Who elected Jack D. Ripper?

Here's a treat: a congressman who has been in office since 1989, and is on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

claiming Global Warming they create powerful Global gov. Claiming tooth decay they mandate chemical fluoride in our water

He's a Republican, of course.

Meanwhile, in a small town in Alaska


In this town of 403 residents 83 miles above the Arctic Circle, beaches are disappearing, ice is melting, temperatures are rising, and the barrier reef Kivalina calls home gets smaller and smaller with every storm.

There is no space left to build homes for the living. The dead are now flown to the mainland so the ocean won't encroach upon their graves. Most here agree that the town should be relocated; where, when and who will pay for it are the big questions. The Army Corps of Engineers figures Kivalina will be underwater in the next decade or so.

It really ought to be possible to impeach politicians for egregious wrongness. Or maybe the voters in California's 48th district ought to stop electing this asshole.

More like this

Your Dr. Strangelove reference to the "conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids" through the introduction of fluoridation may be lost on some readers.

After hearing Republican candidate after Republican candidate proudly display their scientific illiteracy ( there needs to be a punchy, short one word term for scientific illiteracy ... any suggestions?), I wait in vain for the American public to rise up and denounce them. Alas, they too are mostly scientifically illiterate and could care less.

Rohrabacher is such a typical Republican phuquetard. HIs third biggest contributor is the National Auto Dealers Association. Gee, do you think they tell him what to say about global warming? He studied history in school, and yet he is on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology. WTF?

Rohrabacher is probably as big a threat to the US today as some of the assholes in IceHole (ISIL). Maybe worse.

Climate change is extremely serious, and the science credible, unlike fluoridationist "science". Thinking that everything which has had the label "science" slapped onto it is all the same is about as dumb as it gets. Fluoridation and the reckless burning of fossil fuels are both examples of grossly irresponsible pollution carried out to further corporate interests at the expense of the public, and in defiance of the best scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle. It is unlikely to just be a coincidence that America and Australia are especially guilty in relation to both. When a dentist supports industrial silicofluoride toxic waste pollution, it is similar to a geologist supporting carbon pollution, because they are both speaking outside their area of expertise. Whenever anyone speaks in favour of forced-fluoridation they are just blowing hot air, because there is no good quality evidence they can cite, and because the whole idea of using public water supplies to medicate populations is ridiculous to everyone with at least a little common sense.

By Dan Germouse (not verified) on 31 Aug 2015 #permalink

We are talking proportionality here. The fictional Jack D. Ripper attempts to start WWIII because he is paranoid about commies and their plot to fluoridate water, and he basically ends up destroying most of the human race. When a US Congressman starts talking like Jack D. Ripper, it is both humorous and worrisome. When the same powerful congressman dismisses climate change as a world government plot, it is extremely worrisome.

Being sensitive to fluoridation issues is one thing. Citing fluoridation as a plot for world government is a totally different animal.

Dan, your ignorant little rant would be amusing if we weren't in a time where ignorance of science and blatant falsehoods are the norm for so many people.

dean, it's you who is ignorant, dumbfuck. I have a science education, and have read thousands of pages on fluoride and fluoridation, largely made up by systematic reviews and original research studies. I also have many years of experience with fluoride sensitivity and skeletal fluorosis. Dimwits like you are good at spouting bullshit, but when it comes to actually providing some credible evidence that the forced-fluoridation human experiment is anything but harmful and useless, you have nothing.

By Dan Germouse (not verified) on 31 Aug 2015 #permalink

Mr. Germouse,

Two things:

1) The dose makes the poison. Skeletal fluorosis is unlikely to occur in communities where the fluoride levels have been adjusted to the optimum level.

2) Your rudeness undermines your credibility.

By Candice H. Bro… (not verified) on 31 Aug 2015 #permalink

" I have a science education,"

Given your first comment, I don't believe you.
I do have degrees in statistics, and am capable of understanding the studies. Nothing you said is remotely true. (If you had any evidence to rebut it would have been in #5: your blathering paints you as nothing more than the fluoride equivalent of a vaccine denier.)

