<div>You say that no long term studies have been done. But your sticker states harm as a fact. If the harm is as definite as you state, why do you reference the lack of studies, since the conclusion from that would be "we don't know if it's dangerous"</div><div><div id="mb">​</div><div id="mb">Also, why do you call the fluoride industrial? What are the implications or conclusions to be made? Doesn't "industrial" refer more to the size and type of container?  </div></div><div class="mailbox_signature"><br>Thanks,<br><br>gopi@iPhone<br></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><p>On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Garrett Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com" target="_blank">dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></p><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><p>On 7/8/13, Martin Bogomolni <martinbogo@gmail.com> wrote:
<br>> Rather than hash a rehash of a hashed hashtag... I'll leave a well
<br>> written article from Scientific American instead:
<br>>
<br>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/overthinking-it/2013/05/22/why-portland-is-wrong-about-water-fluoridation/
<br>>
<br><br>"For over 65 years, it has been _rigorously tested_ as a public health measur"
<br>Bullshit. No long-term controlledhuman studies on fluoridation have
<br>ever been done.
<br>And from the linked doc:
<br><br>| Drinking water safety is defined and determined by federal,
<br>| state, and local regulations.
<br><br>Yeah. Trust your government, because it knows what's good for you.
<br>-- 
<br>Garrett
<br>Twitter: @xkit
<br>personx.tumblr.com
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
<br>Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net
<br>https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
<br></p></blockquote></div><br>