3 ms·

Again, water at the tap is that which is ingested and otherwise utilized, thus the only water of relevance. This is why NSF Standard 60 certification requireme

by sslott 12y ago

Again, water at the tap is that which is ingested and otherwise utilized, thus the only water of relevance. This is why NSF Standard 60 certification requirements begin with water at the tap. It makes no difference what additives are used, the process by which these additives are produced, or the location from where they are obtained. If the water at the tap does not meet Standard 60 certification requirements, it is not allowed. If you want to argue with the US EPA about its standards and procedures, feel free. I, personally, have survived just fine with them for 61 years. Steven D. Slott, DDS

adrianwaj 12y ago
tl;dr - the bottleneck to alleviating brain toxins right now is informational To me standard 60 is insufficient. I would be happy to pay for extra testing to my water, or rather the additives used. I think many people would. While we're on the topic of toxins for brain, I would also be happy to know more about the emf generated by smart meters, cell phone towers, and wireless equipment. But mainly smart meters. If I had one installed, I'd want very accurate readings of what is being emitted and when. Also vaccines. The message is simple: "government/corporation: feel free to do whatever you want to my air, food, water, emf spectrum and blood that you believe or purport to be in my best interests (you already do).... but I want to know precisely and accurately what it is you're doing, changing and adding to it. I can be driven to do this for no reason, any reason, false reasons or accurate reasons. And whatever reason that may be, you'll have to accept it because you are the one tampering with long-standing internal and external ecosytems to which mine (and others') body and mind have adapted over millenia." From there, I would either want the choice to opt-out, and if I cannot or it is not possible, then I can look for legal, political or economic (boycott) routes to address the problems I find, which could include the need for even greater informational transparency than the ones being offered.
- sslott 12y ago
  By all means, have your water tested right down to the subatomic level if you so desire. Obsessive demands to search for problems in the absence of valid evidence that any exist, are an integral aspect of antifluoridationist tactics. However, it is not justification to deny entire populations the benefits of a valuable public health initiative such as water fluoridation. You have just exemplified the true root of antifluoridationist objections dating back 69 years to the very beginning of the initiative. It is not based in science, but in ideological distrust of government and authority. Thus, no matter how much valid science is presented to antifluoridationists, as long as it does not agree with this ideology, as it never will, it will be rejected by them. Steven D. Slott, DDS
  - adrianwaj 12y ago
    Who comes to HN and starts signing their name and credentials? Steven does.
    - sslott 12y ago
      Sure, why not? I stand fully behind all my statements and see no need to hide behind pseudonyms. If you have a problem with fully disclosing my perspective by posting my dental degree, as is customary with healthcare professionals when signing their names, then you should probably seek therapy for your inferiority complex. Anyone secure, and confident with the position they present, should have no problem with it. Steven D.Slott, DDS
      - Tomte 12y ago
        I think it's great that you're here and perfectly okay to mention your degree (in your profile). However, even if you feel you've been unfairly treated, your own words won't garner you many friends. If your goal is to counter "antifluoridationists posting blatant misinformation", then you're totally ineffective, possibly even helping them out by making your side look bad. I'd suggest to conform to the rules (yeah, "guidelines") here at first and find out if it's really so bad. Or as someone I highly value once said on Usenet: if you want to transcend something, you've got to show that you're really understanding it, in order to transcend it in a meaningful way. Otherwise people will assume ignorance instead of transcendence.
        sslott 12y ago
        "Treated unfairly"? Those are your words, not mine. I've not noted anything of the kind, nor would it be of any consequence to me if I had. Your transparent condescension is typical fare of antifluoridationists who attempt to substitute such nonsense for provision of facts and valid evidence. I am not out to "garner friends", nor do I have a "side". There are no "sides" to the issue of water fluoridation. There is simply the valid, peer-reviewed science which fully supports the initiative, and the "junk science" of antifluoridationists who have no understanding of the difference between the two. I just correct the mounds of misinformation posted by antifluoridationists, such that intelligent readers of these, or any other such comment sections, will understand the fallacy of such arguments. If you have anything of consequence in regard to fluoridation, I will certainly be glad to address it. Your personal philosophy and "suggestions" are entirely irrelevant. Steven D. Slott, DDS

