<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Dose Makes the Poison (1/2)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nikkypals.com/archives/5085/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nikkypals.com/archives/5085</link>
	<description>in the metro...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:37:37 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: LBiolSci</title>
		<link>http://nikkypals.com/archives/5085/comment-page-1#comment-25636</link>
		<dc:creator>LBiolSci</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nikkypals.com/archives/5085#comment-25636</guid>
		<description>Actually to understand why they can not declare that no harm will be done by water fluoridation, first you need to understand scientific method. Scientific method is hypothetico-deductive. It does not prove anything, however it disproves the opposing ideas. When it can not disprove a opposing idea it accepts is as objectively true and waits to see if it can disprove it later with the help of future evidence. Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually to understand why they can not declare that no harm will be done by water fluoridation, first you need to understand scientific method. Scientific method is hypothetico-deductive. It does not prove anything, however it disproves the opposing ideas. When it can not disprove a opposing idea it accepts is as objectively true and waits to see if it can disprove it later with the help of future evidence. Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RexFordVII</title>
		<link>http://nikkypals.com/archives/5085/comment-page-1#comment-25637</link>
		<dc:creator>RexFordVII</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nikkypals.com/archives/5085#comment-25637</guid>
		<description>I completely believe you when you say your an info junkie.  Now you have to take the next step and set up objective parameters to determine which info is credible and which is not.

If you believe fluoridated water is some how harmful at municipal concentrations, you&#039;re subscribing to bad information.

Sit down and really think right now what your standards are for accepting a claim.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I completely believe you when you say your an info junkie.  Now you have to take the next step and set up objective parameters to determine which info is credible and which is not.</p>
<p>If you believe fluoridated water is some how harmful at municipal concentrations, you&#8217;re subscribing to bad information.</p>
<p>Sit down and really think right now what your standards are for accepting a claim.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
