|
On May 26 2012 13:39 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general. Please explain the bio mechanics of this, or at least how you envision that it works.
Well this is how I envision it:
With vaccines, if you inject a dormant/dead/weak version of a virus, your immune system learns to fight it by producing antibodies.
With cyanide, if you inject a small/minuscule/insignificant amount of it, you die.
+ Show Spoiler +Every comment becomes funnier when it ends with "you die."
|
Calgary26003 Posts
On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it.
I said it's good to be skeptical. It's bad to decide that you don't trust one thing for no objective reason and go against it. That's how people get hurt from deciding not to trust vaccines, etc.
|
On May 26 2012 14:17 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it. I said it's good to be skeptical. It's bad to decide that you don't trust one thing for no objective reason and go against it. That's how people get hurt from deciding not to trust vaccines, etc.
I agree with that, I don't personally go against it either. It's hard to know which side of the argument (fluoride in tap water is bad for you) is right because they both make a good case ( in my opinion). Maybe one better than the other, but it basically just leaves the question unresolved for me.
|
On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence.
His reason to doubt them is pretty fair in my opinion. They have been telling us to eat the wrong diet for the past 3 decades and look where that brought us.Stores filled with foods containing to much sugar in them and obese people on the streets.
|
Distillation remains the de facto standard for purity. It costs more to operate, so it depends on how pure you want your water.
Word of warning: Purified water tastes horrible.
Something to consider: If water tastes horrible, what are the chances it's healthy to drink?
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm glad I'm not the only one whose first thought turned to Dr Strangelove and the General with an obsession over his precious bodily fluids.
Isn't paranoia a recorded side-effect of narcotics like PCP?
|
On May 26 2012 20:04 Warble wrote:Distillation remains the de facto standard for purity. It costs more to operate, so it depends on how pure you want your water. Word of warning: Purified water tastes horrible. Something to consider: If water tastes horrible, what are the chances it's healthy to drink? + Show Spoiler +
I'm glad I'm not the only one whose first thought turned to Dr Strangelove and the General with an obsession over his precious bodily fluids.
Isn't paranoia a recorded side-effect of narcotics like PCP?
Someone worried about potentially harmful chemicals in his drinking water is suffering from paranoia?
|
+ Show Spoiler +I find it funny how noone in the thread actually answered OPs question and instead pulled his intentions into ridiculousness.
If someone asks you for the way to the church and you know it, are you gonna answer: 'Why do you believe in god, it's nonsense cause etc. etc.'?
Go for a ion exchanger would be my guess.
For the effects of Fluoride, you will have to search in medical research databases.
You wanna try it out on yourself, drink imported mineral water for a while, prolly cheaper than a water filter..
I think Fluoride's ok in toothpaste, superfluous in tap water.
Edit:
On May 26 2012 21:00 Cokefreak wrote:Check the guy's thread before this to get an idea why he is being trolled so hard 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/slUs3.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
On May 26 2012 20:53 Cattivik wrote:
I find it funny how noone in the thread actually answered OPs question and instead pulled his intentions into ridiculousness.
If someone asks you for the way to the church and you know it, are you gonna answer: 'Why do you believe in god, it's nonsense cause etc. etc.'?
Go for a ion exchanger would be my guess.
For the effects of Fluoride, you will have to search in medical research databases.
You wanna try it out on yourself, drink imported mineral water for a while, prolly cheaper than a water filter..
I think Fluoride's ok in toothpaste, superfluous in tap water.
Check the guy's thread before this to get an idea why he is being trolled so hard
|
On May 26 2012 13:39 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general. Please explain the bio mechanics of this, or at least how you envision that it works.
He's half correct. The human body is constantly exposed to the environment, and has to distinguish between pathogenic and non-pathogenic, also known as tolerance. If the body isn't constantly exposed to non-pathogenic stuff, then it might overreact to something innocuous. This is one of the hypotheses of how allergies develop.
Note that the body almost only reacts to larger macromolecules like proteins and saccharides, not to ions and small molecules.
|
On May 26 2012 18:33 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 14:17 Chill wrote:On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it. I said it's good to be skeptical. It's bad to decide that you don't trust one thing for no objective reason and go against it. That's how people get hurt from deciding not to trust vaccines, etc. I agree with that, I don't personally go against it either. It's hard to know which side of the argument (fluoride in tap water is bad for you) is right because they both make a good case ( in my opinion). Maybe one better than the other, but it basically just leaves the question unresolved for me.
How does one make a 'good case' without a shred of scientific evidence or a single studying conclusively showing that there is a link between water fluoridation and health effects?? While one study has suggested a link between increased risk of childhood bone cancer and water fluoridation, though there were extenuating variables that even the study author admitted could have effected the results. More on that study here. Though fluoride still has been shown to accumulate in bones of children, and persist for most of adult life as of yet, there is still no conclusive evidence of a link between the two. A number of studies have conclusively linked fluoride in the water to a reduction in cavities however, in some cases as high as 20% less cavities in children.
