mate!).
Gary Slusser
Since you mention chlorination of our 'city' water.... maybe a quick
check of health problems caused by the practice might be in order for
you. Do you know that chlorine as we know it is being phased out and
replaced by chloramines as we speak? Any ideas as to why other than
health reasons? Any idea how we deal with the ammonia after we filter
out the chlorine part of chloramines? The EPA and CDC have some info on
chlorine byproducts and their negative impact on the health of those
using chlorinated water if you care to inform yourself for the future.
It appears they both have been somehow able to bury the reams of
negative reports of the health effects of fluoride.
They also have information on the nasties in CCA wood too if you wanna
look.
I guess you didn't look up anything as to why the US still supports
fluoride in our water instead of following other country's reasons for
banning it.
You happen to be a dentist? Or you just follow Jan around? Maybe other
nay sayers? That would be a bit more than conversing about a given
subject huh.
I can and do blame someone that makes comments supporting something
being added to our water as "okay" and then not looking into opposite
points of view that have caused most (the majority of) countries of the
world to ban that practice. And then ducking and distracting any further
conversation about those comments.
Eric Lee Green
>> macho spitting contest to score a "win" or whatever. You're getting as
>> tedious as Deborah Barre (the chick with the hard-on about CCA wood)
>> or that gal Jan Drew over on the sci.med.dentistry newsgroup who
>> claims that she was poisoned by her amalgam fillings and that being
>> chelated by a quack is "curing" her (strangely enough, it's been
>> several years now and she STILL isn't "cured", gosh, think some people
>> are just professional hypochondriacs?!). Oh, and I forgot about toxic
>> mold (the same old mold that's been around since the dinosaurs roamed
>> the earth, but now suddenly it's home killer #1, LOL!). And heck,
>> chlordane. Nevermind that the stuff hasn't been used for pest control
>> in close to 15 years, you still find people stepping forward and
>> claiming that chlordane fumes in their home is making them sick.
>>
>> With all these professional hypochondriacs moaning and bemoaning the
>> evils of all these substances, you can't blame a guy for being
>> skeptical about claims that commonly-used substance X normally
>> included in our drinking water is poison.
> Since you mention chlorination of our 'city' water.... maybe a quick
...
> I guess you didn't look up anything as to why the US still supports
> fluoride in our water instead of following other country's reasons for
> banning it.
Mostly because I'm not interested. You seem to think I support adding
flouride to drinking water. I don't. Here in Phoenix, nobody drinks
tap water, because it's basically unpotable (very high amount of
dissolved minerals that give it a very nasty taste, on scales of
"hardness" our local tap water falls right off the top of the scale).
Adding flouride to it is thus a waste of time and money, since
everybody drinks bottled water or water sent through a water softener
and reverse-osmosis filter. For similar reasons, I have no problem
with chlorine in the local tap water. It has no health effects on me
other than preventing water borne diseases, because the only thing I
do with the city tap water is bathe in it. I enjoy making fun of
hypochondriacs crying that "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!".
It's interesting that you mention CCA wood. In Hawaii, all new homes
are required to be built with CCA wood or other termite-resistant
materials (mostly AZCA today since it seems more effective), due to a
long-standing outbreak of Formosan termites. The carpenters who build
these homes are bathed in sawdust from dawn to dusk and touch it with
their bare hands all day long. After the notion that CCA lumber
causes cancer came to light, a study was made comparing health
problems of Hawaiian carpenters with health problems to carpenters on
the mainland (who rarely deal with CCA lumber). The results: No
difference in cancer rate. No difference in rates of *any*
illnesses. To summarize from Pacific Health Research Institute's
"Study of Effects of Chemical Preservatives on the Health of
Woodtreating Workers in Hawaii:"
This study was initiated to evaluate the morbidity and mortality of
workers occupationally exposed to wood-treating chemicals used in
Hawaii for the years 1960 to 1981. The specific chemical exposures
investigated were chromated copper arsenic (CCA), tributyl tin
oxide (TBTO), and pentachlorophenol (penta). Results of detailed
questionnaires, laboratory and physiological tests, and physical
examinations of 88 wood treaters were compared with those of 61
matched controls. The occupationally exposed cases had a
significantly higher mean level of urinary penta as compared with
the controls. There were no significant differences between the
groups for the other urinary pesticide residues. The questionnaires
and physical examinations revealed no significant variations
between the wood treaters and the comparison group. Review of all
organ systems and laboratory data showed no clinically significant
differences between exposed and nonexposed cohorts. The results of
this study indicated no adverse health effects or increased
incidence of mortality resulting from exposure to wood preservative
chemicals in the treatment workers evaluated.
