Author Archives: eehines

Is the Question Irrelevant for Children?

Posted on by
1

Toothpaste manufacturers put fluoride in their toothpaste and market that as good for tooth health. They also recommend, through their toothpaste labeling among other pathways, to use only “pea-sized” dabs for children under six and “rice-sized” dabs for children under three.

Associated with all of that are concerns that too much fluoride can negatively impact IQ scores. My question: are fluoride and the question of IQ impact really relevant for children?

For one thing, those tiny dabs are extremely hard to dole out in any consistent fashion, especially as children are taught to brush their own teeth (and to apply their own toothpaste to their brushes), and it’s easy to err by adding increasingly larger dabs.

For the more important thing, though, children’s teeth are impermanent and start to fall out and be replaced with adult, permanent teeth around six and a little older. Maybe the answer, at least regarding children, is to duck the question altogether and use non-flouridated toothpaste for these. At that age, the important task is to train them in tooth hygiene and regular brushing. Any toothpaste adequate to the task of cleaning teeth would serve.

Another Misleading Claim

Posted on by
Reply

This one by a Progressive-Democrat: California’s Alex Padilla. In his Tuesday letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section, he wrote regarding Republicans’ musings about overruling the Senate’s Parliamentarian on the matter of California’s legal right to set its own emissions standards (itself a misleading claim, since what’s in question is whether California, or any State, can set emissions standards more stringent than the Federal government’s),

Republicans are now considering overruling Ms MacDonough, essentially going nuclear and throwing out the rule book in order to get their way.
…
If they can ignore the parliamentarian on this….

This is so broadly misleading as to approach being deliberately false. Far from ignoring the Parliamentarian, Republicans would be taking her eminently seriously and following Senate rules regarding her ruling, whether voting to overturn it or the Senate’s presiding officer overruling it.

Of course, Padilla knows this; he’s merely demonstrating, with his distortion, why it’s next to impossible to deal with members of his party.

A Misleading Statistic

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article touting our nation’s ability to produce WWI bombers at a high rate, the subheadline read

At its peak, a Ford factory produced one B-24 bomber an hour during World War II.

The article went on to brag about that production rate in the context of a 2018 Boeing contract to produce two new Air Force Ones by 2024, with Boeing’s schedule now claiming delivery by 2029.

The B-24 production rate, though, is badly misleading. That’s how often a B-24 rolled off the production line. The real question, the serious question in this context of producing a single airplane, or just two of them, is this one: how long did any particular aircraft spend on that B-24 production line from first part being assembled to final article coming off the line?

It’s true enough that a modern Air Force One is a more complex machine than a mid-20th century bomber, but the modern airplane shouldn’t be taking 11 years, or more, to construct, especially one being built on a basic airframe that’s already been long in production.

Boeing has wasted far too much time pretending to work on a new Air Force One, and that contract needs to be canceled and a new contract let with an aircraft manufacturer that will take the task seriously. However, using misleading statistics like the one above reduces the credibility of any discussion of Boeing’s failure to perform.

An Example of Global Warming

Posted on by
Reply

This one comes from a remark in an article centered on a partially built and then abandoned US military base in the frozen north of Greenland.

The base was part of an ambitious and clandestine Pentagon plan, known as Project Iceworm, to build a network of nuclear-missile launch sites beneath the Arctic ice. The underground site, which was designed to store 600 medium-range ballistic missiles, reveals the extent of US involvement in Greenland going back over half a century.

What happened to it, then?

Camp Century, as the outpost was called, was partially constructed in 1959, and abandoned in 1967 after the ice sheet was deemed too unstable to support the proposed missile-launch network.

Then this happened:

Over the years, ice accumulated and the facility is now buried under at least 100 feet of ice.

“Over the years” is 58 years (57 at the time it was rediscovered), and in that short time all that ice—not snow—built up over the site.

Oh, wait—that’s not an example of global warming, it’s an example of the foolishness of the “global warming” mantra of the mainstream Left.

Why Not Both?

Posted on by
Reply

Emma Waters and Dr Marguerite Duane, in  their WSJ Letters letter, propose invest[ing] in restorative reproductive medicine as an alternative to in vitro fertilization mandates.

First, a correction to their distortion of Leonard Lopoo’s op-ed regarding IVF as a means of addressing our nation’s baby deficit. Waters and Duane accuse Lopoo of pushing for IVF funding mandates. This is textbook gaslighting. Lopoo was very much in favor of subsidies, not mandates. He did mention one mandate—one State’s requirement that insurance cover IVF—in passing at the end of his piece, but merely as one example of how financial support for IVF can lead to increases in live baby birth rates.

Given that—financial support to allay the high cost of IVF—why do Waters and Duane insist that there must be a choice between the two? Even given IVF mandates, why must there be a choice between the two?

The short answer is that there need not. Support for IVF and research into the causes and mitigations of reproduction-related medical problems actually go hand-in-hand. One treats precursor conditions, and the other treats realized after-the-fact conditions, with considerable overlap in that second set of conditions.

Beyond all that, why not these two together with a host of other means that also encourage having babies, along with other, non-medical means of achieving population growth—legal immigration, for instance, color/ethnicity-blind free markets, lower income tax rates?