Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

That, a desire to feel important in the universe (after all, the aliens came all that way to make them!), and some rather dubious readings of ancient cuneiform tablets that certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with falsely claiming godhood for a deceased ruler to cement their memory. /s

[Trekkin]

That, a desire to feel important in the universe (after all, the aliens came all that way to make them!), and some rather dubious readings of ancient cuneiform tablets that certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with falsely claiming godhood for a deceased ruler to cement their memory. /s

That may be the basic draw for all conspiracy theories, come to think of it: a self-aggrandizing but not self-empowering alternative to the admittedly unsatisfying reality that the world is mostly random and almost nobody cares about anything. If the Shadowy World-Controlling Conspirators have spent billions of dollars and thousands of henchpeople's lives pulling the wool over your eyes, they must clearly care a great deal about what you think, at least collectively. If we're the puppets of reptilians/deities, then at least someone cares enough to pull the strings. It's a way to feel special and victimized at the same time, with the added bonus of letting one feel smarter than everyone else without having to know anything, much like how people blithely call research biased and reflexively "question the data" to make themselves sound intellectual.

That would actually explain why CTs are so appealing to the "isolated intellectual" crowd: they free them from the burden of actually knowing anything about what they're claiming by presupposing that the truth is inaccessible, having been intentionally concealed. They never need move past the feel-good, I'm-not-weird-everyone-else-is-stupid stage and get to something more amenable to legitimate research, and can simply reject all facts as disinformation.

[redwallzyl]

That's right any time is as likely as any other. But the issue is that "not recently" is much longer than "recently". So if the aliens could have been around any time in the last 100 million years and visited us once, then there's only a 5% chance they did so in the last 5 million years, and if you get that down to civilization time, it's a very low chance, e.g. the last 10,000 years would then be a 0.01% chance.

That's why the ancient alien people claim the aliens caused civilization, since it would be too much of a coincidence if they just happened to visit say at 3000 BC, right as we happened to be starting towards civilization.

Given my formal education in the subject of archeology/anthropology and as such my knowledge of the growth of humanity over time the assertions of various stuff concerning aliens and other mystical stuff and anything relating to conspiracy involving it see patently absurd. On of the key bits of this type of stuff is that it only works on those who are ignorant enough about a subject to not spot the many flaws but instead get caught by misinformation presented as reputable and possible they they do not have the tools to identify as wrong. That confidence in such fringe stuff has a lot to do with being ignorant of them completely so that the seeds of misinformation can grow unhindered.

[Reelya]

Hey now, i've read three Erich Von Daniken books so i know what I'm talking about. He has explanations for everything. ... Do you?

e.g. Von Daniken explains how the Easter Island heads were carved by alien space lasers. There are hundreds of worn-out stone tools around the quarry, which might lead a lesser mind to think the stone was carved with the tools. But Von Daniken explains this: after the aliens left, the natives tried to carve more heads with stones tools, but when it failed they threw their tools down in disgust.

[redwallzyl]

Hey now, i've read three Erich Von Daniken books so i know what I'm talking about. He has explanations for everything. ... Do you?

e.g. Von Daniken explains how the Easter Island heads were carved by alien space lasers. There are hundreds of worn-out stone tools around the quarry, which might lead a lesser mind to think the stone was carved with the tools. But Von Daniken explains this: after the aliens left, the natives tried to carve more heads with stones tools, but when it failed they threw their tools down in disgust.

Rule one of ancient aliens theories. Always assume people (especially non western people) are not capable of doing anything themselves.

[Hanslanda]

Alright, new topic folks. Fluoride as a sinister mind control additive in our water. Or did it cause cancer? Whatever, please discuss.

[Il Palazzo]

Good discussion. Lines up with my armchair psychoanalysis of CT proponents (so, I guess, it confirms my biases?).


