I closed the last sandpit because it had collapsed into a string of personal attacks – if I get time I’ll go through and delete them. I’m opening a new one, but restating the need for civil discussion, which includes a requirement for no personal attacks on other posters. I’m going to be enforcing this more stringently from now on.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Chris Warren,
as you well know, the Srebenica Historical Project is a genocide denial organisation that is funded by Republika Srpska.
It is certainly interesting to see how in recent years denial of the Tutsi, Bosniak and even at times the Shoah genocides have become respectable in certain left wing circles. That resident communist Chris Warren travels in such circles is sad but not surprising.
Well, not quite, Melvern is a troublemaker who was exposed and ridiculed by the refereed literature.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14623528.2011.567846
Well, not quite, Melvern is a troublemaker who was exposed and ridiculed by the refereed literature.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14623528.2011.567846
@Mel
Pure incompetent falsification. I have never made any comment whatsoever on
Mel is resorting to disgusting, false, innuendo, and needs to be exposed as such.
Chris Warren,
The sole purpose of the Srebenica Historical Project, as you well know, is to deny the Bosniak genocide.
I’ve caught you out using a genocide denial website to smear a respected academic.
Shameful, but a typical communist tactic.
@Mel
You may call it a denial website, but if this is your view, the truth must be otherwise.
In fact, I respect the view of impartial, competent, authorities such as UN’s Corwin.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/phillip-corwin/dubious-mandate/
Obviously massive civilian deaths occurred, but sensible people need to look at all sides in understanding these issues. This includes the Serbs.
It appears that those crying “denial” are the deniers.
Interesting to see whether Mels labelling a site as denialist is impartial or even sensible.
As a test, lets see if they “deny” the finding UN appointed expert Corwin?
Google:
Apparently Mel thinks “denialism” is disagreeing with Mel!!?
@Chris Warren
Sorry Chris, but Corwin is writing totally one sided, with information from Serbs only. Those are half truths that Corwin writes. There are doubts on numbers of civilian deaths or soldier deaths of muslims, but that is all that is questionable in usual descriptions.
I was there in Croatia and Bosnia when it all started.
@Chris Warren
If i could only find a translated Miloševi?’s speech from Kosovo polje in 1989 you could easily find message of how Serbs are opressed and his promise that he will defend them and only he can save them from other nationalist fascists (that existed but had no institutional or militarised power, non, nada, no power at all, which is totaly opposite from hegemonist and nationalist Serbs who had institutional and military power)
I view the other nationalist movements as a naive resistance against Serbian institutional control and Serbs as protectors of their institutional control.
This Miloševi? speech gave serbian criminals unconditional apologetic protector by the whole serbian nation. Any time a criminal that is serb commited a white collar crime, they could not be prosecuted under the law by any court since it was inducing the revolt by the whole nation. This created an institutional protection of any crime commited by a Serb that escalated into the war which by mid 1991 formed clear division of institutional protection of citizens in separate republics against federal protection of serb criminals which also controlled the federal army.
When full blown war developed in the second part of 1991 in Croatia, Serbs understood their rights to be unlimited since it was supported by whole army and any Serb could do any crime unpunished if he wore a uniform. Any excuse or lie was good enough defense against criminal prosecution and military commanders were deciding on the spot. That grew into institutionalized crimes against non-serbs by military commanders. This is reflected in their unified defense that Serbs were only defending demselves, they did no crime. That is what they believe even today.
It is about institutionalised tribal divisions backed by whole army against civilian, non-serbs.
I believe i gave only an inside view of any civil war in the world.
This is also description how bankers tribe going unpunished for their obvious crimes can develop into institutional protection with tribal ties against other civilian institutions.
How Bush administration enjoys institutional tribal protection after obvious crimes go unprosecuted. It can develop into more radical protections if this wound is left to fester.