Note that pentachlorophenol has since been banned and is no longer
widely available.
Not that I expect things like *facts* to convince environmental dingbats
of anything!
Gary Slusser
Actually Eric said this:
> >> macho spitting contest to score a "win" or whatever. You're getting
as
> >> tedious as Deborah Barre (the chick with the hard-on about CCA
wood)
> >> or that gal Jan Drew over on the sci.med.dentistry newsgroup who
> >> claims that she was poisoned by her amalgam fillings and that being
> >> chelated by a quack is "curing" her (strangely enough, it's been
> >> several years now and she STILL isn't "cured", gosh, think some
people
> >> are just professional hypochondriacs?!). Oh, and I forgot about
toxic
> >> mold (the same old mold that's been around since the dinosaurs
roamed
> >> the earth, but now suddenly it's home killer #1, LOL!). And heck,
> >> chlordane. Nevermind that the stuff hasn't been used for pest
control
> >> in close to 15 years, you still find people stepping forward and
> >> claiming that chlordane fumes in their home is making them sick.
> >>
> >> With all these professional hypochondriacs moaning and bemoaning
the
> >> evils of all these substances, you can't blame a guy for being
> >> skeptical about claims that commonly-used substance X normally
> >> included in our drinking water is poison.
Part of what I said:
> > Since you mention chlorination of our 'city' water.... maybe a quick
> ...
> > I guess you didn't look up anything as to why the US still supports
> > fluoride in our water instead of following other country's reasons
for
> > banning it.
Now my good buddy Eric goes on and on and on and on all off topic again:
So you don't know anything about any negatives of chlorine in our water
or bathing/showering in chlorinated water either. BTW, you mentioned CCA
wood and I commented on what you said. But I see you still haven't come
up with any reason the US still adds fluoride to our water when most of
the world's countries banned the practice long ago. And yes you
supported its use.
FDR
> So you don't know anything about any negatives of chlorine in our water
> or bathing/showering in chlorinated water either. BTW, you mentioned CCA
> wood and I commented on what you said. But I see you still haven't come
> up with any reason the US still adds fluoride to our water when most of
> the world's countries banned the practice long ago. And yes you
> supported its use.
Who cares about what the rest of the world does? Europe uses 220 V power.
Hey, maybe we should do the same. Or use PAL instead of NTSC for tv.
Oh, and please ban chlorine too. I'd rather swim in bacteria filled water
anyday. Maybe I can get killed by an ameoba.
Silly arguments.
Gary Slusser
"FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote
>
> > So you don't know anything about any negatives of chlorine in our
water
> > or bathing/showering in chlorinated water either. BTW, you mentioned
CCA
> > wood and I commented on what you said. But I see you still haven't
come
> > up with any reason the US still adds fluoride to our water when most
of
> > the world's countries banned the practice long ago. And yes you
> > supported its use.
>
> Who cares about what the rest of the world does?
I think the real question is why they do something and we don't.
> Europe uses 220 V power.
> Hey, maybe we should do the same. Or use PAL instead of NTSC for tv.
>
> Oh, and please ban chlorine too. I'd rather swim in bacteria filled
water
> anyday. Maybe I can get killed by an ameoba.
>
> Silly arguments
Yes you're right, those are silly. Why did you mention them? We can't
remove our existing bactericide in our water systems without replacing
it. Hopefully with one that has fewer negatives or at least not those
that chlorine has. And that is being done right now all around the
country.
As to the 220 vs. 110.... why do we use 220 for those things that use
more power if they were/are run on 120? You should also notice that all
buildings that have electrical service are supplied 240 which is then
changed to 120 inside. Which is a safer system; one that draws more amps
or fewer? Of those two systems, 240 or 120, which would cost the least
to use when the charge is based on the total watts used? And yes we
could change our average appliances to 240 if we found a need or cause
to.
BTW, had we not paid attention to what the rest of the world did or was
doing, most of what we (the US) take for granted today wouldn't have
been possible.
