Maybe, but realistically, they won't. Here is a list of the most popular hits of 1916, let me know which ones you hear people singing today.

"O Sole Mio" by Enrico Caruso
"Santa Lucia" by Enrico Caruso
"Somewhere a Voice is Calling" by John McCormack
"Where Did Robinson Crusoe Go With Friday On Saturday Night?" by Al Jolson
"I Love A Piano" by Billy Murray
"Pretty Baby" by Billy Murray
"I'm Gonna Make Hay While the Sun Shines in Virginia" by Marion Harris
"Keep the Home Fires Burning ('Till the Boys Comes Home)" by James F. Harrison
"There's A Long Long Trail A-Winding" by James F. Harrison
"Ireland Must Be Heaven, For My Mother Came From There" by Charles Harrison

This makes me think of my grandfather who was also named Ernest who served in the same area from Oct 1916 until he was a victim of a gas attack in 1917. So *quality.

George Denis Patrick Carlin (May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008)

Sir Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin, KBE (16 April 1889 –25December1977)

Jiddu Krishnamurti (Telugu:జిడ్డు కృష్ణ మూర్తి, Born:May 12,18February17,1986,)

Frederick George Peter Ingle Finch (28 September 1916 – 14 January1977)

David Vaughan Icke-(29 April 1952 -)

1916 to 1966.

First off, thanks for replying. I enjoy these conversations. They give me lots of great things to think about and explore.

Now, I think you unintentionally changed my argument. My argument wasn't "How does science explain why I like sugar?" I know people like sugary foods already. My point was that science cannot tell me why it is that of all the yummy flavors of ice cream out there, I like chocolate chip mint best. This, by the way, is not a technical limitation of science. Science can, as you noted in your post, provide an explanation as to why I prefer eating ice cream to say, spinach. It can indeed tell me about all the processes that occur in my brain (which areas get activated, what chemicals get released, etc.) when I eat chocolate chip mint ice cream. The problem is that these processes will not be the same for all people who eat chocolate chip mint ice cream.

So what we have here, then, are people experiencing that same exact objective event--we're all eating the same ice cream--and getting different results. Science is utterly unprepared to deal with this situation. Science only works in a situation in which objective knowledge can be obtained. It shouldn't matter who is doing the measuring--you should get the same result. Yet in this situation, we have multiple people "measuring" (ie tasting ice cream) and getting different results depending on the person.

To truly answer the question of why I like chocolate chip mint best, we are forced to refer to subjective knowledge and explore my personal life history up to this point, including things like my experiences, feelings, attitudes, likes and dislikes, etc. These things cannot be measured. How do you measure an experience? How could you possibly understand what I meant by without being me--having access to all of my memories, thoughts, feelings, EVERYTHING that is me? The answer is simple: you couldn't. I could explain to you in crude terms that I like chocolate chip mint better than chocolate chip by only a little bit, but you will never be able to "know" exactly what I mean "by only a little bit" (without being me, that is).

Your argument is that this problem is simply a technical matter, but I'm curious if you've taken that view to its logical conclusion--that we have no free will and are simply automatons that function at the whim of electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain. If science truly could explain to me why I like chocolate chip mint ice cream over say pistachio without taking into account my subjective experiences, then subjective experiences would have no meaning at all. Is that really what you're suggesting?

Let me next address a couple of unspoken assumptions you made in your reply to me. One seems to be that people of faith stop searching for answers because they believe in a god or higher power. But here clearly we have significant counter-evidence to your belief--namely in the vast number of scientists who are also believers in some religion (see this article). As scientists, they must continue to look for answers and re-evaluate new evidence as it arises, which seems to run counter to your assumption.

Another assumption seems to be that science and "rational thinking" makes people less likely to believe in religion. Again, see the previous article, which shows the percentage of scientists believe in religion hasn't changed so much despite the advances in science from 1916 to 1997 (when the second study was done). Are there religious people who are closed-minded and refuse to re-evaluate new evidence as it arises? Absolutely. But that is not a characteristic of many religious people and therefore your assumption would be an over-generalization.

Now, on to your next assumption--that no one will cry over the loss of dark matter. While I agree that in an ideal world, this would be true, I think you and I can agree the world we live in would be far from ideal. Science takes a great deal of time to change. The very skepticism that science holds so dear also puts the brakes on quick change in consensus within the scientific community. People will refuse to change their beliefs quickly. Experimental data will be checked and re-checked and I'm sure criticisms will be made about experiment design and other factors. Few experiments are performed that are so well designed as to be able to defy criticism. Skepticism doesn't just require evidence for belief, it requires overwhelming evidence and hence any change will be slow (there are still scientists arguing against global warming).