As I said before, there are moral and ethical issues with water fluoridation, but these have to do with the implications of adding a health additive into the water supply without people's consent. If you can add fluoride, why not vitamin C? Or why not preventative vaccines? There's a real question over whether the government should be able to have that kind of influence on our lives. Water fluoridation has never been conclusively shown to have any ill effects though.
I personally don't like the idea of my government putting health additives into the water supply, it is in my opinion a gross infringement of personal liberty. I should be allowed to decide what health supplements are good for me, and decide what chemicals I do and don't want to put into my body. Health realities in the 1950s were very different than today, dental hygiene products are extremely cheap, and most dentists offer surface apply fluoride treatments for children. I'd be 100% in favor of removing added fluoride from water. (naturally occurring fluoride is okay since it's been shown to be safe)
-edit:
On May 26 2012 20:53 Cattivik wrote:
I find it funny how noone in the thread actually answered OPs question and instead pulled his intentions into ridiculousness.
If someone asks you for the way to the church and you know it, are you gonna answer: 'Why do you believe in god, it's nonsense cause etc. etc.'?
Go for a ion exchanger would be my guess.
For the effects of Fluoride, you will have to search in medical research databases.
You wanna try it out on yourself, drink imported mineral water for a while, prolly cheaper than a water filter..
I think Fluoride's ok in toothpaste, superfluous in tap water.
It's because the OP is a known user of some nasty drugs, he's admitted to regularly using PCPs. So it's just really fucking ironic that he's so concerned about the health effects of fluoride when, you know, he's regularly inhaling poisons.
|
Another thing to consider is that if a study uses a 5% significance level, then if you conduct 20 studies, you expect one study to have a significant conclusion - even though the real effect is nil.
Add in the effects of biases and it's a fun time for everybody.
Consider how heavily fluoridation has been studied, the proportion of significant conclusions to non-significant conclusions, the interests of the publishers...
As for people having the right to make their own choices, that's where things get tricky.
What if most people choose to exercise that right by delegating the choice to the government? If we take into account studies on the costs of choice over the past couple of decades, then this delegation can be seen as a rational decision. The delegation minimises the costs of choice and improves the chances of the best decision being made.
Considering that the government is honest about the fact it fluoridises the water supply (as opposed to concealing that fact), and the availability of bottled water, it seems that people who choose not to delegate still have the personal liberty to choose not to drink fluoridised water.
We can make the argument that it's unfair that those who don't trust fluoridisation must bear the cost of choice by paying more for bottled water, and compare this to the alternative where the water supply is not fluoridised and those who choose to delegate their decision to the government can instead choose to buy bottled fluoridised water. (We're assuming that the delegation is in regards to deciding whether or not fluoridisation is beneficial, so the government refusing to fluoridise based on other factors amounts to the government passing responsibility for making the decision back.) What this amounts to, however, is that the cost of choice is still there, but is now imposed on a different party. So the alternative of not fluoridising the water supply is not superior in this regard.
Another, more central, concern with that argument is that it also amounts to the anti-fluoridisers imposing their preference on others in the same manner that pro-fluoridisers are currently imposing their preference on others. Some might say that non-fluoridisation should be the default option, but I believe that the use of a "default" argument for any decision is fallacious. Someone using the "default" argument to impose their choice on others does not change the fact that they are imposing their preference on others - they are simply using the argument to justify that imposition. This is no different to pro-fluoridisers using their current arguments to justify the choice of fluoridising the water supply - they too are simply using an argument to justify their imposition.
And the pro-fluoridisers could also say that fluoridisation should be the default, and cite things such as the greater good, the choice of the majority to delegate, etc.
Thus we can see that a "default" argument is simply an assertion that one value if of higher priority than others. For someone who believes that minimal government intervention is more important than the majority's choice to delegate, their "default" will be that personal liberty prevails. For someone who believes that the majority's choice to delegate is more important than minimising government intervention, their "default" will be that the majority's choice prevails.
Hence there use of a "default" argument is simply a mask for an assertion of personal values.
So out of the two decisions, to fluoridise or not to fluoridise, either decision will violate result in one party imposing their preference on the other.
This means that the personal liberty argument cannot be used in this case because either outcome results in one party imposing their preference on the other, and thus violating personal liberty. This unusual contradiction indicates that something has gone wrong in the discussion somewhere.
So how do we reconcile this?
I believe it's because the meaning of personal liberty has been broadened too much. The way I would propose is to depict the situation differently:
The government is providing a service in the form of a water supply. If the government didn't provide this service, a private enterprise would. Therefore, in this capacity, the government is no different to a business. They provide this service in a manner which best satisfies their stakeholders. And they decided that fluoridisation is the best way to fulfil this role.