Mr. Germouse,
On fluoridation, if you don't believe the studies supporting it,
I offer the following story (I know, it is anecdotal evidence....):
I grew up in a small town in Germany, long ago; you know cakes, Christmas cookies, sweets are a big part of the culture, and my mother was a good baker. I remember, when I was very small, my 7 years older brother and all his classmates had cavities; they all had stories of terrible times at numerous dentist visits. Now I came along, living in the same household, and somehow my parents never got around to bring me to the dentist, It was not necessary. My class mates rarely talked about visiting the dentist. I got my first cavity (and second-ever dentist visit) when living in the US, at age 27.
What's the difference? We grew up in the same household, with comparable consumption of sweets, with me perhaps even having more of a 'sweet tooth.'
But, the city had introduced fluoridation of drinking water when I was still small. So based on my own experience, and that of my neighbor's kids, there must be something to fluoridation, and I am grateful to the public health authorities (and dental association, who supported this, although it cut into their lucrative business of filling cavities).
Then, compare fluoride to chlorine. If you are against fluoridation, aren't you also against chlorination? After all, chlorine reacts with organic materials to form cancer-causing compounds (in minute quantities). But after once visiting a country where diarrhea and such (not to speak of cholera, ...) are endemic, you'll enjoy chlorinated water so much more, and be grateful for it.
Both fluoride and chlorine in the water are appropriate as a low-cost governmental intervention. Had it been left to individuals to buy and use fluoride tablets, many would have not done it (or it would require an expensive outreach and education campaign, with calls of free fluoride tablets for the poor...) And if your drinking water is not safe (as without chlorine/chloramide ...), even if you always boil it, sometimes you'll forget, don't properly boil it... and come down with a diarrheal disease costing you and your community. So better let the 'government' water works do it, cheaply. Then you don't need to think about it any more. And you are free to buy bottled water. (Pediatricians advise people here not to use bottled water for infant formula, as it doesn't have fluoride)

Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride (actually industrial waste hydrofluosilicic acid, used in rat poison) added without consent.

The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.

"Everyone wants safe, clean water..."

Agreed, but the minuscule amount of fluoride in the water is not making it unsafe.

"hydrofluosilicic acid, used in rat poison"

Again, you are either willfully dishonest here or ignorant: the trace amounts found in tap water are harmless. It's more than a little annoying to continue to put up with such cheap crap from you non-science folks.

dean, don't be so judgmental just because you are uninformed. In fact, in 1938 when the FDA was formed sodium fluoride was grandfathered in for use because it was already on the market as a RAT POISON.

Fluoride is the only drug on the market which is not approved by the FDA. They call it an unapproved drug.

I suggest you do some more reading to educate yourself.
The most complete fluoride science is presented in the following book. New York scientist Dr. Paul Connett offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of fluoride in his recent book
(with two scientists co-authors, one an M.D.);

· "The Case Against Fluoride: How
Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful
Politics That Keep It There"

· It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80
pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ in children,
kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.

@11: Sorry, there is no reputable science about the fluoride in the drinking system causing health problems. Connett is a well-known crank in the "health" world (despite his Ph.D. in chemistry) and his work has been debunked numerous times. The comparison of these anti-fluoride clowns and the anti-vaccination folks is perfectly fine.

Jwillie should visit his local hardware store and look at what the active ingredient of rat poison is today: warfarin, which is the generic name for Coumadin, a blood thinner drug that has saved millions of lives from strokes, blood clots, and heart attacks.

I have told him this fact in various comments as he cuts/pastes the same rubbish he gets from the propaganda website of the Fluoride Action Network.

The term acronym that I use for the jwillie trolls of the Internet : PRATT = Point Refuted A Thousand Times.

And to you, Germouse, why don't you come out from behind your pseudonym so we can confirm whether you have a science degree or you just graduated from some witch doctor institute.

As with tobacco, asbestos, vioxx (CDC: resulting in thousands of deaths), and other issues, the incorrect science took years to change. Each issue had tradition and big corporate money backing them. Likewise, it will take time to eliminate fluoride (man-made rat poison) in drinking water.
But progress is occurring.

People all around the he world have learned the truth that fluoride tooth paste may help, but fluoride in drinking water is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.

Consider this:
In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
In Europe, 3%.
In the world, 5%.
Also Israel banned fluoridation last year.
Over 200 communities have voted it out in the last five years.

Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe is as good or better than any fluoridated country. This shows how ineffective swallowing fluoride is for teeth.

As the CDC admitted in 1999, fluoride toothpaste is sufficient.

Stupidity and dishonesty are dangerous things jwillie6. It appears you have ample doses of both.