Cyberherbalist's Blog

Recently I needed a new email account that was not Gmail.  Note that I have about six or seven (lost count) Gmail accounts.  One for each of several purposes.  But now I needed one with my Ham Radio callsign, and it’s only got five letters.  Five letters account names are too small for Gmail (why?), so Gmail was out.  The criteria for the new email ISP was: Free; and not a startup that would be gone next week.  And I thought I would try Yahoo!

I used to use Yahoo! for web searches (a loooonnnggg time ago), but haven’t been there is literally years.  So I got my new email account and had a quick look at the overall site.  I was surprised!

Yahoo! was actually INTERESTING!  There was news, there was entertainment, and there were videos.  I am not sure if it’s doing YouTube-type crowd-sourced videos, but there they were.  I guess times change things.

And yes, apparently you can still search the web on Yahoo!

Nice.

As it happens I am an elected “official”.  I am a Precinct Committee Officer for my election precinct, and my party affiliation is Republican.  Thus, apparently, my private email address is out there available for people to use to write to me.  Or, at least, someone got the address and sent me an email inviting me to participate in a survey.

The survey in question was put together by a young man enrolled in our local university, The Evergreen State College, and he put it together for his class Doing Research, and he seems to have sent out the invitation to a mailing list of Thurston County Republicans.  It’s about conservative attitudes towards Climate Change.

My initial feeling was that this had to be a slanted survey, in the sense that the information obtained would be used to show how horrible and ignorant those dastardly Republicans are, and that I didn’t really want to help this effort.  The main reason for my prejudice is that The Evergreen State College has a local reputation of being populated by flaming left-wing liberal neo-Socialists.  But then, I decided, what the heck.  The young man is trying to get a decent grade in his class, so who am I to be such a jerk?  If he misuses my answers, well, that’s his lookout.  And for all I know he is sending out a similar survey to the local Democrats, and he wants to make a comparison.

The survey itself seemed to be a bit leftish in its bias, but not terribly so, so I answered the questions.  And since many of the questions made some unwarranted assumptions, I thought I would respond here with some explanatory writing.  So here is the survey and my answers.  In the case of my choices to the survey questions, my choice is indicated in bold Red.  My expanded answers are in italics.

Climate Change Attitudes

Question: Do you believe in climate change?

Yes
No
Maybe

Fair enough, and I’ll answer Yes. I seem to recall something about that last glaciation which ended about 12,000 years ago or so. So, yes, there is climate change, and has been for millions of years. It hasn’t suddenly stopped, I don’t think.

Question: If you clicked Yes or Maybe you believe in climate change, do you think it is caused by human activity?

Yes, climate change is man-made, bruh
No, because the earth is dynamic and has gone through phases of climate change before.
I don’t know because science, man

None of these apply, so no response.

My first reaction to this was how am I supposed to take this survey seriously with this  “bruh” stuff and “I don’t know because science, man”? Excuse me? Because science what? Because science says there’s not? Just because science? LOL. What does that even mean?

I guess I can’t answer the question, since none of the possible responses matches what I think. My answer would have been: Climate change has been going on for millions of years, and lately human activity has probably contributed towards it in some form and to some extent. I don’t know to what extent, and I doubt anyone else does, either.

Question: How often do you think of climate change?

Always
Most of the time
About half the time
Once in a while
Never

Is there anyone who thinks about it all the time? If so, why? I primarily think about it when earnest do-gooders try to make me think we are all going to die if we don’t do something about it.

Question: Democrats in Congress are doing a great job: Do you agree, disagree, or neither agree or disagree?

Agree a great deal
Agree a moderate amount
Agree a little
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree a little
Disagree a a moderate amount
Disagree a great deal

Is this “doing a great job” a generic or a specific thing? Does it pertain to climate change, or overall? Since the survey has to do with climate change, I will assume that the question pertains to the specific.

And my answer must be “Neither agree or disagree”. I answer this way because I don’t think the Democrats in Congress are doing much of anything about climate change, and this would be because the Republicans in Congress are preventing them from doing much.

