“What are you looking for?” asked the other customer in the Whole Foods aisle as I picked up toothpaste boxes and set them back down again. When I replied that I was trying to find some toothpaste that contained fluoride, he asked if I wanted to know the the truth about fluoride. I must have rolled my eyes, because he added, “Maybe you should question your assumptions.”
Despite his smugness, I did think, “Maybe I’m wrong.” Twentysomething years later, having coming across bits and pieces questioning the benefits of fluoride, I still search out the toothpaste that contains it, while simultaneously considering that maybe I’ve been had. It’s an issue that is on the back burner for me. There are other types of issues, such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, that I also keep on the back burner because I would have to put in several years of serious reading before I would have anything meaningful to say about them.
Then there are those looming issues that are so enormous that they feel difficult to ever get a grasp on, climate change being foremost among them. Prior to Covid, I attended an Extinction Rebellion event, in which I saw a persuasive presentation purporting that doomsday is nigh. In 2020, I watched Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans, which questions whether popular “green” technologies are effective solutions to global warming. Next I read Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, in which he argues that things are not as dire as the media makes them out to be and that solutions such as nuclear power can avert catastrophe. Recently I’ve heard a geoengineering theorist claim that climate change is much worse than the experts are letting on. Scientists report being censored from speaking out about the severity of global warming; climate skeptics also report being censored.
With the Covid-19 crisis waning, climate change promises to be the next big cultural wedge issue. The American Library Association, meanwhile, has committed to the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Simon Elmer weighed in recently with a critique of what he describes as “environmental fundamentalism” and the proposed solutions to climate change. With the stakes high either way, I asked myself both “what if he’s wrong” and “what if I’m wrong” throughout his presentation. I recommend this exercise, as it helps to clarify one’s own position, understand opposing points of view, and develop a scout mindset.
Top photo: Toothbrush, Toothpaste, Dental Care (571741) (cropped).jpg (Wikimedia Commons)
“… I asked myself both “what if he’s wrong” and “what if I’m wrong” throughout his presentation. I recommend this exercise…”
Yes. This used to be called “thinking,” and it was once encouraged in our schools and universities. Now people are encouraged to find a licensed counselor after bearing the trauma of hearing someone disagree with them.
I have worked in academic libraries for 20 years and this stereotype of “snowflake” students is fiction, promulgated by the media, and I wish people would stop with it.
I have a daughter in college now. Part of their academic onboarding was being taught what "oppressive speech" is and how to report it. Unless, of course, my own child is lying to me. And this training, apparently, is part of the orientation of every incoming freshman. When the first ideas shared by the university include: "Feeling overwhelmed with the current socio-political state...or being impacted by contentious people or policies increases stress which remains correlated to negative mental health outcomes. During these times, it remains imperative that we take care of ourselves, take care of loved ones, and take care of our campus community..." then I would posit that belief in existence of mythological snowflakes becomes easier.
Did this rhetoric turn your daughter and all her friends into snowflakes? Because you get A LOT of paperwork in that orientation folder, saying all kinds of things, like how to set up your school email account, and they almost never manage to do that.
I don't think that kind of stuff can turn anyone into anything. To be clear, I never used the word "snowflake," nor did I accuse any STUDENTS of anything. But back to my original point RE: "encouraged," that kind of stuff CAN imply (the implying being done by the administration and faculty) the following:
1. It's a GIVEN that expression which bothers or perturbs someone is not only a transgressive act, but reportable;
1a. There are authorities to whom students can report other students for transgressive utterances below the legal thresholds of the First Amendment, for which there may be disciplinary consequences;
2. It's a GIVEN that expression which bothers or perturbs someone can damage them so profoundly that there are "negative mental health outcomes."
Maybe I'm just too hopelessly regressive in my outlook, but even if that approach doesn't immediately turn the students magically into instant Stasi, it certainly doesn't "encourage"--again, the word I used--resilience, free inquiry or engagement with "contentious people or policies." It certainly ain't a spirit of Free Speech.
I feel like back when I was in college the Simon Elmer video would have been shown and a meaty discussion would have ensued from it. I can't see that today.
As a side note, someone sent me this piece this morning, which is in line with many of the points Simon Elmer makes (although as I wrote, I do try to think of the counterarguments to their counterarguments): https://mattiasdesmet.substack.com/p/nobel-prize-winner-john-clauser-climate?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=75iq3. Elmer does go into greater specifics regarding the unfeasibility of many of the solutions that have been proposed (e.g., transitioning the population to electric cars).
In spite of where it is appearing, I have read about both the featured scientists in a wide variety of sources and the description of what happened to Judith Curry - also described therein - is well known. .I follow her blog "ClimateEtc" regularly and have always been impressed with how sensible and non-polemical it is. Like you, she seems to continually question her assumptions and look seriously at the criticism.
