"There is no viable evidence" = "I'm too lazy to look"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (Free)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (Non-free but synopsis provided)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (Non-free but synopsis provided)

And that's just a minute or two of looking. Thousands of studies have been done on fluoride for safety and effectiveness on a wide range of topics, not just public water fluorination. It works, we know how and why it works, it's pretty dang cheap, and it's been hailed as one of the top ten greatest public health achievements.
=Smidge=

So, yeah: trust engineering, not marketing or accounting.

Yeah. Engineers designed cars that killed people for decades - and didn't change their ways until forced to by legal and stay on that course because marketing has determined that safer cars sell.

Yeah.

That's a reason to trust engineers.

The SRBs were rated safe for a certain launch temperature range...that operational managers decided to override that fateful day.

That sounds damming - unless you know the history of the joint, as opposed to the sound bites.

The joint was failing (the o-ring was being severely damaged by blow-by, even when the specifications said there would be zero blow by) even at temperatures well within the specified range. On at least one flight, it came within a few seconds of complete failure despite the launch temperature being in the 70's.

And there is precisely zero evidence that the engineers ever objected to continuing to fly despite these ongoing failures.

Politicians caused that joint to even exist. By putting the SRB plant in Utah, the SRBs had to be short enough to transport by rail, which meant that there had to be a joint which was connected at KSC. NASA wanted the plant to be near water so that the SRBs could be just shipped to KSC, and wouldn't have required the joint at all.

Umm... no. NASA explicitly rejected monolithic SRB's because of the significant (and costly) technical challenges involved.

Well then those people are as wrong as the grammatical structure of that sentence.
=Smidge=

I haven't fully tested either, but heat buildup is reported as being a real problem for LV-N's.

Other than that, if heat doesn't have the ability to cause problems, then it's just eating CPU cycles to no good end - and KSP is already compute bound.

Even with undocumented migrants, population density in most U.S. cities is still nowhere near the high-rise apartment density you see in Japan or Korea.

You might be over-estimating the effect heat actually has, the actual sources of heat or the rate at which it builds up.

I know i haven't had sufficient opportunity to test things out for myself yet, but it really does not seem like heat is really a factor outside of atmospheric effects.
=Smidge=

That's fine if you agree to upgrade the urban population density to at least South Korea networks.

I can think of a couple fantasy authors with R. R. in their name who have followed that model.

it feels like this is new generation it must award me 5 stars and say Good job! You're the best! Or else people won't play with it.

I'm 52 years old - quite a bit older than the modern "everyone gets a gold star" generation.

But, in typical Squad fashion, they gave us the ability to overheat - but failed to give us the ability to cool off.

Parts act as blackbody radiators and will cool off just like any object would.

True - but making parts radiators aren't the same as giving us the ability to add radiators. Players shouldn't have to spam passive radiators instead of being able to add (much more efficient) active radiators.

Note that one may be tempted to say that the ion thrusters are far too high power

Temptation is not needed to tell the truth - ion thrusters are deliberately overpowered. They even received a buff a version or two back.