FDR
>
> "FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote
> >
> > > So you don't know anything about any negatives of chlorine in our
> water
> > > or bathing/showering in chlorinated water either. BTW, you mentioned
> CCA
> > > wood and I commented on what you said. But I see you still haven't
> come
> > > up with any reason the US still adds fluoride to our water when most
> of
> > > the world's countries banned the practice long ago. And yes you
> > > supported its use.
> >
> > Who cares about what the rest of the world does?
>
> I think the real question is why they do something and we don't.
Actually, we do something that nobody else does.
>
> > Europe uses 220 V power.
> > Hey, maybe we should do the same. Or use PAL instead of NTSC for tv.
> >
> > Oh, and please ban chlorine too. I'd rather swim in bacteria filled
> water
> > anyday. Maybe I can get killed by an ameoba.
> >
> > Silly arguments
>
> Yes you're right, those are silly. Why did you mention them? We can't
> remove our existing bactericide in our water systems without replacing
> it. Hopefully with one that has fewer negatives or at least not those
> that chlorine has. And that is being done right now all around the
> country.
Gary, I suspect you are the kind of person who think that everyone else
knows better. Enjoy second guessing everything in life.
Eric Lee Green
>
> "FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Europe uses 220 V power.
>> Hey, maybe we should do the same. Or use PAL instead of NTSC for tv.
>
> more power if they were/are run on 120? You should also notice that all
> buildings that have electrical service are supplied 240 which is then
> changed to 120 inside. Which is a safer system; one that draws more amps
> or fewer? Of those two systems, 240 or 120, which would cost the least
Uhm, I hate to tell you this (as a former electrical guy), but safety has
nothing to do with amps transmitted by the wires, and everything to do
with amps transmitted by you when you touch a wire whose insulation is
leaking. 110 volts will transmit fewer amps than 240 volts in that
instance, and thus is far safer.
This is less important now that GFCI breakers and outlets are widely
available, but is indeed a safety issue in favor of using 120v for
anything that has an exposed cord, and reserving 240v for things that
have cords hidden behind appliances or within service areas generally
inaccessible to the general public.
Finally, note that 240 is *NOT* changed to 120 inside. You will note that
your electrical service has *THREE* wires -- two hots and a neutral.
The two hots are at 240v relative to each other, and at 120v relative to
the neutral. All that happens with 120v circuits is that they get
supplied from one of the hots and the neutral, rather than with
the two hots. I have no idea why the Europeans don't do this. Maybe they
just want to bring two wires into the house rather than three.
> to use when the charge is based on the total watts used? And yes we
> could change our average appliances to 240 if we found a need or cause
> to.
One little secret of the computer biz is that virtually every piece of
computer equipment you buy will operate equally well upon either 110v
or 220v electricity. Computers typically use a "switching" power
supply to convert the incoming voltage down to 5v, 3.3v, 12v, and all
the other boutique voltages needed by various circuitry within the
computer. A "switching" power supply works by chopping up the
incoming power (turning an electronic switch off and on) and then
smoothing the result with inductors and capacitors. A higher input voltage
just means that the switch stays off more in order to get 5v output.
On the other hand, nothing with an electric motor intended for 110v will
operate at 220v. Your blender would disintegrate into sparks and smoke.
Stuff that uses wall warts typically won't work well either, because
they typically use linear voltage regulators that will actually burst into
flames if you double the incoming voltage. (The transformer itself in the
wall wart will work fine, but instead of outputting, e.g., 18v ac, it
will output 36v ac... look up "winding ratio" for why that is so). So
switching from 110v to 220v would NOT be an easy thing to do. It would
basically require changing out every wall wart and every 110v motor in
the country.
> BTW, had we not paid attention to what the rest of the world did or
> was doing, most of what we (the US) take for granted today wouldn't
> have been possible.
Sometimes the rest of the world is wrong and the US is right, though.
Look at all the uproar about "genetically modified foods", for example.
