In my previous post, I commented on the new anti-science tactic on NewAnthro; take the guise of an interested, impartial fan of the blog, only to then go on to ask silly questions, digging for a dirt… Never to reply to my response.
One chap however did reply, and again and again. Overall, his questions were muddled, confusing fluoride in food and water and it took me some time to work out that his complaint was a fairly basic one without a great deal of understanding of the actual science.
My guess; he, Ian, is a fan of Merilyn Haines.
Why? He continually made the claim that safety tests on fluoride have never been done – the same point Merilyn harps on about… Only to then go on and hypocritically point out studies which she claims in fact question the safety of fluoridation.
For many reasons, she is wrong where it matters; Australian fluoridation practices are safe and effective.
Ian went on to suggest that a good way to test fluoridation safety is to test impact at 100x concentration values. Of course it would fail. The only papers the anti-fluoride movement would have you know about are those where high fluoride exposure negatively impacts health.
Thus, if I fell for it, Ian would win the argument. But is there any sense this “test”?
I couldn’t imagine much would be safe if an individual was exposed to 100x the standard recommended levels.
It is suggested that we should have around 1.5-2L of water a day. How safe would it be to consumer 150-200L a day?
Having two paracetamol tablets can effectively manage pain, but would consuming 200 be healthy?
In short, this is not a measure of fluoridation safety and the are really trying their best to insult my intelligence. The anti-fluoridation camp are no longer being entertained here (because each one of them has illustrated trolling behaviour, completely avoiding an informed discussion) and now are longer going to be entertained via email.
Theirs is truly conspiracy ideation akin to the moon landing and Roswell “truth” hopelessly fixated on a position so far from reality that they would prefer to overdose the world than accept reality.