[PLUG-TALK] Fwd: Newspapers and Fluoride

[glen]

Yeah, while I appreciate that Novick pointed out that article, I still
haven't seen my argument addressed.  It just seems lazy and stupid to
continue using 60 year old technology to solve the problem of cavities
in poor children.

What other 60 year old technologies do we still use in their original
form? Phones? Internal combustion engines? Hydroelectric power?
Pencils?  Paperclips?  And, of those that we still use in their original
form, which ones are still used because they are specific and no more
optimal solutions have been found versus which ones could clearly be
replaced with more effective and efficient solutions?  Surely, there are
better solutions to the problem of cavities in poor children.

Or can we somehow argue that the modern process of flouridation is
different from the process we used to use in significant ways?

Michael Rasmussen wrote at 05/10/2013 12:36 PM:
>  From Steve "I vote for him when I get the chance" "City Councilman" 
> Novick
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> [...]
>   One example of the Mercury's quality is its recent article on
> fluoride. [1] I urge you to read it. If you're on the fence about
> fluoride, I think it will convince you that fluoride is safe and
> effective in protecting healthy teeth, and that you should vote "yes."
> [...]
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> http://link.dpodata.com/c/443/30cc6a2f0bc761d70f4585b6ed032b3f1b5b6d274e0519ee33156e5a3bcb7d59


-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Getting closer to the siren