Sreberenica massacre happened within this institutional crime regime so Serbs even today believe that they only deffended themselves with intellegence agencies providing them with manufactured facts excuses. these intelligence agencies that is under full controll by Serbs who got rich by commiting crimes in banking systems first then by looting wast areas under their controll and using monopolistic power over any trade under their controll are still in power. This wealth ammassed under protection of intelligence agencies is still thriving under present Serbian government and will do anything to protect themselves. They orchestrated assasinaton of Premier ?in?i? when he tried to get the country out of under controll of intelligence agencies.
This story resembles ever present strugle inside USA government and its Congressional-Military-industrial complex lead by inteligence agencies.
@Jordan
The details are not the real point. The point is whether or not it is reasonable to tag those with different views as “denialists” and then arbitrarily dismiss anything they say. This is Mel’s project.
That war crimes, stirred up by nationalism, occurred on all sides is not disputed.
Franjo Tudman (at times protected by Tito) also has accusations of later economic corruption etc.
In civil wars everyone argues that others produce one-sided reports and UN observers can be caught in this net. However given Corwin’s position and role, surely he cannot be placed in the bin of “denialism” even if you disagree with him.
Any understanding of these situations has to start with critical analysis of evidence from all sides and not introducing concepts of denialism.
The website mel denounced as denialist actually states:
In fact so far I have found nothing that deserves the tag “denialist” with this website. But this is not to say it represents everything correctly either. Everyone has the right to read Corwin without prejudice. Each reader can make up their minds whether it is one-sided in the knowledge that one-sided presentations are pretty common – eg Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN and supporting documents from UK’s Iraq Dossier (2003).
It was Mel who raised the rag of denialism.
You are right about the denialism accusation from Mel, but on the other hand, taking sides with side that has total power over victims as it happened in Srebrenica is cruel and incoherent.
Serbs have had all the millitary power against police and special police forces in Croatia that slowly grew ower time and had to cope with defending and replacing civilians while fighting with overwhelming military force.
What Corwin writes about Croatian forces in Operation storm 4 years later is blatant lies by Serbian side still believing in that they only defended themselves. There was no ethnic cleansing by Croatians. The orders to abandon Croatia came from Miloševi? even before that operation started. It stated, “When attack starts, you have to hold defence at least for 10 days when international powers will stop Croatian advance. If you see that you can not hold defensive positions, order evacuation”. That order to evacuate by regional comanders came the first day of attack at 4pm. Those that were not evacuated by the end of Operation Storm, both civilians and military were given option to stay or leave. Almost all chose to leave.
They started the war by saying that they will rather die then live under Croatian flag and shield. That is the reason they left too.
In the recent War Crime case against Croatian generals that directed the Operation storm which lasted only 4 days, the prosecution proved only 44 dead civilians in months after the operation ended. There were thousands of burned houses and around 488 dead bodies found in total after the operation, but those were also military and colateral deaths that could not be proven as war crimes, which had no indication of executions. Those generals were freed few months ago, after 10 years being locked up while trial lasted. ICTY does not give out wrongfull imprisonment compensation.
Prosecution tried to prove organized ethnic cleansing by arguing that there was excessive shelling of the main towns which acctually lasted only first day and around 750 were proven to hit populated areas. Under the assumption that excessive shelling got civilians into panic even tough there were writen orders presented as counterarguments. First trial sentenced those two generals to 24, and to 17 years imprisonment while appelate court cleared them. Outrageous.
Serbs still want to revenge their evacuation orders and betrial and they promote such views in project-srebrenica.
In Croatia, there was at least police institutions that were protecting civilians and organized defence, in Bosnia Serbs organized destruction of police organizations even before any fight started and destroyed hevier weaponry in hands of police. In the first days, Sarajevo was defended mostly by weapons provided by organized crime weapon traders. Other areas had not even that, there was slaughter in many places that had no defence against full blown military forces long before Srebrenica happened.
Please do not defend those that have full millitary power over barely armed defenders. Ever.
Numbers might be skewed and exagerated but that is all. Instead of 8000 there is proven 5000 dead bodies that were found in the area after the massacre. Sure many were cought in attempt to break trough, but bigger numbers were surrendered to Mladi? by UN.