I am also fascinated by the fact that despite having overwhelming majories in the House and Senate in the first two years of Obama’s presidency, the Democrats sat on their hands with respect to a lot of things that President Obama had talked about while he ran for office. Not that I am complaining, mind you. They could have done all kinds of ruinous things, but the only significant thing they did was pass the so-called Affordable Health Care Act.

Oh, and by the way, I am not one of those nervous nannies who think that a legislature that fails to pass much legislation is suffering gridlock.  Gridlock simply indicates that there isn’t enough agreement between the two sides to make it worthwhile to produce laws.  Laws that are not produced with at least some bipartisan agreement are probably BAD laws.  And I don’t like bad laws.

Question: Republicans in the U.S. Congress are doing a great job: Do you Agree, Disagree, or neither agree or disagree?

Disagree a great deal
Disagree a moderate amount
Disagree a little
Neither agree or disagree
Agree a little
Agree a moderate amount
Agree a great deal

Using the same criterion as the previous question, I have to say that I “Agree a moderate amount”. I say this because with regard to “doing something” about climate change, the Republicans are successfully preventing the Democrats from “doing something” about it. And that is a good thing.

NOW, this would be a good place for the survey to ask me why I think this is a good thing. Since it doesn’t ask this, I will color outside the lines a bit and say why.

Does the surveyor truly believe that the United States all by its ownsome can do something that would actually prevent climate change? Perhaps he does believe this, but I doubt it very strongly. There are so many factors involved, including things which are not at all within our capability of affecting, that it is clearly a case of tilting at windmills.

Humans 12,000 years ago were too few in number to do anything to warm things up, even if they had known there was something they could do about the then Ice Age. But warm up it did, regardless of our ancestors’ involvement. In fact, a mere 4,000 years later (8,000 years BP) the climate had warmed up to the degree that it was warmer then than it had been for tens of thousands of years. And there were no human industries belching out greenhouse gases. But after that point there began to be a long gradual downwards trend, something which has only recently turned around. In other words, starting 8,000 years ago, we had already started heading into the next glaciation! In still other words, it was getting colder.

The question to the answer is, do we prefer miles thick ice sheets or ten feet of ocean rise? I vote for the ocean rise!

The second question to the answer is, even if we did prefer ice sheets, do we really think we can stop the ocean rise by any conceivable reduction of greenhouse gases? We in the West are constantly improving the efficiency of our automobiles and our industries, and this has steadily been reducing our carbon emissions. We could reduce our carbon emissions still further without much effort, and we will. But do you really think that China’s billion people are going to be reducing theirs any time soon? Fat chance. Do we have the influence to make them do so if they don’t want to? Hah.

The point is, even if the Democrats and the Republicans agreed that they must act, Congress can only succeed in stagnating our general trend of greater efficiency through regulations that would likely do more harm than good. Economics is driving this greater efficiency. If Congress leaves well enough alone, then it will continue to get better.

Question: State politicians deserve more trust than politicians at the national level: Do you Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither agree or disagree, Agree, or Strongly Agree?

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree or agree
Agree
Strongly Agree

State politicians are not noticeably smarter, more honest or more dependable than federal politicians. They’re ALL politicians. Whatever that means depends upon individual cases rather than upon groups. The only difference between them is the extent to which they can affect change. There is no guarantee that the change they affect at any level will result in good or bad outcomes. I cite the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Question: Do you support more government spending to combat climate change?

Yes
No
Maybe
Depends

I’ve already explained why.

Question: Would you support climate change policy if a Republican governor or President was to enact climate change legislation?

Yes
No
Maybe

Question: Is the United States government spending too much money trying to reduce global warming, too little money, or about the right amount of money?

Way too much
Somewhat too much
Slightly too much
About the right amount
Slightly too little
Somewhat too little
Way to little

I answer in this way because there is nothing they can do to be reasonably certain they can do anything that needs to be done, and lots of cause to believe that if they do something it will make things worse, if possible.

Question: Would you support a gas tax to mitigate climate change?

Yes
No
Maybe

The presumed goal would be to reduce traveling, or increase the number of fuel efficient cars on the road. There appears to be already enough of this going on.

Question: Do you think government should increase or reduce spending in these certain areas of the federal budget as a part of addressing climate change?

