The Argument Clinic

[Argon]

I grew up drinking water from a well. My parents and family dentist made sure we used fluoride toothpaste and brushed at least twice a day. Our teeth were great. So yes, one can obtain fluoride without including it in drinking water.

In a number of communities and families near where I grew up, personal dental health practices were clearly not uniform. My dentists would complain that they could generally tell whether a patient grew up in a nearby town without water fluoridation vs. another town, which had fluoridation.

It’s ultimately a public health issue, balancing risks vs gains. Corrective dental repair is not cheap.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Microdosing that into every glass of water would be annoying, so I probably wouldn’t. But if I had a good way to add it where the line enters my house I probably would.

As a senior citizen, I don’t consider fluoride ingestion quite as important as for other age groups—but dentists may recommend fluoridated water for seniors if they determine the patient’s other sources are insufficient. (My body is not in the process of building strong teeth as I grow, so is not a major priority for me.) But if I did want to add fluoride to my drinking water, I would simply add a fluoride cartridge to my countertop reverse osmosis system. After all, I would have no reason to add it to the water I shower and wash laundry in.

I acquired a very inexpensive and compact three-cartridge system when I moved to this city which has a very high sodium content in its municipal water supply (due to the naturally salty wells of this area.) The RO system does a very good job of reducing mineral content in general down to very low levels—and the resulting water is great for watering plants and can be used in my water distiller without leaving hardly any “scale” in the distiller. Adding a fluoride cartridge would simply mean another tube connecting the present output to a final-stage fluoridation cartridge, which would probably last a year or two before needing replacement.

This is merely anecdotal but I know of families where the elder children spent their early years in a region with very little fluoride in the well water. The family moved to major cities where the younger children grew up with fluoridated water. In late middle age it was remarkable how the eldest children had so much greater oral health problems than the younger ones. (And the differences were very costly and time consuming in terms of dental repairs, teeth removal, and maintenance.)

There have been some studies correlating lower IQ with fluoridated water ingestion by the mother during pregnancy. As always correlation and causation are not the same thing, and it can be very tricky to sort out what is happening. Of course, these same potential problems of possibly concerning correlations can be found with many other materials which naturally occur in water sources. (For example, what is the maximum safe level of arsenic?) If RJK Jr. wants more study of these topics and the evidence gathered supports yet another adjustment of fluoride amounts—but I would bet that it is yet another case where risk versus rewards gets very complicated. Meanwhile, the rewards with fluoridation are impressive.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@BenKissling

All I am saying is that I personally don’t think people should be almost literally force fed fluoride in their water. As a chemist, I don’t know, doesn’t fluoride in water dissolve, thus ionizing and becoming fluorine? I actually don’t know, but it certainly seems that it would, especially in low concentrations in water.

I took this statement as a question for a chemist, not that Ben was claiming to be a chemist. In any case, confusion between fluorine and fluoride seems to be common, and a little bit of disambiguation might avoid a lot of argument.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Possibly, but then writing “As a chemist, I don’t know…” is a bad choice of words because it implies he’s a chemist. That should at least have said “As a non-chemist, I don’t know…”

[Paul_King]

I think the idea is that he meant to write “Ask a chemist”. Which is possible, but he really ought to have admitted it, if it were true. But maybe he’s just too proud.

[sfmatheson (Stephen Matheson)]

@Rumraket

writing “As a chemist, I don’t know…” is a bad choice of words because it implies he’s a chemist.

From his description of himself:

I have a B.S. in biochemistry from the University of Nebraska Lincoln. I have a wide variety of lab experience in both academic and industry settings.

I guess we all have to decide what constitutes a “chemist” but I personally doubt that he meant “ask a chemist,” especially in light of his braggadocio in name-dropping “halogen.” Maybe it would have been wise to dial down the bluster in light of what appears to be broad ignorance?

[Argon]

My BS is Chemistry…

[LogosOfLogic (Light Life Love)]

@Dan_Eastwood

Oh I get it … you think you can define things however you like, read in any interpretation you like, and declare yourself to be right and everyone else wrong. This is not logic, this is something else.

thronein British English

(θrəʊn )

noun

the ceremonial seat occupied by a monarch, bishop, etc on occasions of state

the power, duties, or rank ascribed to a royal person

a person holding royal rank

4. (plural; often capital)

the third of the nine orders into which the angels are traditionally divided in medieval angelology

verb

to place or be placed on a throne

[LogosOfLogic (Light Life Love)]

@Tim

Non-theistic/pantheistic religions such as Buddhism and Taoism are even more difficult to make the claim of monotheistic origins for.

Ancient Chinese also worshipped Shangdi:
Shangdi (Chinese: 上帝; pinyin: Shàngdì ; Wade–Giles: Shang4 Ti4 ), also called simply Di (Chinese: 帝; pinyin: Dì ; lit. ‘God’),[1] is the name of the Chinese Highest Deity or “Lord Above” in the theology of the classical texts, especially deriving from Shang theology and finding an equivalent in the later Tiān (“Heaven” or “Great Whole”) of Zhou theology.[2]

[Tim]

@LogosOfLogic

The ancient Hindus were originally monotheistic according to their own original primary ancient texts before they deteriorated into polytheism. As I have proven above with direct quotes from the primary text of the ancient Hindus. So they agreed with me in theory.

Let me correct that for you:

The ancient Hindus were originally monotheistic according to [my inexpert and very limited and cherry-picked quotes of] their own original primary ancient texts before they [purportedly] deteriorated into polytheism. As I have [claimed to have] proven above with [very limited and cherry-picked] direct quotes from the primary text of the ancient Hindus. So they [may or may not have] agreed with me in theory.