Please do not defend those that have full millitary power over barely armed defenders. Ever.
Another important fact about Operation Storm was that Croatian forces found two times amount of weaponry and amunition in teritory that Serbs held under then all croatian forces had when they started the operation.
Some of the Serbian forces were busy with attempting to do to Biha? enklave same as they did to Srebrenica as Operation Storm started. My friened who was inside Biha? was saying that there was not even a week of fight left in them if it wasn’t for Croatian army succes of the Storm. They would have the same outcome as Srebrenica did. My friend would not be alive today if it was not for Operation Storm.
Corwin’s writing is a crock of sjite, well payed by Serbs intelligence agencies and for their further controll of Serbian state.
Megan today: “He [Mel] deliberately misrepresented me – my argument was with the fact that the miraculous joys of flouridation were so beyond the abilities of comprehension of Qld citizens that the Bligh government needed to impose it without any shred of a mandate or even a pretend ‘public consultation’.”
Here is one of the false claims Megan has made about fluoride on this very site:
“The benefits of fluoride when included as a supplement in the diet of growing children is that it undoubtedly reduces tooth decay. That benefit does not apply to adults. In adults with long exposure to fluoride it seems that a side-effect is weaker teeth leading to an increase in incidence of breakage.”
Megan has also used to own blog to write some seriously disturbed rants about fluoride. Here is one of my favourites:
“Flouride is a harmless and non-existent chemical which isn’t added to Queenslanders’ taxes every year as an off-book expense. Weirdos, conspiracy theorists and ignorant journalists with crazy agendae often confuse flouride with the various molecular manifestations of the 9th element on the periodic table, fluoride … The peak body for advocating the fluoridisation of SEQ water, the “Fluoride Users Coalition Knowledge Yes-men Obfuscation Unit” (F.U.C.K.Y.O.U.), released a press release from an unsourced source attributing the leak of information to a faulty component of their failsafe PR department.”
Megan has also published a range of potty anti-fluoride tirades by third parties, including one that claims Bligh’s plan to add fluoride to QLD water violated the Nuremberg Code and against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Of course anti-fluoride politics has its etiology in far right anti-communist movements that saw fluoride as the vanguard of socialised medicine, like the John Birch Society in the USA and the League of Rights in Australia. Unsurprisingly, the incoming conservative government in Qld gave in to the Far Right in its own party and supporter base, devolved the issue to local government and as a result many Queenslanders will not be getting fluoridated water.
Yipeeeee! The dummies win again!
Thanks for the memories!
Some of my favourites from the same page (apparently Mel takes all this very seriously and uses it to bolster his arguments):
“Ponds Institute Breeds Glow In The Dark Politicians”
“Climate Change To Kill Lucrative Gold Coast Ski Industry”
“Policeman Bites Dog, Dog Tasers Policeman”
“Queensland Offers A Set Of Steak Knives With State Assets”
and of course, Mel’s piece de resistance:
“Flouride Spelling Blunder Outrage”
Not referring to anyone in particular but might I just say the word: Clown?
Golden Rice is currently being grown in trial plots in the Philipines. See this NPR article.
When first developed, golden rice was grown in a grenade-proof compound outside Zurich to withstand Greenpeace vandalism.
Naturally, Greenpeace is taking legal action to stop the Filipino trials …
This dispute would be better pursued elsewhere.
By all means.
But, not sure you should allow one poster (with a pretty long history of angry) to say of another: “seriously disturbed” – without allowing the target a reply.
I’m happy to stop here – on the proviso that if Mel sledges me further on this blog any reasonable response (as determined by the moderator) can also get posted.
This isn’t just an issue about brawling. I have been serially and seriously misrepresented by Mel on Fluoride (note correct spelling) and he has gotten away with it.
Thanks.
@Megan
Megan is right. Yet again Mel has proved itself a blatant rightwing nutter, completely unable to read text, and completely unable comprehend simple English.