Compare this with a more neutral example. The government provides emergency services in hospitals. Some people might prefer that the government provide more services, while others might prefer that the government provided fewer services (i.e. no emergency services at all). Although the government isn't satisfying their preferences, we wouldn't reasonably consider either party's personal liberties to be violated. (The party who would prefer no emergency services at all may believe that their being forced to pay taxes that would fund such a service to be a violation...but unless you are one of those people, your values would differ to theirs, and you might not see this violation as a big deal.)
Where the possibility of violating personal liberties arises is if the government removed people's right to use alternative services - if they forced everybody to accept a fluoridised water supply. This could arise from them banning domestic water filtration and bottled water, or requiring those supplies to provide only fluoridised water.
Summary:
Both pro- and anti-fluoridisation results in the costs of choice being imposed on some parties, and they simply change the parties who bear that cost.
Whichever party gets their way, they are effectively imposing their preference on the other party. Based on the definition of personal liberties that has been used, this indicates that either outcome would violate personal liberties.
This can be reconciled by viewing the government-funded water supply as a service, equivalent to a private enterprise, and services are tailored to the needs of stakeholders without being seen as violating other people's personal liberties. So long as the government does not use its law-making powers to make it impractical or illegal for people to access non-fluoridised water supplies elsewhere, people can choose not to consume fluoridised water, and so their personal liberties are not violated.
|
Seriously these reverse osmosis systems look comical
|
On May 26 2012 14:01 Mobius_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 13:39 TheToast wrote:On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general. Please explain the bio mechanics of this, or at least how you envision that it works. Well this is how I envision it: With vaccines, if you inject a dormant/dead/weak version of a virus, your immune system learns to fight it by producing antibodies. With cyanide, if you inject a small/minuscule/insignificant amount of it, you die. + Show Spoiler +Every comment becomes funnier when it ends with "you die."
Not true. Apple seeds have minuscule level of cyanide. At worst you'd get a bad stomach ache if you injest one.
|
Failsafe must be mihai, too troll
|
|
|
On May 29 2012 16:26 Primadog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 14:01 Mobius_1 wrote:On May 26 2012 13:39 TheToast wrote:On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general. Please explain the bio mechanics of this, or at least how you envision that it works. Well this is how I envision it: With vaccines, if you inject a dormant/dead/weak version of a virus, your immune system learns to fight it by producing antibodies. With cyanide, if you inject a small/minuscule/insignificant amount of it, you die. + Show Spoiler +Every comment becomes funnier when it ends with "you die." Not true. Apple seeds have minuscule level of cyanide. At worst you'd get a bad stomach ache if you injest one.
Nah not with one, you'd need to eat a good handful. I'd say if you wanted to overdose on apple seeds, a bucket would do.
|
Ok, here's how it works. Flouride prevents iodine absorption by the thyroid, hence there's a risk of inflamed thyroid and all that other bad stuff but that's besides the point. If the thyroid gland doesn't function properly, flouride passes straight through and accumulates in the pineal gland. That's where it stays, calcifying the the gland that is responsible for producing melatonin. Without enough melatonin, what happens is that we experience less and less REM sleep and spend most of our sleep time in NREM sleep. Results? Fatigue, general laziness, lack of interest in most things, dampened sense of perception, etc. Extreme cases? Speech impediment (it becomes hard to keep your thoughts ahead of your words), dampened ability to problem solve, increasing difficulty to be innovative, etc.
It's not some conspiracy, it's true. I'm a qualified dietitian, so i would know.
|
On June 02 2012 21:01 GhostLink wrote:
Ok, here's how it works. Flouride prevents iodine absorption by the thyroid, hence there's a risk of inflamed thyroid and all that other bad stuff but that's besides the point. If the thyroid gland doesn't function properly, flouride passes straight through and accumulates in the pineal gland. That's where it stays, calcifying the the gland that is responsible for producing melatonin. Without enough melatonin, what happens is that we experience less and less REM sleep and spend most of our sleep time in NREM sleep. Results? Fatigue, general laziness, lack of interest in most things, dampened sense of perception, etc. Extreme cases? Speech impediment (it becomes hard to keep your thoughts ahead of your words), dampened ability to problem solve, increasing difficulty to be innovative, etc.
It's not some conspiracy, it's true. I'm a qualified dietitian, so i would know.
Do you have any actual evidence or even remotely credible sources for this?
|
To be fair, a lot of american tap water tastes pretty gross. I'm happy to live in British Columbia, fucking amazing tap water.
|
On May 26 2012 20:04 Warble wrote:Distillation remains the de facto standard for purity. It costs more to operate, so it depends on how pure you want your water. Word of warning: Purified water tastes horrible. Something to consider: If water tastes horrible, what are the chances it's healthy to drink? + Show Spoiler +
I'm glad I'm not the only one whose first thought turned to Dr Strangelove and the General with an obsession over his precious bodily fluids.
Isn't paranoia a recorded side-effect of narcotics like PCP?
Drinking only distilled water is very bad for you. It essentially flushes out all the Calcium, Sodium and Magnesium ions that you get from ordinary tap water. If you aren't receiving another source of minerals you can get dehydrated pretty quickly due lack of electrolytes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