Increase spending a lot
Increase spending moderately
Increase spending a little
Leave spending levels where they are
Decrease spending gradually
Decrease spending moderately
Decrease spending and eliminate

• Military

Increase spending a little

President Obama has caused military spending to be decreased to dangerously low levels.

• Education

Decrease spending and eliminate

The Federal government has no business being involved in education. This is a state function.

• Medicare/Medicaid

Leave spending levels where they are

• Foreign aid

Decrease spending and eliminate

Most if not all foreign aid is a waste of money, for the simple reason that it only rarely accomplishes anything that is in the interests of the United States. The only kind of foreign aid that I support is the kind of military assistance that makes the USA more secure, and that helps to mitigate human suffering in natural or human-caused disasters.

• Farm subsidies

Decrease spending and eliminate

Farm subsidies should be eliminated and the griculture industry should be subject to the same market forces that the rest of the economy should be subject to.

• Federal agencies, e.g, FDA, FBI, IRS

Leave spending levels where they are

The question of funding of the alphabet soup of Federal Agencies is too complex to be reduced to such a simple response.

• Social Security

Leave spending levels where they are

If Social Security is to be saved (and it will go off the rails eventually, if we do nothing), then it needs to be decoupled from its dependence upon the national debt. This may not be possible; in any case, I don’t feel myself to be knowledgeable enough to go beyond vague generalities.

Question: Government should subsidize climate change related research.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree or agreee
Agree
Strongly Agree

This may be a surprising answer, given the tenor of my previous responses, but climate change needs to be studied thoroughly and understood as completely as possible because although I don’t believe we can do much to prevent it, we definitely need to know what is going to happen, so that we can best prepare to meet the changes.

Question: Government should shift subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree or agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
No subsidies for neither

Double negative! Should be “No subsidies for either”. Actually, I’m not sure government is subsidizing fossil fuels! It’s sure taxing it like crazy. What’s renewable energy? And can subsidizing it make a difference? I think of Solyndra and shudder about the $500 million poured down a rathole. If renewable energy can be made an important part of our energy resources, the market will find the best way. I actually like the idea of geothermal energy, since we got an entire planet’s worth of heat just a few miles beneath our feet — it is however technologically difficult to make a decent go of it, I’m afraid.

Question: Washington State needs to create legislation in response to climate change.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree or agree
Agree
Strongly agree

If the Federal government can do little about the problem, what on earth do we think one small state can do about it?

Question: Do think we should include nuclear energy as a way to address climate change?

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree or agree
Agree
Strongly disagree

Strongly agree (he’s got “strongly disagree” listed twice – a Freudian slip methinks).

It would probably be best to site nuke plants where huge earthquakes are unexpected. It would be good to make many smaller plants, instead of a few huge ones. It would be even better to put a LOT of funds into fusion research.

Question: How conservative do you consider yourself?

Incredibly conservative
Conservative
Somewhat conservative
Not Conservative

Actually, although I am personally conservative in my lifestyle, politically I consider myself a libertarian. As do many so-called conservatives.

Question: Do you agree there should be limits on carbon dioxide emissions?

Strongly diagree
Disagree
Neither disagree or agree
Agree
Strongly Agree

I regard carbon dioxide emissions to be a sign of inefficiency in industry. I consider the problem a technical and economic matter, and not at all political.

Question: TRUST in Environmental Groups: Do you have strong trust, moderate trust, neither trust or mistrust, moderate mistrust, or strong mistrust in environmental groups.

Strong trust
Moderate trust
Neither trust or mistrust
Moderate mistrust
Strong distrust

My evaluation of environmental groups is that the great mass of them are afflicted by serious tunnel vision and are more given to acts best characterized as “eyewash” than anything that actually advance what they claim to stand for. What I mean by “eyewash” is that they frequently advocate that which looks good, but in fact is not. They are also generally so politicized that science, by and large, is immaterial — i.e. politics are more likely to drive them than good science does. Do I think they are all bad? No. I believe that some of them do worthwhile things.

Question: TRUST in Capitalism: Do you have strong trust, moderate trust, neither trust or mistrust, moderate mistrust, or strong mistrust in capitalism?