Poor Mel, it doesn’t even realise that there is no such thing as: “flouride”.
It needs to apologise.
Kudos to Megan, although inadvertantly, her “Flouride Scourge Outrage: Fury” has shown mel to be a right old Clown of the first order.
Yet again – whatever Mel claims – in every case, the opposite is reality.
There is no dispute over “fluoride” so nothing to be pursued elsewhere.
Its only voices in mels head.
I’m with Megan and Chris on this one. I too have been serially abused, sledged and misrepresented by Mel. It seems that only after people like us defend ourselves and our positions is everyone asked to take it to the sandpit. Mel, as the initiator, ought to be reined in by the host IMO.
Ikonoclast:
“I’m with Megan and Chris on this one. I too have been serially abused, sledged and misrepresented by Mel.”
You were called out for making shrill and hysterical claims about AGW that go well beyond what the latest IPCC report and a reasonable reading of the peer reviewed literature would allow and thus you turned the issue into vaudeville.
On each issue of science discussed here- fluoridated water, AGW and GMO agriculture, I’ve defended the mainstream science against the fringe, be that the Lunar Left or the Rabid Right. I don’t resile from that.
It wasn’t that long ago that being pro-science was a respectable position on the Left. Maybe I’m old fashioned for hoping those days will soon return.
Mel,
And you were called out for ignoring substantial evidence posted by myself and others that supported the validity of my claims. You ignored this evidence and continued to personally abuse people, sledge and misrepresent them.
Many on this blog consider you have abusiveness and anger issues. You should take a good hard look at yourself. You are arrogant, abusive, dismissive and rigidly close-minded. I doubt you have any real understanding of science or logic or philosophy. If you had any such understanding you would not display such blind, rigid arrogance and contempt of others. You disgust me.
For J.Q. , I feel it is highly unlikely I could continue to read or post on a blog where someone like Mel is tolerated. Of course, that’s what he wants to do. Drive people away.
Ikonoclast,
Our host opened the thread with this statement:
“I closed the last sandpit because it had collapsed into a string of personal attacks – if I get time I’ll go through and delete them. I’m opening a new one, but restating the need for civil discussion, which includes a requirement for no personal attacks on other posters.”
How about respecting the wishes of our host?
(Sorry, correction from my previous comment – “Herman and Peterson”, not “Herman and Davidson”)
Mel: “I see no point in engaging with you further if you don’t at least read the arguments that peer reviewed scholars on genocide, such as Jones, Caplan, Hoare, Shaw and Malvern use to dismiss them as serial fraudsters.”
I read their responses. They presented no arguments, except to accuse Herman and Peterson of heavily basing their contention on evidence presented by the legal team of the accused genocidists. This is demonstrably false.
There is the census data, which Alison Des Forges (is she peer-reviewed enough?) also cites in “Leave None To Tell The Story”, and based on survivor numbers, estimates the figure of Tutsis slaughtered at 500,000:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-04.htm#P95_39230
ie. within the bounds estimated by Herman and Peterson – and significantly less than the 800,000 figure Monbiot puts to print.
There is the declassified US Department of State memorandum:
Click to access UNHR-US-STATE-DEPT-REPRISAL-KILLINGS-RWA.pdf
“The September 17, 1994 debriefing of members of a UNHCR team that spent July and August, 1994 in Rwanda revealed that the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), the military wing of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), has engaged in a pattern of systematic killing of Hutu civilians in the south and southeast of Rwanda.
[…]
The team established that the RPA and Tutsi civilian surrogates had killed 10,000 or more Hutu civilians per month, with the RPA accounting for 95% of the killings.”
[…]
The UNHCR team speculated that the purpose of the killing was a campaign of ethnic cleansing intended to clear certain areas in the south of Rwanda for Tutsi habitation. The killings also served to reduce the population of Hutu males and discouraged refugees from returning to claim their lands.”