Or let their lawns go. Call it "wildlife habitat". The saavy will apply for grants. Firehazard might be problematic. It's kind of what they've done for years on public lands.
I was active in my Civic association and a woman in the association was a huge fluoride opposer. She had boxes of anti-fluoride material she would pass out at each meeting.. I looked and there still continues to be a strong anti-fluoride movement. She would only drink bottled water. She died at 95.
I'm vaguely aware of the counter-arguments about it but feel like I can only cope with so much! If I became convinced then I would have to do something (about the water I drink, anyway, changing toothpaste would not be a big deal).
I remember having to swish with fluoride at school about once a week - I think pretty common among Gen X in certain parts of the country. Just googled it, and surprisingly some results suggested it could have been been unsafe. And, that’s not even delving in the more conspiratorial aspects of fluoride!
"The Earth Brokers" is a book that has been recommended to me on this subject. It is online for free--https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/TheEarthBrokers-1994.pdf
While fluoride in the water supply is a different issue, you definitely want it in your toothpaste. It is, as far as randomized controlled trials can discern, the only way to prevent cavities. In fact, brushing and flossing without fluoride only combats gingivitis.
From a recent systematic review:
"Personal oral hygiene in the absence of fluorides has failed to show a benefit in terms of reducing the incidence of dental caries." https://doi.org/10.1111/ger.12331
Thanks. From a cursory search I can't find what I would describe as a reputable source (of course that is becoming harder to determine these days) that advocates against fluoride in toothpaste, but the majority of options you find in a store like Whole Foods are fluoride-free, so there must be reasons, legitimate or not.
Befitting the title of the "Heterodoxy in the Stacks" blog, Pielke is also somewhat heterodox: convinced of the evidence for global warming as a result of human activity, but pushing back on doomerism around it, including 'worst case' IPCC scenarios (like RCP8.5, aka SSP5-8.5) and poorly-supported attempts by others to attribute natural events/disasters (such as particular instances of or trends in hurricanes and wildfires) to climate change.
When it comes to cllimate change I try and find a synthesis between the views of “happening but not as bad as feared,” and “happening and worst than we think.” I feel it’s reasonable to believe climate change is happening, and humans are contributing towards it, but at what rate and at what cost?
For instance, it seems nuclear power would be a plus in nearly all instances, despite it’s high cost of entry and long lag period at the start of development of plants. What we would do in the meantime as the plants are developing is another issue.
Ultimately I wish I could chalk it up to “above my pay grade” and forget about it. Yet, like you say, it’s usually on the backburner of my thoughts.
Another person recommended Charles Eisenstein's book to me--https://charleseisenstein.org/books/climate-a-new-story/. There's just so much to absorb. But if large changes are going to be made to address the issue I guess people will need to get up to speed.
“… I asked myself both “what if he’s wrong” and “what if I’m wrong” throughout his presentation. I recommend this exercise…”
Yes. This used to be called “thinking,” and it was once encouraged in our schools and universities. Now people are encouraged to find a licensed counselor after bearing the trauma of hearing someone disagree with them.
I have worked in academic libraries for 20 years and this stereotype of “snowflake” students is fiction, promulgated by the media, and I wish people would stop with it.
I have a daughter in college now. Part of their academic onboarding was being taught what "oppressive speech" is and how to report it. Unless, of course, my own child is lying to me. And this training, apparently, is part of the orientation of every incoming freshman. When the first ideas shared by the university include: "Feeling overwhelmed with the current socio-political state...or being impacted by contentious people or policies increases stress which remains correlated to negative mental health outcomes. During these times, it remains imperative that we take care of ourselves, take care of loved ones, and take care of our campus community..." then I would posit that belief in existence of mythological snowflakes becomes easier.
Did this rhetoric turn your daughter and all her friends into snowflakes? Because you get A LOT of paperwork in that orientation folder, saying all kinds of things, like how to set up your school email account, and they almost never manage to do that.
(Not only have I been through 20 years of orientations, I have 4 degrees of my own, so I myself did that orientation 4 times.)
Actually I started and did not finish another degree last year, so make that 5 college orientations of my own that I’ve been through.
I don't think that kind of stuff can turn anyone into anything. To be clear, I never used the word "snowflake," nor did I accuse any STUDENTS of anything. But back to my original point RE: "encouraged," that kind of stuff CAN imply (the implying being done by the administration and faculty) the following:
1. It's a GIVEN that expression which bothers or perturbs someone is not only a transgressive act, but reportable;
1a. There are authorities to whom students can report other students for transgressive utterances below the legal thresholds of the First Amendment, for which there may be disciplinary consequences;
2. It's a GIVEN that expression which bothers or perturbs someone can damage them so profoundly that there are "negative mental health outcomes."