Strong trust
Moderate trust
Neither trust or mistrust
Moderate mistrust
Strong mistrust

I trust free markets. Capitalism, per se, is only an economic model, and is by far the most effective one in improving the lives of people. Of course, it’s possible for markets to make mistakes; we’re all human, after all. But free markets are thankfully self-correcting. When I contemplate what the command economy in the USSR did to the Caspian and Aral Seas, I’d bet on Capitalist Free Markets any day of the week.

Question: TRUST in Government: Do you have strong trust, moderate trust, neither trust or mistrust, moderate mistrust, or strong mistrust in the government?

Strong Trust
Moderate Trust
Neither trust or mistrust
Moderate mistrust
Strong mistrust

Governments, at every level, are a reflection of the people who put them into power, and governments, at every level, are made up of people who are just like the rest of us: variously flawed and gifted. Just because my neighbor is elected Mayor does not make him or her suddenly virtuous.

OK, that was the survey. There were a couple of last questions, but they were demographic and so I am not reproducing them here.

There are some real screwball cranks out there. Some are convinced that the US never landed on the Moon. Others consider it an article of faith that immunization causes autism. And so on, you get the picture. And then there are those folks who just can’t be convinced that water fluoridation is a complete waste of public money and possibly dangerous to the environment. And those are the screwballs I want to address in this blog post.

(Did I just give you whiplash?)

I am not a scientist, and I don’t even play one on TV. My only claim to any kind of authority on this subject is the studying that I engaged in back 10 years ago when I helped lead the fight against water fluoridation in the City of Olympia. A fight that we won, by the way. So don’t give what I have to say any more credence than it merits – although I would say that my knowledge of the subject is rather more advanced than most other citizens.

Dental Fluoride

First of all, I will say that I have no problem with dental fluoride treatments, nor with using fluoridated toothpaste, and I would tell anyone who asked me to go right ahead. I myself use fluoride toothpaste. But I do so knowing that the family of substances used for toothpaste fluoridation is potentially dangerous, depending upon the exact chemical being used. There are many forms of fluoride, and I’ll just look at two of them which are commonly used in toothpaste.

I have two tubes of toothpaste in front of me as I write this. One is Pepsodent^®, and according to the label on the tube the fluoridation agent is Sodium fluoride (NaF). The other is Listerine^® Gel (my favorite), and the label says its fluoridation agent is Sodium monofluorophosphate (Na₂PFO₃). I extracted the following text from the corresponding articles in Wikipedia.

Sodium fluoride

The lethal dose for a 70 kg (154 lb) human is estimated at 5–10 g. Sodium fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation (of dusts or aerosols) and ingestion. In high enough doses, it has been shown to affect the heart and circulatory system. For occupational exposures, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have established occupational exposure limits at 2.5 mg/m3 over an eight-hour time-weighted average.

Sodium monofluorophosphate

The usual content of monofluorophosphate (MFP) in toothpaste is 0.76%. Currently accepted research indicates that by using such toothpaste, cavities may be reduced 17–38%. The compound is not very toxic but has been shown to have limited evidence of musculoskeletal and respiratory toxicities. The LD50[1] in rats is 0.9 g/kg.

Both of these tubes of toothpaste contain warnings about their use for children under 6. The Listerine toothpaste merely advises to minimize the amount a child might swallow. But the Pepsodent tube’s warning is much more dire: “WARNING: KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN UNDER 6 YEARS OF AGE.” It advises getting medical help or immediate contact with a poison control center right away, “if more than used for brushing is swallowed.” This is by no means some over-reaction. I am anecdotally aware of some fortunately rare cases where dentists giving fluoride treatments to young children have made mistakes and caused deaths as a direct result of fluoride overdose (for example, this one). This stuff is NOT innocuous and must be treated with care and wisdom.

Water Fluoridation

Water fluoridation, however, is another matter entirely. I am completely opposed to it, and will explain why below. But first, I have a good deal of doubt that the studies frequently cited showing that fluoridation “works” to reduce cavities are valid. I guess I would have to read the studies to find how they controlled for certain situations that I believe would tend to invalidate their results. I am not a robot who automatically rejects any evidence that my position might be wrong, and I also do not automatically accept any evidence that happens to agree with my position, either.