And there is the Stam and Davidson working paper:
Click to access Stam_03.26.09.pdf
Published in a journal or not, it has been extensively peer-reviewed, is cited by countless other papers, and a quick googling shows it appears in NYU’s genocide studies syllabus.
It presents not easily dismissible evidence that Hutu deaths at the hands of both the RFP and the ruling Hutu regime, easily numbered in excess of 100,000. Des Forges recognises Hutu deaths of at least 60,000. The memorandum linked above suggests ongoing killing at a rate 10,000 a month. In excess of 100,000 is hardly an outlandish claim.
I don’t “believe” there were more Hutu deaths than Tutsi in that first 100 days.
I simply recognise that all of the evidence Herman and Peterson cite in support of their contention (which was not limited to 100 days) does in fact exist. In short, their sources check out. The critiques by Monbiot’s experts were not devastating. Herman and Peterson did not falsify anything. They are not serial fraudsters.
And that in the longer run, including reprisal killings within Rwanda, and Rwanda’s subsequent invasions of the DRC, ‘more Hutus slaughtered that Tutsis’ becomes much less controversial to contend anyway.
None of this has any bearing on their rebuttal of Pinker – it makes no difference to Pinker’s case how many Hutus or Tutsis were killed. Nobody disputes the total dead was at least 800,000, and over 5 million in the wars which ensued afterwards. Nor does it matter what Herman and Peterson’s political and personal beliefs are in relation to the motivations behind the genocide.
@Nick
Mel’s project is not to contribute to things, but to use false provocations to wage war against
those not of its ilk.
This is a precursor to the degenerated democracy we see in many capitalist regimes in SE Asia.
Mel is one of those absurd characters so igonorant of history, especially economic history, that he is unaware of how far the Overton Window has moved to the extreme right since 1970. Because he has only moved 3/4 as far to the right as the Overton Window, he imagines this makes him “left” on the political spectrum. Mel wouldn’t know social democratic policies if he tripped over them.
For the record, I have no position on the fluoridation of water.
My own (anecdotal) evidence is this. My siblings and I were given fluoride tablets as children (water supply un-fluoridated), ate the same diet and followed the same parentally enforced teeth cleaning rituals. My teeth turned out abysmal (full of dental caries), one of my siblings’ teeth turned out invulnerable to dental caries and the others fell in between.
My wife and her siblings (when young) had no fluoride tablets, un-fluoridated water, ate the same diet and turned out with an equal range invulnerability to vulnerability to dental caries. My wife’s teeth are well-nigh invulnerable but one of her siblings has bad teeth like me. Both my offspring have invulnerable teeth like their mother including one who hardly ever cleans his teeth.
Conclusion? Fluoride is relatively inconsequential in teeth health outcomes. Genetic inheritance plays a huge role as does avoiding sugary foods and especially sugary drinks when young. End of story. Mel should stop hyperventilating about fluroide arguments.Fluoride is not that important compared to other factors.
@Nick
“None of this has any bearing on their rebuttal of Pinker – it makes no difference to Pinker’s case how many Hutus or Tutsis were killed.”
Obviously so.
Much of what Herman/Peterson article say doesn’t address the core of Pinker’s thesis and violent deaths in previous historical epochs is completely ignored. Chris Warren first linked to the Herman/Peterson article, presumably without having read the thing.
You link to a Human Rights Watch document. I’m not sure if you read the Herman/Peterson article thoroughly but if did you’d be aware that Human Rights Watch is a contaminated source according to same. They say in footnotes:
” For a critique of Human Rights Watch’s systematic apologetics for U.S. wars, see Edward S. Herman, David Peterson, and George Szamuely, “Human Rights Watch in Service to the War Party,” Electric Politics, February 26, 2007.”
I make this point only because the peer reviewed researchers who accept the mainstream narrative re the Tutsi and Bosniak genocides accuse Herman/Peterson of relying on only a small number of sources, misrepresenting many of those sources and studiously ignoring for various reasons the vast bulk of research, including pretty much the entire peer reviewed literature.
