foraker

motomagik: You must at least admit that the context of your previous message implied that there might be a causal link between some cancers and flouride. The point of my previous post was to dispel that particular notion, not to imply that you are somehow unintelligent.

I would never presume to match your loquaciousness.

I thought you were giving up flock-for-Lent?

Can fluoridated water cause cancer? The possible relationship between fluoridated water and cancer has been debated at length. The debate resurfaced in 1990 when a study by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, showed an increased number of osteosarcomas (bone tumors) in male rats given water high in fluoride for 2 years (3). However, other studies in humans and in animals have not shown an association between fluoridated water and cancer (4). In a February 1991 Public Health Service (PHS) report, the agency said it found no evidence of an association between fluoride and cancer in humans. The report, based on a review of more than 50 human epidemiological (population) studies produced over the past 40 years, concluded that optimal fluoridation of drinking water “does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans” as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date (4). In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report, scientists at the National Cancer Institute evaluated the relationship between the fluoridation of drinking water and the number of deaths due to cancer in the United States during a 36-year period, and the relationship between water fluoridation and number of new cases of cancer during a 15-year period. After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water (5). In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer (5). A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The report concluded that studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer (2).

Ok, the whole 'aluminum pans causing alzheimer's' thing has been debunked. I guess you don't read any actual refereed science journals. Next please.

You'll probably also find websites that say dioxin isn't bad for you and that global warming is a myth...... Why would the American Dental Association advocate for flouridation when it's not in their economic interests to do so? Please reply without using the word 'conspiracy'.

Another good reason for having a PLB: being stuffed into the back of a Mafia hit man's car.

it's actually a communist conspiracy to weaken our precious bodily fluids. didn't you get the memo?

Notice he said "medical facts" not "unproven anecdotal evidence you pick up from some random internet site run by someone not an expert in medicine and clinical studies"

YOU dont know that. long term studies on the effects of various vaccines on humans have not been completed yet. long term studies of death from disease sure have

Listen to the man.

We haven't been looking for him. George says we don't care about him any more (except when he needs to scare voters, then he's the greatest threat to the known universe). I wanna be nuked by New Zealand.

WA Dept of Public Health http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/immunize/documents/vacreqchildcare06.pdf Check your school districts pages as well. They should have friendlier documents

1”The attendance of every child at every public and private school in the state and licensed day care center shall be conditioned upon the presentation before or on each child’s first day of attendance...of proof of either 1) full immunization*, 2) the initiation of… a schedule of immunization, or 3) a certificate of exemption as provided for in RCW28A.210.090” EXEMPTIONS: MEDICAL exemption requires the signature of a licensed health care provider PERSONAL/RELIGIOUS exemption requires the signature of a parent/guardian * “Full immunization” or “fully immunized” is an immunization status where a child has been vaccinated at ages and intervals consistent with the national immunization guidelines, with immunizing agents against: Diphtheria; Tetanus; Pertussis (whooping cough):, Poliomyelitis; Measles (rubeola); Mumps; Rubella; Hepatitis B; Haemophilus influenzae type B disease; and Varicella for children under thirteen years of age, admitted to school or child care after July 1, 2006.” (WAC 246-100-166)

Exactly! I mean, as long as she gets her husband's permission. So if a husband engages in activities that threaten his precious 'sperm bank', does he need to get the wife's permission first?

You can hate JayB. He's an ABD. He'll soon have that PhD you despise so much. Spread some of that love around.

I love how the certain conservatives blame the ineffectual media in this country for Dubya's failures without considering the fact that he might be perfectly capable of being a failure without their help. After all, they keep describing him as 'brilliant'.

If you're going to argue that a woman's decision to have an abortion is a personal choice, then you should also be willing to accept all her other personal choices that affect that child, right? If her hubby is ok with it and she is, then mutter under your breath all you want and shake your head if you please but keep your nose out of it.

I think he meant "Washington Climber's Cotillion".

Maybe he doesn't need 'rescuing'

Paying to take kids sledding.... This strikes me as fundamentally wrong. I especially fail to see the value one is getting for the $15. Seems a bit of a steep fee for having the asphalt widened a little bit and putting up a 'Sno Park' sign.

Hey, don't run him off. I'm looking for some entertainment!

Disclaimer: I am not a gun owner, though my father is and I grew up around them and had firearm safety training in, of all places, elementary school. As well-meaning (or not) Nickels' proposals are, they either a) don't address the core problems of gun violence or are b) pointless. Crimes of passion or violence rarely use 'assault weapons' (though that depends on whose definition you are using. Some moms probably think bb guns are 'assault weapons'). If on takes the stand definition, this reduces bans on 'assault weaponst' to merely a 'feel good' sound bite. The fact is, few people own them and use them in crimes. While not an expert on the subject, since I don't follow it closely, I also suspect that his proposal to require background checks at 'gun shows' is also more political grandstanding. IIRC, checks are already required for federally licensed gun dealers and this proposal would only seek to shut down private guns sales at ostensible 'gun shows'. Finally, requiring gun locks is another 'feel good' pointless proposal since it's essentially unenforceable without continuous warrantless searches of your premises. Having a permanent gun lock would also basically make a weapon useless for home defense since one probably wouldn't have time to unlock the weapon in order to use it. What he clearly wants to target is the tragic use of parental firearms by children/youths. While this is certainly laudable, fixing this problems requires either a) education or b) parents putting locks on weapons while away from home and perhaps removing them while sleeping or c) both. My father kept many unlocked firearms in the house but neither he nor my mother worried much about it since they knew we knew how to handle them and that they weren't toys. Nickels proposals are, like so many political proposals, a band aid for a more serious problem and, at worst, the thin wedge leading to more draconian gun laws. In any event, I've always found it a bit interesting that one group of people advocates for sex education in schools, yet balks at the idea of educating young people properly about firearms and that another group advocates for the opposite. I'm sure Fairweather et al could flesh this topic out more.

You've been in Cambridge too long....

This should worry me how, exactly?