We've been genetically modifying foods for millenium in order to increase
production and shippability (thus the ubiquitous cardboard tomatoes that
you buy in the supermarket, pathetic excuses for tomatos but the vines
put them out by the ton and they ship like iron). The only difference is
that now we're inserting genes the easy way rather than the hard way
(by cross-breeding hybrids until we come up with one that has the
traits we want). If you're wondering about just how far we have genetically
modified foodstuffs *without* the fancy technology, just look at Indian
corn (as raised by the Indians in Mexico and other places still today)
and compare it with modern corn as raised in the American Midwest. The
modern corn is twice the size, covered with plump kernels, and the
corn intended for human consumption is much sweeter than the rather
scrawny Indian corn. All done the old-fashioned way, via cross-breeding
and hybridization. Inserting a gene from a sugar beet to make corn
sweeter isn't doing anything that couldn't be done the old-fashioned
way, given enough time. Of course, we really don't HAVE enough time,
given that the world's population continues to grow every year at a rate
which is utterly unsustainable save for continued miracles.
Ermalina
<Snip to save bandwidth>
> Sometimes the rest of the world is wrong and the US is right, though.
> Look at all the uproar about "genetically modified foods", for example.
> We've been genetically modifying foods for millenium in order to increase
> production and shippability (thus the ubiquitous cardboard tomatoes that
> you buy in the supermarket, pathetic excuses for tomatos but the vines
> put them out by the ton and they ship like iron). The only difference is
> that now we're inserting genes the easy way rather than the hard way
> (by cross-breeding hybrids until we come up with one that has the
> traits we want). If you're wondering about just how far we have genetically
> modified foodstuffs *without* the fancy technology, just look at Indian
> corn (as raised by the Indians in Mexico and other places still today)
> and compare it with modern corn as raised in the American Midwest. The
> modern corn is twice the size, covered with plump kernels, and the
> corn intended for human consumption is much sweeter than the rather
> scrawny Indian corn. All done the old-fashioned way, via cross-breeding
> and hybridization. Inserting a gene from a sugar beet to make corn
> sweeter isn't doing anything that couldn't be done the old-fashioned
> way, given enough time. Of course, we really don't HAVE enough time,
> given that the world's population continues to grow every year at a rate
> which is utterly unsustainable save for continued miracles.
>
> --
> Eric Lee Green EMAIL: mailto:er...@badtux.org WEB: http://badtux.org
> There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
> - Mark Twain
Mr. Green --
You GROSSLY underestimate, and misunderstand, the nature and the power
of genetic engineering. It offers NOT MERELY an acceleration of genetic
manipulations which could be produced "the old-fashioned way," rather it
dramatically and QUALITATIVELY expands the universe of possibilities of
what CAN be manipulated and what kinds of organisms can be produced.
The concept of "species" (i.e., "a group of organisms which can breed
with each other and produce fertile offspring."), no longer limits the
possible genetic makeup of living, reproducing organisms, as it did
using "the old-fashioned way."
For example, using "the old-fashioned way," crossing a spider with a
goat was, pardon the expression, "inconceivable" -- the limitation was
not one of time but of the very POSSIBILITY of such a cross. Yet, using
modern genetic engineering techniques, transgenic goats now exist which
produce spider silk protein in their milk. See the following:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=nexia+spider+goats
For a general, brief discussion see "Principles of Biotechnology" at:
Eric Lee Green
> For example, using "the old-fashioned way," crossing a spider with a
> goat was, pardon the expression, "inconceivable" -- the limitation was
> not one of time but of the very POSSIBILITY of such a cross. Yet, using
> modern genetic engineering techniques, transgenic goats now exist which
> produce spider silk protein in their milk. See the following:
Both the goat and the spider have a common ancestry, believe it or not.
Of course, that common ancestry was a billion years ago :-). Granted,
a billion years for the "old way" vs. a few months for the "new way"
is a major advance! My point was that the advance was one of time frame,
not of capability. The point that it is a time frame of a billion years
in this case does not render my point moot :-).
Ermalina
Your point is not "moot." It is FALSE.
The "common ancestry" of goat and spider and the billions of years of
evolution are beside the point. The fact that different species (and
even the highest taxonomic categories, for that mattter) share common
ancestry does not demonstrate that all organisms which can be produced
using the techniques of modern genetic engineering are possible via "the
old way" -- one could equally [and equally illogically] cite the fact of
their evolutionary DIVERGENCE to support the contrary position.
You claimed that, given enough time, one could produce, using "the old
way," anything that modern genetic engineering can produce.
1) If you mean by that claim that one could present a scientifically
supportable plan, using only the "old way," to produce any organism that
modern genetic engineering can produce, you are wrong -- or, at least,
you can produce no bona fide biologist who would support that claim.
