Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (9714)	3/25/2001 11:33:00 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't think fluoridation is necessarily "bad" but I'd prefer that a different method was used (like direct application by a dentist). The problem with fluoride in the water is that there is no way to judge the dosage. Chlorine has been used in water for years. It has provably reduced the rate of disease in places where it has been used but not without cost. The production of chlorinated hydrocarbons probably increased the chronic disease rate, but in balance it was probably a good trade-off (unless you die of liver cancer and wouldn't have died from cholera). This has been a key argument for the case of live polio vaccine: it produces a collateral inoculation in people by introducing the virus into the environment. That's good I guess but the chance of contracting polio from such a vaccine is not zero. From a dead vaccine, it is zero. But then there is no collateral and incidental immunization. We couldn't get a dead vaccine so we had to risk our children for those of parents who were negligent.