Ironically, I think you could look at religious people as reverse-skeptics. Where a skeptic will not believe anything without overwhelming evidence to support it, a religious person will not change their belief in something without overwhelming evidence that the belief is wrong. And this, I suppose, is the main reason why skeptics and believers simply cannot agree with each other. There is not enough (I would say any, actually) reliable evidence (objective or subjective) to convince either side. How could there be? Most skeptics discount subjective knowledge (their own included) right from the start. Everyone is arguing over apples and oranges.

Now, by all means, when someone says the world is 6000 years old, or that Jesus walked with dinosaurs, or that evolution is "just a theory," by all means take these people to task. They're wandering about in the realm of objective knowledge where science reigns supreme. But when someone says they believe in something (religion, Democracy, volunteering, world peace, whatever), demanding they show objective evidence of their belief and ridiculing them if they can't meet your arbitrary standard of proof (science requires overwhelming evidence, but there's no clear definition of how much is enough) is just plain wrong in my opinion.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
Perhaps, but no religious apologist I've ever heard has managed to convince me of that. Thats my whole point. If a believer came to me saying something like "we have independent statistics showing a significant benefit of prayer among cancer patients", that would be the kind of thing that might make me admit that belief in god was a rational and logical decision.

To your point about chocolate preference, I wouldn't be as sure, it may be a technical limitation rather than an absolute one. We already know why people tend to like chocolate, for instance (evolved sugar craving) its a tad more tricky to find out the specifics of your particular taste, but if we fully understood every detail of the brain, it might not be impossible, even without actually being you. Either way, Chocolate is a perfect example of how our subjective experience fails us: Because our ancestors lived in environments where sugar was a rarity, our bodies treat every carbohydrate molecule like it was the jackpot, basically our bodies telling us "Sugar in large quantities is great for you" Well its not, and thats a perfect example of how objective knowledge and scientific thinking always prevail over the subjective assumptions we make.

Which brings me to the point about the sun moving across the sky, which is again were science triumphs: Yes, the default assumption was that the sun, moon and stars moved around the earth, but the important part of the story is that as scientists and curious apes as we are, we arent happy just making assumptions and stop there, we keep investigating, as we will do with dark matter, it may be the best assumption we currently have, but thats not the important thing, the important thing about science is that we keep trying to figure out exactly whats going on, and if that means scrapping the whole idea about dark matter, no scientist will shed a tear, (just like we didnt when it turned out we werent the center of the universe) we will rejoice in our deeper understanding of things.

>> ^SDGundamX:

What you see as a leap-of-faith may be to the experiencer a perfectly rational and logical decision.

>> ^imstellar28:
The geometric theory of gravitation was published by Albert Einstein in 1916, do you have a problem with that as well?

Might be just me, but last I heard all the quantum physicists had quite a bit of a problem with general relativity

Furthermore, you didn't give a single answer to any of NetRunner's questions, you merely stated that you and your 'economic science' don't care about these answers, that 'science' doesn't care for bubbles or them bursting or for people losing or gaining jobs (unemployment). Funny then, because I was taught how unemployment, economy cycles and sector bubbles factor into macroeconomics (which for the most part is concerned with social economics) since the 10th grade.

I'll stop there. Unfortunately, while I possess some knowledge of economics and feel like I have a lot to say, I won't start debating it, because that way I'll never have the time to finish what I started. What I really meant to say (looking at the last paragraph of your last comment) was, please don't marginalize your presence on the Sift to aggressive antagonism. All that can come out of it is alienation and moodiness.

^Elaborate please. Have you read this book? How does a place invalidate a person? Can you quote the portion of Mises' work you are referring to? How is modern Europe flourishing if we are in a global recession? Why are you attempting to criticize the book based on its publishing date?

The geometric theory of gravitation was published by Albert Einstein in 1916, do you have a problem with that as well?

If your writing is vague to the extent it raises five questions with only 3 sentences, it is going to be hard for you to communicate with others.

“The classical example for all times,” says Junius, referring to 1793, “is the Great French Revolution.” From all this, he draws the following conclusion: “Century-old experience thus proves that it is not a state of siege, but heroic class struggle, which rouses the self-respect, the heroism and the moral strength of the masses of the people, and serves as the country’s best protection and defence against the foreign enemy.”