@Ikonoclast
My argument with Qld fluoridation (and to GM labelling to some extent) is one of politics and governance.
Secret deals involving large amounts of public money without consultation or even mounting a case – in Beattie’s words (re: Traveston Dam) “the deal is done”.
No way to run a democracy. Unsurprisingly, people take exception to being treated that way. It is bound to raise questions such as “why?” and “cui bono?”, some people might think such questions are unreasonable – I don’t.
OK, everyone has had their say for and against Mel. I’m now going to ban Mel if he (I assume) makes any personal criticism of Megan, Chris or Ikonoklast, and vice versa. This policy is in effect immediately and permanently.
@Megan
“My argument with Qld fluoridation (and to GM labelling to some extent) is one of politics and governance.”
No it isn’t.
You said this: “In adults with long exposure to fluoride it seems that a side-effect is weaker teeth leading to an increase in incidence of breakage.”
If you no longer believe fluoride weakens and breaks adult teeth, say so.
Fluoridated water is recommended by the World Health Organisation and the US Centre for Disease Control lists it as one of the ten most important health programs of the twenty-first century. Numerous studies have established teh benefits of fluoridated water.
An example of a recent study involving a sample of 3,800 done in Australia:
“A study published online in the Journal of Dental Research showed that adults who spent more than 75 percent of their lifetime living in fluoridated communities had 30 percent less tooth decay compared to adults who had lived less than 25 percent of their lifetime in fluoridated communities.
…
“It was once thought that fluoridated drinking water only benefited children who consumed it from birth,” explained Dr. Gary Slade, the John W. Stamm Distinguished Professor and director of the oral epidemiology Ph.D. program at UNC. “Now we show that fluoridated water reduces tooth decay in adults, even if they start drinking it after childhood. In public health terms, it means that more people benefit from water fluoridation than previously thought.”
The above study was published this month in the Journal of Dental Research.
Ikonoclast’s claim: “Fluoride is relatively inconsequential in teeth health outcomes.” is a falsehood.
In the interests of reasonableness, I acknowledge the falsehood is a product of ignorance and a misunderstanding of the difference between science and anecdote and not deception.
Sorry PrQ- didn’t see your comment. Delete my reply to M and I if you wish.
Mel, yes I’m aware of all of that. That’s why I chose to introduce Des Forges’ work into the discussion, and thought it important to note her estimates were in fact (still) closer to Herman and Peterson’s, not Monbiot’s – and that, in sharp contrast to Monbiot’s rhetoric, Des Forges is of course willing to grant large degrees of uncertainty and inconclusiveness.
“relying on only a small number of sources”
Herman and Peterson heavily based their contention on the Stam and Davidson paper linked to above, which used all databases available at the time to arrive at its results. ie. it was not based on only a small number of sources.
You can of course read it, and form your own evaluation of its findings, and the weight you think they should or should not carry, or not.
I would also be happy to read specific criticisms of its methodology and findings from any of the peer-reviewed scholars you mention.
The best I could find is Caplan who states “the methodology employed to arrive at such an Orwellian assertion has been totally discredited”, but fails to provide any source for when this occurred, and who by. He also accuses the authors of “gleefully drinking each other’s putrid bath water”. Forgive me if I don’t regard that as evidence of anything.
I imagine the mainstream peer reviewed researchers treat Herman as a leper because he has been playing the same game for 35 odd years now. As you may be aware he co-authored articles and books with Noam Chomsky about the Khmer Rouge that relied on the works of KR sympathizers and dismissed practically every negative commentator as a propagandist.
This account of that episode seems reasonably even handed, at least by internet standards.
Who knows, maybe Herman is right about his Propaganda Model; maybe the mainstream peer reviewed literature is corrupted; maybe Herman knows more about Rwanda, Bosnia and Cambodia than the professional academic researchers.