by sslott 12y ago

adrianwaj 12y ago

tl;dr - the bottleneck to alleviating brain toxins right now is informational To me standard 60 is insufficient. I would be happy to pay for extra testing to my water, or rather the additives used. I think many people would. While we're on the topic of toxins for brain, I would also be happy to know more about the emf generated by smart meters, cell phone towers, and wireless equipment. But mainly smart meters. If I had one installed, I'd want very accurate readings of what is being emitted and when. Also vaccines. The message is simple: "government/corporation: feel free to do whatever you want to my air, food, water, emf spectrum and blood that you believe or purport to be in my best interests (you already do).... but I want to know precisely and accurately what it is you're doing, changing and adding to it. I can be driven to do this for no reason, any reason, false reasons or accurate reasons. And whatever reason that may be, you'll have to accept it because you are the one tampering with long-standing internal and external ecosytems to which mine (and others') body and mind have adapted over millenia." From there, I would either want the choice to opt-out, and if I cannot or it is not possible, then I can look for legal, political or economic (boycott) routes to address the problems I find, which could include the need for even greater informational transparency than the ones being offered.

sslott 12y ago
By all means, have your water tested right down to the subatomic level if you so desire. Obsessive demands to search for problems in the absence of valid evidence that any exist, are an integral aspect of antifluoridationist tactics. However, it is not justification to deny entire populations the benefits of a valuable public health initiative such as water fluoridation. You have just exemplified the true root of antifluoridationist objections dating back 69 years to the very beginning of the initiative. It is not based in science, but in ideological distrust of government and authority. Thus, no matter how much valid science is presented to antifluoridationists, as long as it does not agree with this ideology, as it never will, it will be rejected by them. Steven D. Slott, DDS
- adrianwaj 12y ago
  Who comes to HN and starts signing their name and credentials? Steven does.
  - sslott 12y ago
    Sure, why not? I stand fully behind all my statements and see no need to hide behind pseudonyms. If you have a problem with fully disclosing my perspective by posting my dental degree, as is customary with healthcare professionals when signing their names, then you should probably seek therapy for your inferiority complex. Anyone secure, and confident with the position they present, should have no problem with it. Steven D.Slott, DDS
    - Tomte 12y ago
      I think it's great that you're here and perfectly okay to mention your degree (in your profile). However, even if you feel you've been unfairly treated, your own words won't garner you many friends. If your goal is to counter "antifluoridationists posting blatant misinformation", then you're totally ineffective, possibly even helping them out by making your side look bad. I'd suggest to conform to the rules (yeah, "guidelines") here at first and find out if it's really so bad. Or as someone I highly value once said on Usenet: if you want to transcend something, you've got to show that you're really understanding it, in order to transcend it in a meaningful way. Otherwise people will assume ignorance instead of transcendence.
      - sslott 12y ago
        "Treated unfairly"? Those are your words, not mine. I've not noted anything of the kind, nor would it be of any consequence to me if I had. Your transparent condescension is typical fare of antifluoridationists who attempt to substitute such nonsense for provision of facts and valid evidence. I am not out to "garner friends", nor do I have a "side". There are no "sides" to the issue of water fluoridation. There is simply the valid, peer-reviewed science which fully supports the initiative, and the "junk science" of antifluoridationists who have no understanding of the difference between the two. I just correct the mounds of misinformation posted by antifluoridationists, such that intelligent readers of these, or any other such comment sections, will understand the fallacy of such arguments. If you have anything of consequence in regard to fluoridation, I will certainly be glad to address it. Your personal philosophy and "suggestions" are entirely irrelevant. Steven D. Slott, DDS