2) On the other hand, if by that you mean ONLY that, given an INFINITE
amount of time, every POSSIBLE living organism, including
spider-silk-producing goats, will EVENTUALLY come to be, perhaps via the
good offices of a "Super Mendel," then your statement is SCIENTIFICALLY
EMPTY, being UNTESTABLE and UNFALSIFIABLE and, even as a "thought
experiment," UNSUPPORTED (see 1 above).
Gary Slusser
"FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote
> >
> > "FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > So you don't know anything about any negatives of chlorine in
our
> > water
> > > > or bathing/showering in chlorinated water either. BTW, you
mentioned
> > CCA
> > > > wood and I commented on what you said. But I see you still
haven't
> > come
> > > > up with any reason the US still adds fluoride to our water when
most
> > of
> > > > the world's countries banned the practice long ago. And yes you
> > > > supported its use.
> > >
> > > Who cares about what the rest of the world does?
> >
> > I think the real question is why they do something and we don't.
>
>
> Actually, we do something that nobody else does.
Actually we are continuing to do something that many joined us in doing
and they have now determined there is no posivtive gain in doing and a
lot of harm and have stopped the practice. Ain't that special! For all
us unsuspecting folks.
> >
> > > Europe uses 220 V power.
> > > Hey, maybe we should do the same. Or use PAL instead of NTSC for
tv.
> > >
> > > Oh, and please ban chlorine too. I'd rather swim in bacteria
filled
> > water
> > > anyday. Maybe I can get killed by an ameoba.
> > >
> > > Silly arguments
> >
> > Yes you're right, those are silly. Why did you mention them? We
can't
> > remove our existing bactericide in our water systems without
replacing
> > it. Hopefully with one that has fewer negatives or at least not
those
> > that chlorine has. And that is being done right now all around the
> > country.
>
> Gary, I suspect you are the kind of person who think that everyone
else
> knows better. Enjoy second guessing everything in life.
Really? I am not the type that takes things for granted simply because
they are. Or to accept things simply because the majority of us do that
without questioning the practice and testing for positive and negative
results once we decide to do something or after we've been doing it
awhile. I think we need to look at actual results of all our actions
over time and not just go along to get along. And fluoride in our water
is one of those things that has been proven to be very negative and has
not lived up to the hype as to why it should have been done or should be
continued to be done. And I couldn't care less who provides the evidence
as long as there is a somewhat diverse group saying the same thing. Such
as with fluoride and chlorine in our drinking water. I also do not
believe that the US is always right in all we do, anymore than I believe
any other country is always right. Or wrong. But I won't look at who
says what and decide to believe, not believe or to support, based on
that as I think many of us do. You seem to be one that does. Checking
in to see if the results of a decision meet the expectations that
supported the decision is not second guessing to me. It's simply smart
and to not do that is dumb. And wrong.
As an example, as a society we have been fighting the war against cancer
since I was a preteen in the '50s. We've been waging a war on drugs for
nearly the same length of time. We are failing in both efforts and in
the mean time causing much damage to the citizens of the US and quite a
few other countries. Today there's more cancer than ever and the same
can be said for illegal drug use. Fluoride is being shown to at least be
linked to breast cancer along with heart disease while causing tooth
decay it was to prevent. And chlorine byproducts are linked to at least
stomach, colon and bladder cancers, yet we keep our collective heads in
the sand and plod along. Although chlorine as we know it in our drinking
water is being changed right now all around the country. Now I say there
will be another problem caused by the addition of ammonia but we'll see
after many years as long as someone keeps looking for results both good
and bad. I guess you call that second guessing. I guess that's what's
taken us so long to decide what's actually being done to us. And you
must think it's "helpful". How do you know one way or another?
I saw a TV news magazine program last night saying what I've been saying
for the past 15 years as to what needs to be done to stop drugs. You
have to gut the profit and if we do, the supply will mostly dry up and
the large problems with drug use will go away. We should have learned
after our experiment with banning booze in the '20. So will a lot of our
economy dry up due to the loss of billions of bucks a year that are
pumped into it from the production, distribution and sale of illegal
drugs although that wasn't mentioned in the program IIRC. But we will
eventually (I hope!) get around to deciding which evil is worse and
change our minds about what 'should' or has to be done. That applies to
both our drinking water quality and illegal drug usage. We all can
decide to be part of the problem or part of the solution. It's a
personal decision but only one position requires an open mind while the
other only requires not pay attention. I say let those that want to use
drugs use them, I think there will be many fewer users if it were legal
to do so.