But when it comes to a controlled study of fluoridation, I am afraid that the variables are likely to be very much uncontrollable. How much water out of the tap is being drunk, compared to how much is being drunk in the form of soft-drinks, for example? How long do water-drinkers hold water in their mouths, verses bottled-water drinkers, versus soft-drink consumers? Which bottled waters were collected from municipal sources with fluoridation, versus those collected from non-fluoridated sources? Which non-fluoridated municipal sources actually have a high degree of naturally-occurring fluoride? And which fluoridated ones have a high degree of natural fluoride? Do children live in a non-fluoridated community, but attend school in a fluoridated? Do they drink most of their water in one, or the other? How many brush their teeth regularly? How many go to bed each night without brushing, with food residue on their teeth to develop acids which cause cavities? And how many parents lie (or tell counter-factual statements) to researchers because they are ashamed they: (a) let their kids drink too many soft-drinks; (b) do not enforce teeth-brushing or flossing; or (c) do not consistently have their kids take the fluoride tablets they might be prescribed for the purpose of the study?

Here are my problems, in no particular order, with water fluoridation:

Problem #1: Very little of the fluoride compounds used for fluoridation actually makes it into the mouths of those for whom it is intended. People simply do not drink that much water, and vastly more public water goes for flushing toilets, watering lawns, washing dishes and clothes, and just plain wasting down the drain. In short, the vast majority of the fluoride ends up being more or less directly dumped into the biosphere. Even if the compounds used were not, just by the way, toxic in and of themselves, it is a fiendishly inefficient method of delivery.

Problem #2: The last time I visited the dentist and got a fluoride treatment, the dental assistant swabbed the stuff over the surface of my teeth and told me to not clean it off for at least an hour or two, so that it could do its job. I was also told not to swallow it, of course, because it is of course toxic. But toxicity aside (see above), consider how much less fluoride passes my lips when I take a drink of fluoridated water, and how long it sticks to my teeth. Here’s what is happening: the glass of water passes my lips, some of it passes extremely briefly over my teeth, and all it goes into my stomach. That brief passage over my teeth is so brief that there is no way that it is going to do anything useful! Once the fluoride hits my stomach it is of no use whatsoever as a fluoride treatment, except possibly as a result of some (very tiny) amount of the fluoride ending up as part of my saliva. Have the scientists ever tested the saliva of persons whose water was fluoridated, in order to see if there’s enough to make any difference? I don’t know, but I doubt it. Again, this brief passage past my teeth is a fiendishly inefficient method of delivery.

Problem #3: This is related to what you mentioned as your objection to water fluoridation, and that is the unwilling mass medication of everyone who must drink publicly fluoridated water. And there are people who are sensitive to fluoride compounds, and cannot drink it nor bathe in it. If such a person lives in a community that fluoridates, then they must be careful to drink only bottled water (from non-fluoridated supplies), and should not bathe or shower using public water.

Problem #4: Besides the medically unethical mass dosing of the population, there is the environment to consider. The most common form of fluoridation agent is Hexafluorosilicic acid. This substance is a byproduct of the manufacture of phosphoric acid (among other processes), and besides its use as a fluoridation agent, an important use of it is in the manufacture of aluminum metal from its ores. If you read up on this chemical, you will find that it is quite useful in industry, but its usefulness is largely a product of its high reactivity – in some applications its reactivity is higher than Hydrofluoric acid (HF), one of the most reactive acids known (the only acid that can etch glass). In fact, Hexafluorosilicic acid emits HF.

From Wikipedia on the safety of this material:

Hexafluorosilicic acid releases hydrogen fluoride when evaporated, so it has similar risks. It is corrosive and may cause fluoride poisoning; inhalation of the vapors may cause lung edema. Like hydrogen fluoride, it attacks glass and stoneware. The LD50 value of hexafluorosilicic acid is 70 mg/kg.

If I were to dump a hundred gallons of this material into a river, the EPA would come looking for me with blood in its eye, and they would probably be beaten to the punch by every tree-hugger in the area. Yet we permit and even require our municipal corporations to add it to our drinking water, whereupon almost all of it ends up in the rivers and nearby bays, where the fish swim and the shellfish filter. Isn’t that nice that we can thereby eat our fluoride as well? Yumm!

