Slashdot Mirror
Dental Floss May Have No Medical Benefits, Says AP Report (gizmodo.com)
Joe_NoOne quotes a report from Gizmodo: Flossing may not yield the protective benefits we've been told to expect. Since 1979, the federal government in the U.S. has recommended daily flossing, but by law these dietary guidelines, which are updated every five years, have to be supported by scientific evidence. Surprisingly -- and without any notice -- the federal government dropped flossing from its dietary guidelines this year, telling the Associated Press that "the government acknowledged the effectiveness of flossing had never been researched, as required." AP national writer Jeff Donn reports: "The two leading professional groups -- the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Periodontology, for specialists in gum disease and implants -- cited other studies as proof of their claims that flossing prevents buildup of gunk known as plaque, early gum inflammation called gingivitis, and tooth decay. However, most of these studies used outdated methods or tested few people. Some lasted only two weeks, far too brief for a cavity or dental disease to develop. One tested 25 people after only a single use of floss. Such research, like the reviewed studies, focused on warning signs like bleeding and inflammation, barely dealing with gum disease or cavities. Wayne Aldredge, president of the periodontists' group, acknowledged the weak scientific evidence and the brief duration of many studies...Still, he urges his patients to floss to help avoid gum disease. 'It's like building a house and not painting two sides of it,' he said. 'Ultimately those two sides are going to rot away quicker.'"
And coffee and cigarettes are the new wonder drug. Obvious clickbait headline to get everyone who wants to prove that all those years without flossing were justified, as they get their new dentures.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
I call Bullshit. Breaking the law does NOT require intent before you can be charged.
"Honestly, officer, I didn't MEAN to speed. I just wasn't paying attention."
"But I didn't MEAN to kill that other hunter. I just shot at the sound and didn't know what was in the bushes."
"I didn't MEAN to run that stop sign. I didn't see it because I was busy playing with my cell phone."
If intent was part of the prosecution then there wouldn't be a need for the saying "Ignorance of the law is no defense." You can still be charged and prosecuted for breaking a law even if you didn't KNOW it was illegal.
Disclosing classified material, which she should have known was classified, is breaking the law. If I did that when I was in charge of classified information it would have gotten me arrested, my security clearance revoked, and my job changed. I would never be allowed to handle classified material again.
Instead the FBI says "Oh, let's not prosecute her because she didn't MEAN to reveal classified material over an illegal, unsecured email system.
The more likely reason they decided not to prosecute was that they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that multiple classified email messages were sent over an unsecured system and are possibly stored in the backup systems of the commercial email servers. Sweep it under the rug, deny there was any wrongdoing, and hope nobody remembers it once the election circus starts.
I call Bullshit. Breaking the law does NOT require intent before you can be charged.
IANAL. Also, I'm answering based on where I am from (not America). Here, "criminal intent" (loosely, the local term translates as "intentional frame of mind") is not the same as what people understand when the word "intent" is used.
"Honestly, officer, I didn't MEAN to speed. I just wasn't paying attention."
"Not paying attention" is a frame of mind, which is which is sufficient to establish intent. Saying "The sign that limits the speed is hidden behind a bush", on the other hand, will get you acquitted.
"But I didn't MEAN to kill that other hunter. I just shot at the sound and didn't know what was in the bushes."
I am not familiar enough with hunting laws and practices. This is either negligent (which is enough to establish criminal intent), or you will get off the hook. I do know that people do actually die in hunting accidents, and that people don't always go to jail afterward. In fact, the whole trial will likely revolve around the fact finding question of whether it was reasonable of you to act like you did, i.e., whether you showed intent.
"I didn't MEAN to run that stop sign. I didn't see it because I was busy playing with my cell phone."
I think that is obvious. You intentionally were not paying attention to the road.
Having said that, not all law violations require intent. A non-working tail light might happen even though you were as careful as you could possibly be, and you'll still get a ticket. "But I checked it and it was working right before I started driving, and there was no way for me to know it stopped working mid-drive" will not get you off the hook.
Then again, for other cases, it's all about intent. If you set up a trap door over spiked pit to open when you lift a button, wait for someone to pass over the trap door, and press that button, you will be convicted of 1st degree murder. If you have a good reason why such a setup was constructed, and can prove you did not know someone was over the trap door at the specific time you pressed the button, you will be convicted of manslaughter. If you just leave the setup there, label the button "A/C on", and I am the one pressing the button and killing someone, I will be acquitted.
If intent was part of the prosecution then there wouldn't be a need for the saying "Ignorance of the law is no defense." You can still be charged and prosecuted for breaking a law even if you didn't KNOW it was illegal.
Again, speaking for my local case, if you show it was not feasible of you to know the law, that is a proper defense. If a law failed to be published, even if no one in their right mind reads those publications, that has lead to acquittals.
Disclosing classified material, which she should have known was classified, is breaking the law. If I did that when I was in charge of classified information it would have gotten me arrested, my security clearance revoked, and my job changed. I would never be allowed to handle classified material again.
Let me go on record that I believe that the FBI's refusal to indict Clinton was bullshit. Having said that, she was not disclosing classified material. She was "just" not careful enough with it, and for a reason that was self serving and dishonest. Still, a world of difference than intentionally disclosing classified material.
Shachar