Junius’ practical conclusion is this:

“Yes, it is the duty of the Social-Democrats to defend their country during a great historical crisis. But the grave guilt that rests upon the Social-Democratic Reichstag group lies precisely in that, in solemnly declaring, on August 4, 1914, that ‘In the hour of danger we will not leave our fatherland unprotected,’ they at the same time belied those words. They did leave the fatherland unprotected in the hour of greatest peril. For their first duty to the fatherland in that hour was to show the fatherland what was really behind the present imperialist war; to tear down the web of patriotic and diplomatic lies with which this encroachment on the fatherland was enmeshed; to proclaim loudly and dearly that both victory and defeat in the present war are equally fatal for the German people; to resist to the last the throttling of the fatherland by declaring a state of siege; to proclaim the necessity of immediately arming the people and of allowing the people to decide the question of war and peace; resolutely to demand a permanent session of the people’s representatives for the whole duration of the war in order to guarantee vigilant central over the government by the people’s representatives, and the control over the people’s representatives by the people; to demand the immediate abolition of all restrictions on political rights, for only a free people can successfully defend its country; and, finally, to oppose the imperialist war programme, which is to preserve Austria and Turkey, i.e., perpetuate reaction in Europe and in Germany, with the old, truly national programme of the patriots and democrats of 1848, the programme of Marx, Engels and Lassalle: the slogan of a united, Great German republic. This is the banner that should have been unfurled before the country, which would have been a truly national banner of liberation, which would have been in accord with the best traditions of Germany and with the international class policy of the proletariat.... Hence, the grave dilemma—the interests of the fatherland or the international solidarity of the proletariat—the tragic conflict which prompted our parliamentarians ‘with a heavy heart’ to side with the imperialist war, is purely imaginary, it is bourgeois nationalist fiction. On the contrary, there is complete harmony between the interests of the country and the class interests of the proletarian International, both in time of war and in time of peace; both war and peace demand the most energetic development of the class struggle, the most determined fight for the Social-Democratic programme.”

This is how Junius argues. The fallacy of his argument is strikingly evident, and since the masked and avowed lackeys of tsarism, Messrs. Plekhanov and Chkhenkeli, and perhaps even Messrs. Martov and Chkheidze may gloatingly seize upon Junius’ words, not for the purpose of establishing theoretical truth, but for the purpose of wriggling, of covering up their tracks and of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers, we must in greater detail elucidate the theoretical source of Junius’ error.

He proposes to “oppose” the imperialist war with a national programme. He urges the advanced class to turn its face to the past and not to the future! In France, in Germany, and in the whole of Europe it was a bourgeois-democratic revolution that, objectively, was on the order of the day in 1793 and 1848. Corresponding to this objective historical situation was the “truly national,” i.e., the national bourgeois programme of the then existing democracy; in 1793 this programme was carried out by the most revolutionary elements of the bourgeoisie and the plebeians, and in 1848 it was proclaimed by Marx in the name of the whole of progressive democracy. Objectively, the feudal and dynastic wars were then opposed with revolutionary democratic wars, with wars for national liberation. This was the content of the historical tasks of that epoch.

At the present time the objective situation in the biggest advanced states of Europe is different. Progress, if we leave out the possibility of temporary steps backward, is possible only towards socialist society, only towards the socialist revolution. Objectively, the imperialist bourgeois war, the war of highly developed capitalism, can, from the standpoint of progress, from the standpoint of the progressive class, be opposed only with a war against the bourgeoisie, i.e., primarily civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie for power; for unless such a war is waged serious progress is impossible; and after that—only under certain special conditions—a war to defend the socialist state against bourgeois stares is possible. That is why those Bolsheviks (fortunately, very few, and we quickly handed them over to the Prizyv-ists) who were ready to adapt the point of view of conditional defence, i.e., of defending the fatherland on the condition that there was a victorious revolution and the victory of a republic in Russia, were true to the letter of Bolshevism, but betrayed its spirit: 48 for being drawn into the imperialist war of the advanced European Powers, Russia, even under a republican form of government, would also be waging an imperialist war!

In saying that class struggle is the best means of defence against invasion, Junius applied Marxian dialectics only halfway, taking one step on the right road and immediately deviating from it. Marxian dialectics call for a concrete analysis of each specific historical situation. That class struggle is the best means of defence against invasion is true both with regard to the bourgeoisie, which is overthrowing feudalism, and with regard to the proletariat, which is overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Precisely because it is true with regard to every form of class oppression, it is too general, and therefore, inadequate in the present specific case. Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle, and only this form of class struggle would have saved Europe (the whole of Europe, not only one country) from the peril of invasion. The “Great German Republic” had it existed in 1914-16, would also have waged an imperialist war.