Problems with Studies Validating the Efficacy of Fluoridation

I will admit that I have not looked for any studies which were intended to examine whether water fluoridation was effective or not. Years ago, however, I did run across a study which simply collected children’s cavity data on a statewide, county-by-county basis in the State of Washington. We used the results in our fight to prevent fluoridation in Olympia, because it told a very interesting tale indeed.

This study was done by the University of Washington (UW), and I am sorry I cannot cite it, as I lost most of my materials some time ago. But what I do recall is that the UW collected rates of cavity formation in children for every county in the state (as reported by dentists). Some counties had bad cavity rates, and some had good cavity rates, and some were right in the middle. The astonishing thing was that there was no correlation at all between fluoridation in those counties that had it, with improved cavity rates in children in those counties. Some fluoridated counties had good rates, some had bad rates; some non-fluoridated counties had good rates, and some had bad rates. With all kinds of outcomes in between. Our opponents in the Olympia fluoridation battle tried to discount our claim that the study didn’t validate fluoridation, with the somewhat weak argument that the UW study was not intended to show the efficacy of fluoridation.

Well, I do believe that if the UW had tried to control the data in order to show the efficacy of fluoridation or the lack of it, they would have found that it was simply wonderful. And the reason I believe they would have found this, is because water fluoridation it is one of those sacred cows that the dental profession absolutely does not tolerate heresy about. I will not attempt to claim that this is some kind of conspiracy, or maybe I will, but if you do follow the money you will find that water fluoridation is quite simply the niftiest way to dispose of hexafluorosilicic acid, an industrial byproduct, that has ever been invented. Not only does it not cost industry any money to dispose of it, it actually brings in money. A win-win situation all around. Except for the environment, and for those of us who would rather not ingest toxins we could otherwise avoid.

And if you doubt that such a conspiracy to keep the hexafluorosilicic acid flowing could really be kept quiet, consider what happens to any dentist or other dental researcher who begins to question the status quo! Those who do so are instantly branded as deluded, or as “conspiracy theorists”, and thus not to be taken seriously. Their license to practice dentistry may also be at risk. Remember the fate of Ignaz Semmelweis, who claimed that it was the unclean hands of his fellow physicians that caused the deaths of many women from puerperal fever in childbed, the doctors having gone from handling dead bodies to delivering babies. He was the nail that needed pounding down, and he got it, too. But he was right.

There are just too many doubts, in my mind, and too many unbelievable things involved here. Does it do my teeth any good to fluoridate the water if I don’t drink the water? Do the salmon really appreciate the fluoride all that much?

In closing, I have to say that just because dental fluoridation and toothpaste fluoridation is a good thing when it comes to caries prevention, it does not mean that bathing in and drinking fluoridated water (in which the fluoride is in fact highly dilute!) is going to be at all effective.

Genki Sudo (or as they say in Japanese, Sudo Genki) and World Order are at it yet again! Another of their classic roboto-style music videos — and yes, it’s in Japanese — is Have a Nice Day.

It’s sweet! Especially the cute Japanese ice cream girls all dressed up in, I guess, ice cream shop uniforms.  Hmmm.   Japan has got to be one odd place.

Well, anyway, here it is.  Enjoy best in Full Screen!

You really must watch this one:

In this wonderful video, Ms. Pelosi calls a questioner gently onto the carpet for referring to the Affordable Care Act as “ObamaCare”, and then goes on to repeat the word “Affordable” about five or six times in order to make sure everyone heard her.  She said she even corrects the President when he calls it ObamaCare.

Okay, I guess I see her point, but given that millions of people are now paying more for health coverage than they were before, I am quite sure that the term “affordable” does not fit it.

One of my sons had a health insurance policy up until Jan 1, 2014, and it cost him $110 per month.  But on that date the provider cancelled the policy and offered him a replacement policy which complied with the “Affordable” Care Act’s provisions, and the new policy was going to cost him $256 per month.  He had to decline the offer because he couldn’t afford it.  He prefers to pay the fine for being uninsured than paying almost 2 and 1/2 times his old policy.

The name “Affordable Care Act” is a lie.  “Obamacare” fits it better. That Obama lied about being able to keep your policy if you liked it, well, that works too.