Statistic data are applied in international comparison while absolutely slighting vital national differences. The idea that facts collected in the same way in different states and that deductions may be made from them in the same fashion is totally a misleading idea. An example of this is a pamphlet “Individual Property Rights and Conceptions of Privacy in the Family” grounded on a research of the incomes of the household of 107 couples that live in Geneva carried out in 1983-1984. It is not so much that notions of Swede of property rights may not be applied for the United Kingdom; it is rather the suppositions in the document concerning the class system that minimizes its international value. The work includes a category of couples that are described as lower middle class because of their low incomes, and another one of professionals who are considered to have high income. The deductions made by this type of research slide all too easily into articles that are devoted to England and become proof for someone’s opinion, until one becomes aware that such notions as professional a high income are not the synonyms in this state, and consequently, the disposition of money practices can not be drawn up into line.
Taking a research that has been used for another society is perilous because there are differences between cultures which can not be slighted, and if it is slighted it will be extremely difficult to make a correct conclusion. However, in the opinion of Ruth Deech researches which are based empirically may help to understand the role of law for people and may aid in the educating of students studying law and other disciplines by providing a bright picture of the corner of the law. But doubts may appear in connection with the profit and objectivity of the facts collected expressly to improve new theories of social scientists or to convince policy-makers and practitioners.
Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York, gives a damning interview on the history of water fluoridation, the collusion of major industries to put certified toxic waste into your drinking water, and why government health authorities refuse to conduct scientific studies into the dangers of fluoridation. After watching this video, you will never look at tap water the same way again. Connett describes how he initially thought people who opposed fluoridation were “a bunch of whackos,” before conducting his own research which found that sodium fluoride was a toxic substance that contributed to a wide array of health defects. Heavy industry is barred from dumping this toxic waste into the sea by international law, but being able to sell it enables them to remove its hazardous characteristic and it becomes a product, explains Connett, polluting not only our water supply but also toothpaste and thousands of different foods. Connett provides a detail run down of the many health problems caused by fluoride consumption, including dental fluorosis, which the Centers For Disease Control just recently announced was a problem for 41 per cent of children aged 12-15 in the United States, clearly indicating that children are being over-exposed to fluoride and that this is affecting other tissues and organs in the body, including bone disorders, a problem also wreaking havoc amongst adults in the United States as one in three now suffer from arthritis …
Video Rating: 4 / 5