Maybe I'm just too hopelessly regressive in my outlook, but even if that approach doesn't immediately turn the students magically into instant Stasi, it certainly doesn't "encourage"--again, the word I used--resilience, free inquiry or engagement with "contentious people or policies." It certainly ain't a spirit of Free Speech.
Sounds like they are being primed to hunt out "mis" and "dis" information in the future.
I feel like back when I was in college the Simon Elmer video would have been shown and a meaty discussion would have ensued from it. I can't see that today.
As a side note, someone sent me this piece this morning, which is in line with many of the points Simon Elmer makes (although as I wrote, I do try to think of the counterarguments to their counterarguments): https://mattiasdesmet.substack.com/p/nobel-prize-winner-john-clauser-climate?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=75iq3. Elmer does go into greater specifics regarding the unfeasibility of many of the solutions that have been proposed (e.g., transitioning the population to electric cars).
Coincidentally, a cousin emailed this link to me this morning: https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/article/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-on-a-hoax-5460699
In spite of where it is appearing, I have read about both the featured scientists in a wide variety of sources and the description of what happened to Judith Curry - also described therein - is well known. .I follow her blog "ClimateEtc" regularly and have always been impressed with how sensible and non-polemical it is. Like you, she seems to continually question her assumptions and look seriously at the criticism.
Thank you for the link. Even more information to consider in trying to figure out what to think! I will check out Curry's blog.
It's starting... Californians are going to need to get used to push mowers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3yctFLWn7Q
Or let their lawns go. Call it "wildlife habitat". The saavy will apply for grants. Firehazard might be problematic. It's kind of what they've done for years on public lands.
Yes, I would just xeriscape and call it a day.
I was active in my Civic association and a woman in the association was a huge fluoride opposer. She had boxes of anti-fluoride material she would pass out at each meeting.. I looked and there still continues to be a strong anti-fluoride movement. She would only drink bottled water. She died at 95.
https://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-is-the-new-lead/
I'm vaguely aware of the counter-arguments about it but feel like I can only cope with so much! If I became convinced then I would have to do something (about the water I drink, anyway, changing toothpaste would not be a big deal).
I remember having to swish with fluoride at school about once a week - I think pretty common among Gen X in certain parts of the country. Just googled it, and surprisingly some results suggested it could have been been unsafe. And, that’s not even delving in the more conspiratorial aspects of fluoride!
I have some vague familiarity with the theories about why it is in the water supply but admit I haven't done much research on it.
"The Earth Brokers" is a book that has been recommended to me on this subject. It is online for free--https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/TheEarthBrokers-1994.pdf
While fluoride in the water supply is a different issue, you definitely want it in your toothpaste. It is, as far as randomized controlled trials can discern, the only way to prevent cavities. In fact, brushing and flossing without fluoride only combats gingivitis.
From a recent systematic review:
"Personal oral hygiene in the absence of fluorides has failed to show a benefit in terms of reducing the incidence of dental caries." https://doi.org/10.1111/ger.12331
Thanks. From a cursory search I can't find what I would describe as a reputable source (of course that is becoming harder to determine these days) that advocates against fluoride in toothpaste, but the majority of options you find in a store like Whole Foods are fluoride-free, so there must be reasons, legitimate or not.
One recommended voice on climate change is Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado Boulder, who has a Substack blog:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/
Befitting the title of the "Heterodoxy in the Stacks" blog, Pielke is also somewhat heterodox: convinced of the evidence for global warming as a result of human activity, but pushing back on doomerism around it, including 'worst case' IPCC scenarios (like RCP8.5, aka SSP5-8.5) and poorly-supported attempts by others to attribute natural events/disasters (such as particular instances of or trends in hurricanes and wildfires) to climate change.
Thank you. Another Substack I hadn't heard of!
When it comes to cllimate change I try and find a synthesis between the views of “happening but not as bad as feared,” and “happening and worst than we think.” I feel it’s reasonable to believe climate change is happening, and humans are contributing towards it, but at what rate and at what cost?
For instance, it seems nuclear power would be a plus in nearly all instances, despite it’s high cost of entry and long lag period at the start of development of plants. What we would do in the meantime as the plants are developing is another issue.
Ultimately I wish I could chalk it up to “above my pay grade” and forget about it. Yet, like you say, it’s usually on the backburner of my thoughts.
Another person recommended Charles Eisenstein's book to me--https://charleseisenstein.org/books/climate-a-new-story/. There's just so much to absorb. But if large changes are going to be made to address the issue I guess people will need to get up to speed.