FDR
Are you sure they don't do it because they just don't want to spend the
money?
>
> Really? I am not the type that takes things for granted simply because
> they are. Or to accept things simply because the majority of us do that
> without questioning the practice and testing for positive and negative
> results once we decide to do something or after we've been doing it
> awhile. I think we need to look at actual results of all our actions
> over time and not just go along to get along. And fluoride in our water
> is one of those things that has been proven to be very negative and has
> not lived up to the hype as to why it should have been done or should be
> continued to be done. And I couldn't care less who provides the evidence
> as long as there is a somewhat diverse group saying the same thing. Such
> as with fluoride and chlorine in our drinking water. I also do not
> believe that the US is always right in all we do, anymore than I believe
> any other country is always right. Or wrong. But I won't look at who
> says what and decide to believe, not believe or to support, based on
> that as I think many of us do. You seem to be one that does. Checking
> in to see if the results of a decision meet the expectations that
> supported the decision is not second guessing to me. It's simply smart
> and to not do that is dumb. And wrong.
>
> As an example, as a society we have been fighting the war against cancer
> since I was a preteen in the '50s. We've been waging a war on drugs for
> nearly the same length of time. We are failing in both efforts and in
> the mean time causing much damage to the citizens of the US and quite a
> few other countries. Today there's more cancer than ever and the same
> can be said for illegal drug use.
There's also a higher population than in the 50's. Detection is also better
now than then.
> Fluoride is being shown to at least be
> linked to breast cancer along with heart disease while causing tooth
> decay it was to prevent.
Linked, but does that mean causes?
> And chlorine byproducts are linked to at least
> stomach, colon and bladder cancers, yet we keep our collective heads in
> the sand and plod along.
Would dead bacteria be a byproduct of chlorine?
I assume you don't go in any swimming pools?
> Although chlorine as we know it in our drinking
> water is being changed right now all around the country. Now I say there
> will be another problem caused by the addition of ammonia but we'll see
> after many years as long as someone keeps looking for results both good
> and bad. I guess you call that second guessing. I guess that's what's
> taken us so long to decide what's actually being done to us. And you
> must think it's "helpful". How do you know one way or another?
A a side note, it has been postulated that alcohol is the reason for the
survival of human culture. Alcohol inhibits bacteria and gave us a water
supply that could help us survive the past several thousand years. Alcohol
has it's drawbacks, but overall it's been effective. Chlorine may or may
not be a source of health problems, but it's definitely been an effective
way of ridding known disease sources.
Whatever it's drawbacks, I think chlorine is great.
>
> I saw a TV news magazine program last night saying what I've been saying
> for the past 15 years as to what needs to be done to stop drugs. You
> have to gut the profit and if we do, the supply will mostly dry up and
> the large problems with drug use will go away.
Maybe, maybe not. I agree the war has been a failure, but I don't
necessarily see that legalizing it will change people's habits. Cheaper
drugs will probably mean more junkies and more dead junkies.
> We should have learned
> after our experiment with banning booze in the '20.
Yes, and now we just have lots more alcoholics and binge drinking. DWI's
also cause death/injuries but can't be similar to the 20's cince there were
fewer cars and lower speeds.
Gary Slusser
> >
> > "FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> Europe uses 220 V power.
> >> Hey, maybe we should do the same. Or use PAL instead of NTSC for
tv.
> >
> > As to the 220 vs. 110.... why do we use 220 for those things that
use
> > more power if they were/are run on 120? You should also notice that
all
> > buildings that have electrical service are supplied 240 which is
then
> > changed to 120 inside. Which is a safer system; one that draws more
amps
> > or fewer? Of those two systems, 240 or 120, which would cost the
least
>
> Uhm, I hate to tell you this (as a former electrical guy), but safety
has
> nothing to do with amps transmitted by the wires, and everything to do
> with amps transmitted by you when you touch a wire whose insulation is
> leaking. 110 volts will transmit fewer amps than 240 volts in that
> instance, and thus is far safer.
Amps are transmitted by the wires? And me! My point was that a motor
etc. run on 120 v uses more amps than one on 240.
> This is less important now that GFCI breakers and outlets are widely
> available, but is indeed a safety issue in favor of using 120v for
> anything that has an exposed cord, and reserving 240v for things that
> have cords hidden behind appliances or within service areas generally
> inaccessible to the general public.