Anyway, over the years of talking to a few conspiracy theories in my circle of friends, and reading what people post in various places on the internet, I've developed a handy dictionary for translating what they are saying:

- Nobody understands = I don't understand
- You can't explain that = I can't understand that
- It is = I want it to be
- There is no proof = I'm unaware of any evidence/can't understand the evidence
- Impossible/possible = I never took time to learn why it works/doesn't work
- The [insert mainstream theory] falls apart = I don't know what the theory really says
- The [insert famous scientist] was mistaken = I want more respect than [the scientist]
- Think outside the box = I don't know where the box is or what's in it
- My theory makes more sense = I can understand what I came up with
- Somebody else's CT makes more sense = Somebody else's CT confirms my biases
- There is a conspiracy opposing the theory = It's impossible for me to make a mistake, so disagreement must be rooted in ill will
- Isn't it strange? = It proves me right
- Well then, tell me how does it work? = I think you're the world's foremost expert on the topic and your eventual failure to provide me with an easily-digestible explanation exposes the mainstream for the sham that it is, while validating my greatness

There's probably more, if I had more time to think about it. Feel free to expand on it, or challenge the definitions (but there's a semi-solid and entirely anecdotal evidence backing it up, so beware!).

(sorry, Hanslanda, my good man. You posted while I was typing)

[Reelya]

Luckily I went to Infowars to get all the knowledge about fluoride I needed to know.

. There are often other dangerous toxins in fluoridated water.

NSF, the corporation that developed drinking water standards, stated that the ‘most common contaminant in [fluoridated water] is arsenic.’

OMG there's arsenic in the fluoridated water! get the fluoride out of there, now!

...

Also you have articles claiming there's no "real" difference, then you look at their data:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/fluoridation-may-not-do-much-for-cavities/article4315206/

When it comes to fluoridating drinking water, Ontario and Quebec couldn't be further apart. Ontario has the country's highest rate of adding the tooth-enamel-strengthening chemical into municipal supplies, while Quebec has one of the lowest, with practically no one drinking fluoridated water.

But surprisingly, the two provinces have very little difference in tooth-decay rates, a finding that is likely to intensify the ongoing controversy over the practice of adding fluoride to water as a public health measure.

In the 12-19 age group, Ontario youths have 15.8 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 2.35 cavities compared to 2.79.

I think a 15% reduction is actually pretty statistically significant, and we'd have to remember that it's likely to be focused at the lower end of the income spectrum. e.g. the broad difference isn't that big because wealthier people use more fluoridated toothpaste. But the water still helps, it's just focused in people who don't brush their teeth as well.

[wierd]

Concerning fluoride in drinking water:

There is genuine health concern about this topic.  The reason for adding it to the drinking water is to convey health benefits to the financially disadvantaged, who otherwise could not afford fluoride bearing dental care products. To that aim, the concentrations in drinking water are tailored to achieve that goal.(*)

* There are two modes of intended impact with water-borne sodium fluoride ion delivery via the municipal water system. The first is the "systemic load" mode, which aims to have fluoride atoms become permanent components of developing tooth enamel in non-erupted teeth. The second is the "contact load" mode, which aims to employ fluoride's ability to reinforce and strengthen acid-damaged enamel, and allow calcium phosphate to reintegrate with the enamel after being lost due to acidic food exposure.  The amount of fluoride ion delivered in municipal water delivery systems is calculated to achieve the systemic load value, as this is the most valuable to individuals who cannot afford quality dental care from a qualified dentist, or who unable to afford a quality dental hygiene regimen with fluoride containing products.

However, the disadvantaged are a minority of the population, and the municipal water delivery system serves an entire population, not just the financially disadvantaged. The majority of people can afford, and do use, fluoride bearing dental hygiene products.  The additional fluoride in these products puts the users of those products at elevated levels of fluoride consumption, which has been shown to contribute to several noteworthy health problems, all stemming from a condition known as fluorosis.  There are two major types of fluorosis-- tooth and bone fluorosis. 

Dental fluorosis actually WEAKENS enamel, by causing dislocation faults in the phosphate lattice structures of the enamel, when fluoride ion substitution is above the ideal value. It causes permanent disfigurement of the enamel, with white pearlescent striations, as well as brown mottling, depending on how severe the fluorosis is.  Tooth enamel weakened during development like this cannot be repaired by a dentist.  At most, it can be concealed with a dental veneer.

