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 However, most of these studies used outdated methods or tested few people.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.'"

Comments

Re: CoffeE and Nicotine

[AK Marc]

"Honestly, officer, I didn't MEAN to speed. I just wasn't paying attention."

That's a lie, not an excuse. The lie will be ignored by the cops and the judge, and you'll be convicted.

"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."

In most places, it'll be manslaughter or negligent homicide, or something like that. Murder is reserved for those that intended to kill.

"I didn't MEAN to run that stop sign. I didn't see it because I was busy playing with my cell phone."

So you intended to break the law by playing with your phone, and while intentionally breaking that law, broke some others accidentally. That's still intent.

You can still be charged and prosecuted for breaking a law even if you didn't KNOW it was illegal.

The intent isn't intending to break the law. It's intending to do the action that resulted in the broken law.

You intended to drive, and in doing so, broke the law. You dont have to deliberately plan on breaking Statute 545, you just had to have intended to drive the manner you did. Note, those that had Toyota unintended acceleration, and the car passed the speed limit, none were prosecuted for speeding. They didn't intend to speed, and could prove it in court.

You didn't intend to kill a person, but intended to pull the trigger without proper care. That's a crime, or resulted in one.

You meant to drive unsafely by breaking the law to play with your phone, and while knowingly driving unsafely, drove unsafely, and thus can be prosecuted for that as well.

Just because you don't understand "intent" doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

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.

She kept a private server. There's no evidence it was hacked. The servers she was "supposed to use" were hacked in the same time frame. She kept her emails more secure than if she had followed the rules you assert she broke. Improperly handling classified material isn't a crime (perhaps by the far right when talking about Clinton, but not by the judges that try the cases), but leaking classified material is. So the question becomes who did she leak classified material to? She didn't. OK, no crime.

Of course the reason the rules were tightened while she was in was office was because of all the actual leaks and breaches under the previous administration, which the right-wing nutjobs don't care about.

Re: CoffeE and Nicotine

[AK Marc]

The same scandals came out under Reagan, Bush, and other Republicans, and nobody from the right cared. But Hillary does it, and everyone loses their mind.

I put classified information into an email not on the physically separate classified networks (which were not hacked) even once and I go to jail,

I've known people to have done worse. They lost their clearance, sometimes their jobs, but never ended up in jail. I think your CO scared you a little too much. Though, those from military generally don't get it. They are more greatly punished under UCMJ than civilians under the USC.

Again, as I noted, you are confusing the "law" with the actual law. What's written isn't the law. It's called "common law". We don't live under "Civil Law". The law isn't the law as written, but as applied. De facto, what she did was legal, because she wasn't found guilty of it in a court of law. Arguing that she broke the law because your opinion is that she should have been found guilty just shows that you know nothing of the law (even if you can quote it), and you shit on the principal of innocent until proven guilty. Why do you hate individual rights?