As I stated above:

@Tim

11. Cherry-picked quotes of the Riga Veda are unpersuasive. What would be needed would be expert interpretation based on the entirety of that text.

Lacking such holistically-based expert interpretation, you have proven nothing!

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

I am, but many others have explained why. You ignore those explanations and engage in relentless sealioning.

They have not explained why. They first tried to attack the author and just now are starting to discuss the details. If this is blood it appears to be altered by some process. Do you agree with the hypothesis that it is not blood or does not contain blood?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

They have not explained why.

That is a lie, Bill.

@colewd

They first tried to attack the author and just now are starting to discuss the details. I

Then ignore the attacks and discuss evidence only. Stop sealioning.

@colewd

If this is blood it appears to be altered by some process.

None of the evidence suggests that it is blood.

[Tim]

@colewd

They first tried to attack the author and just now are starting to discuss the details.

Oh stop complaining, you vacuous sealion.

Given the Gish Gallop of ludicrously flimsy articles you have been spewing on this thread, it is hardly surprising that we do a level of triage on them, so that we only waste time on the semi-serious ones.

The initial, prima facie, conclusion was that Fanti’s article was (i) “insane” (in that it was trying to support a ludicrous conclusion), (ii) poorly-substantiated (in that its hypothesis was explicitly “incomplete and needs further development”), and (iii) published in a less-than-reputable journal.

That was enough to ignore it as ‘most probably worthless’.

Then you, ignoring those earlier issues, decided to raise this piece of shite again.

As a consequence, it was discovered that its author has no relevant expertise whatsoever! (A fact that you have carefully avoided addressing.)

Then yesterday, out of boredom and morbid curiosity, I took a closer look at that paper’s ‘evidence’.

It was even worse than we expected. Fanti’s ‘evidence’ is utterly worthless!

We have not so much been ‘discussing’ it so much as impeaching it (and pointing at it and laughing).

The ‘blood crust’ sample is (by my estimation) at least 50% inorganic contaminants (mostly gold), with no reason to believe that the remainder contains any measurable amount of blood – so no reason to expect nitrogen to be there in the first place.

(I would also note that you have also carefully avoided addressing these issues.)

Even for somebody with no relevant expertise, this paper would appear to be blatant academic malpractice.

I have to ask:

Bill, why do you repeatedly bring up such blatantly abysmal sources?

Are you too ignorant to tell the difference? Or are you too dishonest to care?

Did you even carefully read the Fanti paper before repeatedly inflicting it on us?

I think we’re entitled to answers to these questions.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@John_Harshman

Note again that some of them contradict each other. All the nitrogen has supposedly disappeared from a blood sample after turning to carbon 14, thus leaving no proteins in the sample. (That’s where the nitrogen is; remove the nitrogen, the proteins fall apart.) But also, the blood type has been determined, and that’s done by analyzing the blood proteins. Creationists are commonly unconcerned with consistency, or perhaps they just don’t notice.

Hi John
Nitrogen not being detected is not the same as not existing. It simply may be reduced beyond the noise in the measurement. This is the claim Fanti made in the paper.

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

Nitrogen not being detected is not the same as not existing. It simply may be reduced beyond the noise in the measurement. This is the claim Fanti made in the paper.

Ask yourself whether, if that’s the case, any blood proteins would remain intact enough to detect.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@colewd

It simply may be reduced beyond the noise in the measurement.

I will take that as an admission that blood, let alone blood type, has not been detected. We can move on from there.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@RonSewell

I will take that as an admission that blood, let alone blood type, has not been detected. We can move on from there.

Blood typing is a separate test from this experiment. When Fanti talks about blood type he is talking about different blood stains with different conditions such as blood dried before death. His category A, B and C mean this and not classic typing ie O AB etc.

@John_Harshman

Ask yourself whether, if that’s the case, any blood proteins would remain intact enough to detect.

Depends of the detection method for proteins and its precision.

[Tim]

Given that @Giltil has brought up David Rolfe and thus, by implication, the ‘Repair’ claims, I thought it a good time to remind people of the unrebutted evidence against these claims:

1. There is no mass spectrometry evidence that the C14 sample from the Shroud of Turin comes from a “medieval invisible mending” – the title speaks for itself

2. INVESTIGATING A DATED PIECE OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN, whose abstract reads:

We present a photomicrographic investigation of a sample of the Shroud of Turin, split from one used in the radiocarbon dating study of 1988 at Arizona. In contrast to other reports on less-documented material, we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants.

I’m curious how often this evidence will need to be brought up before Gil feels compelled to address it. Until he does, I think it perfectly reasonable to view him as being exactly the type of “gullible Christian” he mentioned above, or for short:

Gullibert

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AlanFox

Blood-soaked? This is far from an established fact, even looking at the paper you think supports it?

Hi Alan…happy 2025

@Gil and the paper both are not claiming the image is based on blood. This was the thought prior to the author doing investigation.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

I know that the evidence supports evolutionary theory, including some of the evidence that I myself have produced. I don’t “know evolution to be true” except when defined as “changes in allele frequency over time,” directly observable only over short time intervals. That being said, I don’t see any reason why it does not extrapolate to billions of years.

Hi John
Is your extrapolation based on your MYH7 argument?

This does not invalidate Behe’s paper which shows very long timeframes for fixation as the data you have shown is consistent with 30% of amino acid substitutions being neutral.