Junius came very close to the correct solution of the problem and to the correct slogan: civil war against the bourgeoisie for socialism; but, as if afraid to speak the whole truth, he turned back to the fantasy of a “national war” in 1914, 1915 and 1916. Even if we examine the question from the purely practical and not theoretical angle, Junius’ error remains no less clear. The whole of bourgeois society, all classes in Germany, including the peasantry, were in favour of war (in all probability the same was the case in Russia—at least a majority of the well-to-do and middle peasantry and a very considerable portion of the poor peasants were evidently under the spell of bourgeois imperialism). The bourgeoisie was armed to the teeth. Under such circumstances to “proclaim” the programme of a republic, a permanent parliament, election of officers by the people (the “armed nation”), etc., would have meant, in practice, “proclaiming” a revolution (with a wrong revolutionary programme!).

In the same breath Junius quite rightly says that a revolution cannot be “made.” Revolution was on the order of the day in 1914–16, it was hidden in the depths of the war, was emerging out of the war. This should have been “proclaimed” in the name of the revolutionary class, and its programme should have been fearlessly and fully announced: socialism is impossible in time of war without civil war against the arch-reactionary, criminal bourgeoisie, which condemned the people to untold disaster. Systematic, consistent, practical measures should have been thought out, which could be carried out no matter what the rate of development of the revolutionary crisis might have been, and which would be in line with the maturing revolution. These measures are indicated in the resolution of our Party: 1) voting against war credits; 2) violation of “civil peace”; 3) creation of an illegal organisation; 4) fraternisation among the soldiers; 5) support to all the revolutionary actions of the masses.[1] The success of all these steps inevitably leads to civil war.

The promulgation of a great historical programme was undoubtedly of tremendous significance; not the old national German programme, which became obsolete in 1914-16, but the proletarian international and socialist programme. “You, the bourgeoisie, are fighting for plunder; we, the workers of all the belligerent countries, declare war upon you for socialism”—this is the sort of speech that should have been delivered in the Parliaments on August 4, 1914, by Socialists who had not betrayed the proletariat, as the Legiens, Davids, Kautskys, Plekhanovs, Guesdes, Sembats, etc. betrayed it.

Evidently Junius’ error is due to two mistakes in reasoning. There is no doubt that Junius is decidedly opposed to the imperialist war and is decidedly in favor of revolutionary tactics; and all Messrs. Plehhanovs’ gloating over Junius’ “defencism” cannot wipe out this fact. Possible and probable calumnies of this kind must be answered promptly and bluntly.

But, firstly, Junius has not completely rid himself of the “environment” of the German Social-Democrats, even the Lefts, who are afraid of a split, who are afraid to follow revolutionary slogans to their logical conclusions.[2] This is a mistaken fear, and the Left Social-Democrats of Germany must and will rid themselves of it. They will do so in the course of the struggle against the social-chauvinists. The fact is that they are fighting against their own social-chauvinists resolutely, firmly and sincerely, and this is the tremendous, the fundamental difference in principle between them and Messrs. Martovs and Chkheidzes, who, with one hand (à la Skobelev) unfurl a banner bearing the greeting, “To the Liebknechts of All Countries,” and with the other hand tenderly embrace Chkhenkeli and Potresov!

Secondly, Junius apparently wanted to achieve something in the nature of the Menshevik “theory of stages,” of sad memory; he wanted to begin to carry out the revolutionary programme from the end that is “more suitable,” “more popular” and more acceptable to the petty-bourgeoisie. It is something like the plan “to outwit history,” to outwit the philistines. He seems to say: surely, nobody would oppose a better way of defending the real fatherland; that real fatherland is the Great German Republic, and the best defence is a militia, a permanent parliament, etc. Once it was accepted, that programme would automatically lead to the next stage-to the socialist revolution.

Probably, it was reasoning of this kind that consciously or semi-consciously determined Junius’ tactics. Needless to say, such reasoning is fallacious, Junius’ pamphlet conjures up in our mind the picture of a lone man who has no comrades in an illegal organisation accustomed to thinking out revolutionary slogans to their conclusion and systematically educating the masses in their spirit. But this shortcoming—it would be a grave error to forget this-is not Junius’ personal failing, but the result of the weakness of all the German Lefts, who have become entangled in the vile net of Kautskyist hypocrisy, pedantry and “friendliness” towards the opportunists. Junius’ adherents have managed in spite of their isolation to begin the publication of illegal leaflets and to start the war against Kautskyism. They will succeed in going further along the right road.

