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: Lane3 who wrote (9721)	3/25/2001 9:27:16 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Did you read the article about poor children? That is the same reason I could not get dead polio vaccine to give to my children. The government had decided, for public health purposes, to use only live vaccine. I think the issue is to protect the maximum number of people possible. Now we can argue whether fluoride does indeed protect people. Seat belts, really do protect the vast majority of people. I think we can see this in the trauma data from auto accidents. Do you not agree that seat belts protect the vast majority of people? Would you argue with the statistics that show that the vast majority of people are better protected in seat belts? That children especially are better protected in car seats? That people are about 17-25% less likely to buckle up if they live in a state that does not enforce seat belt laws? Let me know if you disagree with any of this. I have a problem with the personal freedom to do dangerous things, when everyone else in society has to pay for them. Driving without a seat belt (I know, not for you) for the vast majority of people represents a significant risk factor in heightened trauma risk. If Fluoride really saves more people than it hurts, I cannot understand why you would want to hurt MORE people by eliminating fluoride. That does not make sense to me. Let's take this example, and just assume the numbers (which I pulled out of the air)- we kill 5 people by fluoridating, and we kill 25 by not fluoridating- (again this may be a totally wrong risk calculus, I've no idea)- are you saying that personal freedom is more important to you than the 20 people you could save by fluoridating? Assume for the purposes of this question there is NO other reasonable way to deliver the fluoride to those people.