The more alarming form however, is bone fluorisis.  This presents itself as anomalous bone tissue formation characterized as brittle sponge-like growth pattern, and a substantially higher incidence rate of fractures, bone degeneration with age, and bone cancers in adulthood.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/second-thoughts-on-fluoride/

In my opinion, fluoridated drinking water is by itself, not a significant cause for alarm.  However, care should be taken to inform the public of the potential dangers of additional fluoride in municipalities where fluoride ion is delivered by the municipal water system, and that care should be taken to minimize these additional sources of exposure. (Mouthwashes, tooth pastes, et al.)

When people are unaware of dangers associated with increased fluoride exposure, they are unlikely to exercise good judgment, (especially in a climate where "more fluoride!" is seen as a positive thing), and so public education, and assurance of low fluoride dental hygiene product availability, appear to be what is prescribed to deal with this unfortunate oversight of attempting to improve the baseline health of the impoverished.


Or, you could just go full Col Ripper, and say it is a communist plot to make everyone gay, or something.

[Trekkin]

Well, since we're abandoning all numerical indications of how much fluoride we're actually drinking relative to the levels typically seen in areas with increased incidence of skeletal fluorosis, I guess I'll just blithely say that we don't fluoridate nearly enough for normal levels of bioaccumulation to increase our fluoride levels to a dangerous degree and the CDC is still reducing recommended fluoride levels just to be completely safe, which might explain why we haven't seen a rise in skeletal fluorosis since we've started fluoridating (and severe dental fluorosis has risen only slightly.)

[wierd]

The issue with numerical values is that the concentrations delivered by the municipal water systems are not consistent, either over time in the same system, or between systems.

As such, you cannot get good quality data on the systemic load of fluoride ion in treated populations from municipal sources. 

You can bemoan the lack of use of such data, but when you cannot realistically get quality data to begin with (very high error bars), you are just being snarky. 

The reduced suggested levels endorsed by the CDC are indeed CYA in action, but as long as conveyed public health is not seriously diminished by the reduction, it is still sound policy.

[Trekkin]

Dismissing data you aren't showing on the grounds that the error bars you aren't showing are bigger than a threshold you aren't stating is very poor form.

[wierd]

True enough, but the only way you are going to get that data realistically is to have regular blood serum sampling of a target population for a protracted period, coupled with regular samplings of tapwater at the places of residence of the sample participants, and daily logged intake of tapwater by the participants-- then hope to whatever god you might think exists that you have taken into consideration all of the possible sources of additional fluoride that might make its way into your participants.

You would have to do this long enough to track incidence rate of dental fluorosis in developing children, so you are talking a several year study.

And of course, you would need to have a sample size that is even worthwhile to begin with.

The only sources of data I have actually seen are very large, rough data sources. (City says "We put this much fluoride in at the water treatment plant"-- which does not actually tell you what the concentration at the point of consumption is, etc-- or "There is a %foo incidence rate at Locale A vs Locale B" which does not control for income level, or level of additional dental hygiene regimens.)

Such data sources can at most give you a general overview, not a specific "we need to keep concentrations at point of consumption at #BAR levels." which is what you are requesting.

If you want that data, feel free to request a grant.

[dragdeler]

-snip-

[wierd]

"Kaliumpermanganat" sounds like a germanified

"Potassium permanganate"

I really don't see it being that dangerous as long as you aren't drinking concentrated solutions of the stuff.  Manganese is a strong oxidizer, yeah-- that is why it is added to the water in the first place. By the time you drink it, it has interracted with any number of organic molecules, and is likely no longer potassium permanganate. (It is likely some larger ionic organic complex that has been oxidized by the permanganate, or has interacted with other trace minerals in the water to form other less soluble complexes.)

I would say that your scientist friend has fallen victim to the trap many scientists fall into. "I am an expert in my select field, so I can totally comment meaningfully on fields outside of that one too!"  EG, when physicists pretend to be doctors, and vis-versa.