"1.000.000 names and 20.000 added every month. 800 FEMA camps, capacity unknown. The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people."

"National Security Act of 1947 allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities.

1950 Defense Production Act gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.

Act of August 29, 1916 authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979."

via dedroidify.com

Dada or Dadaism [French, from dada, child's word for a horse] Nihilistic movement in the arts that flourished chiefly in France, Switzerland, and Germany from about 1916 to about 1920 [and later -ed.] and that was based on the principles of deliberate irrationality, anarchy, and cynicism and the rejection of laws of beauty and social organization.

REMBAR

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.

Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.

I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.

So are you are saying the original site I quoted cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? You and Doc both make the blanket statement that if the site is biased, then it cannot be trusted. If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.
Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.
I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the National Research Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public and the scientific and engineering communities. The Research Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine through the National Research Council Governing Board. The chairman of the National Research Council is Ralph J. Cicerone.


So are you are saying this site cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

In reply to this comment by rembar:
I am removing this sift from the Science channel, as this video does not well represent the scientific process by which we should all hope issues such as the use of fluoride would be given.

In addition, for the record, Qruel, when you are citing evidence in an argument, do not choose headlines written that misrepresent the studies that are being cited. Doc_M's criticism of your citing a biased website rather than the actual studies in question was very legitimate, and appropriate in this particular case. If you want to cite studies, cite studies, don't quote somebody "quoting" from a study. This is a good reason for using primary documents in a scientific debate. For example, the first study, represented as "1) National Research Council: Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fluoride standards are unsafe"...well, I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe), and guess what it reads? It says that high doses of fluoride have been proven to cause health problems (which had already been well-documented), but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.

And for a bit of further reading, check out Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (1993), which has such little gems as : "More than 50 epidemiological studies have been conducted to evaluate the relation between fluoride concentrations in drinking water and human cancer. With minor exceptions, these studies used the method of geographic or temporal comparisons of fluoridation status and regional cancer rates. There is no consistent observation of increased cancer risk with drinking-water fluoridation; most of the studies show no association. The large number of epidemiological studies combined with their lack of positive findings implies that if any link exists, it must be very weak."

A very simple but interesting exercise might be to ask your local dentist the next time you go for a checkup what he or she thinks of fluoride.

Show Ed the Law and get $1,000,000 in commercial property!
http://showedthelaw.blogspot.com/

In the Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.,[11] Mr. Justice Butler stated::

"It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [cites omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital."
.......................................................................................................

Supreme Court case: Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , 240 U.S. 103 (1916). There the Court stated that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged…"

Ernesto Lecuona y Casado (August 6, 1895 Guanabacoa, now part of Havana, Cuba - November 29, 1963 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands) was a Cuban composer and performer, perhaps the greatest and most legendary Cuban musician of his time.

Lecuona started early studying piano under his sister Ernestina, then, at the Peyrellade Conservatoire under Antonio Saavedra and the famous Joaquin Nin. Lecuona graduated from the National Conservatory of Havana with a Gold Medal for interpretation when he was sixteen. And he performed outside of Cuba at the Aeolian Hall (New York) in 1916.

He first travelled to Spain in 1924 on a concert tour with violinist Maria de la Torre; his successful piano recitals in 1928 at Paris coincided with a rise in interest in Cuban music.

He was a prolific composer of songs and music for stage and film. His works consisted of zarzuela, Afro-Cuban and Cuban rhythms, suites and many songs which are still very famous. They include "Siboney" (Canto Siboney), "Malagueña" and "The Breeze And I" (Andalucía). In 1942, his great hit, "Always in My Heart" (Siempre en mi Corazon) was nominated for a Grammy for Best Song; however, it lost to "White Christmas." Lecuona was a master of the symphonic form and conducted the Ernesto Lecuona Symphonic Orchestra. The Orchestra performed in the Cuban Liberation Day Concert at Carnegie Hall on October 10, 1943. The concert included the world premiere of Lecuona's "Black Rhapsody." Lecuona also played popular music with his Lecuona Cuban Boys band.

In 1960, thoroughly unhappy with Castro's new regime, Lecuona moved to Tampa. He died 3 years later at Santa Cruz de Tenerife and he is buried in Hawthorne, New York.

- From Wikipedia