>
> Finally, note that 240 is *NOT* changed to 120 inside. You will note
that
> your electrical service has *THREE* wires -- two hots and a neutral.
> The two hots are at 240v relative to each other, and at 120v relative
to
> the neutral. All that happens with 120v circuits is that they get
> supplied from one of the hots and the neutral, rather than with
> the two hots. I have no idea why the Europeans don't do this. Maybe
they
> just want to bring two wires into the house rather than three.
You know what I meant; the building is supplied with 240 and 120 is used
for most things in the house.
I didn't say it would be easy, I said we could do it if we wanted or had
to.
> > BTW, had we not paid attention to what the rest of the world did or
> > was doing, most of what we (the US) take for granted today wouldn't
> > have been possible.
>
> Sometimes the rest of the world is wrong and the US is right, though.
I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was wrong in this instance and the
rest of the world is right. And that a lot of the things we used to
become a prosperous nation were supplied by others.
Eric Lee Green
> has
>> nothing to do with amps transmitted by the wires, and everything to do
>> with amps transmitted by you when you touch a wire whose insulation is
>> leaking. 110 volts will transmit fewer amps than 240 volts in that
>> instance, and thus is far safer.
>
> Amps are transmitted by the wires? And me! My point was that a motor
> etc. run on 120 v uses more amps than one on 240.
Uhm, Gary, I hate to tell you this, but you know nothing about
electricity and insulation. 440 volts may kill you if you grasp a 440
volt wire with leaky insulation. 220 volts will "jump" a far smaller
distance across an air gap caused by leaky insulation, but may still
be enough to kill you. 110 volts basically will only jump enough to
give you a good tingle in that situation. Voltage is *POTENTIAL* --
the distance that these electrons will jump, basically. More voltage =
more current flow in this particular situation.
Now, let's go back to Ohm's Law, one of the fundamental descriptors of
current flow. Ohm's Law says V=IR . Your body's resistance (R) is a
constant. What that means is that if the left side (V) goes up, then
the amount of current flowing through your body (I) increases. In fact,
you get twice as much current flowing through your body at 220v as you
would at 110v, as a little algebra would show you.
In other words, from a safety point, 110v is twice as safe as 220v.
Now, motors don't use amps. They use power (watts). This is basically
"amount of work done by electrons as they flow". Now, you can see that
an electron falling off of a high potential shelf (220v) can do more work
than an electron falling off a low potential shelf (110v). So you only
need half as many electrons (half as much amperage) to perform the same
amount of work at 220v.
However: From a safety point of view, that's irrelevant. We use 220v
or higher for large motors because otherwise the amperage involved
would require huge wires that are not economical. We reserve 220v for
things that have cords hidden behind appliances or within service
areas generally inaccessible to the public, and use 110v for anything
that has an exposed cord, and we have a good reason for doing so. The
fact that the Europeans decided that the additional risks of 220v for
exposed cords was worthwhile is largely irrelevant.
Stick to water, Gary. You have more credibility there. Not MUCH more,
but ...
>> > BTW, had we not paid attention to what the rest of the world did or
>> > was doing, most of what we (the US) take for granted today wouldn't
>> > have been possible.
>>
>> Sometimes the rest of the world is wrong and the US is right, though.
>
> I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was wrong in this instance and the
> rest of the world is right. And that a lot of the things we used to
> become a prosperous nation were supplied by others.
You've said so, in very forceful terms. Maybe someone even cares. As
for me, I smell the suspicious aroma of "junk science", and am taking
a "wait and see" attitude towards your forceful assertations that
certain well-known substances are harmful.
--
Gary Slusser
"Eric Lee Green" <er...@badtux.org> wrote
> Gary Slusser ruminated:
> > "Eric Lee Green" <er...@badtux.org> wrote
> >> Uhm, I hate to tell you this (as a former electrical guy), but
safety
> > has
> >> nothing to do with amps transmitted by the wires, and everything to
do
> >> with amps transmitted by you when you touch a wire whose insulation
is
> >> leaking. 110 volts will transmit fewer amps than 240 volts in that
> >> instance, and thus is far safer.
> >
> > Amps are transmitted by the wires? And me! My point was that a motor
> > etc. run on 120 v uses more amps than one on 240.