A problem with these types of debates is that us punters don’t have direct access to the peer reviewed, or when we do we have to pay an outlandish fee to download an article. It costs $179 to download a single issue of the Journal of Genocide Research! Another problem is that many academics eschew public debate.
Alternatively, the fringe dwellers who exist outside the tent, be it Herman on genocide or Jo Nova on AGW, have the zeal of born again Christians and an audience that eagerly wants to believe the message …
It is about time the Left took on Big Journal. As Monbiot etc have noted, these guys are running a racket and making exorbitant profits.
Fluoridated water is recommended by the World Health Organisation and the US Centre for Disease Control lists it as one of the ten most important public health programs for the twenty-first century.
Numerous studies have established the benefits of fluoridated water, including this study published earlier this year in Journal of Dental Research.:
“A study published online in the Journal of Dental Research showed that adults who spent more than 75 percent of their lifetime living in fluoridated communities had 30 percent less tooth decay compared to adults who had lived less than 25 percent of their lifetime in fluoridated communities.
…
“It was once thought that fluoridated drinking water only benefited children who consumed it from birth,” explained Dr. Gary Slade, the John W. Stamm Distinguished Professor and director of the oral epidemiology Ph.D. program at UNC. “Now we show that fluoridated water reduces tooth decay in adults, even if they start drinking it after childhood. In public health terms, it means that more people benefit from water fluoridation than previously thought.”
Claims that fluoride doesn’t work or makes your teeth fall out is rightist propaganda.
Fascinating. Doesn’t address the argument about why it had to, literally, be shoved down Qlders’ throats without consultation or adult discussion.
Since we’re talking about “UNC”:
Ikon – seems you are on the money!
http://genomics.unc.edu/faculty/webpages/everett.html
@Mel
Ahem. Compare #14 with scientific facts in #39.
Next!
UK NHS on dental fluorosis:
wwwDOTnhsDOTuk/conditions/Fluoride/Pages/Introduction.aspx
From WebMD:
childrenDOTwebmdDOTcom/fluorosis-symptoms-causes-treatments
It is precisely because of fluorosis, “Colorado Brown Stain”, that we first learnt that fluoride protects teeth against cavities.
To put it in a nutshell, the fluorosis bogey is to fluoridated water as the autism bogey is to childhood vaccination.
http://genomics.unc.edu/faculty/webpages/everett.html
Try again.
Now I’m beside myself with fear.
http://genomics.unc.edu/faculty/webpages/everett.html
Dental fluorosis can be a many splendid thing …
Don’t be afraid. Knowledge will set you free.
As an honest contributor, I included the whole paragraph.
I can’t speak for your motivation in leaving out the next bit:
Maybe you didn’t see that bit.
Dental fluorosis protects us from tooth decay. I have it myself. I love it.
If I didn’t have the barely detectable dental fluorosis sometimes associated with fluoridated water I’d be very cross.
Can’t have you getting cross!
Enjoy your fluorisis. No, really.
Now, back to the original point: why not get a mandate – or at least make it a ‘policy’ at an election – before imposing it on the citizens of Queensland without notice?
Oh, and PS: stay away from crunchy foods and wholegrains – you might get a nasty, and expensive, surprise.
I do enjoy my fluorosis very much. It was love at first site.
The answer to your question is simple; the public is highly suspectible to fear campaigns. Note for instance how public concern about AGW dropped like a stone after demagogues on the Right started their campaign of attacks on mainstream scientists.
Representative democracy sucks in many ways but it is the best system we currently have.
The death penalty would’ve been reintroduced in at least some Australian states in the 1990s according to Roy Morgan polls if public opinion decided the issue. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/08/28/our-changing-views-on-the-death-penalty/
Would you agree to the reintroduction of the death penalty if public opinion supported it? I know I wouldn’t.
Now I must go beddy byes. Good night.
@Mel correct. Most socially progressive laws led public opinion.
The idea of 3 year parliaments is leaders can pursuade the public that initially unpopular laws were justified and worked.
The members of parliament are not agents, they are trustees subject to replacement