• ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    You want some fancy rebuttal to a single linked study that the article states was a bunch of partials thrown together, that came from a country famously known for half-assing and cutting corners to get ahead? The country that was caught mixing lead into ground Cinnamon to sell it for a higher weight? The one where buildings sit half done or the cement falls apart by the time it’s together? The ones who lay sod over cement in order to pass the amount of vegetation present on new construction?

    That’s the article you could and and latch onto in order to believe? Are you even aware that fluoride occurs naturally in water and that about 40% of all the drinking water across the globe already has around the amount the US gets theirs up to, or a larger amount(some places so large they do actually cause health issues)? It’s literally been drank for thousands of years.

    But you trust an incomplete study from China more than anything else? Why?

    • thesmokingman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’m was just hoping for a solid rebuttal, not necessarily a fancy one! If you’re able to explain why the criticisms you mention mean that specific study is bad, that would be great! I’m assuming you’re not from China and mistakenly think wherever you’re from doesn’t suffer from similar issues, meaning we can only trust you as much as the article.

      It would be great to have some citations for that so I can point to things when I get into these discussions! That was part of what I asked for. You seem really passionate about this so you must have that available to help me out. Thanks!

      I’m not sure you read my post if you think I trust any of the studies I linked more than anything else. It might be good to reread it!

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        You stated you’ve used this one half ased article in order to claim “the science is unclear”, which just announces that you’re a troll or a simpleton. You’re giving weight to a Chinese blip of an article and holding it up to an equal value against the loads of research and data that shows its safe.

        If someone was holding a penny in one hand and 50 pennies in the other, would you say it was unclear which hand was holding more?