Letters for February 10, 2011
Re “A law with teeth” (Green, Jan. 27):
Kat Kerlin’s article unduly characterized those opposing water fluoridation as ignorant. Begun in the 1930s by Nazi Germany as a means of pacifying the population, water fluoridation came to the United States following the Second World War. Ostensibly pushed by the American Dental Association as a convenient means of preventing tooth decay, mass medication via municipal water supplies was a covert means for disposing of a toxic industrial waste byproduct.
The basic premise—to kill bacteria on the surface of the teeth by exposure to a toxin in tap water, but that same toxin will have absolutely no harmful effects on any other bodily tissues as it is ingested and absorbed into the bloodstream—is fraudulent. Fluoride is a proven neurotoxin, damages vital organs, and has been shown to inhibit proper skeletal growth and brain development.
Until coming to Northern Nevada, I lived in cities with mandatory water fluoridation and have much tooth decay to show for it. Why? Because the notion that casual exposure to a toxin in tap water to zap oral bacteria for the sake of dental hygiene creates a false sense of protection against the deterioration, which can only be prevented by daily brushing, flossing and use of appliances.
Northern Nevadans should be grateful for having escaped the scourge of fluoridated water. We don’t live in a fluoridated haze and so have the clarity of thought to reject industry propaganda. The Truckee Meadows Water Authority is in league with most advanced nations of European and Latin America, and the Canadian Province of Ontario in eschewing mass medication with a harmful chemical.
Not far behind you
I hate that belonging to Facebook requires a breach of trust with people that have been entrusted with contact information in their computer. An invitation refusal makes one feel as if they are rejecting someone’s friendship. Everything about Facebook is a ploy to use people’s trusted email addresses to gather information that Facebook can turn around and sell to whomever they want, for profit. They sell private information that we try to keep private with filters and security software we install that they can’t get past. So they trick people, and we hand it to them and think nothing of it. Well, I’ve been thinking about it, and I’m out of here. Whatever bullshit invites I’ve sent, please forgive me for being a pawn in the Facebook game. But homie don’t play. Not anymore. I’m closing my account, hit delete and check-out. If you need to reach me, you know how.
Don’t waste money on mass transit
Re “The rising” (Editor’s note, Jan. 27):
Your discussion on the state of the economy is pertinent and, unfortunately, I agree with your conclusion. I live in Fremont, Calif., and agreed to assist EyeCom Corp. in commercializing their eye-tracking technology. This new company will bring the type of jobs that Reno needs—high value technical positions in engineering, software and operations. After 30 years of start-ups and reorganizations in Silicon Valley (some successful, some not), I have a good idea of the environment needed to foster these types of companies. They are:
1) Highly educated and experienced workforce
2) State/local government that is motivated to support companies
3) Competitive living environment: housing, activities, educational sources
I’ve been either fortunate or unfortunate to open businesses in 60 different U.S. cities. Retail stores, sales offices, distribution centers and technical support/call centers. I think my “Big 3” hold up for the vast majority of the 60 cities—considering the demands of the particular business challenge. I’d say we’re in agreement based on your column.
Where I do not agree, especially with a city like Reno is the public transportation/mass transit system. New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco are the only cities that I know where a sophisticated mass transit exists and works. Other cities—Seattle, Portland, L.A. (a disaster!), Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia (my home)—all have such systems, and they run the gamut of unsafe, horribly inefficient, a sink-hole of money, etc.
Traffic in Reno is really not a problem. Of course, I’m jaded living in Silicon Valley. But the billions—and that’s with a big B—that are spent on mass transit in other cities would be best served giving everybody a new, more efficient car! Please, please Reno and Nevada, put your money into specialized education: medical devices/pharma, energy (green and high-test), and especially software.
I’m looking forward to hiring in Reno.
My, oh, my! Did someone forget to “comp” the writers last week?
Just thinkin’ here: I mean, those who attended then wrote pieces on Richard III at the Brüka Theater and Anthony Hopkins’ new motion picture.
Perhaps Sir Anthony’s interviews on PBS with Charlie Rose or Tavis Smiley were missed? Both were memorable for insights into Sir Anthony’s faith journey over time. And what a contrast to the role played in The Rite on exorcisms again.
Here’s how it works. No writer is ever comped to then write a review. That sacrifices objectivity, a staple of print journalism—even today!
Fans of The Bard would be pleased to know that on Turner Classic Movies telecast Richard III, with Sir Lawrence Olivier, “as was writ!”
That’s what makes the local adaptation and production noteworthy, without crass, demeaning, snide rhetoric unbecoming this weekly alternative newspaper!
It was great, however, to read that Steve Sebelius of the Las Vegas Review-Journal is back to his columnist’s cubicle in the large city to our south. But the question remains: Did that occur at expense of the Las Vegas CityLife insert folding?
David C. Phillips
Editor’s note: Just to clarify, our reviewers do not accept comps or gifts. We buy our own tickets and food. Then, we attempt to tell the truth about what we experience. Scott Dickensheets, a veteran journalist who edited the Las Vegas Weekly for seven years, has been named the new editor of CityLife.
One true religion
Re “Yours, mine, hours” (Filet of Soul, Feb. 3):
I don’t know how you can view religions equally—either you agree with them or you don’t. And if you do agree with one, you can’t agree with others. So either you view all religion as untrue, in which case you can’t possibly view Christianity because you don’t get it, or if you view Christianity as true, you can’t view any other religion as true because it is exclusive.
So either way you don’t view all religions equally without judgment, because to deny Christ is to be against Christ. That is simple logic.
I guess I mean by viewing Christianity equally with other religions, you deny Christianity’s message, whereas you do not necessarily deny other religions’ messages just because you view other religions equally.
This is because all other religions on Earth are religions of work (what are you doing for salvation or enlightenment or peace?), but Christianity is about faith.
In what have you faith to save you? God? Or yourself?
All other religions place faith necessarily by argument in man.
Only Christ says that man can do nothing.