>
> Uhm, Gary, I hate to tell you this, but you know nothing about
> electricity and insulation. 440 volts may kill you if you grasp a 440
> volt wire with leaky insulation. 220 volts will "jump" a far smaller
> distance across an air gap caused by leaky insulation, but may still
> be enough to kill you.
BS unless you're grounded. And wires, cable or human bodies etc. don't
transmit amps.
Well so far for an "old electrical guy", you've told me nothing I didn't
already know except that wires "transmit" amps. Once in another life I
was a power company lineman and worked on distribution systems from
series wired street light systems to household and commercial drops to
220k transmission lines. I've also had other electrical and electronics
experience. So just what do you suppose you can teach me?
So far you're only impressing me with more of your stupid statements.
And that includes your take on water quality issues.
> >> > BTW, had we not paid attention to what the rest of the world did
or
> >> > was doing, most of what we (the US) take for granted today
wouldn't
> >> > have been possible.
> >>
> >> Sometimes the rest of the world is wrong and the US is right,
though.
> >
> > I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was wrong in this instance and the
> > rest of the world is right. And that a lot of the things we used to
> > become a prosperous nation were supplied by others.
>
> You've said so, in very forceful terms. Maybe someone even cares. As
> for me, I smell the suspicious aroma of "junk science", and am taking
> a "wait and see" attitude towards your forceful assertations that
> certain well-known substances are harmful.
Then condition your advice to others in those areas so they realize that
about you.
Gary Slusser
The cost to add fluoride is very small.
That's a given and taking that into account there's more cancer.
> > Fluoride is being shown to at least be
> > linked to breast cancer along with heart disease while causing tooth
> > decay it was to prevent.
>
> Linked, but does that mean causes?
Remove the fluoride and the problems go away and, there are fewer
problems with thooth decay.
> > And chlorine byproducts are linked to at least
> > stomach, colon and bladder cancers, yet we keep our collective heads
in
> > the sand and plod along.
>
> Would dead bacteria be a byproduct of chlorine?
No. Disinfection by-products or chlorine by-products, as a group, are
called TTHMs, or THMs. Trihalomethanes. You can learn all you ever want
to know about the subject with a quick search.
> I assume you don't go in any swimming pools?
The body's largest organ is the skin, and chlorine etc. goes right thru
it. Anything that can go thru the skin goes directly into the blood
stream. Some of those things can be helpful to us, others not so good
and chlorine is one of the most common substances that isn't so good.
Especially when the water is heated as in a tub or shower and it warms
the skin.
> > Although chlorine as we know it in our drinking
> > water is being changed right now all around the country. Now I say
there
> > will be another problem caused by the addition of ammonia but we'll
see
> > after many years as long as someone keeps looking for results both
good
> > and bad. I guess you call that second guessing. I guess that's
what's
> > taken us so long to decide what's actually being done to us. And you
> > must think it's "helpful". How do you know one way or another?
>
> A a side note, it has been postulated that alcohol is the reason for
the
> survival of human culture. Alcohol inhibits bacteria and gave us a
water
> supply that could help us survive the past several thousand years.
Alcohol
> has it's drawbacks, but overall it's been effective. Chlorine may or
may
> not be a source of health problems, but it's definitely been an
effective
> way of ridding known disease sources.
Other than stopping a bullet and a few other thnigs, many things that
can kill us are helpful in the proper dose.
> Whatever it's drawbacks, I think chlorine is great.
For some things it is, like all most everything else we have.
> > I saw a TV news magazine program last night saying what I've been
saying
> > for the past 15 years as to what needs to be done to stop drugs. You
> > have to gut the profit and if we do, the supply will mostly dry up
and
> > the large problems with drug use will go away.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I agree the war has been a failure, but I don't
> necessarily see that legalizing it will change people's habits.
Cheaper
> drugs will probably mean more junkies and more dead junkies.
There are places in the world with legalized drug use that show it
doesn't. But then they aren't in the US so I guess we should discount
that experience.
> > We should have learned
> > after our experiment with banning booze in the '20.
>
> Yes, and now we just have lots more alcoholics and binge drinking.
DWI's
> also cause death/injuries but can't be similar to the 20's cince there
were
> fewer cars and lower speeds.
I believe there are fewer adult drunks today, percentage wise, than in
the '20s. They are using illegal drugs instead. And here I thought
that's what 'they' go to college for today.